Richardson v. Richardson
| Docket Number: | 2002-CP-00011-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CP-00011-COA ; 2002-CT-00011-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-01-2003 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Habitual cruel and inhuman treatment - Right of self-representation - Conspiracy - Summons - Sufficiency of evidence 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: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-13-2001 Appealed from: DeSoto County Chancery Court Judge: Dennis M. Baker Disposition: JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE FOR THE PLAINTIFF Case Number: 01-07-936B |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Russell Brian Richardson |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | Donna Marie Bruchman Richardson | LEIGH A. RUTHERFORD |
|
|
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: Habitual cruel and inhuman treatment - Right of self-representation - Conspiracy - Summons - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Donna Richardson filed a complaint for divorce from Russell Richardson, alleging habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. The court granted the divorce, and Russell appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Right of self-representation Russell argues that the court violated his right to represent himself or somehow caused him prejudice by characterizing him as controlling and manipulative and by stating that there were some inquiries that the judge had to make before allowing the couple’s child to testify. The record does not contain any instances where Russell's right to represent himself was in any way unfairly abridged, and the court’s limitations on the testimony of the child were proper. Issue 2: Conspiracy Russell argues that the court conspired and colluded with his wife's attorney, because Russell was not allowed to make as part of the record the documents and proceedings relating to a bar complaint that he filed against Donna's attorney and because of the absence of a notation on the trial court clerk's docket of the filing of the Rule 81(d)(2) summons. The bar proceedings were irrelevant to the issue before the court. In addition, the docket sheet shows that both the Rule 4 and Rule 81(d) summonses were issued on July 5, 2001, and the returns were filed on July 11, 2001, and that Russell was personally served on July 6, 2001. Issue 3: Summons Russell argues that the court erred by summoning him to answer for an infamous charge without presentment of indictment of a grand jury. Because Russell was not charged with a criminal offense, the summons was properly issued on the civil complaint. Issue 4: Sufficiency of evidence Russell argues that the court erred by granting a divorce on the grounds of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. Habitual cruel and inhuman treatment is conduct that endangers life, limb or health or creates a reasonable apprehension of such danger, thereby rendering the relationship unsafe for the party seeking relief or is conduct so unnatural and infamous as to make the marriage revolting. The court’s findings that Russell used the most demeaning language toward Donna and that Russell was a controlling and manipulative person to the extent of causing havoc with Donna's physical and mental health is supported by sufficient evidence in the record. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
