Oswalt v. Oswalt
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-01254-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-01254-COA ; 2006-CA-01254-COA ; 2006-CT-01254-SCT ; 2006-CA-01254-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-02-2007 Opinion Author: Lee, P.J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Habitual cruel and inhuman treatment - Equitable division of marital property - Cross-examination Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Myers, P.J., Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Carlton, JJ. Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-06-2006 Appealed from: Choctaw County Chancery Court Judge: John Love, Jr. Disposition: WIFE AWARDED DIVORCE BASED ON HABITUAL CRUEL AND INHUMAN TREATMENT AND MARITAL ASSETS DIVIDED Case Number: 2004-0076 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Samuel Thomas Oswalt |
George M. Mitchell, Jr. |
||
| Appellee: | Sandra Lynne Muirhead Oswalt | Luther Putnam Crull, 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 - Equitable division of marital property - Cross-examination |
| Summary of the Facts: | Sandra Oswalt filed for divorce from Samuel Oswalt alleging habitual drunkenness and habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. Sammy filed a counter complaint alleging he was entitled to a divorce based on habitual cruel and inhuman treatment and desertion. The chancellor found that Sandi failed to prove her allegation of habitual drunkenness. However, the court granted Sandi a divorce based on habitual cruel and inhuman treatment and awarded Sandi forty percent of the marital assets. Sammy appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Habitual cruel and inhuman treatment Habitual cruel and inhuman treatment is defined as conduct that endangers life, limb or health or creates a reasonable apprehension of such danger, rendering the relationship unsafe for the party seeking relief, or is so unnatural and infamous as to make the marriage revolting to the offended spouse and render it impossible for that spouse to discharge the duties of the marriage, thus destroying the basis for its continuance. Sammy argues that insufficient evidence was presented for the chancellor to grant a divorce to Sandi based on habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. Substantial evidence existed to support the chancellor’s ruling. The physical assaults on Sandi together with Sammy’s tendencies toward suicide were enough to give Sandi a reasonable apprehension of danger to her life, limb, and health. Issue 2: Equitable division of marital property The chancellor awarded Sandi forty percent of the marital assets and awarded Sammy sixty percent of the marital assets. Sammy argues that the chancellor did not properly address the Ferguson factors in making this determination. Sammy next argues that the chancellor erred in characterizing items owned by “S.S. Oswalt,” a business he created, as marital property. However, the chancellor correctly found that commingling of the funds made them a marital asset and took into consideration any gifts given to Sammy. Sammy argues that he should have been awarded the marital home because it was his prior to the marriage. Sammy’s argument is without merit as the chancellor took into account the equity Sammy had acquired in the house before the marriage. This amount was awarded to Sammy. In addition, the chancellor correctly found the couple’s home was marital property. During the marriage, money from the couple’s joint checking account was used to make payments on the house and the house was used for marital purposes. The house was renovated and the yard was landscaped through the efforts of both parties. Sammy argues that Sandi took between $15,000 and $20,000 from a safe in the marital home, and the chancellor failed to include this as marital property. Sandi admitted that she took $7,300. She testified that she spent $3,100 of this on an income tax obligation the couple incurred. The chancellor categorized the remaining $4,200 as marital property. Without additional proof, the chancellor did not err in weighing the testimony and accepting Sandi’s testimony as true. Issue 3: Cross-examination Sammy argues that the chancellor committed reversible error by limiting the cross-examination of Sandi and her mother regarding an extramarital relationship after the couple’s separation. The chancellor sustained the objection to this testimony and gave Sammy’s attorney the opportunity to amend his counterclaim to include adultery. Sammy elected not to make the motion. In fact, it was Sammy’s position that he did not want a divorce. Therefore, the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in restricting testimony regarding Sandi’s alleged relationship with another man. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
