Griner v. Griner, 2015–CA–01903–COA

• Decision Date: 27 June 2017
• Docket Number: NO. 2015–CA–01903–COA,2015–CA–01903–COA
• Parties: Charles H. GRINER, Jr., Appellant v. Melanie GRINER, Appellee
• Court: Mississippi Court of Appeals

235 So.3d 177

Charles H. GRINER, Jr., Appellant

v.Melanie GRINER, Appellee

NO. 2015–CA–01903–COA

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

June 27, 2017

Rehearing Denied October 24, 2017

Certiorari Denied January 25, 2018

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: S. CHRISTOPHER FARRIS

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: RICHARD ANTHONY FILCE, ERIK M. LOWREY

BEFORE IRVING, P.J., BARNES AND WESTBROOKS, JJ.

IRVING, P.J., FOR THE COURT:

¶ 1. The Marion County Chancery Court granted Charles Griner (Chip) and Melanie Griner an irreconcilable-differences divorce and, pursuant to the parties' agreement, resolved the issues that they were not able to resolve. Chip, being dissatisfied with the chancellor's resolution of those issues, appeals and specifically asserts that the chancellor erred with respect to the following issues: (1) the division of the marital estate, (2) the assignment of responsibility for the marital debts, (3) the award of lump-sum alimony to Melanie, (4) and (5) other awards which exceed the scope of the issues that he and Melanie requested the court to address. Finding error in the chancellor's evaluation of the marital estate, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

FACTS

¶ 2. Melanie and Chip married on August 11, 1990, and later had two children, Natalie and Charlie.¹ During the course of the marriage, Chip obtained a business degree from the University of Mississippi, while Melanie, with Chip's consent, chose to stay home and care for the couple's two children. Melanie never worked outside of the home, apart from briefly helping her mother with a drapery business. Chip providedthe family's primary source of income through his position as a bank director and his participation in the "family business."² As part of his involvement in one of the family-owned companies, Griner Energy, Chip came to own a twenty-five-percent interest in a condominium³ in Destin, Florida, and the remaining seventy-five-percent interest was owned by Chip's mother and two siblings. Additionally, Chip held a sizeable estate in the form of stocks. He contends that many were gifted to him by his grandparents prior to the marriage, while others were purchased in both Melanie and his names during the marriage.

¶ 3. Melanie and Chip separated on or about September 30, 2010. On September 22, 2011, the chancery court entered a temporary order, requiring Chip to pay $7,000 per month as support and private-school tuition for Charlie. Shortly thereafter, Chip filed a motion for relief from the temporary order, claiming that the $7,000-per-month figure had been erroneously calculated to include " ‘phantom income’ in the form of dividends from bank stocks, capital gain year [-]end [income] and rental income," which resulted in "a skewed monthly income" for him. The chancellor denied Chip's motion.

¶ 4. On February 3, 2012, Melanie filed a motion for appointment of a financial expert due to Chip's "substantial [and] extremely complex" assets. Melanie asserted in the motion that she had no assets in her own name, as they were all titled in Chip's name. The court granted Melanie's motion and appointed Jim Koerber of The Koerber Company, P.A., "to determine valuation of assets of the parties, specifically the corporations of [Chip] and the cash flow derived therefrom," and "to prepare a report for the [c]ourt."

¶ 5. On April 14, 2015, the parties filed a written consent, wherein they agreed to a divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences, but asked the chancellor to decide the following issues: (1) child support and related school issues and costs; (2) alimony; (3) equitable distribution of the marital assets; and (4) equitable distribution of the parties' debts and liabilities.⁴ The court conducted a one-day trial on November 13, 2014, during which Koerber testified as to Chip's finances. During his testimony, Koerber classified stocks as either marital or nonmarital; Koerber also calculated Chip's gross income to be $354,044 annually.⁵ At the end of the trial, the chancellor entered a final judgment, the contents of which we summarize as follows:

1. Child support and related school issues and costs: The court held that, based on the past twelve years, Chip earned an average adjusted gross income of somewhere between $275,000 and $325,000, annually. Based on this amount of income, the court instructed Chip to pay Melanie $1,500 per month in child support for Charlie. The court also required Chip to continue to provide health insurance for Charlie until he is emancipated. The court held that Chip and Melanie would divide equally all of Charlie's non-covered medical expenses.

