## Facts

- Melissa Weaver filed for divorce from Richard Weaver in August 2015 in the Rankin County Chancery Court, alleging habitual cruel and inhumane treatment and, alternatively, irreconcilable differences.
- In May 2016, the parties filed a consent to divorce on irreconcilable differences and submitted disputed financial matters to the chancellor, including equitable distribution of the marital estate and alimony.
- After trial, the chancellor entered an order in October 2016 valuing the marital estate at $555,279.90.
- The chancellor awarded Richard 55% of the marital estate and Melissa 45%.
- The distribution assigned different types of assets to each party, with Melissa receiving a substantial share of retirement-related assets and Richard receiving more non-retirement property.
- Melissa objected to the wording of the proposed written judgment and later filed a motion to reconsider, asking the court to address the income-tax consequences and possible penalties associated with the retirement assets awarded to her.
- At the reconsideration hearing, Melissa presented testimony from John Dongieux, an attorney and certified public accountant, who discussed potential taxes and early-withdrawal penalties if retirement funds were accessed in certain ways.
- The chancellor denied the motion to reconsider, leaving the property division unchanged.
- Melissa appealed, arguing the distribution was inequitable because the court did not properly account for the tax consequences tied to her retirement accounts.

## Issues

1. Whether the chancellor abused discretion in equitably dividing the marital estate by failing to adequately consider tax consequences associated with awarding Melissa retirement assets.
2. Whether the chancellor erred by denying Melissa’s motion to reconsider based on evidence of projected future taxes and penalties.

## Decision

- The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed the chancery court’s judgment.
- The court held the chancellor did not commit reversible error in the equitable distribution, including the treatment of potential tax consequences.
- The court upheld the denial of the motion to reconsider because the asserted tax burdens depended on future choices and events and did not require the chancellor to alter the final distribution.

## Legal Principles

- A chancellor’s findings in domestic-relations matters are reviewed for abuse of discretion; factual findings are upheld if supported by substantial evidence and not manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous.
- Mississippi equitable distribution is guided by the Ferguson factors, which include consideration of tax and other economic consequences of the property division.
- An equitable distribution need not be equal; a slightly unequal split may be affirmed when supported by the Ferguson analysis and the record.
- Tax consequences may be considered, but a chancellor is not required to adjust a property division based on tax liabilities that are uncertain, speculative, or contingent on a party’s future actions (such as whether and when retirement funds are withdrawn).
- A motion to reconsider does not require the chancellor to reweigh evidence or accept post-judgment projections where the underlying consequences are conditional and the original distribution is otherwise supported by the record.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the 55/45 division of the marital estate and the denial of reconsideration because the chancellor applied the governing equitable-distribution framework and was not required to modify the judgment based on projected taxes and penalties associated with retirement assets when those costs depended on future decisions and were not shown to require a different allocation.


Weaver v. Weaver, 247 So. 3d 374 (2018)