Opinion ID: 1743563
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the chancellor committed manifest error in awarding one half of appellant's railroad retirement to appellee, in requiring appellant to pay the sum of two hundred dollars per month as a utility allowance, and in the general distribution of the assets accumulated during the marriage of the parties.

Text: ¶ 14. Mississippi applies the doctrine of equitable distribution when deciding issues of marital assets. Traxler v. Traxler, 730 So.2d 1098, 1101-03 (Miss. 1998). Marital property is defined as, `any and all property acquired or accumulated during the marriage'. Id. Assets so acquired or accumulated during the course of the marriage are marital assets and are subject to equitable distribution by the chancellor governed by the guidelines delineated in Johnson v. Johnson, 650 So.2d 1281 (Miss.1994), Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921 (Miss.1994), and Hemsley v. Hemsley, 639 So.2d 909 (Miss.1994). In Knutson v. Knutson, 704 So.2d 1331, 1332 (Miss.1997), this Court stated: The first step is to identify the character of the parties' assets, both marital and nonmarital, pursuant to Hemsley. Johnson, 650 So.2d at 1287. The chancellor should then, in light of each party's nonmarital property, employ the Ferguson factors as guidelines and equitably divide the property. Id. The Court instructed the chancellor to do no more [i]f there are sufficient marital assets which, when equitably divided and considered with each spouse's nonmarital assets, will adequately provide for both parties.... Id. However, [i]f the situation is such that an equitable division of marital property, considered with each party's nonmarital assets, leaves a deficit for one party, then alimony based on the value of nonmarital assets should be considered. Id. ¶ 15. In the present case, the chancellor stated: In regard to the division of the marital assets, the court has reviewed and considered the issues in Ferguson v. Ferguson and will not outline those issues item by item, but will find as a specific finding of fact that it has considered that in rendering its decision in the division of the marital assets. She then proceeded to distribute the assets. ¶ 16. Although the chancellor was correct in applying the Ferguson factors to effect the equitable division of the Fishers' marital property, she did not make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of her division of the assets, as this Court has required in Ferguson, 639 So.2d at 929, Sandlin v. Sandlin, 699 So.2d 1198, 1203-04 (Miss.1997), Kilpatrick v. Kilpatrick, 732 So.2d 876, 880 & 882 (Miss.1999), and Heigle v. Heigle, 771 So.2d 341, 346-348 (Miss.2000). As a result, this Court has no choice but to remand this action so that the trial court may complete its task and make the requisite findings of fact and conclusions of law. In so doing, the chancellor should, inter alia, identify the utility allowance in the context of alimony, consistent with prior cases of this Court.