Before Bridges, C.j., Herring, And Southwick, JJ.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Southwick, J., For The Court:
THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED, PURSUANT TO M.R.A.P. 35-B
DATE OF JUDGMENT: MARCH 21, 1997
TRIAL JUDGE: HONORABLE STUART ROBINSON
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HINDS COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: THE CHANCELLOR AWARDED VIVIAN KENDRICK A 40% INTEREST IN THE STOCK SAVINGS PLAN AND A $20,000 LIEN AGAINST THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF THE FAMILY HOME.
DISPOSITION AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART
The Hinds County Chancery Court granted Vivian Lynn Wade Kendrick and Herbert Elijah Kendrick a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. The court resolved issues concerning the ownership of a stock savings plan and the sale of the marital residence. Mr. Kendrick appeals asserting that the chancery court erred by awarding his ex-wife a forty percent interest in the stock savings plan and by granting her a lien of $20,000, in addition to one-half of the proceeds, from the sale of the marital residence. We agree that there was error as to the $20,000 lien and consequently remand for further proceedings.
The parties were married on August 19, 1977, and lived together until June 1, 1994. Although no children were born out of the union, Mrs. Kendrick had a child from a previous marriage. On June 17, 1994, she filed for divorce on the grounds of uncondoned adultery and habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. She also alleged that irreconcilable differences had arisen between the parties which entitled them to a divorce. Mr. Kendrick answered and denied the allegations. In a cross-complaint, he alleged that he was entitled to a divorce on the grounds of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment and also sought a divorce based on irreconcilable differences.
The couple eventually consented to a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. They agreed upon a division of the household furnishings, but gave to the court the task of dividing the remaining real and personal property. Among the issues stipulated for the court to resolve were ownership of a stock savings plan and division of the proceeds from the sale of the marital home.
Following a hearing, the chancellor awarded Mr. Kendrick sixty percent and Mrs. Kendrick forty percent of the value of the stock savings plan. The court also ordered the sale of the residence and a reimbursement of $20,000 to Mrs. Kendrick for the original down payment made with her funds. The remainder of the net proceeds from the sale were to be equally divided.