Dare v. Stokes
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-00023-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-26-2011 Opinion Author: Randolph, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Motion to intervene - M.R.C.P. 24 - Divorce proceeding - Third party - Property settlement agreement - Alienation of affection Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Dickinson, P.JJ., Lamar, Chandler, Pierce and King, JJ. Dissenting Author : Kitchens, J. With Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-17-2009 Appealed from: Warren County Chancery Court Judge: Marie Wilson Disposition: The chancellor found that Dare did not have a legally protected interest in Paul and Sharon's divorce. Case Number: 2008-026-GN |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Daniel P. Dare, M.D. |
HOLMES S. ADAMS, ELIZABETH FINLAY ARCHER, JOHN SIMEON HOOKS |
||
| Appellee: | Sharon S. Stokes and Paul H. Stokes | MICHAEL J. MALOUF, WILLIAM EDWARD BALLARD |
|
|
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: | Motion to intervene - M.R.C.P. 24 - Divorce proceeding - Third party - Property settlement agreement - Alienation of affection |
| Summary of the Facts: | Paul and Sharon Stokes were granted a divorce on irreconcilable-differences grounds. The chancellor entered a final judgment of divorce which incorporated the child-custody and property-settlement agreement “entered into” and “executed by” Paul and Sharon. Paul and Sharon agreed that Paul would not file any lawsuit or any legal action against Sharon or any other person regarding any matters relating to the dissolution of their marriage, including any suit for any damages for alienation of affection. A year later, Paul filed a petition for modification of the PSA, seeking to delete the provision that barred him from bringing suit against “any other person” for “alienation of affection.” The chancellor entered an order modifying the PSA by deleting the words “or any other person.” Thereafter, Dr. Daniel Dare received a letter from Paul’s counsel stating that Paul had retained him to pursue an action against Dare for alienation of affection. Dare then filed a motion to intervene which the court denied. Dare appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Under M.R.C.P. 24, a putative intervenor must make timely application, have an interest in the subject matter of the action, be so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect his interest, and his interest must not already be adequately represented by existing parties. The underlying subject matter of the action is Paul and Sharon’s divorce. Third parties are prohibited from intervening in divorce proceedings in the absence of a statute permitting such intervention. Dare was not named in the PSA, and it provides for no legal obligations or duties owed expressly to Dare. As such, intervention is inappropriate. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
