Opinion ID: 1796863
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: the chancery court erred in awarding marie an equitable lien and erred in failing to completely divest her of all her interest in the property or award ray an equitable lien against all of her interest in the property.

Text: Roy cross-appeals, contending that the chancellor should have divested Marie totally from title to the subject property. He argues that Marie failed to contribute financially to the acquisition of the property and improvements and further that she failed to contribute any income to the marriage household during their twelve plus years of marriage. He, therefore, contends that he is entitled to ownership of all the real property and improvements thereon and that the chancellor erred in awarding Marie an equitable lien in the amount of $16,000. This Court has applied the equitable theory of resulting or constructive trust to protect the community property interest of a wife in real property acquired in Mississippi solely in the husband's name. Palmer v. Palmer, 654 So.2d 1 (Miss. 1995). This Court in Stone v. Sample, 216 Miss. 287, 62 So.2d 307 (1953), applied the theory of resulting or constructive trust to protect the community property interest of a wife in real property acquired in Mississippi and titled solely in her husband's name. In Stone, the proof established that the funds used by Mr. Sample to purchase the Mississippi real estate were taken from a community account belonging to Mr. Sample and Mrs. Sample. Stone, 216 Miss. at 291, 62 So.2d at 308. In the case at bar, Marie testified that she put very little income into the marriage and no money towards the property. However, she did assist in the construction of the residence and rendered domestic services as homemaker during the marriage, and is therefore entitled to some equitable interest in the property. It is clear that the chancery court has the authority to impose an equitable lien. Lindsey v. Lindsey, 612 So.2d 376, 380 (Miss. 1992). See Dudley v. Light, 586 So.2d 155, 159-60 (Miss. 1991); Neyland v. Neyland, 482 So.2d 228, 230-31 (Miss. 1986). In discussing an equitable lien, the Court in Lindsey said: Characteristic of equitable liens is that they are not estates or property in the thing itself, nor are they rights to recover the thing, that is they are not rights which may be the basis of a possessory action. They are merely a charge on property for the purpose of security, and are ancillary to and separate from the debt. They are neither debts nor rights of property, but merely remedies for a debt. Of extreme importance is the fact that such liens do not divest the debtor of title or possession. Lindsey, 612 So.2d at 380 (emphasis in original). In Draper v. Draper, 627 So.2d 302 (Miss. 1993), this Court held in part that: It is well-established by this Court that the chancery court has the authority to order an equitable division of property that was accumulated through the joint efforts and contributions of the parties. Id. at 305-06 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Finally, in Ferguson this Court said, fairness is the prevailing guideline in marital division. 639 So.2d at 929. The Ferguson Court also said, it must be remembered, the goal of the chancellor in a divorce case is to do equity. Id. at 934. Considering this Court's recent pronouncement in Ferguson that fairness is to be the prevailing guideline in marital division cases and the particular facts presented to this Court in the case at bar, it is the opinion of this Court that the chancellor did not err in awarding Marie an equitable lien in amount of $16,000 on the subject property. Therefore, this Court finds no merit to this argument on cross-appeal and holds that the chancellor did not err in awarding Marie an equitable lien in the amount of $16,000.