Jenkins v. Jenkins


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2008-CA-01895-COA
Linked Case(s): 2008-CA-01895-COA ; 2008-CT-01895-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 07-27-2010
Opinion Author: Maxwell, J.
Holding: Affirmed.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Divorce: Habitual cruel and inhuman treatment - Doctrine of recrimination - Section 93-5-3
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Carlton, JJ.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 10-31-2008
Appealed from: Copiah County Chancery Court
Judge: George Ward
Disposition: ENTERED FINAL JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE AND AWARDED CUSTODY OF THE TWO MINOR CHILDREN TO ROSE JENKINS
Case Number: 2006-325

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Edmond Jenkins




E. MICHAEL MARKS, JULIE ANN EPPS



 
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: Rose Jenkins JOSEPH A. FERNALD, JR.  

    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 - Doctrine of recrimination - Section 93-5-3

    Summary of the Facts: Rose Jenkins was granted a divorce from Edmond Jenkins on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. Edmond appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Edmund argues that Rose’s adultery bars her from obtaining a divorce. Under the common-law doctrine of recrimination, if each party to a marriage proved a fault-based ground for divorce, then neither party was entitled to a divorce. However, recrimination is no longer an absolute bar to divorce. The Mississippi Legislature modified the common-law recrimination defense by enacting section 93-5-3. Under Section 93-5-3, one party’s adultery, even if established at trial, does not prevent the chancellor from granting a divorce to that party. In a situation where both parties are at fault, if a divorce is to be granted, the chancellor must determine which party’s conduct was the proximate cause of the deterioration of the marital relationship and the divorce itself. Though Edmond resolutely asserts Rose engaged in adultery before the parties separated, he fails to point out specific evidence to support his claim. Under these facts, the chancellor did not manifestly err in rejecting Edmond’s recrimination defense.


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