Salemi v. Salemi


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2006-CA-01312-COA
Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-01312-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 09-25-2007
Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Property settlement agreement - Relief from judgment - M.R.C.P. 60(b)
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ.
Procedural History: Dismissal
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 07-18-2006
Appealed from: DeSoto County Chancery Court
Judge: Mitchell M. Lundy, Jr.
Disposition: CHANCELLOR DISMISSED HUSBAND’S RULE 60(B)(6) MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
Case Number: 96-4-402

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: VINCENT F. SALEMI, JR.




SHEILA HILL SALEMI



 

Appellee: SHEILA HILL SALEMI REBECCA RYAN SHAPPLEY MOUTOUX  

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: Property settlement agreement - Relief from judgment - M.R.C.P. 60(b)

Summary of the Facts: Vincent and Sheila Salemi divorced and executed a property settlement agreement. Nine years after the divorce, Vincent filed a M.R.C.P. 60(b)(6) motion seeking relief from the provisions of the property settlement agreement that addressed division of Vincent’s retirement benefits. Sheila filed a motion to dismiss which the court granted. Vincent appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: A party requesting relief pursuant to M.R.C.P. 60(b)(1)(2) or (3) must file his motion within six months after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. Under M.R.C.P. 60(b)(6), a party must make his motion within a reasonable time. A portion of Vincent’s motion for relief may be interpreted as an assertion of accident, mistake or newly discovered evidence. He asserts that he would not have entered into the settlement agreement if he had known that he obligated himself to pay Sheila from his retirement annuity until his death and that the amended QDRO was never fully explained to him. These claims became untimely six months after the chancellor granted the divorce and incorporated the settlement agreement. Vincent also alleged that the property settlement agreement was ambiguous which falls within Rule 60(b)(6). Vincent filed his motion after he discovered that Sheila’s portion of his retirement would not be capped at $14,000. The amended QDRO was executed in April of 1997. While it is entirely possible that Vincent did not fully understand the provisions of the amended QDRO or that the provisions of the amended QDRO were not fully explained to Vincent, Vincent certainly could have raised any questions he had about the QDRO before January of 2006. Therefore, the chancellor did not err when he found Vincent’s Rule 60(b) motion untimely.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court