Opinion ID: 1652117
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: whether the chancellor erred by requiring joseph to pay juanita $32,898.50 by march 1997.

Text: ¶ 27. Joseph asserts that the chancellor assessing him with all the marital debt, child support in excess of the guidelines and alimony made the requirement that he pay $32,898,50 [1] by March of 1997 to Juanita inequitable. Juanita contends that this was within the chancellor's discretion. ¶ 28. It is well-established by this Court that the chancery court has the authority to order an equitable division of property that was accumulated through the joint efforts and contributions of the parties. Draper v. Draper, 627 So.2d 302, 305 (Miss. 1993) (citing Brown v. Brown, 574 So.2d 688, 690 (Miss.1990)). A chancellor's equitable division of marital property is also subject to the traditional scope of review in which this Court will not disturb the chancellor's findings `... unless manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, or an erroneous legal standard was applied.' Draper, 627 So.2d at 304 (quoting Faries v. Faries, 607 So.2d 1204, 1208 (Miss.1992)). As part of the chancellor's equitable division of the marital property, the chancellor ordered Joseph to pay Juanita $32,777 for her share of the equity in the real estate not later than March 15, 1997 at which time Juanita shall execute a quitclaim deed in favor of Joseph conveying all of her interest in the real estate. Applying the proper standard of review, we find that the chancellor did not commit manifest error by ordering Joseph to pay $32,777 to Juanita for her equity interest in the real estate in light of the parties' respective estates and contributions to the marriage. See Turpin v. Turpin, 699 So.2d 560, 565 (Miss.1997) (holding that chancellor did not commit manifest error by ordering husband to pay $55,000 as part of property settlement). As a result, this issue is without merit.