equitable distribution | The Better Chancery Practice Blog

“FAMILY USE DOCTRINE” HITS A WALL

June 13, 2013 § 1 Comment

I confess that I am no fan of the so-called “Family Use Doctrine.” That’s the concept that, simply because a separate asset was used by the household, its character changes from separate to marital, in whole or in part. I’ve voiced my concern about it here before.

In its latest manifestation, the COA reversed the chancellor’s ruling that Ceicle Palmer was entitled to one-half of the marital estate, which the chancellor adjudged to include a home separately owned prior to the marriage by her husband, Roland. The parties had lived in the home together, and Ceicle had invested some $2,000 in it. The effect of the judge’s ruling, then, was to award Ceicle half of the home equity, which amounted to more than $30,000. Roland appealed.

In the case of Palmer v. Palmer, decided May 7, 2013, the COA reversed and remanded. At ¶ 9 the opinion by Judge Irving states that, “We agree with the chancellor’s finding that the home is marital property.” That’s the “Family Use Doctrine” clicking into place. The court went on to say, however:

¶10. We have held that “[e]quitable distribution does not mean equal distribution,” and there is no requirement that each spouse must receive half of an interest in the property. Jenkins v. Jenkins, 67 So. 3d 5, 11 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Seymour v. Seymour, 960 So. 2d 513, 519 (¶15) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006)). “[E]quitable distribution [is] a fair division of marital property based on the facts of each case.” Seymour, 960 So. 2d at 519 (¶15). We point out that the chancellor did not specifically award Ceicle a fifty percent interest in the marital home. Rather, he awarded her a fifty percent interest in the marital estate. However, the effect of awarding her fifty percent of the marital estate was to award her a fifty percent interest in the marital home. In reaching his decision, the chancellor noted that there was no evidence that the home had appreciated in value during the course of the marriage and that Ceicle’s only financial contribution to the home was $2,000 for putting in some carpet and tiling the kitchen floor. At one point, the chancellor stated that there was no evidence that the carpet and tile had resulted in an appreciation in the value of the home. However, the chancellor later said that Ceicle had made $2,000 worth of improvements.

¶11. We acknowledge the clarity in our law—that equitable distribution is committed to the sound discretion of the chancellor. However, we, as an appellate court, have oversight responsibility, and if we could never reverse a chancellor’s decision regarding equitable distribution, our oversight responsibility would be reduced to the ministerial act of simply rubber-stamping a chancellor’s decision. While Ceicle did pay $2,000 for new flooring, it is difficult to conclude that her meager financial contribution, along with her domestic contributions to the relationship, warrants a fifty percent interest in the marital home. The house was already paid for before Ceicle and Roland married. The record reflects that Roland also made domestic contributions to the relationship in addition to providing the home, without any compensation or contribution from Ceicle. The record also reflects that Roland has no money from any source other than his meager Social Security check. He would be forced to sell the home in order to pay Ceicle the $31,502.50 that the chancellor awarded her. At that point, he would be homeless or would have to incur additional expenses for lodging. Even the chancellor recognized this fact, as he specifically found [as much].

The court went on to consider the parties’ relative financial conditions and health, concluding that the equities should be adjusted to give Roland the greater part of the marital estate.

There was a dissent critical of the majority opinion, which was addressed by the majority as follows:

¶13. The dissent apparently misreads the focus of our finding that the chancellor erred in dividing the marital estate, as the dissent states, in paragraph 21, that “Mississippi law does not require a spouse to have made a direct economic contribution to an asset to be awarded an interest.” Nothing in our opinion suggests that our law requires such. We do not find error with the chancellor’s judgment because it awarded Ceicle what is tantamount to a fifty percent interest in an asset that she made no contribution to acquiring. We have discussed the facts surrounding the acquisition of the marital home because those facts are relevant to the greater issue of whether there is substantial evidence to support the chancellor’s finding that a fifty-fifty division of the marital estate is equitable. It is only one piece of the overall equation, but an important piece because the marital home constitutes more than fifty percent of the total value of the marital estate. To be clear, our decision rests upon a consideration of the totality of the factual circumstances, including Roland’s health versus Ceicle’s, Roland’s post-divorce financial situation, and especially the chancellor’s finding and recognition that:

If this court were to direct that Roland Palmer sell the marital home, he would net some cash, but would be forced to either rent or buy and would rapidly deplete any funds realized from the sale of the home. Based upon his current income, he would be unable to afford to either rent or buy.

Despite this finding, the chancellor, in effect, concluded that it was equitable to thrust Roland into the very situation that he specifically found was inequitable and which would leave Roland in dire straits.

It’s hard to reconcile this case with Rhodes v. Rhodes, the family-use case I whined about in that prior post. In Rhodes, the COA held that, among several other factors, the household use of a beach condo a few weeks a year for the several years of the brief marriage converted it to marital poperty. That was viewed as equitable by the COA.

