Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this custody battle between a child's mother and grandparents, the chancellor heard evidence that the child's mother was sexually promiscuous, that she had failed drug tests, and that she planned to move with the child to Chicago to live with a convicted sex-offender. The chancellor also heard evidence to the contrary. Based on this evidence, and judging the credibility of the witnesses before him, the chancellor found that the natural-parent presumption had been overcome and, after conducting a proper "Albright" analysis, that the best interests of the child would be served by granting custody to the grandparents. The Supreme Court affirmed. View "Irle v. Foster" on Justia Law

Drake and Tonia (Lewis) Pagel were divorced in 2008. Drake filed an appeal challenging the chancellor's property division, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded. The Supreme Court, on certiorari, modified the Court of Appeals' order on remand. During the appellate process, both parties filed motions for modification of child support and for contempt. After the remand, the chancellor held a hearing and entered an order addressing the property division in accordance with the instructions from the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. The chancellor entered a separate order modifying child support, finding Drake in contempt and awarding Tonia attorney's fees. Drake appealed all issues. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the chancellor's findings on the value of Legacy Holdings, Inc. (a business the parties formed and each owned 50%), equitable distribution, and lump-sum alimony. But the Court reversed the chancellor's denial of Drake's motion to modify child support, and remanded for the chancellor to consider the impact of the removal of the loan repayment from Drake's income. The Court affirmed the finding of contempt and award of attorney's fees to Tonia. View "Lewis v. Pagel" on Justia Law

Rosie Jackson was granted a divorce from her husband Michael on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment in 2012. After a trial, the chancellor found that Rosie had presented sufficient proof of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. The chancellor then divided the marital estate and awarded Rosie lump-sum alimony. Michael appealed the chancellor's judgment. Michael raised three issues on appeal: "(1) the evidence was insufficient to support a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, (2) the evidence relied upon by the chancellor was inadmissible, and (3) the equitable distribution and the alimony award were based on incorrect calculations." The Court of Appeals affirmed. Michael then filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, essentially reasserting the same claims he raised before the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court granted Michael's petition, and limited its review to Michael's claim that the chancellor miscalculated the value of Rosie's equitable distribution of the marital estate. Finding that the chancellor manifestly erred in his calculation of the marital assets and liabilities, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the chancellor's judgment and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Jackson v. Jackson" on Justia Law

This case came before the Supreme Court on appeal of the financial portion of a bifurcated divorce trial. When Tanya Dale Wright Sanderson and Hobson Sanderson married in 1994, Tanya signed a prenuptial agreement the day before their marriage, and upon divorce, the chancellor enforced the terms of the agreement. Tanya appealed, arguing the prenuptial agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable. She also claimed, among other things, that the chancellor erred in not finding a joint bank account contained commingled, marital property. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court on its finding that the prenuptial agreement was not procedurally unconscionable. The Court reversed and remanded, however, on whether the prenuptial agreement was substantively unconscionable. The Court also held that certain funds, used for familial purposes, kept in a joint bank account created after the marriage began, did not fall within the parameters of the prenuptial agreement. View "Sanderson v. Sanderson" on Justia Law

Phillip and Paige Faucheux were a military couple who moved frequently during the early years of their marriage. In early 2002, Phillip got a job as a pilot with FedEx in Memphis, so the couple moved to Southaven, Mississippi (a suburb of Memphis just south of the Tennessee border). Phillip also served as a naval reserve pilot, often training at the Naval Air Station in Belle Chasse, Louisiana. Because of his frequent trips to Louisiana, he kept a Louisiana-registered pick-up truck parked at the New Orleans airport. On a trip to Louisiana during Carnival Season in January 2004, that Phillip met and began an extramarital affair with Francesca Munne Nordness. In June 2004, Paige discovered the affair. Eventually the couple reconciled their marriage, yet Phillip secretly continued his relationship with Francesca in New Orleans. In October 2004, Francesca moved from New Orleans to Fayetteville, North Carolina, and Phillip stopped seeing her. But several months later in early 2005, Phillip hopped a FedEx flight to North Carolina and showed up unannounced at the hospital where Francesca worked, professing his love for her and begging her to see him again. From 2005 to 2009, Francesca and Phillip continued to rendezvous at locations across the country, including Louisiana, Florida, North Carolina, Nevada, and Colorado (but never Mississippi). And although the two exchanged e-mails, phone calls, and text messages, Francesca never knowingly communicated with Phillip while he was in Mississippi. Phillip also sent Francesca several FedEx packages during this time, but according to Phillip’s uncontroverted testimony, he always used a Memphis return address. Phillip’s continued infidelity proved too much for Paige and, in August 2010, she was granted an irreconcilable-differences divorce from Phillip. Following the couple’s divorce, Paige (now a resident of Texas) sued Francesca in Mississippi for alienation of affections, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and punitive damages. Francesca immediately challenged the suit by moving the court to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over her. Francesca ultimately lost at the trial court level, and she appealed. The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed, finding she did not have enough minimum contacts with Mississippi for a Mississippi court to have jurisdiction over her. View "Nordness v. Faucheux" on Justia Law

