Watkins v. Watkins
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-02247-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-29-2007 Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Termination of separate maintenance Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-07-2005 Appealed from: Chickasaw County Chancery Court Judge: Dorothy W. Colom Disposition: TRIAL COURT DENIED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, BUT ORDERED APPELLANT TO PAY SEPARATE MAINTENANCE AND ALL COURT COSTS. Case Number: 2003-0111-1C |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | DANIEL ATHION WATKINS |
TINA M. SCOTT |
||
| Appellee: | CARLENE KIM (NEE: BENSON) WATKINS | REX F. SANDERSON |
|
|
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: | Termination of separate maintenance |
| Summary of the Facts: | Daniel Watkins filed a motion for termination of separate maintenance which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Watkins argues that the court erred in denying his motion for termination of separate maintenance, because his wife’s conduct of pointing a gun at him while standing in the doorway of her home prevents Watkins from ever reconciling, thus barring her entitlement to separate maintenance payments. Termination of a separate maintenance obligation would be proper if the husband should, in good faith, offer to cohabit and treat the wife with conjugal kindness. The chancellor found that Watkins made no attempt to reconcile with his wife. Although it is noteworthy to mention that the incident between Mr. and Mrs. Watkins occurred at Mrs. Watkins’ home, no testimony was provided indicating that Watkins was attempting to return to the home for the purpose of resuming cohabitation or reconciliation. Therefore, this issue is without merit. In addition, the chancellor did not abuse her discretion in assessing court costs against Watkins, although he was not found in contempt due to his inability to pay the judgment against him. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