I have joked that our jursisprudence is reaching biblical proportions, meaning that one can now find authority to support nearly every possible position, and even several cases on each opposite side of an issue.

Is this Palmer case an anomaly, an outlier? We’ll see.

BRIGHT LINE? WHAT BRIGHT LINE?

May 14, 2013 § 2 Comments

The line of demarcation — also referred to in the cases and in legal circles as “the valuation date” — is an important concept in divorce law. It’s something we’ve addressed here in prior posts.

Under the Ferguson case, the trial court must first identify which assets are marital, then value them, and then divide them equitably. The date that the court picks to establish the values of marital assets is crucial, since appreciation and depreciation mean that the value on one particular date may be sugnificantly different from that on another date.

Some lawyers argue that there is a “bright line” rule that the entry of a temporary order in a divorce or separate maintenance case cuts off all further accumulation of marital interests, and, indeed, some case law would seem to indicate that.

But the MSSC, in the case of Collins v. Collins, handed down May 9, 2013, makes it clear that there is no bright line rule. Here’s what Justice Coleman’s opinion says on the point:

[¶9] … The law in Mississippi is that the date on which assets cease to be marital and become separate assets – what we refer to herein as the point of demarcation – can be “either the date of separation (at the earliest) or the date of divorce (at the latest).” Lowrey v. Lowrey, 25 So. 3d 274, 285 (¶ 27) (Miss. 2009).

¶10. In Selman v. Selman, 722 So. 2d 547 (Miss. 1998), the wife had a retirement fund, and the chancellor awarded the husband half its value even though the fund did not begin to accrue until after the husband had vacated the marital home. Id. at 553 (¶ 22). When including the fund in the marital assets, “the chancellor stated only that ‘[t]he law says that until they are divorced, everything is on the table.’” Id. Applying the well-settled manifest error standard of review, id. at 551 (¶ 12), the Selman Court reversed the chancellor’s ruling and wrote, “while the marriage had not legally terminated, the relationship out of which equitable distribution arises had ended some months earlier.” Id. at 553 (¶ 25).

¶11. A temporary order may [emphasis in original] be considered by the chancellor to be a line of demarcation between marital and separate property, Cuccia v. Cuccia, 90 So. 3d 1228, 1233 (¶ 8) (Miss. 2012); see also Wheat v. Wheat, 37 So. 3d 632, 637-38 (¶¶ 16-18) (Miss. 2010) (recognizing, in dicta, that a temporary support order can indicate the demarcation point), but we have never held that it must. However, in Pittman v. Pittman, 791 So. 2d 857 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001), the Mississippi Court of Appeals held, “[T]he temporary support order serves the same purposes as a separate maintenance order and that property accumulated thereafter is separate property.” Id. at 864 (¶ 19). In so writing, the Pittman Court created the impression that Mississippi now has established a rule that temporary orders always and in every case provide the mark of demarcation. Temporary support orders vary. They may include issues such as which spouse controls the marital home, automobiles, and bank accounts, or they may simply, as in the case sub judice, provide only for temporary custody and support of a minor child. Because of the degree of variance in temporary orders and the particularities of every marital dissolution, we reaffirm our holding in Lowrey and hold that it is necessary that a chancellor maintain discretion to decide in each instance whether a temporary order is the proper line of demarcation. To the extent that the Pittman opinion can be read to create a rule that a temporary support order necessarily and always indicates the point of demarcation, we overrule it.

¶12. In the case sub judice, the chancellor did not explicitly state what date she chose as the date of demarcation, but from the substance of the opinion, it is clear she chose the date of the divorce. In their briefs, the parties accept that the chancellor used the date of the divorce as the point of demarcation. The temporary support order in the instant case dealt only with child custody and temporary child support. It did not go so far toward separating the parties’ several jointly-held assets that we would hold the chancellor abused her discretion in not finding it to be the point of demarcation.

¶13. However, the Cuccia Court noted that the chancellor must set out the specific date used as the line of demarcation and remanded the case partly for the chancellor’s failure to do so. Cuccia, 90 So. 3d at 1233 (¶ 11). The chancellor did not do so here, but, as noted above, the parties do not dispute the issue. We take the instant opportunity to write that had the issue been disputed, or had the chancellor’s order been ambiguous as to the demarcation date used, we would have remanded the case as did the Cuccio [sic] Court. We reiterate here that chancellors should indicate in the record what date they choose for the point of demarcation and why they choose it.

That should settle the debate once and for all that the demarcation date is at the discretion of the chancellor, who must always identify the date chosen and explain why that particular date was selected.

