Marr v. Adair
| Docket Number: | 2001-CA-01723-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-08-2003 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Child custody - Jurisdiction - Uniform Child Custody Jurisdictional Act - Section 93-23-17 Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Myers and Chandler, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Griffis, J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CUSTODY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-02-2001 Appealed from: Harrison County Chancery Court Judge: Wesley Walter Teel Disposition: GRANTED MOTION TO SET ASIDE ALL ORDERS PROMULGATED UNDER ITS AUTHORITY AND DISMISSED CASE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Case Number: 99-00288 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | John Marr, Jr. |
KELLY MICHAEL RAYBURN |
||
| Appellee: | Darnay Marr Adair | PRO SE |
|
|
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: | Child custody - Jurisdiction - Uniform Child Custody Jurisdictional Act - Section 93-23-17 |
| Summary of the Facts: | John Marr and Darnay Marr Adair were divorced in Louisiana, and the court ordered John to pay Darnay $400 per month in child support. Three years later, John, now a resident of Mississippi, filed a motion for contempt and custody and a motion to enroll the Louisiana judgment in the Harrison County Chancery Court. The chancery court determined that it did not have jurisdiction over the custody matters involved, presumably because the children did not reside in Mississippi at the time. John and Darnay then executed a document entitled “Consent Judgment” whereby they agreed to share joint legal custody of the three minor children, with John having primary custody of the two girls, and Darnay retaining custody of the son. The document was not signed by a judge nor was it filed of record. John again petitioned the Harrison County Chancery Court to enroll the judgment and to ask the Louisiana trial court to release its jurisdiction over the case. The parties reached a settlement which essentially reflected the terms and provisions of the “Consent Judgment” and agreed that the Harrison County Chancery Court had jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter involved. The terms of the settlement agreement were read into the record on the date of the hearing, but neither John nor Darnay signed the judgment. John later filed a motion for contempt alleging that Darnay had taken the girls for weekend visitation and refused to return them. The chancery court entered an order finding Darnay in contempt for failing to return the children to John following visitation and sentencing her to six months' incarceration, suspended, and ordering her to pay attorney’s fees. After some further action, the chancery court entered an order setting aside all previously-entered orders on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction over the ongoing custody dispute between the parties except for the order of contempt against Darnay. John appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | John argues that the court improperly relinquished jurisdiction. To determine if it should proceed in a child custody matter under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdictional Act, the court must determine if it has jurisdiction to act under section 93-23-5, which court is the most appropriate or convenient forum, and whether the action to be taken is foreclosed by an order or judgment by the other state court. The chancery court in this case concluded that the filing of the affidavit required by section 93-23-17 was indispensable to its jurisdiction. Although John failed to include the required information in his first pleading or in an affidavit attached to the pleading, John did filed a UCCJA affidavit in this cause at a later date. While timely compliance with the UCCJA disclosure provision upon filing the initial complaint is essential to facilitate a proper determination of the court's jurisdiction, failure to do so will not necessarily impair the court's exercise of jurisdiction if appropriately cured by a timely amendment. Because John did subsequently file an affidavit revealing no pending litigation in any other state concerning custody of the minor children, the Harrison County Chancery Court acted properly in assuming jurisdiction and erred in ultimately concluding that it lacked jurisdiction. The chancery court also determined that Louisiana was a more appropriate forum to resolve the custody matters. As part of its reasoning for relinquishing, as opposed to declining jurisdiction, the chancery court found that the children were living in Louisiana. However, the girls were in Louisiana only because the chancery court, when it admittedly had jurisdiction, changed its custody order for no apparent reason and granted custody of the girls to Darnay. It was not in the interest of the children that the Louisiana court assume jurisdiction considering that they had lived in Texas after Louisiana and had then resided in Mississippi for more than a year. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
