Sullivan v. Pouncey, 54700
| Decision Date | 15 May 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 54700,54700 |
| Citation | 469 So.2d 1233 |
| Parties | Brenda Pouncey SULLIVAN v. George Alvin POUNCEY. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
John Arthur Eaves, Eaves & Eaves, Jackson, for appellant.
Patricia R. Alexander, Harlon H. Varnado, Jackson, for appellee.
Before WALKER, P.J., and ROBERTSON and ANDERSON, JJ.
This is an appeal from the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, wherein appellee filed a complaint seeking specific performance on a private contract he entered into with his wife, appellant. An order in favor of appellee upholding the contract was entered by the Chancellor on January 3, 1983.
The parties' divorce was finalized on August 27, 1980, on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. The final decree incorporated a July 24, 1980, property settlement agreement entered into by the parties, as drawn up and witnessed by the parties' attorneys; separate and distinct from the contract sued on here.
Several hours earlier on July 24, the parties signed this separate contract, which was not incorporated in the final decree. That contract provided that appellee would make one-half of the house payments, and one-half of the car payment, and receive in exchange one-half interest in the equity of the marital residence. Conversely, the property settlement agreement as drawn up by the parties' attorneys provided that appellant was to receive the house and be responsible for its indebtedness, as well as the car and its indebtedness. Both parties claimed that the other party drew up the contract.
Appellee introduced various checks representing payments for one-half of the house note, and for the full amount of the car note. He ceased these payments when he learned that appellant had remarried. Appellant wrote appellee $800 in checks; she claimed that this was in repayment for the approximately $3,200 appellee had applied toward the house and car. He claims that the $800 repayment applied toward one-half of the equity toward the house.
The chancellor in his opinion found that the private contract was executed without the knowledge of the court or the attorneys. He noted that appellant acknowledged the contract by partial compliance with it, in receiving and making payments. The chancellor held that appellee was entitled to one-half of the equity in the house, which was to be decided by a special master.
In reviewing this cause, we first note that the divorce was granted on the grounds of irreconcilable differences subject to Mississippi Code Annotated, Section 93-5-2 (1972). That form of divorce requires that the parties enter into a property...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lanier v. State
...As a result, both parties are placed back in the positions which they occupied prior to entering into the agreement. Sullivan v. Pouncey, 469 So.2d 1233, 1234 (Miss.1985). Lanier once again has the right to be sentenced by a jury and the State once again has the right to seek the death IV. ......
-
Norris v. Norris, 56529
...matters, so long, of course, as the donee does not overreach or exert undue influence upon the donor. But see, Sullivan v. Pouncey, 469 So.2d 1233, 1234 (Miss.1985). Edna first complains that the Chancery Court erred in deciding the case on the confidential relationship theory. She argues t......
-
Lewis v. Lewis
...and incorporated by reference, or is simply on file with the clerk of the court. The Court further stated in Sullivan v. Pouncey, 469 So.2d 1233 (Miss.1985) (Anderson, J.), that when parties have obtained a divorce on grounds of irreconcilable differences and submitted property settlement a......
-
Bell v. Bell
...at 1042; East v. East, 493 So.2d 927, 931-32 (Miss.1986); In re Estate of Kennington, 204 So.2d 444, 449 (Miss.1967). Sullivan v. Pouncey, 469 So.2d 1233, 1234 (Miss.1985) did not alter this view, only recognizing that the statute required at the time a property settlement bearing the chanc......