Opinion ID: 865464
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the chancellor erred in calculating

Text: A PERCENTAGE OF THE PROMISSORY NOTE AS A MARITAL ASSET. ¶43. Joe argues that Betty would be entitled to share in any increase in the value of the marina which occurred only during the thirteen months of marriage in which he owned it. Further, Joe argues that he owned the marina for twenty-five years prior to selling it, and he was married to Betty for only a little more than a year of that time period. Joe also points out that the face value of the note at the time of the order granting the motion to reconsider was far less than the original face value of $600,000. Accordingly, Betty is entitled only to onehalf of one twenty-fifth interest of the current value of the marina note, and the chancellor’s finding that Betty was entitled to ten percent of the face value of the marina note is unsupported by the evidence. ¶44. Again, the chancellor did not award Betty a portion of the promissory note as a marital asset. Rather, the chancellor awarded Betty lump-sum alimony in the amount of $60,000. This issue is without merit.