Opinion ID: 1743864
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: whether the court erred in valuing the marital estate as of 1998 instead of the time of the divorce in 1992.

Text: ¶ 32. Roger asserts that the chancellor erred in valuing the marital estate as of 1998 instead of 1992, the date of divorce. Jo Ann asserts that the chancellor did value the marital estate as of 1992. ¶ 33. While Roger cites no authority for this issue, it is necessary for this Court to speak to the issue to give guidance to the Court below and to avoid confusion on remand. ¶ 34. In the order appointing the expert, the chancellor stated that the valuation was to be made as of 12/31/92. Upon examination of the report submitted by the expert, it is clear that the estate was valued in 1998 terms. ¶ 35. The report is dated December 10, 1998. In the first paragraph the expert states that he was appointed to determine the current value of the marital estate. The report goes on to say that a financial statement dated January 18, 1998, was used in the valuation. The report valued the partners' equity at $901,945.21 with Roger's 25% interest coming to $225,486.30. The marital residence was valued at $48,150, with no supporting documentation. Net cash value of a life insurance policy on Roger's life with Jo Ann as beneficiary was valued at $14,000. ¶ 36. The chancellor adopted the valuation of the expert. In his bench ruling, the chancellor valued Roger's interest in Heigle Farms at $225,000, the life insurance at $14,000, and the marital estate at $48,150, for a total valuation of $287,150. ¶ 37. The actions of the chancellor in assigning a value to the marital estate constitute manifest error requiring reversal by this Court. Marital property is defined as any and all property acquired or accumulated during the marriage. Hemsley v. Hemsley, 639 So.2d 909, 915 (Miss.1994). Assets so acquired or accumulated during the course of the marriage are marital assets and are subject to an equitable distribution by the chancellor. Id. Further, non-marital property is not subject to equitable distribution. Devore v. Devore, 725 So.2d 193, 196 (Miss.1998). ¶ 38. The chancellor committed manifest error in valuing the property as of 1998. In Heigle I, the chancellor could not place a value upon the partnership as of 1992 because the partnership was in bankruptcy. Upon remand, it will be incumbent upon the chancellor to value the partnership at the time the bankruptcy was concluded. This Court is unable to ascertain that date as such information was not provided to this Court. ¶ 39. Once the marital estate is assigned a post-bankruptcy value, this Court directs that Jo Ann be awarded interest on her equitable share of the marital estate with such interest commencing on the date of the conclusion of the bankruptcy.