Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Cursey v. Cursey
Citations: 793 So. 2d 695; 2001 Miss. App. LEXIS 334; 2001 WL 1003307Docket: No. 2000-CA-00769-COA
Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi; September 4, 2001; Mississippi; State Appellate Court
John T. Cursey and Wanda L. Cursey agreed to divorce due to irreconcilable differences and reached consensus on most property divisions, leaving specific items for the chancellor to decide. Tom appealed the chancellor's judgment regarding the division of the house sale proceeds and the omission of Wanda's bank account from the final ruling. Both parties submitted financial statements, but only Tom disclosed his bank account balance. During testimony, Wanda was uncertain about her bank account balance, which contained proceeds from the sale of their marital home. The chancellor ruled that both bank accounts were marital property and should be divided equally. However, the final judgment prepared by Wanda's attorney failed to acknowledge Wanda's bank account, contradicting the chancellor's ruling. Tom sought clarification, but his motions for clarification and amendment were dismissed without discussion. The court noted that a chancellor's findings on equitable distribution are typically upheld unless found to be manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, or based on an incorrect legal standard. The court found an error in the chancellor's final judgment, resulting in a reversal and remand for correction. The judgment for divorce includes the distribution of a $44,000 bank account and two pieces of stock valued at $883. Each party is to receive half of the bank account and stock after deducting specified amounts: $9,200 to the husband, $2,787.50 to the wife, and $593 to a credit card company. The remaining balance and any accrued interest are to be equally split. Testimony established that the $44,000 account was solely in Tom's name, containing $38,900 from the sale of the marital residence. No provisions were made for Wanda’s bank accounts, despite her receiving a similar amount from the residence sale and withdrawing additional funds upon separation. Wanda did not disclose her financial accounts, violating Uniform Chancery Court Rule 8.05, which requires detailed financial statements. Although this requirement could have been excused, it contributed to the oversight of her accounts in the final judgment. The court's oral statements indicated that both accounts were marital and should be distributed; however, the final judgment failed to reflect this, contradicting both the court's oral opinions and established legal precedent in Ferguson v. Ferguson regarding the division of marital property. Specifically, the $38,900 previously distributed to Tom should not be subject to further division without a compelling reason. The appellate court reverses and remands the judgment concerning the division of bank accounts, requiring consideration of Wanda's accounts and crediting both parties for amounts traceable to the sale of the marital residence unless a compelling reason is provided for further division. Other parts of the judgment remain undisturbed. Costs of the appeal are assessed to the appellee.