Palmer v. Palmer, No. 2011-CA-01199-COA. A link to the opinion is below. This is an interesting case where frankly I have argued both the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion in a number of cases. The main issue in the case was whether the chancellor fully considered the fact that Mr. Palmer owned the home prior to the marriage and that the home appreciated very little during the marriage. The Court of Appeals reversed the opinion stating that the chancellor failed to give adequate weight to the husband's premarital contributions and the lack of accumulation during the marriage. The dissent argued that the chancellor considered all the equities of the situation and thus it was within the Court's discretion to equally divide up the value of the house under the family use doctrine among other things.
To me the most interesting language in the opinion is the following:
"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 oversightresponsibility, 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."
This among other cases seems to reflect a shift in the appellate court in Mississippi in reviewing domestic cases particularly with higher scrutiny.
http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO83896.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment