Scott Holston v. Lecresha Holston

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/17/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2111123 S c o t t Holston v. Lecresha H o l s t o n Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t Court (DR-09-900072) PITTMAN, J u d g e . Scott Holston wife") ("the husband") a n d L e c r e s h a were m a r r i e d i n December 2001. H o l s t o n ("the The m a r r i a g e was t h e s e c o n d one f o r b o t h p a r t i e s ; t h e w i f e was 28 y e a r s o l d a n d t h e h u s b a n d was 3 7 y e a r s the marriage, o l d when t h e y m a r r i e d . theparties executed One week before an a n t e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t 2111123 that, by i t s terms, Mississippi. The handwritten i s t o be parties statements liabilities. governed attached outlining Those s t a t e m e n t s by to their t h e laws the major indicate that of agreement assets and the wife's net w o r t h was $2,000 a n d t h e h u s b a n d ' s n e t w o r t h was $ 1 . 7 m i l l i o n . The the husband i s a p h a r m a c i s t . husband h a d an o w n e r s h i p corporations: Medicine interest S & S Pharmacy, Shoppe, a n d Holmac, Express Pharmacy. He a l s o Uniform Shoppe, and M i s s i s s i p p i , Pascagoula, After married, i n two c l o s e l y held I n c . , d o i n g b u s i n e s s a s The I n c . , doing and s e v e r a l Alabama When t h e p a r t i e s business as Rx owned a s o l e p r o p r i e t o r s h i p , The parcels including of real property i n two c o m m e r c i a l lots i n Mississippi. the marriage, the p a r t i e s (and t h e w i f e ' s three daughters from h e r p r e v i o u s marriage) residence i n Grand Bay. marriage. A f t e r t h e b i r t h o f t h e p a r t i e s ' s e c o n d s o n i n 2004, the husband sold a house The was e m p l o y e d wife during Two s o n s were b o r n t h e Grand purchased l i v e d i n t h e husband's Bay r e s i d e n c e of the p a r t i e s ' and t h e p a r t i e s i n t h e M u i r Woods s u b d i v i s i o n the p a r t i e s ' outside seven-year t h e home marriage, only sporadically a n d , when s h e was e m p l o y e d , s h e w o r k e d a t The U n i f o r m Shoppe. 2 of Mobile. The h u s b a n d was 2111123 p a i d t w i c e a month; he d e p o s i t e d h i s p a y c h e c k o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y $2,300 from The Medicine checking account. Shoppe into the p a r t i e s ' The w i f e u s e d t h e f u n d s i n t h a t a c c o u n t t o pay the f a m i l y ' s r o u t i n e monthly expenses. had an i n d i v i d u a l his earnings checking account, and bonuses from husband used t h e funds real joint The h u s b a n d a l s o i n t o which other business he d e p o s i t e d entities. i n h i s i n d i v i d u a l account and p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , t o i n v e s t The t o purchase i n new b u s i n e s s e s a n d s t o c k s , and t o pay f a m i l y expenses. During individual the marriage, account t h e h u s b a n d u s e d $60,000 t o purchase a l o t adjacent e x i s t i n g commercial l o t s i n Pascagoula. sold p a r c e l f o r $700,000. the three-lot paying capital-gains t a x on the sale receive favorable t a x treatment pursuant the husband Timbers, formed LLC, t h a t Mississippi. 1 a separate purchased Holston Timbers t o h i s two I n September 2007, he In order of the l o t s to avoid and t o t o 26 U.S.C. § 1031, business four from h i s entity, parcels subsequently Holston of property i n purchased two 2 6 U.S.C. § 1 0 3 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) p r o v i d e s t h a t " [ n ] o g a i n o r l o s s s h a l l be r e c o g n i z e d on t h e e x c h a n g e o f p r o p e r t y h e l d f o r p r o d u c t i v e use i n a t r a d e or b u s i n e s s or f o r investment i f such p r o p e r t y i s exchanged s o l e l y f o r p r o p e r t y o f l i k e k i n d w h i c h i s t o be h e l d e i t h e r f o r p r o d u c t i v e u s e i n a t r a d e o r business or f o r investment." 1 3 2111123 a d d i t i o n a l p a r c e l s of l a n d i n M i s s i s s i p p i . price f o r t h e s i x p a r c e l s was The The t o t a l $846,458.72. h u s b a n d a l s o a c q u i r e d an i n t e r e s t pharmacies d u r i n g the marriage i n two additional Rx E x p r e s s o f N a v a r r e , I n c . , and Rx E x p r e s s o f Bayou La B a t r e , I n c . i n two P a s c a g o u l a b a n k s . purchase and p u r c h a s e d stock He b o u g h t 783 s h a r e s o f M e r c h a n t s & M a r i n e Bank s t o c k f o r $31,320, u s i n g f u n d s f r o m h i s i n d i v i d u a l checking account. husband's husband $250,000, Bank stock c e r t i f i c a t e s name, p a y a b l e bought account. The with The stock to the 25,000 shares funds borrowed wife of follows: "When upon h i s death. Charter from h u s b a n d e x p l a i n e d how as were i s s u e d i n t h e I his Bank wrote stock Medicine he p u r c h a s e d the The Shoppe the C h a r t e r check out M e d i c i n e Shop [ s i c ] t o p u r c h a s e t h e s t o c k , t h a t ' s t h e way l o a n s t o my [ f r o m The of I do [ i n d i v i d u a l ] a c c o u n t . And t h e n , as I draw b o n u s e s M e d i c i n e Shoppe], money I g e t . for And w h a t e v e r I have t o pay t a x e s on t h e bonus the net i s , I a p p l y i t back t o the l o a n , b a c k t o [The M e d i c i n e S h o p p e ] . " The C h a r t e r Bank s t o c k c e r t i f i c a t e s were i s s u e d t o t h e p a r t i e s as j o i n t t e n a n t s w i t h right of s u r v i v o r s h i p . account The i n the p a r t i e s ' j o i n t husband a l s o names. 4 c r e a t e d an E-Trade 2111123 The parties filed joint f e d e r a l and state income-tax returns during the marriage. For the four years preceding the trial returns of this case, i n c o m e s o f $593,211 for those f o r 2006; 2008; and $940,149 In January the d i v o r c e , seeking custody the fee. property f o r 2007; wife filed a gross $1,093,250 complaint of the p a r t i e s ' sons, alimony acquired $813,272 adjusted f o r 2009. 