Barnes v. Barnes
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-00168-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-25-2004 Opinion Author: Bridges, P.J. Holding: Reversed and rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Cross-examination - Equitable division - Alimony Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Thomas, Lee, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Irving, J. Concurs in Result Only: Southwick, P.J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-23-2002 Appealed from: Tishomingo County Chancery Court Judge: John C. Ross, Jr. Disposition: DIVORCE GRANTED ON THE GROUNDS OF IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES WITH NO ALIMONY, JOINT CUSTODY OF THE MINOR CHILD AND DIVISION OF THE MARITAL ASSETS. Case Number: 2000-260 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Linda Y. Barnes |
JOHN R. WHITE |
||
| Appellee: | George Neil Barnes | JAK MCGEE SMITH |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Cross-examination - Equitable division - Alimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | Linda Barnes filed a complaint for divorce from George Barnes on the grounds of adultery, habitual cruel and inhuman treatment and habitual drunkenness. She later filed a motion for contempt based on George’s failure to pay temporary support. The court granted a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. The chancellor ordered the marital home sold and the proceeds divided between the couple. Linda retained sole use and possession of the Mercedes Benz and her personal property which was moved to Germantown and George retained possession of his personal property remaining in Iuka. No alimony was awarded and the couple received joint custody of their minor child. Linda appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Cross-examination George was not cross-examined because he failed to appear at the hearing. Linda submitted a letter to the chancellor requesting the direct examination of George to be excluded from consideration, but there is no ruling on whether or not the chancellor considered the testimony of George or excluded it as requested by Linda. The cross- examination of George, who was not only a witness but a party, was necessary for the chancellor’s complete deliberation without a one-sided slant on the facts and circumstances. Therefore, the chancellor’s decision to grant the divorce and division of the marital assets is reversed and rendered. Issue 2: Equitable division of assets Although this issue is rendered moot, George has since passed away, and Linda will therefore inherit assets of George either through intestate succession or by his will rather than being awarded property through equitable division. Issue 3: Alimony This issue is moot. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
