Brown v. Brown, 1999-CA-01741-COA.
Decision Date | 16 January 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 1999-CA-01741-COA.,1999-CA-01741-COA. |
Citation | 797 So.2d 253 |
Parties | Donna Ragland BROWN, Appellant v. Charles Wayne BROWN, Appellee. |
Court | Mississippi Court of Appeals |
Sharon Patterson Thibodeaux, Attorney for Appellant.
Paul Kelly Loyacono, Attorney for Appellee.
Before SOUTHWICK, P.J., LEE, and THOMAS, JJ.
THOMAS, J., for the Court:
¶ 1. Donna and Wayne Brown were granted a divorce for irreconcilable differences. On appeal, Donna asserts a number of errors pertaining to the chancellor's classification of marital property and the distribution of that property. These errors can be condensed in the following manner:
I. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF MARITAL AND SEPARATE PROPERTY.
II. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN THE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF THE MARITAL ESTATE.
Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS
¶ 2. Donna and Wayne Brown were married on February 14, 1991. This was the second marriage for both parties. On August 30, 1999, the lower court granted the divorce on grounds of irreconcilable differences and divided the property based on equitable distribution. The chancellor offered a lengthy thirty page opinion which shows the careful consideration and effort to fairly and justly distribute the property. The chancellor distributed the property in the following manner:
NON-MARITAL ASSETS Mrs. Brown Stationary bike ........................$ 150.00 Emerson VCR ............................... 180.00 Refrigerator TV (purchased after separation) ............ 79.00 Oak table and six chairs .................. 260.00 Iron bed Computer desk Piano .................................... 200.00 __________ TOTAL .................................... 869.00 Mr. Brown Saddle (Billy Cook) ....................$ 600.00 Massey Ferguson 210 Tractor, tiller & clipper (disk missing) ................. 8,500.00 16 foot trailer ......................... 1,000.00 Guns ................................... 10,000.00 TV ........................................ 350.00 Stereo Speakers............................ 400.00 Filing Cabinet ............................ 100.00 African drum .............................. 150.00 Gun cabinet ............................... 500.00 Oriental Artwork and frame ................ 750.00 Antique engines ......................... 6,400.00 Other engines ........................... 2,900.00 Hunting & Camping equipment ............... 300.00 Air Compressor ............................ 800.00 Panasonic video camera .................. 1,000.00 Minolta 35mm camera ....................... 450.00 Box tools, hand tools & special tools .. 10,000.00 Drill press................................ 450.00 Valve grinder ........................... 3,000.00 Parts washer .............................. 250.00 Oxygen and acetylene system ............... 500.00 Airco welder and Heliarch attachment ..2,000.00 Craftsman radial arm saw .................. 650.00 Skill saw .................................. 50.00 Router and bits ........................... 350.00 Mogul metal spraying gun ................ 2,500.00 12 foot steel bed shop made single axle trailer ............................... 1,500.00 Horse (Snickers) ........................ 1,000.00 Smith-Corona typewriter ................... 400.00 Band Saw .................................. 300.00 4-wheeler ............................... 6,000.00 ___________ TOTAL .................................. 63,150.00
Below is a list of items that Mr. Brown contends were acquired before their marriage that he wants returned.
¶ 3. Donna now appeals, asserting that the classification of marital and separate property, as well as the distribution of marital property was improper.
ANALYSIS
¶ 4. An appellate court will not reverse a chancellor's classification and equitable division of marital property absent a determination that the chancellor's decision was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, unsupported by substantial, credible evidence, or a showing that the chancellor applied an erroneous legal standard. Burnham-Steptoe v. Steptoe, 755 So.2d 1225 (¶ 15) (Miss.Ct.App.1999). See also Singley v. Singley, No. 1999-CA-00754-COA, ___ So.2d ___, 2000 WL 1387961 (Miss.Ct.App. Sept. 26, 2000); Franks v. Franks, 759 So.2d 1164 (Miss.1999); McEwen v. McEwen, 631 So.2d 821, 823 (Miss.1994); Parker v. Parker, 641 So.2d 1133, 1137 (Miss.1994); Bell v. Parker, 563 So.2d 594, 596-97 (Miss.1990); Newsom v. Newsom, 557 So.2d 511, 514 (Miss.1990).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Warner v. Warner
...the Ferguson factors as guidelines, in light of each parties’ non-marital property." Lowrey , 25 So. 3d at 293 (¶44) ; see also Brown v. Brown , 797 So. 2d 253, 256 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) ("Separate property is not subject to equitable distribution."). Therefore, on remand, the chancell......
-
Bradshaw v. Bradshaw
...chancellor's ruling was consistent with this Court's holding that "[s]eparate property is not subject to equitable distribution." Brown v. Brown, 797 So. 2d 253, 256 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (citing Ferguson, 639 So. 2d at 929).¶57. Finally, Martha claims that the chancellor should have a......
- Sims v. Sims
-
Stewart v. Stewart, 2002-CA-01333-SCT.
...two Court of Appeals cases in support of his argument: Wilson v. Wilson, 820 So.2d 761, 763 (Miss.Ct.App. 2002), and Brown v. Brown, 797 So.2d 253, 256 (Miss.Ct.App.2001). The Court of Appeals decisions are not binding on this Court, and there is ample authority from our prior cases to guid......