Lee v. Lee


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-CP-01850-COA
Linked Case(s): 2009-CP-01850-COA ; 2009-CT-01850-SCT ; 2009-CT-01850-SCT
Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-08-2011
Opinion Author: Myers, J.
Holding: Affirmed.
Additional Case Information: Topic: Divorce: Habitual cruel and inhuman treatment - Defend case for first time on appeal - Default judgment - M.R.C.P. 52 - M.R.C.P. 59 - M.R.C.P. 60 - M.R.E. 103(d)
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS
Writ of Certiorari: Granted
Appealed from Court of Appeals
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-01-2009
Appealed from: Desoto County Chancery Court
Judge: Percy L. Lynchard, Jr.
Disposition: Granted Divorce; Divided Marital Property; Awarded Custody of Children to Mother; Restricted Father's Visitation; Directed Father to Pay Child Support and Private School Tuition; and Health Insurance for Mother
Case Number: 07-08-1564
Note: Decision reversed by the Supreme Court.
  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Corey T. Lee




 PRO SE



  
  • Appellant #1 Brief
    		•
    Appellee: Jean Miller Lee CHARLES E. HODUM  
    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 - Defend case for first time on appeal - Default judgment - M.R.C.P. 52 - M.R.C.P. 59 - M.R.C.P. 60 - M.R.E. 103(d)
    Summary of the Facts: Corey Lee filed a complaint for divorce from Jean Lee on the grounds of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. Jean countersued for divorce on the same grounds. After his attorney withdrew from the case, Corey represented himself. He filed numerous pretrial motions but failed to appear at the divorce trial. The chancery court dismissed Corey’s complaint for divorce and, after a brief trial, granted Jean a divorce on her counter-complaint. The chancellor also awarded Jean custody of the children, awarded child support, and executed an equitable division of the marital property. The day after the trial, Corey filed a pro-se motion to vacate the divorce judgment. In his motion, Corey stated that he had not appeared for the trial because of dizziness stemming from hypertension. Corey’s pro-se motion to vacate the judgment was followed by a timely M.R.C.P. 59 motion for a new trial or to alter or amend the judgment. The court denied the motions, and Corey appeals.
    Summary of Opinion Analysis: On appeal, Corey attacks the chancellor’s findings and the evidence offered to support them on custody, child support, and equitable division. He also contends that the chancellor erred in ordering him to pay for the private schooling of one of the children and that the chancellor placed unreasonable limitations on his visitation with the children. Corey did not appear at the trial to contest the evidence offered by his wife. It also appears that he did not present any of these issues to the chancery court before taking this appeal. A party may not defend a case for the first time on appeal. Corey’s attempt to defend the case for the first time on appeal is improper, and the issues he raises are procedurally barred. A divorce judgment entered after an uncontested hearing is a special kind of default judgment. To obtain relief, Corey should have placed his issues before the chancery court in a post-trial motion under M.R.C.P. 52, 59, or 60. While Corey did timely file two post-trial motions, he did not raise the same issues he now seeks to advance on appeal. Corey has not attempted to show that his post-trial motions should have been granted, and on appeal he appears to have abandoned the contentions made there. Additionally, there is no justification for considering his issues under the plain error doctrine of M.R.E. 103(d).


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