Opinion ID: 1697236
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Other factors which in equity should be considered.

Text: ¶ 32. The chancellor did not consider any other factor, but did state in conclusion that [t]he evidence clearly supports a division of marital assets which significantly favors Nevada. The chancellor reached this conclusion based on the fact that Richard contributed very little to the accumulation of assets, spent large amounts of money solely for his entertainment and pleasure, refused to seek gainful employment even after the parties' separation, and had an addiction which led to a strain on the marital relationship. The chancellor did acknowledged Nevada's discovery violations, but determined that they should not have any bearing on the distribution of marital assets: The Court is well aware that Nevada does not come to the Court with clean hands; however, in considering the Ferguson factors, it is clear that Nevada should receive a much larger amount of the marital assets. ¶ 33. We have held that there is no requirement that the chancellor divide the marital assets equally between the divorcing parties. Love v. Love, 687 So.2d 1229, 1232 (Miss.1997) (citations omitted). In addition, we grant chancellors wide discretion when dividing marital property. Bullock v. Bullock, 699 So.2d 1205, 1211 (Miss.1997). Because we cannot say that the judgment was manifestly wrong or unsupported by substantial, credible evidence, we find that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion, and this assignment of error is without merit.