Opinion ID: 1827884
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the trial court erred in awarding lisa twenty percent of the insurance proceeds from the house and twenty percent of the proceeds from the sale of the lot.

Text: ¶ 16. The trial court used the same case law as discussed above to analyze the character of the proceeds and real property, which he classified as marital in nature due to the lost home being the former marital home. That determination is in line with this Court's holding in Boutwell that the wife's inherited home was the marital home and as such should be considered marital property. See Boutwell, 829 So.2d at 1221. ¶ 17. Next, the trial court determined what distribution would be equitable. The trial court completed analysis of the facts using the Ferguson factors. Due to its consideration of the fact that John made a substantially larger monetary contribution to the purchase of the home and the insurance, the trial court found a property division of eighty percent to John and twenty percent to Lisa to be equitable. The chancellor gave some weight to Lisa's help with improvements, payment of utility and some food bills, and contribution to harmony of the home in declaring her entitlement to twenty percent of the insurance proceeds and lot sale proceeds. ¶ 18. This Court, finding no error in the property distribution, affirms the trial court's judgment.