2009, p e r i o d i c alimony, showed for a child support, i n g r o s s , an e q u i t a b l e d i v i s i o n o f during the marriage, The h u s b a n d a n s w e r e d t h e c o m p l a i n t , and an attorney a s s e r t i n g that the w i f e was p r e c l u d e d b y t h e a n t e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t f r o m r e c e i v i n g periodic alimony, alimony property that had he i n gross, acquired husband a l s o c o u n t e r c l a i m e d , the p a r t i e s ' At trial antenuptial or during a the division of the marriage. The s e e k i n g a d i v o r c e and c u s t o d y of sons. i n J u l y 2010, t h e p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d a g r e e m e n t was valid, and t h e t r i a l t h a t i t would e n f o r c e the agreement. t h a t the court stated The a g r e e m e n t p r o v i d e s , in pertinent part: "4. "The p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a t e x c e p t as may be o t h e r w i s e e x p r e s s l y s e t f o r t h i n t h i s agreement, a l l p r o p e r t y , r e a l and p e r s o n a l , owned by e i t h e r o f them at t h e time of t h e i r contemplated marriage, from 5 2111123 whatever source, shall remain the respective p r o p e r t y o f t h e p e r s o n i n whose name i t s t a n d s , a n d n e i t h e r s h a l l a c q u i r e any i n t e r e s t i n o r r i g h t t o any o f t h e p r o p e r t y o f t h e o t h e r . "A. " I f t h e p a r t i e s s h a l l be m a r r i e d , t h e r i g h t w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e p r o p e r t y owned b y e i t h e r o f them a t the time o f t h e contemplated marriage o r a c q u i r e d d u r i n g t h e i r m a r r i a g e s h a l l be s u b j e c t t o t h e t e r m s of t h i s agreement "B. " [ A ] l l p r o p e r t i e s o f a n y name o r n a t u r e , r e a l , p e r s o n a l , o r m i x e d , w h e r e v e r t h e y may be f o u n d , b e l o n g i n g t o [the husband] b e f o r e m a r r i a g e , o r t h o s e w h i c h may be a c q u i r e d o r a c c u m u l a t e d a f t e r s u c h marriage, by purchase, t r a d e , g i f t , o r o t h e r w i s e , s h a l l be a n d r e m a i n f o r e v e r h i s p e r s o n a l e s t a t e , a n d this shall include a l l interests, rents, dividends, p r o f i t s , a n d o t h e r a p p r e c i a t e d v a l u e w h i c h may i n t i m e a c c r u e , o r r e s u l t i n a n y manner f r o m i n c r e a s e i n v a l u e , o r be c o l l e c t e d f o r t h e u s e o f t h e p r o p e r t i e s i n a n y way. "C. [Section C i s i d e n t i c a l i n a l l respects to s e c t i o n B, b u t i t i s a p p l i c a b l e t o p r o p e r t i e s belonging to the wife.] "D. " I t i s f u r t h e r a g r e e d t h a t [ t h e husband] a n d [the w i f e ] do m u t u a l l y w a i v e a n d r e l e a s e t o e a c h other, and t o t h e i r heirs at law, devisees, legatees, successors and a s s i g n s , a l l c l a i m s o f dower, c o u r t e s y , widow's a l l o w a n c e s , f o r c e d s h a r e s , a l l r i g h t s o f s u p p o r t a n d a l l c l a i m s as h e i r s a t l a w of each o t h e r i n and t o t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e p r o p e r t i e s mentioned above. Each p a r t y s h a l l h o l d a l l r e a l p r o p e r t y a n d p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y w h i c h he o r s h e now owns o r may h e r e a f t e r a c q u i r e f r e e f r o m a n y c l a i m o f dower, i n c h o a t e o r o t h e r w i s e , and t h i s contract s h a l l e v i d e n c e t h e r i g h t o f [the husband] t o convey 6 2111123 any o f h i s r e a l e s t a t e f r e e f r o m any s u c h c l a i m s o f dower. A t t h e r e q u e s t o f [ t h e h u s b a n d ] , [ t h e w i f e ] s h a l l e x e c u t e , a c k n o w l e d g e , and d e l i v e r s u c h o t h e r instruments as may be reasonably required to a c c o m p l i s h t h e t r a n s f e r by [ t h e husband] o f any o f h i s r e a l p r o p e r t y f r e e f r o m any s u c h c l a i m o f dower o r t o d i v e s t any c l a i m o f dower i n s u c h p r o p e r t y . I t i s a l s o e x p r e s s l y u n d e r s t o o d and a g r e e [ d ] t h a t i n t h e e v e n t o f t h e d e a t h o f [ t h e husband] o r i n t h e event of s e p a r a t i o n or d i s s o l u t i o n of the marriage, [the w i f e ] s h a l l i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e r e f o r , r e c e i v e c e r t a i n p a y m e n t s as h e r e i n d e s c r i b e d . "E. " I t i s f u r t h e r agreed that nothing h e r e i n s h a l l be c o n s t r u e d t o be a b a r t o e i t h e r p a r t y g i v i n g any p r o p e r t y o f w h i c h he o r she may be p o s s e s s e d t o t h e o t h e r p a r t y by w i l l o r o t h e r w i s e . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t each p a r t y t o t h i s c o n t r a c t s h a l l c o n t r o l h i s o r h e r own p e r s o n a l e s t a t e , as d e s c r i b e d h e r e i n , and do w i t h t h e p r o p e r t i e s w h a t s o e v e r he o r she w i s h e s and w i l l s , by h i s o r h e r o r d e r s o r d i r e c t i o n s , o r by a t e s t a m e n t , t h e same as e i t h e r c o u l d o r w o u l d do i f no m a r r i a g e r e l a t i o n s e x i s t e d b e t w e e n them. "F. " I f the p a r t i e s separate or the marriage i s dissolved, each party waives, releases, and r e l i n q u i s h e s t h e o t h e r f r o m any d u t y o r o b l i g a t i o n t o s u p p o r t t h e o t h e r i n any f a s h i o n o r manner whatsoever, including temporary and permanent s e p a r a t e maintenance, temporary a l i m o n y , permanent lump-sum, p e r i o d i c , o r r e h a b i l i t a t i v e a l i m o n y , o r any o t h e r f o r m o f a l i m o n y o r s u p p o r t , w h i c h d u t y o r obligation may otherwise arise but for this a g r e e m e n t , and no c l a i m o r demand f o r s u c h s u p p o r t shall be made at any time or under any c i r c u m s t a n c e s . The p a r t i e s s p e c i f i c a l l y e x p r e s s and acknowledge t h e i r