Henderson v. Henderson
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-02107-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-19-2010 Opinion Author: Lee, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Withdrawal of consent - Section 93-5-2(5) - Nunc pro tunc judgment Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Myers, P.J., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-10-2008 Appealed from: PEARL RIVER COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: James H.C. Thomas, Jr. Disposition: ENTERED JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE NUNC PRO TUNC Case Number: 01-0547-GN-TH |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | RONALD WAYNE HENDERSON |
BLEWETT W. THOMAS |
|
|
| Appellee: | EM POK HENDERSON | NANCY E. STEEN | ||
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 - Withdrawal of consent - Section 93-5-2(5) - Nunc pro tunc judgment |
| Summary of the Facts: | Em Pok Henderson and Ronald Wayne Henderson filed a joint complaint for divorce. The parties had attached a signed property settlement agreement, wherein the parties agreed to certain matters pertaining to marital property and the amount of alimony Ron would pay to Em per month. The chancellor signed the final decree of divorce; however, this decree was never filed in the chancery clerkâs office. The parties were unaware that the final decree had not been filed. Unknown to either party, the complaint for divorce was dismissed for lack of prosecution. When Ron discovered that the case had been dismissed, he immediately ceased alimony payments. He filed for divorce from Em on the ground of desertion or, in the alternative, irreconcilable differences. Em filed a motion to enter judgment nunc pro tunc. The chancellor entered an order vacating the judgment of dismissal. After a hearing on the matter, the chancellor directed the judgment to be entered nunc pro tunc, with the provisions as agreed to by both parties being in full force and effect. Ron appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Ron argues that the chancellor erred in granting an irreconcilable differences divorce in disregard of his second complaint for divorce because by doing so, he withdrew his consent to the original complaint for divorce pursuant to section 93-5-2(5). While consent to an irreconcilable differences divorce can be withdrawn prior to the judgment of divorce, Ron failed to do so. The judgment of divorce was entered nunc pro tunc, meaning that the judgment was effective from the signed date of April 23, 2002, not from November 10, 2008, which was the date of the order to enter the April 23, 2002, judgment. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
