Jones v. Jones
| Docket Number: | 2006-CT-00974-SCT Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-00974-COA ; 2006-CA-00974-COA ; 2006-CT-00974-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-20-2008 Opinion Author: Diaz, P.J. Holding: THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CHANCERY COURT OF HINDS COUNTY IS AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART. The Judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed in Part and Reversed in Part. The Judgment of the Chancery Court of Hinds County is Affirmed in Part and Reversed and Remanded in Part. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Sanctions - M.R.C.P. 37(c) - Equitable distribution Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Carlson, Dickinson, Randolph and Lamar, JJ. Dissenting Author : Easley, J., without separate written opinion. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Waller, P.J. with separate written opinion. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part Joined By 1: Graves, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS Writ of Certiorari: yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-25-2006 Appealed from: Hinds County Chancery Court Judge: Stuart Robinson Disposition: The chancellor awarded Nevada approximately seventyeight percent of the marital assets, leaving Richard with the remaining twenty-two percent. Case Number: G2004-2398 R/1 |
|
| Note: | This opinion reverses in part the Court of Appeals' decision. See the COA opinion at: http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO43825.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | RICHARD BRODERICK JONES |
MARK A. CHINN;
WILLIAM MATTHEW THOMPSON |
|
|
| Appellee: | NEVADA RAE BARR JONES | MICHAEL J. MALOUF; MELISSA ANN MALOUF | ||
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 - Sanctions - M.R.C.P. 37(c) - Equitable distribution |
| Summary of the Facts: | After agreeing to a divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences, Nevada Barr Jones and Richard Jones permitted the chancery court to decide the issues upon which they could not agree, inter alia, the equitable distribution of the marital assets. The chancellor awarded Nevada approximately seventy-eight percent of the marital assets, leaving Richard with the remaining twenty-two percent. Richard appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sanctions Richard argues that the chancellor abused his discretion by not imposing sanctions against Nevada for her admitted perjury and destruction of evidence. M.R.C.P. 37(c) provides in relevant part that a court may impose upon any party such sanctions as may be just, if any party abuses the discovery process in seeking, making, or resisting discovery. It is beyond dispute that Nevada abused the discovery process by resisting discovery. She resisted discovery by admittedly lying under oath about staying the night at another man’s house and having sexual intercourse with him. She resisted discovery also by lying under oath about when her sexual relationship with the other man commenced and intentionally destroying her personal computer immediately after her deposition. There is no requirement that the party moving for sanctions be substantially prejudiced by the opposing party’s discovery violations in order for sanctions to be warranted. In this case, Nevada’s misconduct must not go unpunished. When faced with such egregious misconduct, courts are obligated to consider sanctions that are severe enough to deter others from pursuing similar courses of action. The chancellor in this case did not satisfy that obligation and abused his discretion by not addressing Nevada’s misconduct. Issue 2: Equitable distribution Richard argues that the chancellor’s distribution of the marital assets was not equitable, because the chancellor gave short shrift to his contributions to the acquisition of marital assets and the chancellor erred by not awarding him any interest in the future income earned from the books written by Nevada during the marriage. There is no requirement that the chancellor divide the marital assets equally between the divorcing parties. In addition, chancellors are granted wide discretion when dividing marital property. Here, the chancellor did not abuse his discretion. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