u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t each p a r t y ' s own s e p a r a t e p r o p e r t y and t h e p r o v i s i o n s r e l a t i v e t o e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n , as h e r e i n a f t e r s e t f o r t h , are s u f f i c i e n t l y adequate t o enable each p a r t y t o p r o v i d e f o r h i s o r h e r own s u p p o r t i n t h e e v e n t o f 7 2111123 a separation or d i s s o l u t i o n of marriage. Nothing c o n t a i n e d h e r e i n s h a l l be c o n s t r u e d t o s u g g e s t t h a t e i t h e r p a r t y expects, i n the event of the p a r t [ i e s ' ] separation or d i s s o l u t i o n of marriage, t o continue or a n t i c i p a t e s a s t a n d a r d o f l i v i n g o r l i f e s t y l e commensurate w i t h t h a t w h i c h was e n j o y e d p r i o r t o o r during the p a r t i e s ' marriage. " "H. "In the event of a d i s s o l u t i o n of marriage, r e g a r d l e s s of which p a r t y i s a t f a u l t o r i n i t i a t e s the d i s s o l u t i o n a c t i o n , [the w i f e ] s h a l l r e c e i v e t h e sum o f $10,000 f o r e a c h y e a r o r p o r t i o n o f a y e a r o f the marriage. Payment o f t h e lump sum s h a l l be i n cash p a y a b l e as f o l l o w s : 1) $5,000 p a y a b l e w i t h i n 60 d a y s o f t h e d a t e t h a t e i t h e r p a r t y f i l e s f o r d i s s o l u t i o n ; a n d 2) t h e b a l a n c e w i t h i n 30 d a y s o f the e n t r y o f a f i n a l judgment o f d i v o r c e . I t i s the i n t e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s t h a t t h e payments s e t f o r t h herein shall f u l l y satisfy a l l alimonial obligations of [the husband], said obligations to include temporary and permanent separate maintenance, t e m p o r a r y a l i m o n y , p e r m a n e n t lump-sum, p e r i o d i c o r r e h a b i l i t a t i v e a l i m o n y , o r any o t h e r form o f a l i m o n y or s u p p o r t . " The p a r t i e s p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e f o l l o w i n g a s s e t s had been a c q u i r e d d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e : Asset Value Husband's Rx E x p r e s s o f N a v a r r e , I n c . $1,000,000.00 25.5%= $255,000.00 1,000,000.00 17% = 170,000.00 Holmac P r o p e r t i e s , I n c . 150,000.00 50% = 75,000.00 H o l s t o n T i m b e r , LLC [ v a l u e d e r i v e d from t h e purchase price of s i x parcels of Mississippi p r o p e r t y owned b y t h e L L C ] 846,458.72 Rx E x p r e s s o f B a y o u L a B a t r e , I n c . Rental property, Pascagoula 100% 40,000.00 8 846,458.72 100% = Subtotal A Interest 40,000.00 $1,386,458.72 2111123 Muir Woods r e s i d e n c e M e r c h a n t s & M a r i n e Bank Charter Bank 191,000.00 (equity) stock 31,320.00 stock 250,000.00 70,000.00 E-Trade Account Subtotal B $542,320.00 On A u g u s t 19, 2 0 1 0 , t h e t r i a l court purported to enter a judgment t h a t , among o t h e r t h i n g s , ( a ) a w a r d e d e a c h p a r t y t h e p r o p e r t y t h a t he o r s h e h a d owned b e f o r e the marriage i n h e r i t e d , ( b ) awarded t h e husband t h e f o u r b u s i n e s s that he h a d a c q u i r e d awarded the wife o r formed $95,500 during o r had entities the marriage; f o r her interest (c) i n the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e a n d $520,000 a s a " p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t " ; ( d ) a w a r d e d e a c h p a r t y h a l f t h e s t o c k i n M e r c h a n t s & M a r i n e Bank, Bank, and t h e E-Trade automobiles; trucks, awarded and awarded t h e husband t h r e e two vehicles. account; tractors, The t r i a l a court bulldozer, ordered and Charter the wife automobiles, three two two all-terrain the parties t o make two l i s t s o f t h e f u r n i t u r e and h o u s e h o l d f u r n i s h i n g s t h a t had been acquired during the marriage, instructing t h e husband t o c h o o s e w h i c h l i s t r e p r e s e n t e d t h e i t e m s he w a n t e d t h e c o u r t t o a w a r d him, l e a v i n g t h e i t e m s i d e n t i f i e d on t h e s e c o n d l i s t f o r the w i f e . The h u s b a n d a p p e a l e d , 9 and t h i s c o u r t d i s m i s s e d t h e 2111123 appeal taken 71, on M a r c h 6, 2012, on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e a p p e a l h a d been from a n o n f i n a l order, 72 ( A l a . C i v . App. citing 2009) . 2100359, M a r c h 6, 2 0 1 2 ) , Sims v. S i m s , 38 So. Holston Holston (No. ( A l a . C i v . App. So. 3d v. 3d 2012) (table). On May 3, 2012, t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a f i n a l judgment, a w a r d i n g t h e f u r n i t u r e a n d h o u s e h o l d f u r n i s h i n g s and l e a v i n g intact a l l other Following p r o v i s i o n s o f i t s A u g u s t 19, 2010, t h e d e n i a l o f h i s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on 2012, t h e h u s b a n d f i l e d a t i m e l y n o t i c e of appeal order. July 6, on A u g u s t 17, 2012. It i s undisputed court's August $95,500, 19, t h a t , f o l l o w i n g the entry of the 2010, representing order, half the husband the equity paid in the the trial wife marital r e s i d e n c e ; $95,000, r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e payments owed t o t h e w i f e pursuant to section H of the antenuptial agreement; $35,000, r e p r e s e n t i n g h a l f t h e E - T r a d e a c c o u n t . The raises trial a single issue on appeal: whether the and husband court v i o l a t e d t h e a n t e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t and e r r e d i n a w a r d i n g t h e wife a property settlement of $520,000. 10 2111123 Standard o f Review Because t h e p a r t i e s ' a n t e n u p t i a l agreement s t a t e s t h a t i t i s governed by t h e law o f M i s s i s s i p p i , our r e v i e w o f t h e t r i a l court's judgment Mississippi, review n o t Alabama. are procedural controls." App. i s governed by the "However, i n nature B a t e s v. B a t e s , substantive standards law of of appellate and t h e law o f t h e forum 103 So. 3d 836, 841 (Ala. Civ. 2012). Under M i s s i s s i p p i l a w , " ' [ a ] n a n t e n u p t i a l c o n t r a c t enforceable as any o t h e r contract. rules of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n apply.'" 