Adcock v. Norman
| Docket Number: | 2002-CT-02027-SCT Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-02027-SCT ; 2002-CA-02027-COA |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-15-2005 Opinion Author: Waller, P.J. Holding: AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Child custody - Jurisdiction - M.R.C.P. 59(3) - M.R.C.P. 60 Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Cobb, P.J., Carlson, Graves, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Easley, J., without written opinion 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: 03-25-2003 Appealed from: Sharkey County Chancery Court Judge: Vicki Barnes Disposition: The chancellor granted Pamala permanent custody of the children, denied Christopher's petition for custody and denied Pamala's request for attorney's fees. Case Number: 01-100 |
|
| Consolidated: The Supreme court found that the Court of Appeals’ action in invalidating the judgment was error. See the original COA opinion at http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO25082.pdf | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Pamala Ann Standish Adcock |
PATRICIA PETERSON SMITH |
||
| Appellee: | Christopher Alan Van Norman | SARAH A. HODNETT BROOKS |
|
|
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: | Child custody - Jurisdiction - M.R.C.P. 59(3) - M.R.C.P. 60 |
| Summary of the Facts: | After ending a relationship with Pamala Adcock, Christopher Van Norman filed in the Sharkey County Chancery Court a petition for custody of Pamala’s twins (Pamala was the natural mother and she was pregnant with the twins when she began her relationship with Christopher). Pamala’s response was that Christopher was not the twins’ natural father; she also asked the court to order a paternity test and award attorney's fee and damages for invasion of privacy. The chancellor entered an order granting temporary custody of the twins to Christopher and directing Pamala, Christopher and the children to submit to a "blood paternity test." Pamala then filed a motion to dismiss Christopher's petition for custody. The chancellor denied the motion to dismiss and again ordered a blood test to confirm paternity. The results of the blood tests confirmed that Christopher was not the biological father of the twins. After several hearings, the chancellor awarded permanent care, custody, and control of the children to Pamala, denied Christopher's petition for custody and denied Pamala's request for attorney's fees and sanctions. Both Pamala and Christopher appealed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | In the Sharkey County Chancery Court matter, the chancellor stated that she was without judicial authority to order Pamala to allow to Christopher visitation rights. One month before the Sharkey County judgment was entered, the Warren County court entered a judgment which removed Christopher’s name from each of the twin’s birth certificate and changed the twins’ last name from Van Norman to Adcock. Even though the Warren County judgment was not raised by either party on appeal, the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, addressed the Sharkey County chancellor’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and applied the doctrine of priority jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals determined that, since the case at bar was filed before the matter in Warren County was filed, the Warren County judgment was invalid and of no effect. The only ways the Warren County judgment could be reopened and/or altered is for either Adcock or Van Norman to file a M.R.C.P. 59(3) motion to alter or amend the judgment; file an M.R.C.P. 60 motion before the Warren County court; or appeal the judgment to the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals clearly lacked jurisdiction to set aside the Warren County judgment because that judgment was never appealed. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals only has jurisdiction to hear a matter which has been assigned to it by the Supreme Court. If no appeal from the Warren County judgment was ever taken, jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the Warren County judgment was never conferred upon the Supreme Court; therefore the Supreme Court could not assign the appeal to the Court of Appeals. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
