Opinion ID: 1796778
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: equitable distribution of the husband's retirement account.

Text: Dr. Love began investing in his retirement account prior to the marriage, but both parties testified that they planned to enjoy the benefits of the retirement planning together. Dr. Love had accumulated approximately $114,000.00 in retirement accounts and approximately $21,000.00 in savings, while Ms. Love accumulated approximately $21,000.00 in retirement savings. In light of Ms. Love's contributions to the marriage and the couple's retirement planning, Dr. Love's retirement account was marital property which should have and was considered by the chancellor for purposes of an equitable distribution. Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921, 933-34 (Miss. 1994). Equitable distribution is governed by the guidelines set out by us in Ferguson, 639 So.2d at 928. These guidelines include: (1) economic and domestic contributions by each party to the marriage, (2) expenditures and disposal of the marital assets by each party, (3) the market value and emotional value of the marital assets, (4) the value of the nonmarital property, (5) tax, economic, contractual, and legal consequences of the distribution, (6) elimination of alimony and other future frictional contact between the parties, (7) the income and earning capacity of each party, and (8) any other relevant factor that should be considered in making an equitable distribution. Id. We have repeatedly held that in making an equitable division of the marital property, the chancellor is not required to divide the property equally. Trovato v. Trovato, 649 So.2d 815, 817-18 (Miss. 1995); Davis v. Davis, 638 So.2d 1288, 1292 (Miss. 1994); Dudley v. Light, 586 So.2d 155, 161 (Miss. 1991); Brown v. Brown, 574 So.2d 688, 691 (Miss. 1990). Applying these factors to this case, it cannot be said that the chancellor was manifestly wrong in her distribution of the Loves' marital assets. She gave Ms. Love a share of the investments made by Dr. Love in mutual funds and retirement accounts, because he had invested in those accounts to the detriment of the marriage partnership. However, the chancellor did not give Ms. Love an equal share of those investments. Instead the chancellor awarded Ms. Love one-half of the accumulated mutual funds, leaving Dr. Love the entirety of his retirement accounts. In Ferguson we confirmed that the wife was entitled to a portion of her husband's retirement savings based upon her domestic and economic contributions to the marriage, and because she had no separate retirement account of her own. Ferguson, 639 So.2d at 933-34. Ms. Love did have her own retirement savings, was expected to begin a new job with a higher salary than Dr. Love, and could not be classified as a homemaker like the wife in Ferguson. Based upon the respective earning capacities of the Loves, the respective spending versus saving habits of the couple, and the fact that neither can be said to have made a significant domestic contribution to the marriage, we cannot find that the chancellor committed manifest error in refusing to grant Ms. Love an equal share in Dr. Love's retirement accounts.