147, 150 ( M i s s . C t . App. 2003) 830 So. 2d 1188, 1204 ( M i s s . Accordingly, i s as t h e same D o s t e r v. D o s t e r , 853 So. 2d ( q u o t i n g McCord v. S p r a d l i n g , 2002) (citations omitted)). "The f i r s t r u l e o f c o n t r a c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s t o g i v e e f f e c t t o t h e i n t e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s . Sumter Lumber Co. v. S k i p p e r , 183 M i s s . 595, 608, 184 So. 296, 298 ( 1 9 3 8 ) . More c o r r e c t l y s t a t e d , o u r c o n c e r n i s n o t n e a r l y so much what t h e p a r t i e s may have i n t e n d e d as i t i s w i t h what t h e y s a i d , f o r t h e words employed a r e by f a r the best resource for ascertaining i n t e n t and a s s i g n i n g meaning with f a i r n e s s and a c c u r a c y . I d . " Estate o f H e n s l e y v. E s t a t e (Miss. of Hensley, 524 So. 2d 325, 327 1988). The p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t h a t t h e a n t e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t was v a l i d and e n f o r c e a b l e . The s o l e i s s u e on a p p e a l , 11 therefore, 2111123 is whether agreement. the trial antenuptial correctly interpretation "'The court of agreement, like the a interpreted provision interpretation in of the an any p r o v i s i o n i n any c o n t r a c t , i s a q u e s t i o n o f l a w f o r t h e t r i a l court.'" 2011) Hood v. Hood, 72 So. 3d 666, 676 ( A l a . C i v . App. ( q u o t i n g Peden v. Peden, 972 So. 2d 106, 110 (Ala. Civ. App. 2 0 0 7 ) , c i t i n g i n t u r n L a n e y v. L a n e y , 833 So. 2d 644, 646 (Ala. C i v . App. 2002)). "'To d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e a n t e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t i s a m b i g u o u s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t was required to review the agreement to determine i f "'the i n t e n t of the p a r t i e s c [ o u l d ] be f a i r l y and r e a s o n a b l y g l e a n e d f r o m t h e f o u r c o r n e r s o f t h e document.'" S t a c e y v. S a u n d e r s , 437 So. 2d 1230, 1234 (Ala. 1983) ( q u o t i n g S c h m i d t v. L a d n e r C o n s t r . Co., 370 So. 2d 970, 972 ( A l a . 1979)) II I I "Peden v. Peden, 972 So. 2d 106, 110 2007) . ( A l a . C i v . App. "'An a g r e e m e n t t h a t by i t s t e r m s i s p l a i n and f r e e f r o m a m b i g u i t y must be e n f o r c e d as w r i t t e n . J o n e s v. J o n e s , 722 So. 2d 768 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998) . An a m b i g u i t y e x i s t s i f t h e a g r e e m e n t i s s u s c e p t i b l e t o more t h a n one m e a n i n g . V a i n r i b v. Downey, 565 So. 2d 647 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 0 ) . However, if o n l y one r e a s o n a b l e m e a n i n g clearly emerges, t h e n t h e a g r e e m e n t i s u n a m b i g u o u s . Id. Finally, i f a provision of an a g r e e m e n t i s c e r t a i n and c l e a r , i t i s t h e 12 2111123 duty of the t r i a l c o u r t to determine i t s m e a n i n g , and t h e c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s a f f o r d e d a heavy p r e s u m p t i o n of c o r r e c t n e s s and w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d u n l e s s i t i s c l e a r l y erroneous. Id.' "R.G. v. 2000) . G.G., 771 So. 2d 490, 494 (Ala. Civ. App. " F u r t h e r m o r e , 'Alabama a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s have s t a t e d t h a t a c o u r t w i l l not l o o k beyond the f o u r corners of a written instrument unless the i n s t r u m e n t c o n t a i n s l a t e n t a m b i g u i t i e s . ' Judge v. J u d g e , 14 So. 3d 162, 165 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . " Hood v. Hood, interpreted 72 So. without document, t h e t r i a l is a c c o r d e d no review i s de Conservation (citing Co., 875 at going 676-77. beyond "If a the contract corners four can be of the c o u r t ' s r e s o l u t i o n of the q u e s t i o n of presumption of novo." correctness, Exxon M o b i l & N a t u r a l Res., Waddell So. 3d & Reed, 2d 1143, 986 Inc. 1152 C o r p . v. So. v. 2d 1093, United (Ala. and this law Court's A l a b a m a Dep't 1101 of ( A l a . 2007) Investors Life Ins. 2003)). Discussion The husband contends property-settlement express terms of t h a t , because the that the trial court's $520,000 award t o the w i f e i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the antenuptial w i f e was agreement. awarded h a l f a s s e t s a c q u i r e d d u r i n g the marriage 13 He maintains of a l l j o i n t l y i . e . , h a l f of the held Subtotal 2111123 B i n t h e c h a r t , s u p r a , o r $217,160 other assets not belong settlement settlement to during t h e m a r r i a g e t h a t do s o l e l y t o t h e w i f e o r s o l e l y t o him from which t h e property The t h a t were a c q u i r e d a n d b e c a u s e t h e r e a r e no could have been derived, the property must have b e e n d e r i v e d f r o m h i s s e p a r a t e wife maintains address t h a t t h e a n t e n u p t i a l agreement the d i v i s i o n earned funds" of property during the marriage. the p a r t i e s f i l e d joint during the marriage, deemed "jointly estate. acquired with "jointly She a r g u e s t h a t , b e c a u s e f e d e r a l and s t a t e income-tax a l l t h e income earned." fails Although they reported the appellate returns must be courts of M i s s i s s i p p i a n d A l a b a m a do n o t a p p e a r t o have a d d r e s s e d that i s s u e , t h e Court o f Appeals o f Tennessee r e c e n t l y s u r v e y e d t h e a p p l i c a b l e law and d e t e r m i n e d t h a t " t h e f i l i n g o f a j o i n t t a x return separate does not, ipso property facto, into marital." result i n transmutation E s t a t e o f Hunt v . Hunt, 389 S.W.3d 755, 762 (Tenn. C t . App. 2 0 1 