Inherited Property

On Tuesday, the Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down Renfro v. Renfro located here.  The main issue in the appeal was whether Ms. Renfro's inherited land became marital property by family use and the planting of various tree on it during the marriage by the Husband.  The Court of Appeals said no and reversed the trial court.  To me the language in paragraph 18 that is in bold is useful to put in a folder somewhere.

"¶17. As acknowledged, nonmarital assets may lose their status as such if the party

 commingles the asset with marital property or uses the assets for the benefit of the family.  Johnson, 650 So. 2d at 1286. However, Claudia testified that she and Johnny never used the  land for any family purposes. Significant to our analysis, we recognize that in the recent and  similar case of Marter v. Marter, 95 So. 3d 733, 737-38 (¶¶14-16) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012), this  Court held that evidence that the husband maintained the property inherited by the wife, paid the property taxes, and planted some trees on the property did not convert the property to  marital property by virtue of commingling.

¶18. Accordingly, we find the chancellor erred in classifying the 140 acres as marital

 property. The record fails to show that the real property at issue was converted to marital property through the family-use doctrine, since the property was not used for a family purpose. Additionally, Johnny’s testimony only showed a potential intended purpose  for the property in the future. See Deborah H. Bell, Bell on Mississippi Family Law § 6.04 (2005).  The record also fails to contain evidence that Claudia commingled the property or used it as collateral for family purposes. See Bell, § 6.04[2]. Also, insufficient evidence exists in the record to show that Johnny contributed anything of significance to the improvement of the property. The record shows little, if any, contribution by Johnny, and shows that Claudia owned the property for only three years while she cohabited with Johnny. For the foregoing reasons we reverse the judgment of the chancery court on the matter of equitable division of the property specifically, the classification of the 140 acres as marital property — and remand to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

Looks to me like both sides had some good arguments.  The big issue here is the equity of the situation and the inadequate proof of contribution or conversion by family use.  Some of the language in the opinion dealing with tracing is also helpful.