Opinion ID: 1739811
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the chancellor err in dividing the jointly accumulated property of the marriage?

Text: Mrs. Dillon complains under this assignment that the chancellor did not equally divide the jointly accumulated property of the marriage. In Mississippi the chancellor is not obligated or required by law to equally divide the properties of the parties to a divorce because Mississippi is not a community property state. Rives v. Rives, 416 So.2d 653 (Miss. 1982). However, the chancellor does retain the power and authority to effect an equitable division of jointly accumulated personal property acquired during the marriage. Cf. Watts v. Watts, 466 So.2d 889 (Miss. 1985). The primary thrust of her argument is that Clyde Dillon owned 171 shares of South Central Bell stock, 43 shares of AT & T stock, $55,000.00 worth of life insurance, and an additional pension in insurance benefits acquired as an employee of South Central Bell. Mrs. Dillon claims that she should have been awarded an equal amount of the home's furnishings and awarded her vested interest in the jointly accumulated assets and cites Clark v. Clark, 293 So.2d 447 (Miss. 1974), in support of this argument. Under the authority of Keyes v. Keyes, 252 Miss. 138, 171 So.2d 489 (1965), Mr. Dillon takes the position that he owned all the interest in the stocks and pension plan mentioned above and as such it was his separate property and Mrs. Dillon had no vested interest in it. The record is bereft of any indication that Mrs. Dillon contributed to the acquisition of the stocks, bonds, or pension plan and that none of them were ever issued in her name. Further, with regard to the life insurance policies, Mr. Dillon purchased and paid the premiums from his own salary without contribution from Mrs. Dillon. Where there is no evidence that property was either acquired through joint funds of the parties or where there is no proof that one party has any legal title to the property, this Court has held that the chancellor did not err in failing to adjudicate alleged property rights in such property. Bond v. Bond, 355 So.2d 672 (Miss. 1978). We are of the opinion that in dividing the personal property of these parties the chancellor did not abuse his discretion and there is no merit to this assignment of error.