2 ) . The T e n n e s s e e explained: " [ T ] h e I n t e r n a l Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 6013 (2003) ... p r o v i d e s , i n r e l e v a n t p a r t , as f o l l o w s : "'(a) J o i n t r e t u r n s . A husband and w i f e may make a s i n g l e r e t u r n j o i n t l y o f income t a x e s u n d e r s u b t i t l e A, e v e n t h o u g h one o f 14 of court 2111123 t h e s p o u s e s has n e i t h e r g r o s s income n o r d e d u c t i o n s , e x c e p t as p r o v i d e d b e l o w : ... ' " I n J.R. Kemper, A n n o t a t i o n , R i g h t o f S u r v i v i n g Spouse t o Tax R e f u n d R e s u l t i n g f r o m J o i n t Income Tax Return, 67 A.L.R.3d 1038 (1975), Mr. Kemper d i s c u s s e s t h e p u r p o s e o f 26 U.S.C.A. § 6013 as follows: "'As has been n o t e d by t h e c o u r t s i n s e v e r a l c a s e s , § 6013(a) o f t h e I n t e r n a l Revenue Code o f 1954, w h i c h a u t h o r i z e s a h u s b a n d and w i f e t o f i l e a j o i n t f e d e r a l income t a x r e t u r n e v e n t h o u g h one o f them had no income o f h i s o r h e r own, was enacted in order to put taxpayers t h r o u g h o u t t h e c o u n t r y on an e q u a l b a s i s b y p e r m i t t i n g c o u p l e s i n common law s t a t e s t o s p l i t income b e t w e e n t h e m s e l v e s and t h u s t o d i m i n i s h t h e i r t a x l i a b i l i t y i n t h e same manner as c o u p l e s were a b l e t o do i n community p r o p e r t y s t a t e s wherein each s p o u s e was deemed e n t i t l e d t o o n e h a l f o f all income i r r e s p e c t i v e o f t h e amount e a r n e d by o r a c c r u i n g t o e a c h . [ M c C l u r e v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 228 F.2d 322 (4th C i r . 1 9 5 5 ) ; B e r t u c c i v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 146 F. Supp. 949 ( 1 9 5 7 ) ] . "'On t h e o t h e r h a n d , i t has a l s o been g e n e r a l l y recognized t h a t Congress d i d not i n t e n d § 6013(a) t o a f f e c t o r change t h e ownership of property rights between t a x p a y e r s , and t h a t as a c o n s e q u e n c e t h e f i l i n g o f a j o i n t f e d e r a l income t a x r e t u r n does n o t a u t o m a t i c a l l y c o n v e r t t h e i n t e r e s t o f one s p o u s e i n any r e f u n d due t h e r e u n d e r i n t o a j o i n t i n t e r e s t t h e r e i n with h i s or h e r m a r i t a l p a r t n e r . [ I n r e W e t t e r o f f , 453 F.2d 544 ( 8 t h C i r . 1 9 7 2 ) , perm. app. d e n i e d 409 U.S. 934, 93 S. C t . 242, 34 L. Ed. 2d 188 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , r e h . den. 409 U.S. 1050, 93 S. C t . 532, 34 L. Ed. 2d 503 (1972) ( c i t i n g I n 15 2111123 r e I l l i n g w o r t h , 51 Am. Fed. Tax R. 1512, 56-2 USTC 5 10004 (D.C. Or. 1956)) ("The Government i n m a k i n g a t a x r e f u n d makes no a t t e m p t t o d e t e r m i n e what p a r t o f s u c h r e f u n d s h o u l d belong t o the r e c i p i e n t s t o d e c i d e how s u c h r e f u n d s h a l l be d i v i d e d o r used.")].' "The m a j o r i t y o f c a s e l a w f r o m o u r s i s t e r s t a t e s h o l d s t h a t t h e f i l i n g o f a j o i n t t a x r e t u r n does not, i p s o f a c t o , r e s u l t i n t r a n s m u t a t i o n of separate property into m a r i t a l . " Estate of Hunt v. of reasoning Hunt, Tennessee the 389 S.W.3d a t 761-62. We Court Appeals conclude t h a t the p a r t i e s ' f i l i n g during the property The the marriage d i d not of in the Hunt and of j o i n t income-tax r e t u r n s convert the husband's separate into marital property. wife next contends t h a t a n t e n u p t i a l agreement are s e c t i o n 4 and ambiguous court i m p l i c i t l y determined t h a t those to adopt property owned at the later-acquired property. time The of the and section B that the of trial sections p e r t a i n only marriage and not w i f e d i d not argue i n the to trial c o u r t t h a t any p o r t i o n o f t h e a g r e e m e n t was a m b i g u o u s , and p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f s e c t i o n 4 and s e c t i o n B, as w e l l as s e c t i o n A, Section 4 states: d e m o n s t r a t e s no ambiguity. "The p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a t e x c e p t as may be o t h e r w i s e e x p r e s s l y s e t f o r t h i n t h i s agreement, a l l p r o p e r t y , r e a l and p e r s o n a l , owned by e i t h e r o f them at the time of t h e i r contemplated marriage, from 16 the 2111123 whatever source, shall remain the respective p r o p e r t y o f t h e p e r s o n i n whose name i t s t a n d s , a n d n e i t h e r s h a l l a c q u i r e any i n t e r e s t i n o r r i g h t t o any o f t h e p r o p e r t y o f t h e o t h e r . " (Emphasis added.) More s p e c i f i c a l l y , section A states: " I f t h e p a r t i e s s h a l l be m a r r i e d , t h e r i g h t w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e p r o p e r t y owned b y e i t h e r o f them a t the time o f the contemplated marriage o r a c q u i r e d d u r i n g t h e i r m a r r i a g e s h a l l be s u b j e c t t o t h e t e r m s of t h i s agreement " (Emphasis added.) Likewise, section B states: " [ A ] l l p r o p e r t i e s o f a n y name o r n a t u r e , r e a l , p e r s o n a l , o r m i x e d , w h e r e v e r t h e y may be f o u n d , b e l o n g i n g t o [ t h e husband] b e f o r e m a r r i a g e , o r t h o s e w h i c h may be a c q u i r e d o r a c c u m u l a t e d a f t e r s u c h m a r r i a g e , by purchase, t r a d e , g i f t , o r o t h e r w i s e , s h a l l be a n d r e m a i n f o r e v e r h i s p e r s o n a l e s t a t e , a n d this shall include a l l interests, rents, dividends, p r o f i t s , a n d o t h e r a p p r e c i a t e d v a l u e w h i c h may i n t i m e a c c r u e , o r r e s u l t i n a n y manner f r o m i n c r e a s e i n v a l u e , o r be c o l l e c t e d f o r t h e u s e o f t h e p r o p e r t i e s i n a n y way." The i n t e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s can r e a s o n a b l y be g l e a n e d r e a d i n g o f s e c t i o n s 4, A, a n d B o f t h e a g r e e m e n t . and s e c t i o n B, when susceptible clear read t o more t h a n and unambiguous together with Section 4 s e c t i o n A, a r e n o t one m e a n i n g b u t , r a t h e r , s t a t e i n language that property "belonging t o " e i t h e r p a r t y before the marriage "owned property of that party. 