The downside to this is that when your client asks you about whether it would be wise to acquire any new assets between separation and the date of the divorce, your answer now will be an unqualified, “I don’t have any idea.”

As a trial practice matter, I seldom hear any evidence or argument as to what the valuation date should be. If you have a case where one valuation date is advantageous to your client as opposed to another, you should be zealous about informing the judge what date should be selected, and why it should be selected. For instance, if your client acquired a home after the separation, and has accumulated wealth after the separation, you want a valuation date near that separation date, not at the date of the divorce. If you don’t make that clear in the record, the judge might choose a date that’s not so nifty for your client, and you’ll have to ask the COA to fix it.

EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION AS THE GATEWAY TO ALIMONY

May 7, 2013 § Leave a comment

The COA case of Jones v. Jones, decided April 30, 2012, is a reminder that, if the equitable division of the marital estate has made adequate provision for the spouses, there should be no award of alimony — not even nominal alimony.

In Jones, the chancellor carefully considered and analyzed all of the Ferguson factors as they applied to the case, and specifically found that the equitable division made sufficient provision for Jane Jones (she received 62.5% of the marital estate). He nonetheless awarded her nominal alimony of $10 a month in case she needed alimony in the future.

The COA affirmed the chancellor’s decision on equitable distribution, but reversed and rendered as to the nominal alimony. Judge Maxwell wrote for a unanimous court:

¶35. However, we do find manifest error with the award of “nominal” permanent—or periodic—alimony in the amount of $10 per month. See Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So.2d 1278, 1280 (Miss. 1993) (reviewing alimony awards for manifest error). We note the chancellor correctly identified and applied the Armstrong factors. See id. But he did so after acknowledging he had made sufficient provision for Jane through the equitable division of the property so that permanent alimony was not needed. Alimony should only be considered if the property division leaves one spouse in a deficit. Johnson, 650 So. 2d at 1287. “If there are sufficient assets to provide for both parties, then there is no more to be done.” Carter v. Carter, 98 So. 3d 1109, 1112 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (citing Johnson, 650 So. 2d at 1287).

¶36. By referring to the award as “nominal” alimony, it does not appear that the chancellor was trying to address an actual deficit in the property award. Rather, he admits he was simply leaving the door open in case future events prove Jane has a need and John has an ability to pay. Such a contingency plan, while well-meaning, simply is not supported by our law. Alimony is to be considered as a remedy to an actual insufficiency in the marital assets, not as a contingency for a possible insufficiency in the future. Because the chancellor found the division of marital property left no need for alimony, we find it was error for the chancellor to nonetheless award “nominal” alimony. We reverse and render the award of $10 per month in permanent alimony award.

A good way to think about this is that equitable division is the gateway to alimony. Only after the chancellor has evaluated the Ferguson factors and adjudicated equitable division, and then having found that the equitable division leaves a discrepancy, may the chancellor even consider awarding periodic or rehabilitative alimony.

A caveat: Lump sum alimony, contrary to periodic or rehabilitative alimony, is a tool to achieve an equitable division of the marital estate.

Another consideration to bear in mind: I have tried contested cases where the lawyers have stipulated that the only issue is alimony, and they offered no proof whatsoever on the Ferguson factors. That, in my opinion, plants error in the record. You can not get to alimony without first going through Ferguson.

A COMPASS HEADING FOR DIVISION OF THE MARITAL ESTATE

January 23, 2013 § 4 Comments

In an equitable distribution case where there was a temporary order that provided for no support, is the date of that temporary order the demarcation line for purposes of classifying and valuing marital property?

Before we talk about how to answer the question, let me remind you that the the so-called demarcation line is important to delineate in an equitable distribution case. Depending on where the line is drawn, assets can increase or decrease by tens of thousands of dollars, or even lose value altogether, and your client who purchased a new pickup after the separation may be terribly chagrined to learn that his philandering estranged wife owns a part of it.

The line of demarcation is something we’ve talked about before here and here.

The general rule, in essence, is that marriage is deemed over for the purpose of classifying or valuing assets on entry of the final judgment, and any property or value acquired before that date is marital, unless there was a temporary order, in which event the date of the temporary order becomes the demarcation line. There are some exceptions in case law, but this is the general rule.

