Opinion ID: 1917517
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the chancellor erred in the division of marital property.

Text: ¶ 30. The appeal also challenged the division of marital property, but only insofar as two parcels of land. The chancellor deemed the two parcels to be marital property subject to division. Each party got one of the parcels. ¶ 31. Jack believes that one of the parcels should have been classified as his separate property. Therefore, he argues, the property division was inequitable because Susan was credited with a share of his separate property. The Court of Appeals did not reach that issue because of its reversal of the divorce made the matter moot. ¶ 32. The fact is that by the time of the divorce Jack had conveyed to Susan the property he now claims as separate property. Although the property may have had separate status before the marriage, it appears to have been commingled by this conveyance. Maslowski v. Maslowski, 655 So.2d 18, 20 (Miss.1995). Also, there was conflicting testimony about contributions, and use and misuse of marital assets by the two parties. ¶ 33. The chancellor attached credibility to Susan's testimony. Jack concedes that the chancellor followed the rules for equitable division set out in Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921 (Miss. 1994). The equitable distribution of marital assets is committed to the discretion of the chancellor and is not disturbed absent clear error or application of an erroneous legal standard. Arthur v. Arthur, 691 So.2d 997, 1003 (Miss.1997) (citing Ferguson, 639 So.2d at 930). This issue has no merit.