Simmons v. Strickland
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-01189-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-29-2011 Opinion Author: Griffis, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Alienation of affection - Weight of evidence - Exclusion of testimony - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) - M.R.E. 403 - Jury instruction - Nominal damages Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Russell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Myers and Barnes, JJ. Dissenting Author : Irving, P.J. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Maxwell, J., concurs in part and in the result without separate written opinion Nature of the Case: C IVIL-TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-23-2009 Appealed from: Lowndes County Circuit Court Judge: Lee J. Howard Disposition: JURY VERDICTS FOR $87,500 IN COMPENSATORY DAMAGES AND $500 IN PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF ON CLAIM OF ALIENATION OF AFFECTION Case Number: 2008-0124-CV1 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Melissa Simmons |
J. TYSON GRAHAM |
||
| Appellee: | Chrissy Strickland | J. DOUGLAS FORD |
|
|
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: | Alienation of affection - Weight of evidence - Exclusion of testimony - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) - M.R.E. 403 - Jury instruction - Nominal damages |
| Summary of the Facts: | Chrissy Strickland filed a complaint against Melissa Simmons and asserted claims for alienation of affection and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Chrissy and awarded $87,500 in compensatory damages and $500 in punitive damages. Melissa appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Weight of evidence Melissa argues that the verdict is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. To prevail on her claim of alienation of affection, Chrissy was required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the following elements: wrongful conduct of the defendant; loss of affection or consortium; and causal connection between such conduct and loss. Chrissy was required to show that Melissa, through active interference, persuaded, enticed, or induced Chuck to abandon the marriage. Viewed in the light most favorable to Chrissy, the evidence established that Chuck and Chrissy had a stable, although not perfect, marriage for eleven years. In the summer of 2007, Chuck and Chrissy were having some problems in their relationship. At that point, Melissa began an affair with Chuck. Notably, the cell phone records show that Melissa called Chuck more than twice as much as he called her. A few months later, Chuck abandoned the marriage, saying that he was in love with Melissa. Based on these facts, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to infer that, but for Melissa’s active interference, the marriage of Chuck and Chrissy probably would not have ended. Issue 2: Exclusion of testimony Prior to trial, Melissa identified Ervin Reddy, Chrissy’s ex-husband, as a potential witness. Chrissy filed a motion in limine to exclude Reddy’s testimony. At the motion hearing, it was established that Reddy would have testified that, during his marriage to Chrissy, Chrissy had an affair with Chuck and ultimately moved in with him. The trial judge granted the motion to exclude Reddy’s testimony. Melissa argues that Reddy’s testimony was admissible to impeach Chrissy’s testimony. Chrissy had testified at a pretrial deposition that she and Chuck had not had an affair during her marriage to Reddy. At trial, she denied that she had moved in with Chuck prior to her divorce from Reddy, and she denied that the alleged affair was the reason she and Reddy divorced. Melissa does not cite one rule or case as authority. M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) provides that the argument shall contain citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on. While it appears her argument refers to M.R.E. 403, Melissa has the duty to provide relevant authority to support her argument. She has not. Issue 3: Jury instruction Melissa argues that while the trial judge correctly instructed the jury that adultery raises a presumption of malice, which if unrebutted warrants punitive damages, he erred when he refused to give Melissa’s offered jury instruction on how the presumption could be overcome. Melissa fails to cite relevant authority. Issue 4: Nominal damages Melissa argues that the trial judge erred when he refused to give a jury instruction on nominal damages. Melissa again cites no authority to support her argument. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
