W. B. Williams v. Magnolia Williams, 303 So.3d 824

W.B. and Magnolia Williams married in 1973, separated around 1988, but Magnolia did not file for divorce until April 5, 2018. They never resumed living together after separation.
During the marriage/separation W.B. operated several businesses (restaurant/"Edna's Kitchen," pool hall, used-car business) and owned three rental properties; Magnolia assisted with bookkeeping and tax filings.
Magnolia sued for divorce (habitual cruel and inhuman treatment and adultery; alternative irreconcilable differences) and sought possession of the marital home and alimony; W.B. counterclaimed and denied adultery.
The chancery court (Feb. 15, 2019) granted Magnolia a divorce on the ground of adultery, deemed all property marital, allocated homes and business interests between the parties, ordered the rental properties deeded jointly with W.B. to manage income, and awarded periodic alimony ($1,500/month Mar–Jun 2019, then reduced).
On W.B.’s motion for reconsideration the court clarified the demarcation date as April 5, 2018, modified treatment of Edna’s Kitchen/pool hall (appraisal and buyout option for W.B.), imposed accounting/reserve procedures for the rentals, and reduced ongoing alimony amounts.
On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed the adultery-based divorce and demarcation choice, but reversed and remanded the equitable-distribution and alimony rulings because the chancellor failed to value assets and to make Ferguson-factor findings.

Issue	Magnolia's Argument	W.B.'s Argument	Held
1) Validity of adultery ground	Magnolia sought divorce based on W.B.’s admitted affairs; she did not condone them	W.B. argued Magnolia condoned his adultery and thus cannot obtain divorce on that ground	Affirmed: substantial evidence of adultery and trial testimony showed no condonation; divorce proper on adultery ground
2) Point of demarcation (marital vs. separate assets)	Use date of Magnolia’s complaint (Apr 5, 2018) as demarcation	Use earlier separation date (~1988) so fewer assets treated as marital	Affirmed: chancellor has discretion; April 5, 2018 was reasonable demarcation and was expressly adopted on reconsideration
3) Equitable distribution (valuation & Ferguson factors)	Division as entered was fair given parties’ contributions and business roles	Division was inequitable; court failed to value assets and consider Ferguson factors	Reversed and remanded: chancellor did not resolve conflicting asset values nor make Ferguson-factor findings required for appellate review
4) Alimony award	Magnolia needs periodic alimony given income/assets	W.B. claimed inability to pay and that property division errors affect alimony	Reversed and remanded: alimony remanded because it depends on proper property division and valuation

Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So. 2d 921 (Miss. 1994) (establishes guidelines/Ferguson factors and requires findings to support marital-property division)
Hemsley v. Hemsley, 639 So. 2d 909 (Miss. 1994) (outlines classification, valuation, and equitable-division framework)
Holden v. Frasher-Holden, 680 So. 2d 795 (Miss. 1996) (adultery requires proof of inclination and opportunity)
McAdory v. McAdory, 608 So. 2d 695 (Miss. 1992) (chancellor must make factual findings on adultery allegations)
Collins v. Collins, 112 So. 3d 428 (Miss. 2013) (demarcation date may be separation or divorce; chancellor discretion)
Lowrey v. Lowrey, 25 So. 3d 274 (Miss. 2009) (Ferguson factors applicable must be considered on the record)
Kilpatrick v. Kilpatrick, 732 So. 2d 876 (Miss. 1999) (reversal where chancellor failed to make Ferguson-related findings)
Dunaway v. Dunaway, 749 So. 2d 1112 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (valuation is foundational to equitable distribution)
Yelverton v. Yelverton, 961 So. 2d 19 (Miss. 2007) (appellate standard: substantial-evidence/manifest-error review)