Opinion ID: 1691352
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: whether the chancellor erred in refusing to give jim a retrospective credit for loan payments mary anne received (of what the chancellor found to be a marital asset) and only allowing a prospective credit.

Text: ¶ 21. Yancey next asserts that the chancellor erred in not giving him retroactive credit for fifty percent of the loan payments Mary-Anne has received from the Hansons since the time of the divorce and in allowing him only prospective credit for his share. Mary-Anne counters with the argument the issue is procedurally barred because of Yancey's failure to cite any authority. Grey v. Grey, 638 So.2d 488, 491 (Miss.1994); Bland v. Bland, 629 So.2d 582, 591 (Miss.1993). ¶ 22. Procedural bar notwithstanding, the equitable distribution of marital assets is within the discretion of the chancery court. Arthur v. Arthur, 691 So.2d 997, 1002 (Miss.1997); Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921, 928, 930 (Miss.1994). The chancellor's findings will not be reversed unless manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous or an erroneous legal standard was applied. Id. In this case, the chancellor can not be said to have abused his discretion in allowing Yancey only prospective credit for his share of the amount still owed on the loan to the Hansons. The chancellor expressly found that I believe that Mrs. Yancey has been relying on that. Mr. Yancey has known about it and the fact that he didn't bring it up, he didn't bring it up to his detriment. Indeed, it would appear that Yancey slept on his rights. The issue of the payments received on the loan was not raised during the divorce proceedings or even in Yancey's Motion for Modification and Contempt. ¶ 23. Yancey now asserts for the first time that there is no evidence that he knew of the payments, arguing that [s]urely a man who has lost all of his assets, did not even have a car, had to file bankruptcy and had less than $400.00 a month to live on would have asked for the payments if he had known Mary Anne was receiving them. Contrary to his protestations, it is reasonable to conclude that a man in Yancey's position would have been attempting to identify and secure every possible resource available to help him meet his financial obligations. The chancellor made express finding as to his reasons for not giving Yancey retroactive credit, and the chancellor can not be said to have abused his discretion in so ruling. The chancellor's ruling is affirmed on all issues. Therefore, this Court affirms the judgement of the Madison County Chancery Court. ¶ 24. AFFIRMED. PITTMAN, P.J., BANKS, SMITH, MILLS, WALLER AND COBB, JJ., CONCUR. McRAE, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY SULLIVAN, P.J.