Opinion ID: 1874042
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: did the lower court err by failing to make an equitable distribution of assets acquired by the parties during their 13 years of marriage.

Text: Crystal Dudley argues on appeal that the lower court, in its final decree, failed to consider the assets of the parties, and the assets of the two businesses, acquired during the thirteen years of marriage. Further, Ms. Dudley asserts that the chancellor failed to distribute four other motor vehicles owned by the couple. As a result, Crystal Dudley contends that the lower court was in error in its January 3, 1990, ruling and prays for the action to be remanded for a full hearing regarding the assets of the parties. David Dudley addresses this assignment of error by simply stating that the trial court had the benefit of a full hearing when ruling upon the issue now asserted on appeal. Mr. Dudley maintains that the chancellor was correct in making his determination and certainly did not commit manifest error in his decision. This Court has ruled that a chancellor is not obligated to equally divide the property of the parties to a divorce. In Robinson v. Irwin, 546 So.2d 683 (Miss. 1989), the Court stated: Robin asserts that the lower court erred in failing to divide certain personal properties that were in the name of Steven Irwin. The chancellor stated that he was without authority to divest a spouse of title to property. This simply is not accurate. Watts v. Watts, 466 So.2d 889 (Miss. 1985) and Jones v. Jones, 532 So.2d 574, 580 (Miss. 1988). Robin asserts that all property in the name of Steven was obtained after the marriage and, therefore, was common to the marriage and should have been divided evenly between the two parties. While this Court agrees that a more equitable division of personal property could have been made, the chancellor was not obligated or required by law to equally divide the property of the parties to a divorce. Dillon v. Dillon, 498 So.2d 328 (Miss. 1986), citing Rives v. Rives, 416 So.2d 653 (Miss. 1982). We, therefore, find no reversible error in the division granted by the Special Chancellor. Robinson, 546 So.2d at 685. Like the appellant in Robinson, supra, the property sought by Crystal Dudley is in the name of her ex-husband, David Dudley. The chancellor was not required to equally divide the couple's assets. The chancellor is required to make some division of assets so that the parties may know who will have the use of or ownership of personal properties at issue. In the case sub judice, it appears from the record that the parties agree that the western store is, or should be, the property of Crystal Dudley. However, while Crystal is in possession of the western store and operates it as though it is hers, all of the stock issued by Circle C Western Store, Inc. has been issued to David and he remains the sole owner. The trial court failed to deal with this important matter. The trial court made no effort to determine the ownership rights or the disposition of Circle C or of Square D Sheet Metal business though both seem to be the product of the parties' joint efforts. The trial court had the parties, the assets and the questions of possession and ownership before it in January of 1990 when the court issued its ruling. The trial court did not deal sufficiently with all of the issues. We realize that the parties could have dealt with the vehicles and stock in Circle C or the ownership of Square D. If they had, the trial court should have so noted it in its finding. Where ownership or possession is at issue, the court should make any disposition that the court finds suitable to the facts and the parties or note an agreement of the parties, but silence only assumes a new day of trials and a certain appeal.