2. Alimony: The court applied the Armstrong⁶ factors and required Chip to pay Melanie periodic alimony in the amount of $3,000 per month until her death or remarriage. The court also ordered Chip to pay Melanie an additional $4,000 per month for ten years, or a lump sum in the amount of $480,000. The court further required Chip to provide Melanie with health insurance benefits for the next eighteen years.

3. Equitable distribution of the marital assets: The court conducted a Ferguson⁷ analysis of the marital assets and, based on the stipulations of the parties and Koerber's testimony, determined that the following property was marital and awarded Melanie seventy percent of it: the home and the land surrounding it; the Florida condo, described as Unit 1401 at Emerald Towers; "any business holdings;" Citizens Bank stock; First Federal Bank stock; Griner Drilling 401(k); and the AG Edwards IRA. The court also awarded Melanie a 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe and all the household furnishings and personal property, but awarded Chip the exclusive use and possession of the marital home until he purchased Melanie's interest in it. The court held that Melanie and Chip would keep their own checking accounts, including the balances therein. The court concluded by asserting that, in rendering its decision, it took into account Chip's nonmarital assets, which totaled over $7,000,000 and left Chip in a "far superb" position than Melanie.

The final judgment did not specifically address equitable distribution of the parties' debts and liabilities.

¶ 6. Both Chip and Melanie filed motions for a new trial or for reconsideration of the court's final judgment. In response, the court entered a modified order, which we summarize as follows:

1. Child support and related school issues and costs: The court denied Chip's request to reduce the amount of child support he was required to pay for Charlie. The court additionally required Chip to pay for the "maintenance, upkeep, tags, and insurance" costs for Charlie's vehicle until Charlie reached twenty-one years of age.

2. Alimony: The court denied Chip's request to reduce the lump-sum alimony-award he was ordered to pay to Melanie, as well as his request to modify the provision of the final-judgment requirement that he provide Melanie with health insurance for the next eighteen years. Additionally, the court required Chip to make Melanie the beneficiary of a $1 million life-insurance policy.

3. Equitable distribution of the marital assets: The court clarified that Melanie would receive seventy percent of the following marital assets: the house and surrounding land (except for some acreage nearby which the court found to be nonmarital and belonging to Chip), with a combined total value of $762,500; Chip's twenty-five-percent interest in the Florida condominium, valued at $231,250; and the retirement accounts—being the AG Edwards IRA, valued at $48,517.96; Griner Drilling Services 401(k), valued at $215,068; and the AG Edwards investment account, valued at $978. The court clarified that Chip's interest in the corporations and business holdings, listed on the Hemsley report were nonmarital; as such, that interest and the tax benefits would belong to Chip. The court, relying on Koerber's report, also held that the following shares of stock in each corporation would be considered marital property and therefore subject to distribution: forty-four shares of Citizens Bank Corporation at $65 per share, with a value of $2,860; and 6505 shares of First Federal Bancorp at $35 per share, with a value of $227,675. The court found that Melanie was entitled to seventy percent of those shares of stock. The court found that the following shares of stock were nonmarital and would, therefore, belong to Chip: 11,496 shares of Citizens Bank Corporation at $65 per share, with a value of $747,240; and 31,401 shares of First Federal Bancorp at $35 per share, with a value of $1,099,035.

Additionally, the court held that Chip would be liable for all of the debts of the marriage as set out in the Hemsley report, pursuant to Hemsley v. Hemsley , 639 So.2d 909, 914 (Miss. 1994), and the 8.05 financial statements of the parties. The court noted that a large amount of the debt reflected by Chip had to do with his corporate debt and was outside the scope of the court's jurisdiction, as Chip was awarded one hundred percent of the interest in his business; thus, the debts of those corporations were nonmarital and not subject to the court's division. The court did, however, order Melanie to pay the interest on a family Citibank credit card with a balance of $23,000; the court ordered Chip to pay Melanie $18,000 for the purpose of alleviating that debt (as the card had a balance of $18,000 at the time of the temporary order). The court also assessed the debt of the home and surrounding acreage to Chip, and extended the period of time that Melanie had to secure a new home. Chip appeals.

DISCUSSION

¶ 7. "Our scope of review in domestic relations matters is limited under the familiar rule that this Court will not disturb a chancellor's findings unless [they are] manifestly wrong [or] clearly erroneous, or ... the chancellor applied an erroneous legal standard." Johnson v. Johnson , 650 So.2d 1281, 1285 (Miss. 1994). The chancellor's division and distribution of property "will be upheld if it is supported by substantial credible...