Opinion ID: 1751673
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The House Mortgage Issue

Text: The chancellor ordered Wayne to pay the monthly house note, together with all taxes and insurance, on the marital home in Brookhaven which was awarded to Jane. The amount of this payment, according to Wayne's financial declaration, was $966 per month, including the taxes and insurance, which Wayne paid separately. This issue is discussed above. The chancellor also provided Wayne with an escape provision with respect to the longevity of this obligation. Wayne has the option, upon the children's reaching their majority, of either continuing the monthly payments or deeding his one-half interest in the marital home to Jane in exchange for terminating his future liability on the note. Wayne contends the escape provision operates to constructively take away his equity in the marital home and is beyond the authority vested in the chancellor. Jane, on the other hand, claims our case law vests in the chancellor broad authority in making provisions for spouses in divorce cases and that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in this case. Of special interest is the escape clause which, at Wayne's option, would operate to divest him of his one-half interest in the marital domicile. This Court has held that our law vests in the chancery court authority to order an equitable division of marital property, including the transfer of title to real property. Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921, 934 (Miss. 1994); Hemsley v. Hemsley, 639 So.2d 909, 913-15 (Miss. 1994); Draper v. Draper 627 So.2d 302, 305 (Miss. 1993); Jones v. Jones, 532 So.2d 574, 578 (Miss. 1988). This Court declines to state that such an optional divestiture is error, in light of cases allowing mandatory divestiture. Wayne himself can weigh the benefits and detriments and escape further liability on the house note if he wishes to do so. This issue is also remanded for further consideration.