Sims v. Sims
169 So. 3d 937
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Constance and Stephen Sims married in 1998, had one child, and separated in January 2011 after Stephen pled guilty to embezzlement and was incarcerated.
- Constance filed for divorce in February 2012 on grounds of felony incarceration and desertion, seeking custody, the marital home, equitable distribution, and alimony.
- Title to the house was placed solely in Constance’s name by a 2001 quitclaim deed, but the couple later executed a joint loan using the home as collateral and Stephen made mortgage payments until incarceration.
- At trial, the chancellor found the home was a marital asset because the nonmarital property had been commingled (joint loan, joint occupancy, mortgage payments by Stephen).
- The chancery court awarded Constance exclusive possession and ownership of the home subject to an $18,000 lien in Stephen’s favor deferred until the child turns 21, allocated marital debts to Constance, granted Constance custody and child support, and declined to award alimony.
- Constance moved to amend the judgment asking (1) that the home be declared her separate property, (2) alternatively for alimony, and (3) clarification of debt assignment; the amended judgment reaffirmed the home as marital and allocated debts but did not expressly rule on alimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the marital home (titled to Constance) is marital property | Sims: quitclaim and title make the home her separate (nonmarital) property | Court/Stephen: joint loan, joint use, and Stephen’s mortgage payments commingled and converted it to marital property | Home is marital property due to commingling and family use; equitable division affirmed |
| Whether the chancery court erred by not addressing alimony in amended judgment | Sims: requested specific findings on alimony under Rule 52(a) | Court: equitable division left Constance without a deficit, so alimony is inappropriate | No error; general findings suffice under Rule 52 and alimony was unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowen v. Bowen, 982 So.2d 385 (Miss. 2008) (standard of review for chancery court property division)
- Hemsley v. Hemsley, 639 So.2d 909 (Miss. 1994) (definition of marital property and equitable distribution principles)
- Maslowski v. Maslowski, 655 So.2d 18 (Miss. 1995) (title not dispositive; commingling can convert separate property)
- Heigle v. Heigle, 654 So.2d 895 (Miss. 1995) (separate property converts to marital property by commingling or family use)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 650 So.2d 1281 (Miss. 1994) (commingling and family use principles)
- Allgood v. Allgood, 62 So.3d 443 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (separate property may be converted by implied gift, family use, or commingling)
- A & L, Inc. v. Grantham, 747 So.2d 832 (Miss. 1999) (burden to prove property is nonmarital)
- Brown v. Brown, 797 So.2d 253 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (chancery court authority to equitably divide property accumulated by joint contributions)
- Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921 (Miss. 1994) (relationship between alimony and equitable distribution)
- Jackson v. Jackson, 114 So.3d 768 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (no alimony when equitable division leaves neither spouse with a deficit)
- Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Acuff, 950 So.2d 947 (Miss. 2006) (general findings satisfy Rule 52)
- Century 21 Deep S. Props., Ltd. v. Corson, 612 So.2d 359 (Miss. 1992) (Rule 52 findings standard)