Jackson v. Jackson
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-00976-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-21-2006 Opinion Author: King, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Habitual cruel and inhuman treatment - Equitable distribution Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Irving, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-29-2004 Appealed from: Prentiss County Chancery Court Judge: Jacqueline Mask Disposition: WIFE AWARDED FAULT-BASED DIVORCE Case Number: 2003-347 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | James Vernon Jackson |
KENNETH EUGENE FLOYD, II |
||
| Appellee: | Geraldine Jackson | JOHN A. FERRELL |
|
|
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 distribution |
| Summary of the Facts: | The court granted Geraldine Jackson a divorce from her husband, James Jackson, on the grounds of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. James appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Habitual cruel and inhuman treatment A divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment requires a showing of conduct that either 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 non-offending spouse and render it impossible for that spouse to discharge the duties of marriage, thus destroying the basis for its continuance. A finding of physical violence is not a prerequisite to establishing habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, but the cruel treatment must be routine and continuous. The chancellor found that James’ regular drinking binges, foul language, rude and condescending behavior toward Geraldine and the children, mysterious expenditure of marital funds, and unexplained extended absences rose to the level of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. These findings were supported by the testimony of Geraldine and four of the Jacksons’ children. The chancellor did not manifestly err in finding that the course of conduct in which James engaged during the twelve years prior to his separation from Geraldine amounted to habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. Issue 2: Equitable distribution James argues that the chancellor erred in her classification, valuation, and division of property. The chancellor found the following property to be marital property: the marital home, various household furniture and appliances, a tractor and various tools, three motor vehicles, Geraldine’s retirement account, and each parties’ checking account. The chancellor found a long list of household items which Geraldine’s children gave her as gifts to be her separate property. The chancellor also classified as James’ separate property several items that were given to him as gifts from his children. James argues that the items classified as Geraldine’s separate property were used for family purposes and should therefore be deemed marital property. Geraldine necessarily utilized the gifts from her children for domestic purposes because all of the gifts were household furnishings. However, James, who did not reside in the marital home for thirty years, disavowed any interest in these items. There was no error in the chancellor’s classification of marital and non-marital property. James also argues that the chancellor erred in her valuation of the Jacksons’ motor vehicles. The only evidence of the value of the Jacksons’ vehicles presented to the chancellor were the values assigned to the vehicles in both their financial statements. Although their personal valuations were fairly divergent, the chancellor did not err for accepting Geraldine’s assignment of value over James’ assignment. James also argues that the chancellor erred in her division of the marital property. The chancellor conducted a detailed Ferguson analysis, and made a division of the marital property, which was supported by substantial credible evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