17 by" o r or acquired or accumulated by e i t h e r p a r t y d u r i n g t h e marriage separate from a remains t h e 2111123 The So. w i f e n e x t a r g u e s , c i t i n g D r u m r i g h t v. D r u m r i g h t , 812 2d 1021 ( M i s s . 2001), t h a t p r o p e r t y acquired during the m a r r i a g e a n d u s e d f o r t h e common b e n e f i t o f t h e p a r t i e s became "marital property" subject to equitable d i v i s i o n . that t h e Supreme C o u r t i n Drumright "[M]arital property during into the course the marriage of the marriage. Also, b y one p a r t n e r and used 812 So. 2d a t 1025 ( c i t a t i o n s it use during brought by t h e f a m i l y as a separate omitted). " [ t ] h e mere f a c t t h a t an a s s e t i s t h e m a r r i a g e does n o t i m m u t a b l y c h a r a c t e r i z e as m a r i t a l . ... [ I ] f t h e a c q u i s i t i o n i s made t h r o u g h t h e of non-marital property." App. stated: property losing i t s identity Under M i s s i s s i p p i l a w , acquired of M i s s i s s i p p i c a n be d e f i n e d a s t h a t w h i c h was a c q u i r e d becomes a m a r i t a l a s s e t , estate." I t i s true Hankins v. Hankins 2004) . inapplicable antenuptial intent. a s s e t s , t h a t a c q u i s i t i o n remains Moreover, here the law s t a t e d because agreement "[N]on-marital 866 So. 2d 508, that Drumright expressed separate 512 ( M i s s . C t . i n Drumright i s d i d not involve the p a r t i e s ' a s s e t s may be c o n v e r t e d an contrary into marital a s s e t s i f they a r e commingled w i t h m a r i t a l a s s e t s o r used f o r f a m i l i a l p u r p o s e s , a b s e n t an a g r e e m e n t t o t h e c o n t r a r y . " L, I n c . v. Grantham, 747 So. (emphasis added). 18 2d 832, 838 (Miss. A & 1999) 2111123 In Mabus v. 2003), the c o n s i d e r e d whether the w i f e was e n t i t l e d t o a s h a r e o f t h e p r o p e r t y s e p a r a t e l y a c q u i r e d by the Supreme C o u r t Mabus, 890 of M i s s i s s i p p i husband d u r i n g the So. marriage. 2d The 806 (Miss. a n t e n u p t i a l agreement in Mabus p r o v i d e d : " ' T h i s a g r e e m e n t i s i n t e n d e d t o c o v e r and a p p l y t o a l l p r o p e r t y now owned by e a c h p a r t y and t o a l l p r o p e r t y w h i c h e a c h may a c q u i r e i n h i s o r h e r s o l e and s e p a r a t e r i g h t , and t o any p r o p e r t y a c q u i r e d by an e x c h a n g e , l e a s e , m o r t g a g e o r o t h e r w i s e , t o any property vesting by purchase, reinvestment, s u b s t i t u t i o n , i n c r e a s e , descent, g i f t , bequest, or d e v i s e , and t o p r o c e e d s d e r i v e d f r o m any s a l e . The a g r e e m e n t does n o t a p p l y t o p r o p e r t y as t o w h i c h t i t l e i s t a k e n a f t e r t h e i r m a r r i a g e i n t h e names o f b o t h p a r t i e s as j o i n t t e n a n t s o r t e n a n t s by t h e entirety.'" 890 So. 2d at 823 (emphasis added). The Supreme C o u r t of M i s s i s s i p p i , n o t i n g the t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t the p a r t i e s in Mabus had their premarital inheritances upheld "'meticulously maintained that they the t r i a l entitled to separate property Ga. 43, 43, 622 of p r o p e r t y accounts the the gifts t h a t the t h a t t h e w i f e was separately acquired 19 v. by Accord Mallen 814 (2005) (affirming a h u s b a n d "was for and marriage,'" Id. S.E.2d 812, court's determination for each r e c e i v e d d u r i n g husband d u r i n g the marriage. 280 and court's determination a share separate entitled not the Mallen, trial to a l l 2111123 t h e a s s e t s w i t h w h i c h he e n t e r e d accumulated during the marriage the marriage" pursuant and a l l a s s e t s to a prenuptial agreement p r o v i d i n g t h a t , " i n t h e event o f a d i v o r c e , would r e c e i v e a b a s i c alimony number of years amount t o be a d j u s t e d of marriage, and assets would [w]ife f o r the belong to whomever owned t h e p r o p e r t y o r i g i n a l l y o r r e c e i v e d i t d u r i n g the m a r r i a g e " ) ; B e n n e t t v. B e n n e t t , N.Y.S.2d 179, 180 (2013) defining "marital property" 103 A.D.3d 825, 825, 960 (upholding as a p r e n u p t i a l agreement " ' ( a ) any p r o p e r t y j o i n t l y owned b y t h e p a r t i e s , a n d (b) a l l h o u s e h o l d and that i s furniture f u r n i s h i n g s owned b y e i t h e r p a r t y , w h e t h e r h e r e t o f o r e o r h e r e a f t e r a c q u i r e d and r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e form i n w h i c h is held,'" property,' and d e f i n i n g a l l o t h e r "'separate party u s i n g t h e i r own s e p a r a t e p r o p e r t y , as w e l l as t h e a p p r e c i a t i o n o f s u c h p r o p e r t y during the marriage"). a l s o L o n g v . L o n g , 928 So. 2d 1001, 1002 2006) as i n c l u d i n g r e a l p r o p e r t y p u r c h a s e d by e i t h e r during the marriage See property title (reversing a t r i a l court's order that ( M i s s . C t . App. awarded w i f e a p o r t i o n o f t h e i n c r e a s e i n t h e v a l u e o f h u s b a n d ' s b u s i n e s s and home a n d h o l d i n g t h a t t r i a l c o u r t had e r r o n e o u s l y f a i l e d to e n f o r c e a n t e n u p t i a l agreement whereby " ' [ e ] a c h o f t h e p a r t i e s e x p r e s s l y w a i v e [ d ] any a n d a l l r i g h t s o r i n t e r e s t w h i c h h e / s h e 20 2111123 may h e r e a f t e r be e n t i t l e d , property, real or as w i f e o r h u s b a n d , personal, which the i n and t o any parties now own which the separately'"). In the present case, the