So, to get back to the original question, the COA confronted this very issue in the case of Mauldin v. Mauldin, decided January 15, 2013. In this case, Jim and Donna Mauldin found themselves in equitable distribution. Jim had bought some assets after a temporary order was entered, and the judge nonetheless included them among the marital assets subject to division. The COA opinion, by Judge Irving, stated:

¶13. Although the divorce decree did not specifically state the date that the marriage ended for purposes of classifying marital and separate property, it is clear that the chancery court used the date of divorce rather than the date of the temporary order. As previously stated, absent the entry of a separate-maintenance or temporary-support order, marital property continues to accumulate until the date of divorce. Although the chancery court entered a temporary order in this case, the order did not provide for temporary support. Therefore, Jim and Donna’s marital assets continued to accumulate until the date of their divorce. Accordingly, even though Jim purchased his motorcycle and his truck after his separation from Donna, the chancery court properly classified these assets as marital property. Additionally, the increase in Jim’s retirement account since his separation from Donna is marital property because the increase occurred during the marriage. This issue is without merit. [Emphasis added]

This case underscores what I have pointed out before, that it can be a two-edged sword when you don’t get a temporary support order entered. Yes, your client gets to dodge the bullet of any temporary support, but the asset values, as well as the inventory of marital assets, continue to change, often not in your client’s favor.

Put some thought in the strategy and tactics you should best employ for the benefit of your client in these cases. What is best for one client will not be the same for another. Knowing the rule, you will be in a position to plot the best course.

PINNING DOWN THE MEANDERING LINE OF DEMARCATION

October 15, 2012 § 2 Comments

You might recall that I whined back in July about the Cuccia case from the MSSC that sent a case back to the chancellor to establish the line of demarcation for accumulation of marital equity. There was a temporary order in Cuccia, which under the case of Pittman v. Pittman, 791 So.2d 857, 864 (Miss.App. 2001), would have seemed to settle the question. Not so, said the high court, and sent it back.

So, with Cuccia and Pittman in mind, let’s look at this scenario: You represent the husband who at the time of the separation in 2004 has around $120,000 in a 401(k) account, and $270,000 in a pension fund, some of the latter of which is pre-marital. The parties file divorce pleadings in 2005, and continue legal sparring, but neither brings any request for temporary relief before the court.

In March, 2011, the chancellor adjudicated the case, dividing the 401(k) account as of the date of the divorce, and dividing other marital assets, including the pension, as of the date of the separation.

Your client is unhappy with the facts that (a) all of the other assets except the 401(k) were divided using the date of separation, and (b) the chancellor included the entire 401(k) value in the division, since it had appreciated by about $85,000 in the seven years from the separation to the final judgment, without any direct or indirect contribution by his wife. He tells you to appeal.

The above is what happened in Welch v. Welch, decided by the COA October 9, 2012.

As for the inconcistency in division dates among the assets, the COA brushed that argument aside by pointing out that Mr. Welch (Henry) had not contested the division of the pension, and, without saying so, that if he had he would have been even more unhappy because he might have lost even more ground to his wife (Susan). Judge Irving’s opinion explains why:

¶13. Based on the above, it is clear that the chancery court used the date of separation forpurposes of classifying the marital and separate portions of Henry’s pension. However, Henry does not challenge the court’s classification of his pension; instead, he argues that the same approach should be applied to his 401(k). Therefore, according to Henry, the chancery court should have found that any appreciation in the balance of his 401(k) account following the couple’s separation on December 23, 2004, was his separate property.

¶14. However, because there was no temporary-support order or separate-maintenanceorder entered in this case, the end date for the tallying of marital property was the date of the final judgment of divorce. Henry points out the inequity of awarding Susan one half of the entire value of his 401(k) given the Welches’ lengthy separation prior to divorce. However, this Court has previously held that a husband’s investment accounts were marital even though both accounts were opened after the couple separated and the husband was the sole contributor to the accounts. Stone v. Stone, 824 So. 2d 645, 647 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002). This Court noted that even though the Stones were “separated and living apart prior to the divorce, [they] did not seek any order of separate maintenance[.]” Id. at 648 (¶7). Consequently, there was “no clear line of demarcation” after which the couple’s assets stopped being marital other than the date of the judgment of divorce. Id.

¶15. In Stone, the parties had been separated for over five years when the chancery court granted their divorce. Id. at 646 (¶¶1-2). Nonetheless, this Court held that property acquired during the separation was marital. While the Welches were separated for over seven years, we do not find that the length of their separation warrants a departure from our holding in Stone or existing supreme court precedent. As all of Henry’s contributions to the 401(k) account and its appreciation in value occurred during the marriage, the chancery court did not err in classifying the entire balance as marital property. This issue is without merit.

Here are a few points to ponder:

I am sure Henry and his lawyers were delighted when Susan did not press for temporary support. After all, paying money to an estranged wife is like buying oats for a dead horse, isn’t it? But look at what the non-entry of a temporary order in this case wound up costing Henry in terms of his 401(k), and could have cost him had the chancellor applied the judgment date to division of the pension and other assets. It could be that Henry saved money over the long (seven year) run, or maybe he didn’t. We’ll never know for sure. But the holding in this case is something you need to discuss with your client before taking the bait and letting the case go ahead sans a temporary order.
Read Cuccia, Godwin, Pittman and Welch and get an appreciation for how important it is to set a demarcation date. The trend seems to be away from discretion in the chancellor, and toward bright-line rules, but if there’s any wiggle room, exploit it for the benefit of your client. Try to persuade the judge to set the line where it will do your client the most good.
This case did not address the propriety of the chancellor using different demarcation dates for different assets. Is that kosher? We don’t know for certain, because the COA did not take it on directly due to the way Henry framed his issues on appeal. My guess is that, unless the chancellor has a really well-reasoned, substantial reason, it’s not a good idea to use different demarcation dates.

