Ware v. Ware
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-00358-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-29-2008 Opinion Author: IRVING, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Adultery - Recrimination - Uncondoned adultery - Antenuptial agreement Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): GRIFFIS, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-14-2006 Appealed from: Hinds County Chancery Court Judge: William H. Singletary Disposition: CHANCELLOR GRANTED HUSBAND A DIVORCE ON THE GROUND OF UNCONDONED ADULTERY AND ENFORCED ANTENUPTIAL AGREEMENT Case Number: 2004-1526 S/2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | PATTI HUGHES WARE |
LEE DAVIS THAMES, JR.,
J. MACK VARNER |
||
| Appellee: | WILLIAM STEPHEN WARE | JOHN ROBERT WHITE, PAMELA GUREN BACH |
|
|
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: Adultery - Recrimination - Uncondoned adultery - Antenuptial agreement |
| Summary of the Facts: | William Ware was awarded a divorce from Patti Ware on the ground of uncondoned adultery. The chancellor divided the marital property and awarded Patti both lump sum and rehabilitative alimony. After the final judgment was entered, Patti asked the chancellor to reconsider her defense of condonation; however, the chancellor denied her request. Patti appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Recrimination Patti argues that the chancellor erred in granting Billy a divorce because the doctrine of recrimination bars him from obtaining a divorce, i.e., Billy was having an affair at the time that he moved out of the marital home.. The doctrine of recrimination is founded on the basis that the equal guilt of a complainant bars his/her right to divorce, and the principal consideration is that the complainant must come into court with clean hands. Section 93-5-3 provides that if a complainant or cross-complainant in a divorce action shall prove grounds entitling him to a divorce, it shall not be mandatory on any chancellor to deny such party a divorce, even though the evidence might establish recrimination on the part of such complainant or cross-complainant. Even though Billy admitted having an affair, the chancellor was not required to deny him a divorce when he had proven that Patti had also committed adultery. Issue 2: Uncondoned adultery Patti argues that Billy should not have been granted a divorce because he condoned her adultery with another man by having sex with her and because he forgave her for committing adultery in a letter that he wrote to her. Billy’s act of engaging in sexual relations with Patti is not sufficient for the defense of condonation to be applicable. There is nothing in the record to suggest that Billy, by engaging in sexual intercourse with Patti, forgave her for committing adultery. According to Billy, he made it clear to Patti before she arrived at his home that he still wanted a divorce. Although Billy stated that he forgave her in the letter, he did not specify which adulterous conduct he was referring to. Therefore, the chancellor did not err in finding that Billy was not referring to Patti’s second affair. Issue 3: Antenuptial agreement Prior to their marriage, Patti signed an antenuptial agreement wherein she agreed that Billy’s interest in his family’s business, Mid State Construction Company, Inc., as well as his interest in Ware Properties; Bradshaw, LLC; and Briarwood West, LLC, would be considered nonmarital assets. Patti attacks the validity of the agreement, arguing that it was not fairly executed because Billy presented it to her at their home two days prior to their wedding and she did not have an opportunity to read the agreement or to have an attorney review it before she signed it. There is nothing in the record which suggests that Patti was forced to sign the agreement. Moreover, Patti admitted that she did not read the contract and that she did not take it to an attorney to review it before she signed it. It is well established that a person is under an obligation to read a contract before signing it, and will not as a general rule be heard to complain of an oral misrepresentation the error of which would have been disclosed by reading the contract. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
