IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2015-CA-00870-COA
CHAD G. POTTS APPELLANT
v.
CATHERINE A. POTTS APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/08/2015
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JOHN ANDREW HATCHER
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: ALCORN COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: NICHOLAS RYAN BAIN
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: JOHN A. FERRELL
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: GRANTED APPELLANT AND
APPELLEE AN IRRECONCILABLE-
DIFFERENCES DIVORCE AND
EQUITABLY DIVIDED THE MARITAL
ESTATE
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED – 11/22/2016
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE IRVING, P.J., CARLTON AND GREENLEE, JJ.
IRVING, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Chad G. Potts appeals the judgment of the Chancery Court of Alcorn County, in an
irreconcilable-differences divorce action, arguing that the chancellor erred by incorrectly
calculating the fair market value of the parties’ marital home and land.
¶2. Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS
¶3. Chad and Catherine A. Potts were married on January 26, 2008, and lived together as
husband and wife in Alcorn County, until they separated on or about January 15, 2014. On
February 14, 2014, Catherine filed a complaint for divorce on the grounds of habitual cruel
and inhumane treatment and, in the alternative, irreconcilable differences.1 On March 4,
2014, Catherine filed a motion to withdraw her fault ground for divorce, which was granted
by the chancery court the same day. With the consent of both parties, the divorce
proceedings continued solely on the ground of irreconcilable differences. The parties also
consented to the chancery court deciding certain issues that they were unable to resolve.2
¶4. On April 2, 2015, the chancellor entered the judgment of divorce. Chad then filed a
motion for a new trial, alleging that the court erred in its valuation and division of the marital
assets. However, Chad did not point to any specific asset as being undervalued. On May 8,
2015, the chancellor denied Chad’s motion, finding:
[Chad] complains of valuations on marital assets which [he] feels are
inaccurate, but offers no evidence of what is accurate nor did [he] offer such
evidence during the trial.
****
[Chad’s] motion for a new trial does not provide any documentary or
substantive or supporting evidence as to what items are inaccurately valued in
the Court’s equitable division, nor does he provide what the accurate value
should be, and as such, [his] motion is too vague and uncertain to allow the
1
The chancery court issued a temporary order on April 3, 2014, allocating the use and
possession of certain marital property. The order specifically stated that “[n]either party shall
be in any way prejudiced at the trial of this case on the merits by the provisions of this [o]rder
on [t]emporary [f]eatures[,] and neither party is waiving any claim to any property which
might constitute marital property at said trial on the merits.”
2
The parties agreed that the chancery court would decide the identity and the
classification of all assets, as marital or nonmarital, and the disposition thereof. The
chancery court would also decide whether Chad would be responsible for the payment of
Catherine’s attorney’s fees and, if so, the amount thereof.
2
Court to grant any relief based thereon.
Chad appeals.
DISCUSSION
¶5. “[W]e will not disturb a chancellor’s findings when supported by substantial evidence
unless the chancellor’s judgment was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous[,] or an erroneous
legal standard was applied.” Carambat v. Carambat, 72 So. 3d 505, 510-11 (¶24) (Miss.
2011).
¶6. Chad contends that the chancellor incorrectly valued the parties’ marital home and
land.3 He states that the appraisal submitted by Catherine was completed in 2011, and the
appraisal he submitted was completed in 2014—eight months before the final judgment of
divorce in 2015. Before the parties married, the home and land at issue were owned solely
by Chad; however, upon marriage, they refinanced the property, titled it in both of their
names, and used it as their marital home for the duration of the marriage, thus converting it
from separate property to marital property.4
¶7. To assist the court in determining the value of the marital home and the accompanying
3
The home, which contained approximately one thousand square feet, was located on
forty acres of land.
4
It is undisputed by the parties that the home and land in question were considered
marital property. See generally Sims v. Sims, 169 So. 3d 937, 941 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App.
