OF JUDGMENT: 10/04/2016
COUNTY CHANCERY COURT, HON. HAYDN JUDD ROBERTS JUDGE.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: CHRISTOPHER A. TABB.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: J. PEYTON RANDOLPH II RICK D. PATT.
IRVING, P.J., FAIR AND WESTBROOKS, JJ.
Melissa Weaver appeals the judgment of the Rankin County
Chancery Court, which granted her and her husband Richard
Franklin Weaver a divorce on the ground of irreconcilable
differences and equitably divided the marital estate. She
argues that the chancery court failed to properly consider
the relative tax consequences when distributing the marital
assets between her and Richard.
Finding no error, we affirm.
On August 14, 2015, Melissa filed a complaint for divorce
from Richard on the grounds of habitual cruel and inhumane
treatment, and in the alternative, irreconcilable
differences. On March 2, 2016, the court entered an agreed
temporary order. On May 5, 2016, the parties filed a consent
to divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences, and
the issues of equitable division of the marital estate,
alimony, and attorneys' fees were submitted to the court
to decide. After a lengthy discovery period and a
continuance, the trial was conducted on August 8, 2016, and
August 31, 2016.
The court issued its judgment of divorce on October 4, 2016,
finding that the marital estate had a value of $555, 279.90,
not including other property previously divided. The court
awarded Richard fifty-five percent of the valued marital
estate, and Melissa the remaining forty-five percent. The
chancellor made a handwritten addition to his order, stating
that: "[Melissa's attorney] did not approve this
order as to form as he thought the order should mention
'tax consequences' but the [c]ourt entered this order
without such language as that can be brought by the
appropriate motion at a later date and time."
A hearing on Melissa's motion to reconsider-addressing
the tax consequences of the distribution of marital
assets-was held on October 20, 2016. During said hearing, she
offered into evidence the expert testimony of John Dongieux,
an attorney and certified public accountant. Ultimately, the
court denied the motion, and this appeal followed.
The standard of review is succinctly addressed in Rhodes
v. Rhodes, 52 So.3d 430, 435 (¶15) (Miss. Ct. App.
2011) (citations and internal ...