Opinion ID: 1676263
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: whether the chancellor was manifestly wrong and committed reversible error in awarding appellant's automobile to appellee and ordering appellant to transfer title to appellee.

Text: The chancellor found that Charles intended to make a gift of the Mercury Marquis to Elaine, therefore the automobile was awarded to Elaine at the time of the divorce. Charles argues that he had purposely kept the car titled in only his name because he had previously lost a car in a divorce and did not want that to happen again. As further evidence that he did not intend to give the car to Elaine, Charles notes that he charged Elaine with stealing the car when the parties separated. Elaine claims the car was a gift to her the day after the parties married. She had sole use and possession of the car for the duration of the marriage, except when the couple went out together for dinner. Charles evidently did not protest when Elaine sold both of the automobiles she had brought to the marriage. Despite the fact that the Marquis was titled in only Charles' name, the chancellor's determination that the car was a gift to Elaine is supported by substantial evidence. If a gift, [Elaine is] surely entitled to the unfettered ownership, possession and use of the automobile. Holleman v. Holleman, 527 So.2d 90, 95 (Miss. 1988). This Court affirms on this issue.