2014) (noting that “[m]arital property is defined as any and all property acquired or
accumulated during the marriage. Such assets are subject to equitable distribution by the
chancellor. Nonmarital assets may be converted into marital assets if they are commingled
with marital property or utilized for domestic or familial purposes, absent an agreement to
the contrary.”).
3
land, the parties submitted separate appraisals of the property. Catherine initiated an
appraisal of the property that was completed on October 18, 2011, establishing the value of
the property at $138,000. Chad initiated an appraisal of the property that was completed on
September 11, 2014, establishing the value of the property at $86,000.5 In his discretion, the
chancellor averaged the appraisals submitted by the parties, valuing the property at $112,000.
¶8. “Property division should be based upon a determination of fair market value of the
assets, and these valuations should be the initial step before determining division.” Ferguson
v. Ferguson, 639 So. 2d 921, 929 (Miss. 1994). Pursuant to Ferguson, Chad argues that the
chancellor should have relied solely on the appraisal he submitted to the court because it was
more recent and, therefore, a more accurate determination of the fair market value of the
property at the time of the divorce. He asserts that the chancellor erred by applying an
average of both appraisals that were submitted to the court rather than simply applying the
most current appraised market value of the property.
¶9. Catherine responds that the chancellor was not in error in determining the value of the
marital home and land by averaging the appraisals submitted by the parties. She argues that
Chad’s appraisal showed a $52,000 reduction in the fair market value of the property, and
no evidence was presented to the court explaining the reduction in value. In addition, she
argues that the overall award in the case was fair, reasonable, and equitable.
5
Both parties’ appraisals were conducted by the same entity, Mississippi Land Bank,
ACA. There was no indication in the reports or in either party’s brief as to why the
valuations were vastly different. The chancellor also addressed this issue with the parties
during the proceedings to no avail.
4
¶10. “A chancellor is responsible for determining the fair market value of the marital
assets.” McKnight v. McKnight, 951 So. 2d 594, 596 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2007). It appears
that the chancellor found it disturbing that the property had lost a considerable amount of its
value and he attempted to obtain an explanation to assist in the determination of the
property’s fair market value. The chancellor addressed this issue during the proceedings with
Chad as follows:
Chancellor: Property values are about the same now as they were three or
four years ago?
Chad: Yes, sir.
****
Chancellor: Have you taken away a lot of the improvements to the property
in the past few years?
Chad: Taken away? What do you mean?
Chancellor: Are they gone from what they were from, say, 2009 until 2014?
Have a bunch of the improvements been gone?
Chad: No, I haven’t.
Chancellor: Are they deteriorated very much, or have you kept them up
pretty well?
Chad: Yes, sir, I have.
¶11. There was no evidence offered to support the reduction in value as both appraisals
were conducted by the same entity. In addition, Chad testified that the property values were
about the same as they were at the time of Catherine’s appraisal, that no improvements had
been removed, and that the property had not deteriorated. “To the extent that the evidence
5
on which [a] chancellor base[s] his opinion [is] less informative than it could have been, we
lay that at the feet of the litigants and not the chancellor.” Williams v. Williams, 129 So. 3d
233, 241 (¶31) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (citation omitted). Chad failed to give a reasonable
explanation for the diminishment in the value of the property from 2011 to 2014, even
though property values generally had remained steady. The appraisals were the only
evidence submitted to the chancellor to determine the value of the property. As stated, there
was a considerable difference in the value arrived at by the two appraisals with no apparent
explanation for the difference. The chancellor split the difference, as in his discretion he was
permitted to do, to arrive at a reasonable value. McKnight, 951 So. 2d at 596 (¶7). After
reviewing the record, we find nothing to suggest that the chancellor abused his discretion.
This issue is without merit.
¶12. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CHANCERY COURT OF ALCORN COUNTY IS
AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE
APPELLANT.
LEE, C.J., GRIFFIS, P.J., BARNES, ISHEE, CARLTON, FAIR, JAMES,
WILSON AND GREENLEE, JJ., CONCUR.
6