Opinion ID: 1781943
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Equitable Division of Marital Home Realty, Farm Equipment, Cattle Operation Mobile Home Park

Text: Billy contends the chancellor lacked the authority to order him to convey, free of all encumbrances, his one-half interest in the jointly owned four acres on which the marital home was situated. Billy argues that Linda did not seek ownership; rather, she only sought permanent, exclusive use and possession of the residence together with all its contents. We have long recognized that, incident to a divorce, the Chancery Court has authority, where the equities so suggest, to order a fair division of property accumulated through the joint contributions and efforts of the parties. Brown v. Brown, 574 So.2d 688, 690 (Miss. 1990). In Draper, 627 So.2d at 305, this Court held that the chancery court has authority to effect the divesting of title to real estate to achieve an equitable distribution of marital assets. This is a matter committed to the discretion and conscience of the court, having in mind all of the equities and other relevant facts and circumstances. Bowe v. Bowe, 557 So.2d 793, 794 (Miss. 1990). Moreover, the Chancery Court has the authority to order an equitable division of jointly accumulated property and in doing so to look behind the formal state of title. Johnson v. Johnson, 550 So.2d 416, 420 (Miss. 1989). A spouse who has made a material contribution toward the acquisition of property which is titled in the name of the other may claim an equitable interest in such jointly accumulated property incident to a divorce proceeding. Jones v. Jones, 532 So.2d 574, 580 (Miss. 1988) (citing Watts v. Watts, 466 So.2d 889 (Miss. 1985); Chrismond v. Chrismond, 211 Miss. 746, 52 So.2d 624 (1951)). See also Brendel v. Brendel, 566 So.2d 1269, 1273 (Miss. 1990), where this court affirmed the lower court's decision ordering a husband to convey to his wife one-half interest in a home titled only in the husband's name. This Court pointed out in Jones that recent cases had wrestled with the definition of contribution within the context of the acquisition of assets. Nevertheless, we said that [i]f `contribution' toward the acquisition of assets is proven by a divorcing party, then the court has the authority to divide these `jointly' accumulated assets. Jones, 532 So.2d at 580. In this case, the property was not titled solely in Billy's name, but titled to both Billy and Linda. Moreover, both parties requested, inter alia, an equitable division of the parties' jointly accumulated property. Although it is true that Linda requested in her complaint the permanent exclusive use and possession of the marital home together with its contents minus Billy's personal items, it is also noted that she sought a division of the marital assets. This Court holds that under existing case law the chancellor was within his authority to order Billy to effect a transfer of title to Linda to the marital home and the surrounding four acres to accomplish an equitable division. Linda, we note, was divested of her undivided one-half interest in the adjoining 33 acres of jointly owned and accumulated real property, which was awarded to Billy. It is noted that Billy was also granted ownership of all farm equipment, a leasehold interest on farm property, a cattle operation, and his 100 shares of stock in a mobile home park. Nonetheless, this issue is remanded for consideration together with the other assets subject to equitable division, such division to be guided by the factors promulgated today.