Anderson v. Anderson


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2008-CA-01785-COA
Linked Case(s): 2008-CA-01785-COA2008-CT-01785-SCT2008-CT-01785-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 06-29-2010
Opinion Author: Griffis, J.
Holding: Reversed and rendered.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Divorce: Habitual cruel and inhuman treatment - Sufficiency of evidence
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 09-24-2008
Appealed from: Alcorn County Chancery Court
Judge: Jacqueline Mask
Disposition: FINAL JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE ENTERED
Case Number: 2006-0058-02-M

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Merlene Anderson




RICHARD SHANE MCLAUGHLIN, D. KIRK THARP



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: Donald Anderson REBECCA C. PHIPPS  

    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: Habitual cruel and inhuman treatment - Sufficiency of evidence

    Summary of the Facts: Donald Anderson was granted a divorce from Merlene Anderson based on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. Merlene appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Merlene argues that the chancellor erred by granting the divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment because the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment was barred by the doctrine of condonation. To support a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, more is required than mere unkindness, rudeness, or incompatibility. There must be corroboration of the complaining party's testimony for a divorce based upon habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. Donald’s evidence was that Merlene abused him, physically and emotionally abused his children, verbally threatened him, attempted to ruin his reputation at his church, falsely accused him of having affairs, and exhibited “dominant behavior.” The breaking point for Donald was when Merlene locked him and herself in their bathroom for a couple of hours. Merlene testified that she locked Donald in the bathroom with her because she wanted to talk to him, and he kept avoiding her. She felt that locking him in a room with her was the only way to make him talk to her about their marriage. Donald also claimed that Merlene was physically and emotionally abusive to him. He claimed that she yelled at him for no reason. He testified that she threatened him by reminding him multiple times about a minister’s wife in Selmer, Tennessee, who had killed her husband. She also told him that God was upset with him for wanting to divorce her. The couple’s children also testified that Merlene was physically and mentally abusive to both of them several years prior to Donald’s filing for divorce. The chancellor appointed a guardian ad litem. The guardian ad litem did not conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding, after thorough examination, of any instance of physical abuse of the children. The chancellor agreed. Without such a finding, this evidence cannot be used by Donald to prove his ground for divorce. Merlene admitted that she had asked for other church members’ prayers in some church meetings. She also told members that she did not want a divorce after Donald told the church that he had filed for divorce and members questioned her about it. Donald testified that Merlene publicly had accused him of having affairs and that she had harassed the ladies that he counseled at church because she believed that he was having affairs with them. The chancellor’s decision was primarily based on the finding that Merlene’s accusations of infidelity were unfounded, Merlene’s ongoing abusive behavior toward the children, and Merlene’s ongoing activities which were oppressive to Donald, and made the relationship unbearable. False accusations of infidelity, made habitually over a long period of time without reasonable cause constitute cruel and inhuman treatment. However, honestly made claims, even when later found to have been erroneous, do not constitute habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. The chancellor’s finding that Merlene’s accusations of infidelity were unfounded is simply not supported by the record. Indeed, there was more than sufficient evidence to give Merlene reason to believe that Donald was in an adulterous relationship. Merlene’s behavior may have been odd at times and embarrassing to Donald, but her conduct did not meet the standard set forth to prove the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. Donald failed to show that Merlene’s conduct had a negative impact on him. Donald has no physical or mental health problems due to Merlene’s conduct. There was no proof that Merlene’s accusations, taunting, yelling, and alleged mistreatment of the children rendered cohabitation impossible, except at the risk of life, limb, or health on the part of Donald. Thus, Donald presented insufficient evidence to prove the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment.


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