properties v a l u a t i o n s i n S u b t o t a l A of the c h a r t , Rx Express Inc.; of Navarre, I n c . ; Rx Holmac P r o p e r t i e s , funds supra, are d e r i v e d Express o f Bayou La I n c . ; H o l s t o n Timber, r e n t a l property i n Pascagoula from from in his individual LLC; were a c q u i r e d by t h e Batre, and the husband o r b u s i n e s s a c c o u n t s and kept separate from the funds i n the j o i n t account t o which the w i f e had access during agreement provides the marriage. no method The by s e p a r a t e l y a c q u i r e d by t h e h u s b a n d parties' which those antenuptial properties during the marriage could become m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y . Finally, the w i f e argues that, a l t h o u g h she agreed to w a i v e h e r r i g h t t o any f o r m o f a l i m o n y , p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n s F and H o f t h e a n t e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t , her r i g h t during t o an e q u i t a b l e the marriage, division and, she she d i d n o t relinquish of the p r o p e r t y a c q u i r e d insists, agreement d i d not p r o h i b i t the t r i a l the antenuptial c o u r t from awarding her a " p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t . " I n c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e payments s e t out i n s e c t i o n H $10,000 f o r e a c h y e a r o r p o r t i o n o f a y e a r 21 2111123 of the m a r r i a g e the husband the w i f e a g r e e d , i n s e c t i o n F, to release from "any d u t y o r o b l i g a t i o n t o s u p p o r t [her] i n any f a s h i o n o r manner w h a t s o e v e r , i n c l u d i n g t e m p o r a r y and permanent separate maintenance, temporary alimony, permanent lump-sum, periodic, or r e h a b i l i t a t i v e a l i m o n y , o r any o t h e r f o r m o f a l i m o n y o r s u p p o r t , w h i c h d u t y o r o b l i g a t i o n may otherwise a r i s e but f o r t h i s agreement." (Emphasis added.) I f our p r e v i o u s made i t c l e a r t h a t the wife h e l d , or " m a r i t a l , " p r o p e r t y agreement bars property, alimony" any was division removes any the of doubt t h a t a l l jointly the husband's 2) reimbursement." 2002). section F also $520,000 " p r o p e r t y periodic, lump settlement" separate sum, 3) first, Smith comparable third, to, to the wife. rehabilitative, 834 So. M i s s i s s i p p i p r i n c i p l e s of the specifically f o u r d i f f e r e n t types of S m i t h v. L i t t l e , alimony of are awarded h a l f of and i f not law f o u r t h types 4) (Miss. Ct. pertaining 2d 54, precisely Guy, 736 So. 2d 1042, 1046 22 (Miss. alimony: and to identified in 57 congruent t h o s e o f A l a b a m a law p e r t a i n i n g t o p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y . v. already and t h a t t h e p a r t i e s ' a n t e n u p t i a l " M i s s i s s i p p i recognizes App. not an a n a l y s i s o f M i s s i s s i p p i law r e l a t i n g t o "lump-sum precludes 1) d i s c u s s i o n has 1999); with, See Hubbard Guy v. 2111123 Hubbard, 394 656 So. 2d 124, 130 So. 2d 1341, The second 1344 (Miss. type additional discussion identical to of Wray v. Wray, 1981). alimony because, alimony practitioners, ( M i s s . 1 9 9 5 ) ; and in sum although i t i s gross and M i s s i s s i p p i lump as merits functionally known to c a s e s use t h e terms Alabama "lump alimony" and "alimony i n g r o s s " i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y , see, McDonald v. McDonald, H u b b a r d v. H u b b a r d , 2d 793, 794 92 683 So. 2d 929, 933 sum e.g., (Miss. 1996); 656 So. 2d a t 130; Bowe v. Bowe, 557 So. ( M i s s . 1 9 9 0 ) ; H o l l e m a n v. H o l l e m a n , 527 So. 2d 90, ( M i s s . 1 9 8 8 ) , a b r o g a t e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , S m i t h v. Smith, 607 So. 2d 122 ( M i s s . 1 9 9 2 ) ; Wray v. Wray, 394 So. 2d a t ( q u o t i n g 24 Am. J u r . 2d D i v o r c e and S e p a r a t i o n § 614 a t 735-36 ( 1 9 6 6 ) ) ; and M i l l e r v. M i l l e r , 874 So. 2d 469, 474 App. 2004), lump-sum alimony has a special 1345 (Miss. Ct. history in So. 909 Mississippi. Until 1994, when Hemsley v. H e m s l e y, 639 2d ( M i s s . 1 9 9 4 ) , was d e c i d e d , M i s s i s s i p p i " a d h e r e d t o a s y s t e m o f returning property to the spouse (separate p r o p e r t y method)." 921, 925 (Miss. only state 1994). i n the Union i n whom title was held F e r g u s o n v. F e r g u s o n , 639 So. 2d B e f o r e 1994, that 23 "Mississippi [was] c o n t i n u e [ d ] t o adhere to the the 2111123 title theory i n property d i s t r i b u t i o n Fam. L.Q. 367, 393-394 P.2d 1049, 1053 n. 4 ( A l a s k a 1 9 8 9 ) . " the Hemsley, t h e Supreme C o u r t o f M i s s i s s i p p i equitable distribution, titled stating contribution i n t h e name interest D r a p e r v. D r a p e r , 627 1993). " s e p a r a t e p r o p e r t y " method a material c a s e . 22 ( 1 9 8 9 ) . See a l s o C r a f t s v . Morgan, 776 So. 2d 302, 305 n.2 ( M i s s . In i n a divorce and adopted abandoned t h e method o f t h a t " [ a ] s p o u s e who h a s made toward the acquisition of the other may claim o f an a s s e t an equitable i n s u c h j o i n t l y a c c u m u l a t e d p r o p e r t y . " H e m s l e y , 639 So. 2d a t 913. In Ferguson, observed that supra, t h e Supreme Court of t h e "separate p r o p e r t y system resulted i n unjust distributions, especially Mississippi [had] a t t i m e s involving cases o f a t r a d i t i o n a l f a m i l y where most p r o p e r t y was t i t l e d i n t h e husband, nothing leaving but a unenforceable." court a traditional claim housewife f o r alimony, Ferguson, and mother which 639 So. 2d a t 926. often with proved B u t , as t h e explained, " t o some e x t e n t , c a s e l a w h a [ d ] h e l p e d l e s s e n t h e unfairness to a traditional housewife i n the d i v i s i o n of marital property 24 2111123 "... [ T ] h i s C o u r t has a l l o w e d lump sum alimony as an a d j u s t m e n t t o p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n