Carambat v. Carambat


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2010-CA-01226-SCT
Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 10-20-2011
Opinion Author: King, J.
Holding: Affirmed
Additional Case Information: Topic: Divorce: Habitual and excessive drug use - Sufficiency of evidence - Section 93-5-1 - Use of marijuana - Condonation - M.R.C.P. 8(c)
Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Randolph, Lamar, Chandler and Pierce, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Carlson, P.J.
Dissent Joined By : Carlson, P.J., Dissents With Separate Dickinson, P.J., and Kitchens, J.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 02-23-2010
Appealed from: Hancock County Chancery Court
Judge: Sanford Steckler
Disposition: Granted Appellee a divorce on the ground of habitual and excessive drug use.
Case Number: C2301-08-00775(3)
  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: James Edward Carambat




 STEPHEN J. MAGGIO



  
  • Appellant #1 Brief
    		•
    Appellee: Stacy Ruth Carambat OTIS B. CROCKER, III  
    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 and excessive drug use - Sufficiency of evidence - Section 93-5-1 - Use of marijuana - Condonation - M.R.C.P. 8(c)
    Summary of the Facts: Stacy Carambat was granted a divorce from James Carambat on the ground of habitual and excessive drug use. James appeals.
    Summary of Opinion Analysis: James argues that the chancellor erred by granting Stacy a divorce because she did not prove that his drug use was excessive and an “other like drug” as required by section 93-5-1. James also maintains that Stacy condoned his marijuana use and that his marijuana use did not cause any family, marital, or work issues. According to Stacy, she dated James two years before marrying him, and she knew about his drug use all along. But affirmative defenses, such as condonation, must be specifically pleaded as required by M.R.C.P. 8(c) or else they are waived. James failed to plead condonation, and Stacy objected to his raising the defense at trial. Thus, this argument has been waived. James argues, under the doctrine of recrimination, that Stacy’s adultery actually led to the demise of the marriage. But James did not file a cross-claim for divorce, and he did not plead recrimination. A grant of divorce under section 93-5-1 for “habitual and excessive use of opium, morphine, or other like drug” requires the plaintiff to establish that the spouse’s drug use was (1) habitual and frequent, (2) excessive and uncontrollable, and (3) that involved opium, morphine, or drugs with a similar effect as opium or morphine. Habitual use is established by showing that the spouse customarily and frequently used drugs. Stacy presented evidence that James began smoking marijuana at the age of fourteen, and his use continued until the age of fifty-five. Excessive drug use requires a showing that the offending spouse abused drugs. James argues that his drug use was casual, it relaxed him, and he was not dependent on it. However, the evidence shows the contrary. Stacy and James testified that James had attempted to stop smoking marijuana several times, quitting for weeks at a time. But, as James stated himself, he always went back to it. Quitting for weeks at a time but then always going back to achieve a high is the nature of addiction. Also, the chancellor found that James’s marijuana use negatively impacted his interaction with his family, work productivity, and the family’s financial stability. There is substantial evidence in the record to support the chancellor’s findings. James argues that Stacy failed to prove that marijuana is an “other like drug” similar to opium or morphine. Factors to consider in determining whether a drug is an “other like drug” include the guilty spouse’s inability to support his wife and family or to properly attend to business and the guilty spouse’s incapacity to perform other marital duties or his causing the marital relationship to be repugnant to the innocent spouse. In this case, the evidence supports the chancellor’s finding that James’s marijuana use had a like effect to the use of opium or morphine. James evidenced an inability to support his family and to properly attend to business. This made the marriage repugnant to Stacy. Thus, the chancellor’s judgment of divorce is affirmed.


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