## Facts

- Phyllis Victoria Busby Fitzgerald and Michael Lane Fitzgerald divorced after a chancery court judgment addressing property division, debts, alimony, and tax-related matters.
- Before the marriage, Michael and his first wife owed substantial IRS back taxes (about $100,000).
- During the marriage, Phyllis and Michael borrowed $64,274 from a bank to pay that premarital IRS liability.
- In the divorce judgment, the chancellor classified the bank loan as a marital debt and allocated that debt to Phyllis as part of the overall distribution.
- Phyllis appealed, disputing (among other rulings) the classification and allocation of the bank loan, the alimony ruling, and orders concerning tax return execution and a dependency deduction.

## Issues

1. Whether a bank loan incurred during the marriage to pay the husband’s premarital IRS tax liability was properly classified as a marital debt for equitable distribution purposes.
2. Whether the chancellor abused discretion in the overall equitable distribution of marital assets and debts.
3. Whether the chancellor abused discretion regarding alimony.
4. Whether the chancellor erred by requiring execution of an income tax return and by allocating a dependency deduction.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Mississippi affirmed the divorce judgment.
- The court upheld the chancellor’s classification of the $64,274 bank loan as marital debt and the allocation of that debt within the equitable distribution.
- The court found no reversible error in the chancellor’s equitable distribution analysis, alimony ruling, or tax-related orders.

## Legal Principles

- In divorce proceedings, a chancellor has broad discretion to classify and allocate marital assets and debts; appellate review is limited to whether the chancellor committed manifest error or abused discretion.
- A debt incurred during the marriage may be treated as marital even if its proceeds are used to satisfy one spouse’s premarital obligation, where the obligation was jointly undertaken during the marriage and considered part of the marital financial circumstances.
- Equitable distribution need not be mathematically equal; it must be equitable in light of the evidence and relevant considerations.
- Alimony and tax-related directives in a divorce judgment are reviewed under the same deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and will be affirmed if supported by the record and consistent with applicable law.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the chancellor’s divorce judgment, holding that the jointly incurred loan used to pay the husband’s premarital IRS debt could be treated and allocated as marital debt and that the remaining property, alimony, and tax-related rulings were within the chancellor’s discretion.


Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 914 So. 2d 193 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005)