YET ANOTHER MILITARY DIVORCE POTHOLE

September 10, 2012 § 2 Comments

Representing military parties in a divorce case got a little more difficult a couple of weeks ago, and you need to pay attention or you might unwittingly victimize a client.

The problem lies in the intersection between state divorce law and federal statues governing military benefits.

The latest case is Mallard v. Burkart, decided by the MSSC on August 30, 2012. The parties were divorced in 2001. A significant part of the financial settlement that Burkart received was 40% of Mallard’s “disposable military retirement pay” for ten years. The language of the PSA to effect this division was as follows:

Pursuant to the Uniform Services Former Spouses Protection Act (“USFSPA”), 10 U.S.C. §1408, the Court makes the finding followings of fact:

(A) That the Husband is currently an active duty service member in the United States Air Force.

(B) That Husband’s rights under the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act have been observed in these proceedings.

(C) That Wife and Husband were married for at least ten (10) years during which Husband performed at least ten (10) years creditable service, making Wife eligible for involuntary military deductions under The USFSPA at such time [a]s Husband becomes entitled to retirement pay.

(D) Wife is awarded 40% of Husband’s disposable military retired pay for ten (10) years unconditional. Wife shall continue to receive 40% of Husband’s disposable military retired pay after ten (10) years if she does not remarry or has not lived with someone for a cumulative of sixty (60) days. Payments shall continue until Wife remarries or lives with someone for a cumulative of sixty (60) days upon which time payments shall cease. It is Wife’s responsibility to notify the Defense Finance and Accounting Service and Husband of any change of eligibility for payment.

(E) The Husband voluntarily consents to the exercise of jurisdiction to the State of Mississippi, County of Forrest for division [of] military retired pay.

That would appear to me to be a competently drafted provision that invokes every element needed for Burkart to cash in on her prpoperty settlement. It would also appear to give Burkart a full 40% of Mallard’s retirement pay. But things are not always as they appear, are they?

At some point after the divorce, Mallard elected to take a 60% disability rating as part of his retirement pay. By doing so, under federal law, he reduced his “disposable military retired pay,” dollar for dollar, by 60%. He reduced his payments to Burkart by a corresponding amount, limiting his payments to his ex-wife to the non-disability portion of his retirement. Due to the election, his payments to Burkart fell from $571 a month to between $80 and $120.

When Mallard sued Burkart for modification on some custody issues that are not part of this appeal, Burkart counterclaimed for contempt, based on Mallard’s payment of reduced retirement benefits. She charged that Mallard had improperly structured his retirment so as to defeat her contractual rights in the PSA. The chancellor found for Burkart, awarding her a judgment for $21,213.57, and Mallard appealed.

The MSSC stated the issue before it: ” … today we must determine whether federal law preempts state law, thus precluding state courts from treating as property divisible upon divorce, military retirement pay waived by the military spouse in order to receive military [veterans’] disability benefits.” Justice Carlson’s opinion noted that this was a case of first impression in Mississippi.

The court held that the issue was disposed of in the US Supreme Court case of Mansell v. Mansell, 490 US 581 (1989), in which the high court held: “In this appeal, we decide whether state courts, consistent with the [USFSPA], may treat as property divisible upon divorce military retirement pay waived by the rtetiree in order to receive veterans’ disability benefits. We hold that they may not.”

Another post highlighting a similar preemption problem with military life insurance beneficiary designation is here.

A few observations:

The MSSC opinion points out that it is unclear when Mallard was determined to be disabled. In my opinion, if the determination had predated the divorce, there is a fraud question in connection with the PSA.
Considering the minefield of federal law and regulation dealing with retired service members, you might want to define your client’s settlement in terms of alimony and property settlement in set figures as opposed to percentages. I know that percentages are a good way to make sure your client is not short-changed, and I know that alimony can terminate, but wouldn’t Ms. Burkart have been better off with an agreement that Mallard would pay her $571 a month in alimony, or that same sum as a division of her property rights in his military retirement? Then it would have been Mallard’s problem to figure out how to pay it.
What business do you have representing military parties — either husband or wife — if you don’t keep up with and fully grasp all the ins and outs of federal law and regulations governing military retirement?

