Sanford v. Sanford
| Docket Number: | 2010-CT-00873-SCT Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-00873-COA ; 2010-CA-00873-COA ; 2010-CT-00873-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-31-2013 Opinion Author: Pierce, J. Holding: Court of Appeals affirmed; Chancery court reversed and remanded. |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-08-2012 Opinion Author: Russel, J. Holding: Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Section 93-5-2(2) - Section 93-5-2(3) - Consent agreement - Division of household goods Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Dickinson and Randolph, P.JJ., Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler, King and Coleman, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-10-2009 Appealed from: LAMAR COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: Sebe Dale, Jr. Disposition: Enforced Property Settlement Agreement and Entered Final Judgment of Divorce Case Number: 2008-0025-GN-D |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Samantha Louise Sanford |
S. CHRISTOPHER FARRIS |
||
| Appellee: | Leslie Sanford | DAVID ALAN PUMFORD, ERIK M. LOWREY |
|
|
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 - Section 93-5-2(2) - Section 93-5-2(3) - Consent agreement - Division of household goods |
| Summary of the Facts: | Samantha Sanford filed a complaint for divorce and temporary relief against Leslie Sanford. She cited Leslie’s habitual cruel and inhuman treatment of her, his habitual and excessive drug use, and his habitual drunkenness. Alternatively, she alleged irreconcilable differences. On the day of trial, Samantha and Leslie executed a joint motion to withdraw fault grounds and a consent to divorce. The Sanfords announced a settlement. The chancellor and the Sanfords’ attorneys read the settlement agreement into the record, and Samantha and Leslie agreed to be bound by it. The parties represented in court that the division of household goods “may be one thing which is left that the [c]ourt can make a determination on one day.” One month after the divorce hearing, Samantha moved to withdraw her consent to divorce and to have the case tried. Leslie responded by moving for a contempt citation and to enforce their settlement agreement. The chancellor entered an order refusing to allow Samantha to withdraw her consent. He appointed a commissioner to supervise a bidding process between Samantha and Leslie for the household goods and found Samantha to be in direct contempt of court. Samantha requested an on-the-record finding that the settlement agreement was inadequate and insufficient. Leslie responded by moving to dismiss and for sanctions. A short time later, he moved again to have Samantha cited for contempt. The chancellor found Samantha in contempt for failing to sign the settlement agreement and ordered that Samantha be incarcerated until she purged herself of contempt. Samantha moved to stay the judgment of contempt and for a determination of supersedeas bond pending her appeal. Days later, she filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus the Supreme Court. The Court granted Samantha’s petition and ordered that she be released immediately from the Lamar County jail. Samantha moved to have the chancellor recused from the case and moved to have Leslie cited for contempt. The court entered a final judgment of divorce. Samantha appealed, and the Court of Appeals held that the chancellor erred in granting a final divorce because the Sanfords had not entered into a signed written agreement resolving all property, custody, and support issues as required under section 93-5-2(2). The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | A couple can obtain an irreconcilable-differences divorce pursuant to section 93-5-2(2) or section 93-5-2(3). Here, Samantha and Leslie Sanford wavered between sections 93-5-2(2) and 93-5- 2(3). They began under section 93-5-2(3) by signing a written consent agreement. But, on the morning of trial, they reached a tentative settlement, marked through their designated issues, and handwrote underneath: “All issues are settled and will be dictated into the record.” By filing a document with these representations, they abandoned section 93-5-2(3). Instead, they declared that they had settled everything and attempted to proceed under section 93-5-2(2). However, the Sanfords continued to dispute certain issues, particularly the division of household goods. As a result, they contemplated returning to section 93-5-2(3). The parties never fully complied with either section 93-5-2(2) or section 93-5-2(3). The written, signed consent agreement they filed was insufficient because it did not specifically set forth any issues for the chancellor to decide. And the purported settlement that was dictated, transcribed, and included in the judgment of divorce did not settle all property rights, because the division of household goods remained unresolved. Thus, the judgment should be reversed and the case remanded. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
