Opinion ID: 1649417
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether the chancellor abused his discretion and committed reversible error in awarding kay m. vaughn prejudgment interest on the amount allocated to her in the equitable division of marital assets?

Text: ¶ 14. The chancellor determined that the Sonic businesses were marital property subject to equitable division, but that Kay had not contributed to the business following the separation and was therefore not entitled to the $277,000 increase in the value of the business from the separation to the time of trial. Bruce does not challenge this determination by the chancellor. The only part of this determination to which Bruce objected was that Kay was awarded an amount equal to eight percent (8%) interest on her share of the marital property for the two-year period between the time of separation and the time of divorce. The amount totaled $46,010. ¶ 15. The calculation based on a sum equal to a percentage of interest is merely an attempt by the chancellor to reach an equitable division of the marital property. The chancellor acted within his power to determine the point in time to value the marital property. The chancellor then applied principles of equity in order to prevent Kay from being penalized too harshly by his determination that the marital property should be valued at the time of separation. Bruce argues this determination constitutes an order for pre-judgment interest such as would be made in a damages case where the damages are liquidated at the time of trial. Bruce then argues that this award of pre-judgment interest is inappropriate because the damages were not liquidated at the time of trial. Because we do not find this to be pre-judgment interest, Bruce's argument is irrelevant. ¶ 16. Bruce did not challenge any other portion of the equitable, distribution. However, we note with approval that the chancellor's division of the marital property was based upon a complete and careful factor-by-factor analysis of each of the factors listed in Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921 (Miss.1994). Based on a detailed analysis, the chancellor equitably distributed the marital property and did not abuse his discretion by using an amount equal to a percentage of interest in calculating what was equitable. This issue is without merit.