Mathis v. Mathis

Conflicting evidence concerning the value of the parties' assets, as well as their premarital and marital contributions, supported the trial court's equitable division of their marital property.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

We granted husband’s application for a discretionary appeal in this divorce case under this Court’s pilot project. On appeal, husband asserts the trial court erred with regard to the equitable division of the parties’ property. Finding no error, we affirm. The parties were married for 14 years; they had no children. When they first married, the parties lived in a house owned by husband. The house was subject to a deed to secure debt, and wife paid the outstanding balance on the debt, $96,741, from her non-marital assets. Later, the parties sold the house and realized $272,152. These funds, as well as marital funds and additional non-marital funds, were used to purchase a new home, which at the time of divorce was valued at $740,000. The parties owned other assets at the time of divorce, including a $1.1 million Synovus account which wife established with non-marital funds, a Sterne Agee account, three automobiles, stock, an index fund, IRA’s, a pension, a Thrift Savings Plan, and a condominium which wife purchased following separation.

Following a bench trial, the court entered a final judgment in which it awarded the marital home to husband, adding that he was to pay wife one-half of the fair market value of the house, or $370,000, within 120 days. In addition, the court awarded husband two of the parties’ three automobiles, an IRA in his name with an approximate balance of $356,144, the balance of the Sterne Agee account, stock in several corporations, half of the Thrift Savings Plan, half of the index fund, and 80of his pension. Wife was awarded an automobile, the Synovus account, an IRA in her name valued at $42,334, a portion of the Sterne Agee account, half of the Thrift Savings Plan, half of the index fund, stock in other corporations, 20of husband’s pension, and the condominium encumbered by a debt which exceeds its equity. The final judgment contains no findings of fact revealing the reasons behind the court’s conclusions.

Mathis v. Mathis

Conflicting evidence concerning the value of the parties' assets, as well as their premarital and marital contributions, supported the trial court's equitable division of their marital property.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report