None of this is a knock on the lawyers who participated in the drafting of the PSA in this case. This was, after all, a case of first impression in Mississippi. And, apparently and presumably, no one knew at the time of the divorce that there would be a disability election. If they had known, that Mansell case would have loomed large. Very large.

THREE ACTS THAT DO NOT CONVERT SEPARATE PROPERTY TO MARITAL

August 28, 2012 § 1 Comment

Any asset value accumulated through the work efforts of one or both parties to a marriage during the marriage is a marital asset subject to equitable distribution in a divorce case. See, Hemsley v. Hemsley, 639 So. 2d 909, 915 (Miss. 1994).

Marital assets are subject to equitable distribution and may be divided between the parties in a divorce, applying the factors in Ferguson vs. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921, 928-9 (Miss. 1994).

Any assets attributable to a party’s separate estate prior to the marriage, or acquired separately during the marriage, as by gift or inheritance, by one party, are the separate property of that party, and is not subject to being divided in equitable distribution. Hankins v. Hankins, 866 So. 2d 508, 511 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004).

In Ory v. Ory, 936 So. 2d 405, 411 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006), the court recognized the general rule that assets may lose their separate status as such if the party commingles the asset with marital property or uses [it] for familial benefit” (citing Johnson v. Johnson, 650 So. 2d 1281, 1286 (Miss. 1994).

So what are the actions that can make property lose its separate character? That was the question before the COA in the case of Marter v. Marter, decided by the COA August 7, 2012. In Marter the court considered and rejected the appellant-husband’s three arguments that the wife’s separate property had been converted from separate to joint property.

Plantation and maintenance. The proof was uncontradicted that the husband had maintained the property and participated in planting trees on it. The opinion stated: “At some point during the marriage, the Marters planted 49 acres of pine trees and 32 acres of hardwood trees on the property. The Marters enrolled in a Conservation Resource Program (CRP) with the federal government whereby they receive rental payments for the trees. However, the rental payments have always been directly deposited into [the wife’s] separate checking account.” The husband also did bush-hogging and maintenance. The COA cited Hankins, at 1286-87 (¶¶14-15) (Miss. 1999), and Ory, at 411, which held that the fact that husband cleared a portion of the land, hauled dirt onto the property, and had a large number of seedlings planted on the property did not operate to convert the property to marital property. The court also held that the husband’s contributions to maintenance were de minimis.
Joint titling. The Marters had conveyed the property to themselves in joint ownership, and the husband argued that the joint title made the property lose its separate character and converted from separate property to marital. Citing Pearson v. Pearson, 761 So. 2d 157, 163 (¶16) (Miss. 2000), the court rejected his argument, pointing out that the MSSC has rejected the “title theory”, and has stated that “[t]he issue in divorce is which property is ‘marital property,’ subject to equitable distribution, and that determination proceeds absent any presumption based on title.”
Payment of Taxes. The parties paid the taxes on the property from their joint account, and the husband argued that that converted the property to marital. Not so, answered the COA. The court said: ” … this Court has previously held that property-tax payments are traceable and do not transmute separate property into marital. Brock v. Brock, 906 So. 2d 879, 888 (¶50) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005).

So there are three lines of argument for transmutation that have been found wanting by the appellate courts. What it takes to convert separate property is beyond the narrow scope of this post.

I encourage you, if you have a case either attempting to establish commingling or transmutation, or defending against it, that you carefully research the case law. There are many cases on this issue, and you will find authority all over the ballpark. If you show up in court without some authority, and the other side has its cases in hand … well, don’t expect to come out too spiffy.

RECENT AUTHORITY FOR UNEQUAL DIVISION

August 15, 2012 § Leave a comment

From the earliest days after the Ferguson case established equitable distribution as the law for division of marital estates in Mississippi, the rule has been that the division need not be equal, but it must be equitable. See, e.g., Wells v. Wells, 800 So.2d 1239, 1243-44 (Miss.App. 2001).

Over the years the concept of equitable distribution evolved at the trial court level into a concept of equal division, so that lawyers quit pushing the argument that their clients were entitled to a larger slice of the marital asset pie. But there are cases where lawyers have succeeded on the point, and you might find them helpful in your own practice.

