|
|
|
Dividing Personal Injury Proceeds Upon Divorce
© 2003 National Legal Research Group, Inc.
MISSISSIPPI: Langdon v. Langdon, 854 So. 2d 485 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003).
The trial court did not err in dividing a personal injury settlement. Where the settlement is an unallocated sum, the court must determine the extent to which the settlement was intended to address various types of damages. On the facts, the trial court properly found that the marital estate had suffered no injuries, so that the settlement was entirely separate property. A lot purchased on credit, using a separate property gift as security, was separate property, where no payments on the property were made with marital funds.
After the issuance of a divorce decree, the husband appealed inter alia on the ground that the chancery court had erred in its division of marital assets. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling.
The wife was injured in an automobile collision and filed a lawsuit against the other driver. The husband was not a party to the lawsuit and did not file a claim for loss of consortium. The suit was settled. The wife first received a payment of $25,000, which was applied in part to the attorney's fees, and also to pay her medical costs. She subsequently received a $200,000 payment, from which the attorney took the remainder of his fees, paid litigation costs, and retained $40,000 in case of any subrogation claim which might be filed later.
The chancellor determined that the settlement proceeds were the wife's nonmarital property, and the appellate court agreed. Looking to Mississippi cases, the court recognized that the chancellor must use an analytic approach to classify proceeds of a personal injury suit that focuses on the type of loss the settlement was intended to cover. That portion of the proceeds allocable to compensation to the injured spouse for pain, suffering, and disfigurement is that spouse's separate property and should be awarded in its entirety to the injured spouse. That portion allocable to lost wages, lost earning capacity, and medical and hospital expenses, to the extent those apply to the time period of the marriage, are marital assets and are to be divided according to equitable distribution principles. That portion allocable to loss of consortium is the separate property of the spouse who suffered that loss, and is to be awarded in its entirety to that spouse. But the court also acknowledged that the personal injury settlement may not provide much guidance to the chancellor and, therefore, the latter is to be charged with turning gross sums into clear, detailed portions by seeking such evidence and argument as is necessary to make the most informed assessment. The court of appeals determined that the chancellor had made the required analytic approach in awarding the entire settlement to the wife, there being substantial evidence to support it. There was ample testimony as to the wife's severe pain and suffering. While there was evidence of the wife's medical bills, the record also supported the presumption that such bills were covered by her medical insurer paid out of the initial $25,000 settlement. There was nothing to show that these bills were paid from marital funds. As the husband had refused to assert a loss of consortium claim, none of the recovery was compensation for such loss.
During the marriage, the wife purchased a vacant lot using a house deeded to her by her father as collateral. The wife later sold the lot and received net proceeds of approximately $10,000. She used about $5,200 to pay off another marital debt and expended the remainder for living expenses after the separation. The house was deeded back to the wife's father. The chancellor classified the net proceeds as her separate property and the court of appeals agreed. While the lot was presumed to be marital property as it was acquired during the marriage, it was recognized that if it was purchased with a spouse's separate funds, such as gifts or inheritances, it may be classified as separate. Here, the wife's father made a gift to her of a house for the sole purpose of facilitating her purchase of the lot. The use of the house was a gift that she used to procure a mortgage on the lot. There was no evidence that the wife made any down payment from marital funds and no evidence of commingling. Neither was there any showing that the husband expended efforts that resulted in the lot's appreciation in value. When considered with the fact that the proceeds had been depleted to pay a marital debt and for the support of the wife and children, the chancellor's ruling would not be reversed.
Go to: Personal Injury Awards Category
Go to: Cases of Interest by Category
Go to: Previous Page
| Featured Services | |
|
| The Research Center: (Divorce Cases of Interest) | Research Home | ||||
Find Case Law, Case Analysis, and Divorce Information...
| |||||
Copyright© 1996-2009. All rights reserved by Divorce Source, Inc.
Comments & Suggestions? or Recommend This Page to a Friend!