James and Melanie Hanlin were divorced in 2007 and entered a property settlement agreement, a term of which required that James maintain military healthcare coverage “allowable by statute” for Melanie. After the divorce, Melanie incurred significant medical expenses, which James’s insurer initially paid. In 2009, however, Melanie learned that she had not been covered. She was sued for her unpaid medical bills. In response to a contempt petition filed by James in 2012, which later was withdrawn, Melanie filed a counter petition against James, arguing that he had failed to maintain coverage in accordance with the terms of the property settlement agreement. The chancellor found that each party was obligated to pay half of Melanie’s medical expenses. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Finding that James was not in breach of the plain provisions of the property settlement agreement, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate and chancery courts and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Hanlin v. Hanlin" on Justia Law

After divorce, a chancellor awarded physical custody of two minor children to their father. The mother appealed, claiming the guardian ad litem’s investigation was inadequate. Because after review, the Supreme Court found the chancellor’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, it affirmed. View "Gateley v. Gateley" on Justia Law

Jimmy Chism Jr. (Jim) challenged the termination of his parental rights to his son, Johnny. After review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found that Jim’s parental rights were wrongfully terminated, it reversed the judgments of Court of Appeals and the chancery court and remanded this case back to the chancery court for further proceedings. View "Chism v. Chism Bright" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from Amy Waites Ritchie's petition to modify a custody agreement created by Jeffrey Scott Waites (“Scott”) and herself following their divorce two years earlier. Amy petitioned for modification, seeking to move with her two children to Iowa, as Amy planned to remarry there. Although Amy and Scott had agreed to joint physical and legal custody, Amy’s proposed move to Iowa would make the provisions of the agreement unworkable. After initiating the petition, Amy contacted T.J. Sanford (“T.J.”) to let him know she believed him to be her eldest child’s biological father; a DNA test proved T.J.’s paternity and he joined the matter seeking custody. After excluding Scott from consideration as a non-natural parent, the chancellor awarded full physical and legal custody to Amy rather than T.J. The chancellor allowed visitation for both Scott and T.J., with respect to the eldest child. Scott appealed the court’s order, and the Court of Appeals reversed. Finding Scott’s fatherly actions did rebut the natural-parent presumption afforded to Amy and T.J., the Court of Appeals found Scott should have been considered on equal footing with the natural parents. The Court of Appeals remanded this case to the chancery court with instructions to consider Scott. Amy and T.J. appealed. The Supreme Court found, after review, that the chancellor properly excluded Scott from consideration under Albright v. Albright, 437 So. 2d 1003 (Miss. 1983).. Accordingly, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstated and affirmed the judgment of the chancery court. View "In the Interest of a Minor Victoria Denise Waites" on Justia Law

Charles William White (“Bill”) and his son Charles Thomas White (“Tommy”), were partners in a business that owned and operated convenience stores. In 2000, during the course of the partnership, Bill married Anita White. In 2005, Tommy bought his father’s share of the partnership for $42,600, but in dissolving the partnership, Bill and Tommy neglected to execute and file deeds transferring the partnership’s real property. In early 2009, Bill’s health declined rapidly, and Anita and Tommy began to clash over Bill’s healthcare. During this time, Tommy realized that he and his father had failed to execute deeds transferring the partnership’s real-property assets. Tommy used a durable power of attorney his father had given him years before to execute quit-claim deeds transferring the partnership property to himself. Bill and Anita continued to clash over who had authority to make healthcare decisions for Bill, so Tommy filed a petition for a conservatorship for his father’s benefit and sought appointment as his father’s conservator. Anita filed a counterclaim to challenge Tommy’s fitness to serve as his father’s conservator and sought to have Tommy return all assets he had transferred to himself using his father’s power of attorney. The chancellor agreed that a conservatorship was appropriate, but he appointed a third party as Bill’s conservator. Bill died in 2009, and at that time, the conservator filed a motion asking to be discharged from his duties and to be allowed to distribute the assets of the conservatorship to Bill’s estate. The parties agreed to an order discharging the conservator and to a distribution of funds held by the conservator to Bill’s estate. The chancellor’s order made no mention of Anita’s action to set aside the deed transfers. In 2010, Anita filed suit to set aside the quit-claim deeds and to redeem the real property Tommy had acquired using his father’s power of attorney. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The chancellor held that Anita’s action was barred by res judicata, granted Tommy’s motion, and denied Anita’s cross-motion. The Supreme Court found that the judgment dismissing the conservatorship was not a final judgment on the merits, and reversed. View "In the Matter of the Estate of Charles William White" on Justia Law