Opinion ID: 1770681
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Whether the Court committed manifest and reversible error in failing to make an equitable division of marital assets.

Text: ¶ 20. Under this assignment of error, Debra argues that James's property may be subject to equitable distribution because he used Pearson Boys funds for regular household expenses, and thus commingled a marital asset with a non-marital asset. See Tillman v. Tillman, 716 So.2d 1090 (Miss.1998); Heigle v. Heigle, 654 So.2d 895 (Miss.1995); Johnson v. Johnson, 650 So.2d 1281 (Miss.1994). These cases are irrelevant to the one sub judice because they deal with situations in which non-marital property (one spouse's inheritance) was used to pay normal marital expenses and became commingled with the couple's joint income or other marital assets to the extent that they were inseparable. In the instant case, there was no marital asset with which James's non-marital assets were commingled. The Chancellor specifically found that there was no commingling, since all of James's assets were kept separate by virtue of the existence of his holding company, Pearson Boys, out of which all other assets were purchased. ¶ 21. This Court has recently addressed this issue in A & L, Inc. v. Grantham, 747 So.2d 832 (Miss.1999). In Grantham, this Court affirmed a Chancellor's decision that assets of a closely held corporation, owned by the husband, could be considered marital property for purposes of equitable distribution after finding that those assets had become commingled. In that case, the husband owned a corporation that he had acquired prior to his marriage, the assets of which he used to acquire a family home and to pay other normal marital expenses. In fact, in Grantham, the wife was a shareholder who was employed by the corporation and was paid a salary and whatever other expenses she needed for the family from corporate accounts, documenting those funds as loans to shareholders. Id. at 836-39. The Court explained that [w]hile this does not necessarily commingle the corporations themselves or all of their assets such that the principal, as opposed to the income used becomes a marital asset, the evidence before the court in this case made it difficult to draw a precise line of demarcation. Id. at 839. ¶ 22. Grantham is distinguishable from the case at hand because not only did the husband there use the corporations' assets to fund normal marital expenses, his actions in regards to the corporations throughout the marriage caused an increase in value of the corporations. Specifically, the Court stated in Grantham that the evidence before the Court in the instant case suggests that there was a substantial increase in the net assets of the corporations due at least in part to John's managerial effort. That increase in value, like John's other earnings, is considered a marital asset. Id. In the present case, however, the Chancellor found that no assets were accumulated during the marriage and that technically Pearson Boys lost assets. In addition, James kept the Pearson Boys assets separate; there is no question that the Chancellor was correct in not distributing any of the Pearson Boys assets to Debra. ¶ 23. Relying on Grantham, we are hard pressed to distinguish the marital home purchased with corporate funds in that case to the real property and vehicles at issue in this case. As to the subject property, James may have commingled the corporate assets to the extent that they may be considered marital property. ¶ 24. That finding alone, however, does not entitle Debra to a one-half interest in the property. Because the property is a marital asset, it is subject to equitable distribution. We have never held equitable distribution to mean an equal division. As stated above, the Chancellor in this case considered the equitable division of the subject property and made an award of lump-sum alimony to compensate Debra for her interest. There is no manifest or reversible error in this issue.