Opinion ID: 2642601
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fraud, Deceit, and Deception

Text: ¶17. In her claim for fraud, Ginger reiterates that she set over a substantial amount of her inheritance, which otherwise would have been nonmarital property. See Hemsley v. Hemsley, 639 So. 2d 909, 914 (Miss. 1994) (“Assets acquired or accumulated during the 9 course of a marriage are subject to equitable division unless it can be shown by proof that such assets are attributable to one of the parties’ separate estates prior to the marriage or outside the marriage.”); but see Johnson, 650 So. at 1286 (nonmarital assets may lose such status if the asset is commingled with marital property or used for familial benefit). She claims that “all of this commingling of assets and furnishing of money to Defendant Germany was based on his false material misrepresentations that Plaintiff’s money and other assets would be invested, safely kept and otherwise returned to Plaintiff upon the receipt and distribution of the ‘tobacco money’. . . .” ¶18. Ginger seeks punitive damages “in a sum sufficient to deter such conduct [fraud, deceit, and deception] in the future.” In support of her contention that her claim for fraud is legal and not equitable, she cites this Court’s holding in Southern Leisure Homes v. Hardin, 742 So. 2d 1088 (Miss. 1999). In Hardin, the Hardins filed suit against Southern Leisure Homes, Inc., in the Chancery Court of Washington County. Id. at 1089. The Hardins alleged that Southern had breached a contract to sell a mobile home to the Hardins, that Southern had entered the contract with full knowledge that the property already had been contracted to be sold to another party, and that such actions were both negligent and fraudulent. Id. The Hardins sought to recover both actual and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. Id. This Court found that, although acts of fraud may give rise to actions in equity, the Hardins clearly were seeking a legal, rather than equitable remedy— $10,000 in actual damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. Id. at 1090. ¶19. The facts of the case sub judice are distinguishable from those in Hardin. In Hardin, we concluded that the plaintiff’s claims amounted to “essentially a breach of contract claim 10 which is best heard in circuit court.” Id. But Hardin involved a commercial “arm’s length” transaction, rather than an agreement between spouses concerning how the couple’s finances would be managed. The remedy Ginger seeks for Robert’s alleged fraud – “the promised equal share of the ‘tobacco money’”– further illustrates the equitable substance of her claim. The fact that she is seeking punitive damages should not be the determining factor of whether her claim is legal rather than equitable. See Tideway Oil Programs, Inc. v. Serio, 431 So. 2d 454, 464 (Miss. 1983) (Claims for punitive damages are legal and not equitable, but chancery courts have actual subject-matter jurisdiction over punitive-damages claims). Ginger has alleged essentially the same set of facts for her fraud claim as she did in her breach-ofcontract claim, which we find to be equitable in nature and related to the parties’ pending divorce. Accordingly, we find that Ginger’s fraud claim is related to divorce and alimony and should be transferred to the chancery court proceeding.