JAIME C. PARRISH APPELLANT
PAUL R. PARRISH APPELLEE
OF JUDGMENT: 05/27/2016
COUNTY CHANCERY COURT HON. JOHN ANDREW HATCHER TRIAL JUDGE
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: RICHARD SHANE MCLAUGHLIN
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: JOHN A. FERRELL
LEE, C.J., WILSON AND WESTBROOKS, JJ.
Paul and Jaime Parrish consented to a divorce on the ground
of irreconcilable differences and submitted to the Alcorn
County Chancery Court the determination and distribution of
the marital estate and Jaime's alimony request. In this
appeal, we must decide whether the chancellor erred when he
(1) classified the marital home as Paul's partially
separate property, (2) classified Paul's retirement
account as separate property, and (3) declined to award Jaime
alimony. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Paul and Jaime were married in 2007 and separated in 2014.
They continued to live in the same home until they were
officially divorced in 2016. When they married, Paul was
fifty-four and Jaime was forty-nine years old. They met at
the United States Postal Service (USPS), where they both
worked as mail carriers. Paul and Jaime had no children
together, but each had adult children from prior
relationships. Additionally, Jaime had custody of her minor
grandson by her daughter from a previous marriage.
During the marriage, Paul and Jaime lived together in a home
that Paul owned for approximately twenty-eight years prior to
the marriage. In April 2009, Paul executed a warranty deed
conveying the home and real property to himself and Jaime in
joint tenancy with rights of survivorship. Jaime and Paul
remodeled the home together during the marriage. The
chancellor found, and the parties generally agree, that the
home was in terrible condition at the time Jaime moved in.
Both parties paid for and contributed labor toward numerous
improvements to the home during the marriage. Throughout the
marriage, Jaime invested about $50, 000 from an inheritance
and her own earnings into remodeling and repairing the
marital home. Both parties claimed in their Uniform Chancery
Court Rule 8.05 financial statements that the home was worth
The chancellor found that "[Paul] brought into this
marriage the marital home, and it was lien free, and for
that, the Court is giving the Plaintiff a $25, 000.00 credit
off the $100, 000.00 value thereof in its equitable
distribution and considering that portion as
non-marital." As a result, the chancellor valued the
home in the marital estate at $75, 000, rather than the
parties' agreed valuation of $100, 000. Additionally, the
chancellor classified Paul's retirement account as
separate property, and declined to award Jaime alimony. Jaime
"This Court employs a limited standard of review of
property division and distribution in divorce cases."
Sims v. Sims, 169 So.3d 937, 940 (¶10) (Miss.
Ct. App. 2014) (quoting Bowen v. Bowen, 982 So.2d
385, 393 (¶32) (Miss. 2008)). "This Court will not
disturb the chancellor's opinion when supported by
substantial evidence unless the chancellor abused his
discretion, was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, or an
erroneous legal standard was applied." Stroh v.
Stroh, 221 So.3d 399, 406 (¶17) (Miss. Ct. App.
2017) (quoting Mabus v. Mabus, 890 So.2d 806, 819
(¶53) (Miss. 2003)). When reviewing issues of law, our
standard is de novo. Id. (citing Lowrey v.
Lowrey, 25 So.3d 274, 285 (¶26) (Miss. 2009)).
"The chancellor's distribution of the marital assets
will be affirmed as long as 'it is supported by
substantial credible evidence.'" Sims, 169
So.3d at 940 (¶10) (quoting Bowen, 982 So.2d at
394 (¶32)). "In addition, 'alimony awards are
within the chancellor's discretion and will not be
reversed by the Court on appeal absent manifest error or an
abuse of ...