Several cases in the past year or so offer some authority you might find helpful in achieving an unequal division:

Cox v. Cox, 61 So.3d 927 (Miss.App. 2011). This is a case where the presumption that the wife’s “homemaker” indirect contribution to the accumulation of marital assets was rebutted by the proof. The chancellor’s award of 25% of the marital estate to the wife was upheld where the husband had made most of the direct financial contribution to acquisition of the marital assets, and she did not contribute to the husband’s business. The husband also paid the wife’s pre-marital debt, funded a business venture of hers that failed, and he paid for her to take courses in school and to otain a real estate license. The husband also paid to provide household assistance in the form of a domestic and yard help. This is one of those rare cases where the homemaker presumption was rebutted, but it reminds us that although the presumption mandates a rebuttable finding of equal contribution, it does not mandate an equal division.
Powell v. Powell, 87 So.3d 495 (Miss.App. 2011), decided November 11, 2011, is a case we’ve discussed here before. In this case the disabled husband was awarded a greater share of the marital estate based on his greater contribution to the accumulation of wealth, wife’s greater draw during the marriage from the family business, and wife’s marital misconduct. A significant feature of this case is that the COA upheld the chancellor’s findings as to valuation despite scant evidence offered by either party on the point.
Kimbrough v. Kimbrough, 76 So.3d 715 (Miss.App. 2011). In this Ittawamba County case, the chancellor awarded wife 24% of the marital estate. The unequal distribution resulted from the husband being awawded $166,000 in equity in the former marital residence versus the award of $4,400 in equity to the wife. The disparity was due to the fact that the home was husband’s debt-free, pre-marital asset, and the only contribution wife had made to the value was her payments against a home improvement loan. The court observed that “We do not look at the division of one asset in isolation” (at ¶19). [An interesting side note: the court’s opinion cites another case for a quite lopsided division: “See Redd v. Redd, 774 So.2d 492, 496 (¶ 15) (Miss.Ct.App.2000) (reversing on other grounds but stating that a 77% to 23% division of the marital property, standing alone, would not have been a ground for reversal).”]
Allgood v. Allgood, 62 So.3d 443 (Miss.App. 2011), was a case in which the chancellor awarded husband 65% of the marital assets. As in Kimbrough, the unequal division stemmed from an unequal division of the equity in the former marital residence. Husband’s share of the marital estate was enhanced by $82,000 he had contributed to the home’s equity. As the court pointed out, although a party’s commingling of separate funds may transform their character into a marital asset, the trial court may nonetheless adjust the equities and award a greater share of the aset value to the party who made the contribution of separate funds.
Jenkins v. Jenkins, 67 so.3d 5 (Miss.App. 2011). In this case wife was awarded a smaller percentage of the parties’ assets. The trial court considered contributions and expenditures of each spouse to the seven-year marriage, and that husband owned the bulk of the marital assets prior to the marriage and expended pre-marital earnings on improvements to the property during the marriage, and it was wife’s addiction to prescription medications that caused marital separation. Most of the wife’s share of the marital estate consisted of her retirement account. At the time of the divorce she was unemployed, with an application for Social Security disability payments pending.
Bond v. Bond, 69 So.3d 771 (Miss.App. 2011). This is my favorite case of the bunch, and one I’ve posted about here before. The appeal was actually filed by the husband, complaining that the chancellor was too generous in awarding the adulterous wife ten percent — you read that right, 10% — of the marital assets. He thought she should have received naught. Judge Maxwell’s exposition on marital fault and its role in equitable distribution is something you should read and digest. I am still scratching my head over why Mr. Bond filed an appeal in this case.

THE POINT OF NO RETURN

July 10, 2012 § 3 Comments

We all know the familiar Ferguson approach to equitable distribution: First classify the assets as marital or non-marital; then value them; then divide them equitably (not necessarily equally).

An often-ignored aspect of Ferguson analysis is the demarcation date that the court should use in classifying property as marital or non-marital. It’s important, because the date selected may decide the category where the item is placed. And I say it is often ignored because you seldom hear either side say anything about it in the presentation of the trial.

In Goodwin v. Goodwin, 758 So.2d 384, 386 (Miss. 1999), the MSSC laid down the rule that entry of a separate maintenance order stops accumulation of marital interests in property, and creates a “point of demarcation” to be used by the courts in determining marital vs. separate interests when division ultimately comes before the court. In Goodwin, that portion of the husband’s retirement account accumulated after entry of the separate maintenance order was his separate property, not subject to equitable division.

The line of demarcation rule was extended to temporary orders in the case of Pittman v. Pittman, 791 So.2d 857, 863-64 (Miss.App. 2001). In that case, the court noted that temporary orders, like separate maintenance orders, are simply recognition that the parties have ceased living together as husband and wife; in other words, they have reached the point of no return (at least until reconciliation in good faith in the case of separate maintenance). So interests that accrue after its entry are separate interests.

Both Goodwin and Pittman set out a bright line for the trial courts. But that bright line is there in cases where there has been a separate maintenance or temporary order in the case. What about cases where there is neither?

Professor Bell identifies five other points of demarcation that have been employed in other jurisdictions: (1) the date of separation; (2) the date of filing for divorce; (3) the date of a divorce hearing; (4) the date of the divorce judgment; and (5) a date fixed by the court in its discretion. Bell on Mississippy Family Law, 2nd Ed., § 6.02[3][b], p. 135.