t o p r e v e n t unfair division. The lump sum a w a r d has been d e s c r i b e d as a method o f d i v i d i n g p r o p e r t y u n d e r t h e g u i s e of alimony." Id. ( e m p h a s i s added; c i t a t i o n s omitted). A p r e - H e m s l e y d e c i s i o n e x p l a i n e d t h e r a t i o n a l e f o r lumpsum alimony as separate-property a way to ameliorate the harshness of rule. " W h i l e lump sum a l i m o n y i s i n a s e n s e an a w a r d t o a w i f e of a p o r t i o n of her husband's e s t a t e , t h i s C o u r t has c o n s i s t e n t l y made t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n d i v e s t i n g a h u s b a n d o f h i s p r o p e r t y and v e s t i n g i t i n t h e w i f e , and lump sum a l i m o n y . We have a l w a y s held that i n the absence of a resulting or constructive trust the wife's services as a h o u s e w i f e o r a f a r m w i f e w i t h o u t more d i d not a u t h o r i z e a c o u r t i n a d i v o r c e a c t i o n t o g i v e h e r an e q u i t a b l e i n t e r e s t i n h i s p r o p e r t y . The a u t h o r i t y o f c o u r t s i n a d i v o r c e to t r a n s f e r p r o p e r t y of e i t h e r s p o u s e t o t h e o t h e r i s p u r e l y s t a t u t o r y , and i n t h e a b s e n c e o f s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y a c o u r t has no power t o d e a l w i t h v e s t e d p r o p e r t y r i g h t s . ... "On the other hand, we have long since recognized the d i s c r e t i o n a r y a u t h o r i t y of the c h a n c e r y c o u r t t o a w a r d lump sum alimony. It [lump sum] is a settlement b e t w e e n t h e h u s b a n d and t h e w i f e as t o t h e i n t e r e s t o f t h e l a t t e r i n h i s p r o p e r t y , and as t o t h e e x t e n t o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s d u t y t o c o n t r i b u t e t o h e r m a i n t e n a n c e and s u p p o r t . " [Guess v. S m i t h , 100 M i s s . 457, 56 So. 2d 166, 167 (1911) .] "'The s o l u t i o n of the q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r o r n o t an a l l o w a n c e o f a g r o s s 25 of sum the 2111123 s h o u l d be made must be d e t e r m i n e d by t h e f a c t s o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r c a s e , h a v i n g due regard t o the best i n t e r e s t of the p a r t i e s and t h e h u s b a n d ' s f i n a n c i a l a b i l i t y t o r e s p o n d t o an a w a r d i n g r o s s . Where t h e husband's e s t a t e i s s u f f i c i e n t t o enable him t o r e s p o n d t o an award i n g r o s s , i t w i l l o f t e n be c o n d u c i v e t o t h e w e l f a r e and happiness of both p a r t i e s t o end the r e l a t i o n o f d e b t o r and c r e d i t o r b e t w e e n them by m a k i n g s u c h an award, and t h e r e b y r e l i e v e t h e w i f e o f f u r t h e r d e p e n d e n c e upon t h e c o n t i n u e d s o l v e n c y o f t h e h u s b a n d and h i s f i n a n c i a l a b i l i t y t o pay a p e r i o d i c a l s t i p e n d and h i s c o n t i n u e d r e s p o n s e t o s u c h forced contributions without future l e g a l s t e p s t o e n f o r c e them.' " M i l l e r v. M i l l e r , 119-20 (1935)." Retzer v. Retzer, 578 173 M i s s . So. 2d 44, 580, 64, 159 590-91 So. 112, (Miss. 1990) (emphasis added). As t h e f o r e g o i n g M i s s i s s i p p i a u t h o r i t i e s d e m o n s t r a t e , t h e w i f e , by r e l i n q u i s h i n g h e r r i g h t t o r e c e i v e "lump-sum in section relinquish F of the the r i g h t during the marriage. antenuptial to a d i v i s i o n agreement, alimony" did, in of the p r o p e r t y fact, acquired The Alabama t r i a l c o u r t h a d no a u t h o r i t y t o d i s r e g a r d t h e a n t e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t and t o a m e l i o r a t e , v i a the mechanism of a "property settlement," harshness r e s u l t i n g from the w i f e ' s waiver any perceived of "alimony i n any f o r m " b e c a u s e , u n d e r M i s s i s s i p p i l a w , lump-sum a l i m o n y i s the 26 2111123 functional court equivalent erred as of a property a matter "property which separate property law i n awarding the wife any less a property settlement of to 37.5 percent the amounts acquired during v. R i c h a r d s o n , App. (holding t h a t the t r i a l error by substituting trial of Richardson 2005) The much settlement," $520,000, settlement. 912 So. i t s judgment of the husband's marriage. 2d 1079, 1082 (Miss. Ct. court "committed for that See manifest of a v a l i d and e n f o r c e a b l e c o n t r a c t u a l a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s " when i t awarded w i f e n e a r l y h a l f t h e v a l u e o f s p e c i f i c a s s e t s a c q u i r e d during the marriage calling f o r husband i n disregard of to take and w i f e 2/3, antenuptial agreement to take 1/3, of p r o p e r t y a c q u i r e d during the marriage). Conclusion The h u s b a n d has a l r e a d y p a i d t h e w i f e $225,500: representing half the e q u i t y i n the m a r i t a l $95,500, residence; plus $95,000, r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e payments owed t o t h e w i f e pursuant to agreement; $35,000, section H of the antenuptial plus r e p r e s e n t i n g h a l f t h e v a l u e of t h e E-Trade a c c o u n t . Because t h e h u s b a n d does n o t c o n t e s t on a p p e a l t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s a w a r d to the wife receive, of h a l f t h e bank i n s t e a d o f $520,000, stocks, only 27 the wife $140,660 more: i s due to $15,660, 2111123 representing half stock; $125,000, plus the value C h a r t e r Bank s t o c k . is reversed, enter of the Merchants representing half the value The j u d g m e n t o f t h e M o b i l e and t h e c a u s e i s remanded w i t h a judgment & Marine that conforms Bank of the Circuit Court instructions to the p r i n c i p l e s to outlined herein. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , and Thomas, Moore, concur. 28 and Donaldson, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.