Opinion ID: 864648
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: ¶3. Tim and Debbie were married on July 28, 1979. They had three children during their marriage. Tim and Debbie divorced in November 1994 after filing a Joint Complaint for Divorce that incorporated a property settlement agreement. Over five years after the divorce, Tim stopped paying what was due pursuant to the property settlement agreement. Debbie then filed a contempt proceeding. Tim argued that the alimony and division of marital assets provisions in the property settlement agreement were ambiguous.1 1 The provisions which Tim states are ambiguous are, in pertinent part, as follows: ARTICLE II. It is the intention of the Husband and the Wife to benefit and share equally the employment and business income of Husband without regard to the marital status of the parties to each other or to a third party. Husband shall pay to Wife bi-weekly periodic payments of One-half of husband's income, which at present is $1,458.54 . . . beginning May 1, 1994, and one-half of net monthly Director's fee which is $500.00, and continuing until the earliest to occur of the death of either or if the parties should divorce then this support would become fixed, lump sum installment alimony based upon the present amount together with one-half of increases, payable until Wife's seventh [sic] (70) birthday, which payments will not be terminated, reduced or otherwise affected by the remarriage of either party but will terminate upon the death of the Wife, if prior to age seventy (70). The bi-weekly payments shall increase or decrease annually in accordance with the Husband's total salary to provide for bi-weekly payments equal to one-half (½) of Husband's monthly salary from West Quality Food Service, Inc. or substituted business/employer. For purposes of this agreement, Husband's monthly salary shall be defined as the gross 2 ¶4. In the middle of the trial, the chancellor wrote to counsel informing them of his initial thoughts on the case. He stated: 1. The Property Settlement Agreement in this case can only be described as [a] [i]nvitation to [l]itigation. It is ambiguous and contradicts itself in certain respects. 2. Mrs. West's claim that she is entitled to alimony based upon K-1 filings where no actual cash distribution was received by Mr. West is ludicrous and will not be sustained by the Court. 3. As to division of marital assets, the [a]greement fails to define what they are. The term marital assets is now clearly defined by Ferguson and Hemsley and their progeny. Prior to those cases, Mississippi was a title state. 4. Assuming that Mrs. West became vested with an equitable interest in 50% of Mr. West's ownership of stock or other interest in the family taxable salary or wages paid to husband from West Quality Food Service, Inc., or substituted business/employer, less amounts withheld from such salary or wages for payment of premiums on insurance covering the minor children of the parties. . . . ARTICLE III (H). Husband agrees and hereby acknowledges that Wife is entitled to and shall be vested with one-half (½) of all existing marital assets, including, but not limited to, stocks, limited partnerships and business assets. Both parties also acknowledge, however, the existing contractual restrictions on the major business assets of Husband which presently prevent immediate transfer. Husband agrees to promptly transfer one-half (½) of those assets as and when they become restricted; or if they are sold, conveyed, transferred, surrendered, exchanged, or otherwise disposed of by Husband, then Husband will immediately pay one-half (½) of the proceeds, remunerations or other considerations to Wife.