Jackson v. Jackson

• Decision Date: 13 August 2015
• Docket Number: No. 2013–CT–00434–SCT.,2013–CT–00434–SCT.
• Parties: Michael JACKSON v. Rosie JACKSON.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

172 So.3d 179

Michael JACKSON

v.Rosie JACKSON.

No. 2013–CT–00434–SCT.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Aug. 13, 2015.

Richard Shane McClaughlin, Nicole H. McClaughlin, attorneys for appellant.

Luanne Stark Thompson, attorney for appellee.

EN BANC.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

WALLER, Chief Justice, for the Court:

¶ 1. The Monroe County Chancery Court granted Rosie Jackson a divorce from her husband Michael on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment in 2012. The Court of Appeals affirmed the chancellor's judgment, and this Court granted Michael's petition for writ of certiorari. Finding that the chancellor manifestly erred in his calculation of the marital assets and liabilities, we affirm in part and reverse in part the chancellor's judgment and remand this case for further proceedings.

FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2. Michael and Rosie married in 1976, and they had two children together, both of whom were emancipated at the time of the instant litigation. Rosie filed for divorce on May 20, 2009, on the grounds of adultery, habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, and irreconcilable differences. As evidence supporting her grounds for divorce, Rosie alleged that she had learned in 2008 that Michael had engaged in extramarital sexual activity and had molested a child during their marriage. Rosie claimed that Michael's misconduct had negatively impacted her health and rendered her unable to continue to perform her marital duties. Michael denied these accusations.

¶ 3. After a trial, the chancellor found that Rosie had presented sufficient proof of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment and granted the divorce. The chancellor then divided the marital estate and awarded Rosie lump-sum alimony. Michael appealed the chancellor's judgment, and the case was assigned to the Court of Appeals. Michael raised three issues on appeal: “(1) the evidence was insufficient to support a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, (2) the evidence relied upon by the chancellor was inadmissible, and (3) the equitable distribution and the alimony award were based on incorrect calculations.” Jackson v. Jackson, 172 So.3d 221, 225, 2014 WL 5553539, at *2 (Miss.Ct.App. Nov.4, 2014). The Court of Appeals affirmed the chancellor's judgment in all respects. Id. at *9, 231. Michael then filed a petition for writ of certiorari with this Court, essentially reasserting the same claims he raised before the Court of Appeals. This Court granted Michael's petition, and we now limit our review to Michael's claim that the chancellor miscalculated the value of Rosie's equitable distribution of the marital estate. Miss. R.App. P. 17(h).

DISCUSSION

¶ 4. Michael argues, as he did before the Court of Appeals, that the chancellor erroneously undervalued Rosie's equitable share of the marital estate by counting the value of the mortgage balance on the parties' marital home against Rosie twice. The equitable distribution of marital property upon divorce is governed by this Court's holding in Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921 (Miss.1994). In reviewing a chancellor's findings concerning equitable distribution, this Court applies a limited standard of review. “[T]his Court will not substitute its own judgment for that of the chancery court, and the findings of the chancery court will be overturned only when those findings are manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous, or an incorrect legal standard was applied.” Cuccia v. Cuccia, 90 So.3d 1228, 1232 (Miss.2012) (citing Bowen v. Bowen, 982 So.2d 385, 394 (Miss.2008) ).

¶ 5. In the final judgment of divorce, the chancellor awarded use of the marital home to Rosie and ordered Michael to execute a quitclaim deed transferring his interest in the home to Rosie. The parties stipulated that the home was worth $78,000. The home was encumbered by a mortgage with a balance of $50,103, resulting in $27,897 in equity. As part of the equitable division of marital assets under Ferguson, the chancellor reduced the home's stipulated value by the value of the mortgage balance and allocated only the home's equity as an asset to Rosie. Rosie's total share of marital assets was valued at $31,928. Michael, on the other hand, received marital assets valued at $120,310.64. This distribution created an $88,382.64 disparity in favor of Michael with respect to the distribution of assets.

¶ 6. The chancellor then distributed the marital debts between the parties. The parties' credit card debt, totaling $4,950, was allocated to Michael. The mortgage balance on the marital home was allocated to Rosie. Accordingly, Michael's net distribution of the marital estate was valued at $115,360, while Rosie's net distribution had a value of negative $18,175. Using these calculations, the chancellor found it appropriate to award Rosie lump-sum alimony “in order to reach an equitable division of the marital property.” The chancellor calculated the amount of alimony by equalizing Rosie's negative net distribution with an initial award of $18,175 and then granting an additional award of $39,505.32, representing half of the remaining net marital assets, for a total award of $57,680.32.

¶ 7. On appeal, Michael argued that the chancellor had miscalculated the value of the parties' equitable distributions by erroneously counting the mortgage debt against Rosie twice-once as a reduction on the value of the home, and again as a separate liability. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument without directly addressing it, simply holding that “[e]quitable distribution does not mean equal distribution.” Jackson, 172 So.3d at 231, 2014 WL...