In Doyle v. Doyle, 55 So.3d 1097, 1107 (Miss.App. 2010), the COA held that marital equities continue to accumulate where there was no separate maintenance or temporary order. In Aron v. Aron, 832 So.2d 1257, 1258-59 (Miss.App. 2002), however, the COA held that it was in the chancellor’s discretion to classify the property as marital or non-marital where there was no separate maintenance or temporary order. In either case, the chancellor should consider the parties’ relative contributions in making the division of the post-separation-acquired property. Striebeck v. Striebeck, 5 So.3d 450, 452 (Miss. 2008).

The most recent case on point is Cuccia v. Cuccia, decided by the MSSC on June 28, 2012. The case was before the court on certiorari from the COA, which had reversed the chancellor. The Supreme Court’s opinion stated:

“¶9. In the case before us, a separate maintenance order was not entered, but a temporary support order was issued on May 6, 2008, and filed on May 9, 2008. In reviewing the chancery court’s [divorce judgment], we do not find that he set out the specific date as the line of demarcation in classifying marital verus nonmarital property. He must do so. After determining the line of demarcation, the chancery court must then determine which assets and liabilities are marital and nonmarital in accordance with Ferguson and Hemsley. Then, he must divide the marital estate equitably.” [Footnotes omitted]

So the direction is clear: if the chancellor does not make the demarcation line clear, there is reversible error in the record. You can influence the judge to pick that date, or you can do it via MRCP 59 motion; either way, if you let the record be finalized without a demarcation line, be sure to keep your trial notes, because you’ll need them for the remand trial.

The court gave no direction for how the chancellor should draw the magic line. If the case makes its way back for a third appellate decision we may find out. If not, then we will have to await a more definitive decision.

Until then, give some th0ught to how you want the marital estate divided and why. Give the judge some proof in the record to support a line of demarcation that is in your client’s favor. It might just put some money in your client’s pocket.

AN ENDURING MISCONCEPTION

June 26, 2012 § Leave a comment

In a contested equitable distribution case, I require the parties to present a pre-trial order that includes a listing of all property with values. Lawyers appear with the appropriate information, get a trial date, and we proceed from there.

Then, at trial, it happens quite often that someone testifies that they omitted an item or several — some stock, interest in a trust, some furniture, a few pieces of jewelry — usually with some significant value. And we then devote considerable attention and time to something that could simply have been listed on the property list that was not.

Almost invariably the rejoinder is to the effect that “It was something I owned before the marriage,” or “That was an inheritance from my dad that I received after the marriage,” or “Those were rings that momma gave me.”

The misconception — an enduring one — is that if it was owned before the marriage, or was an inheritance or gift, it is not considered in equitable distribution. That’s not so.

All property of the parties, whether marital or non-marital, is taken into consideration in equitable distribution. Among the Ferguson factors that govern the chancery court’s adjudication of equitable distribution is the value of each spouse’s separate estate, or, in the court’s own language, “The value of assets not ordinarily, absent equitable factors to the contrary, subject to distribution, such as property brought to the marriage by the parties, and property acquired by inheritance or inter vivos gift by or to an individual spouse.” Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921, 928 (Miss. 1994). Thus, proof of each party’s separate estate must be developed and considered by the court in deciding how to divide the marital estate equitably.

Even though the parties’ separate property is required to be considered, however, assets that prove to be truly separate in nature are not subject to being divided in equitable distribution, meaning that they will go into the column of the party who owns them. The aftermath of equitable distribution will be two piles of marital assets that have been divided equitably, one for each party, upon each of which is heaped the party’s separate assets.

It is only after equitable distribution has been accomplished that alimony may be considered, and alimony is appropriate only when the equitable distribution leaves a party with a deficit, or inability to support himself or herself. Among the Armstrong factors for adjudication of alimony is “The obligations and assets of each party.” The MSSC has held that the trial court must consider in determining alimony both the assets awarded to the spouse in equitable distribution, and the parties’ separate assets. Striebeck v. Striebeck, 911 So.2d 628, 634-635 (Miss. App. 2005), Sanderson v. Sanderson, 824 So.2d 623, 627 (Miss. 2004). Disparity of income and assets, including separate assets, after equitable distribution triggers consideration of alimony.

Remember, too, that assets can change character from separate to marital or mixed. Just because your client tells you that she acquired that antique armoire from her aunt before the marriage, don’t automatically assume it is out of reach of equitable distribution. The appellate courts have clung to the “family use doctrine,” and that piece of furnture may have gotten in play for equitable division simply because the husband used it for ten years to store his shirts, ties, underwear, pajamas and even love notes from his girlfriend.

List all of the assets, clearly marital as well as questionably marital. Then argue your client’s case as to why certain items should be excluded from equitable distribution, but don’t fail to list them.

Where Am I?