LeBlanc v. Andrews
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-02258-COA Linked Case(s): 2004-CA-02258-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-13-2006 Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Habitual cruel and inhuman treatment - Rehabilitative alimony - Mental examination - M.R.C.P. 35(a) Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-20-2004 Appealed from: Hinds County Chancery Court Judge: Denise Owens Disposition: JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE ENTERED FOR APPELLANT ON GROUND OF HABITUAL CRUEL AND INHUMAN TREATMENT. APPELLEE GRANTED UNSUPERVISED VISITATION AND ORDERED TO PAY REHABILITATIVE ALIMONY TO APPELLANT. Case Number: G2003-350-03 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Jennifer Louise LeBlanc |
T. JACKSON LYONS |
||
| Appellee: | Curtiss Dean Andrews | MICHAEL P. YOUNGER |
|
|
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 - Rehabilitative alimony - Mental examination - M.R.C.P. 35(a) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jennifer LeBlanc was granted a divorce from Curtiss Andrews on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. The chancellor divided the marital property and debt between the divorcing parties. With respect to the couple’s minor child, the chancellor utilized the Albright factors in awarding custody to LeBlanc. The chancellor ordered Andrews to pay child support for the benefit of the minor child and afforded Andrews unsupervised visitation on a graduated schedule. The chancellor also ruled that LeBlanc was entitled to rehabilitative alimony in the form of payment of certain debts by Andrews. LeBlanc appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Rehabilitative alimony LeBlanc argues that the chancellor erred in concluding that an equitable property division could also serve as rehabilitative alimony. Rehabilitative periodic alimony is an equitable mechanism which allows a party needing assistance to become self-supporting without becoming destitute in the interim. Rehabilitative periodic alimony is not intended as an equalizer between the parties but is for the purpose of allowing the lesser able party to start anew without being destitute in the interim. LeBlanc’s situation is not of the type for which rehabilitative alimony was designed. Although Andrews did leave the marital home, there is no evidence in the record that LeBlanc was left destitute as a result. The record reveals that, shortly after he left the marital home, Andrews began paying LeBlanc $1,200 to $1,700 per month. The record also reveals that LeBlanc was working as a paralegal when she stopped working in August 2001. LeBlanc reentered the workforce in February 2004, and, at the time of trial, was gainfully employed as a secretary with a gross monthly income of $2,666.66. There is nothing in the record to indicate that LeBlanc had to receive additional training or had to be retrained in order to facilitate her entrance back into the workforce. Thus, the chancellor did not abuse her discretion by awarding LeBlanc rehabilitative alimony in the form of payment of certain debts by Andrews. Issue 2: Mental examination LeBlanc argues that the court should have ordered Andrews to undergo a mental examination before granting him unsupervised visitation with the couple’s daughter. The record simply does not support that Andrews had ever harmed his daughter in the past or that he would present an immediate danger to her health and safety in the future. The chancellor, being the only one to hear the testimony of the witnesses and observe their demeanor, is in the best position to judge their credibility. M.R.C.P. 35(a) clearly indicates that whether to order a party to undergo a mental examination is at a chancellor’s discretion. The chancellor in the present case found no evidence or testimony during discovery, litigation, or any other time that would warrant ordering a mental examination of Andrews. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
