Chapel v. Chapel


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2002-CA-00794-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 07-01-2004
Opinion Author: Cobb, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Child support - Separate maintenance agreement - Subject matter jurisdiction - Res judicata
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Easley, Carlson, Graves, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 01-09-2001
Appealed from: Jackson County Chancery Court
Judge: Pat Watts, Jr.
Disposition: Denied Appellant's motion for relief from judgment.
Case Number: 95-2473(PW)

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Grace Chapel




KEITH ROBERTS



 

Appellee: Michael Anthony Chapel PRO SE  

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 support - Separate maintenance agreement - Subject matter jurisdiction - Res judicata

Summary of the Facts: Michael Chapel filed for divorce from Grace Chapel in the Jackson County Chancery Court. The court denied the divorce, but awarded separate maintenance and custody of the two minor children to Grace. Michael, on active duty with the U. S. Navy at the time, subsequently established residency in Virginia and obtained a divorce there. During the next five years, numerous motions were filed by both parties, alleging contempt, and seeking modifications and continuances. Hearings were set, continued, and conducted, all in the original case filed in the Jackson County Chancery Court. The parties eventually announced that they had reached agreement regarding child custody, support, distribution of property and all other matters before the court. The court entered a judgment which modified the terms of the separate maintenance agreement, including the division of the parties' property. Grace refused to sign the judgment and filed a M.R.C.P. 60(b)(1) motion for relief which the court denied. She appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Subject matter jurisdiction Grace argues that the chancellor did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the action after Virginia entered the final divorce decree. Given that neither party made formal objections to the chancellor's authority to modify the original separate maintenance judgment after the Virginia divorce was granted, it is not necessary for the Court to reach the issue of whether a divorce decree, particularly a foreign divorce decree, terminates a domestic court's order of separate maintenance. The chancellor modified the original separate maintenance judgment after the Virginia divorce at the request of the parties. Once petitioned by the parties, the divorce qualified as a material change in circumstances subsequent to the original judgment, which vested the chancellor with the authority to modify it. Issue 2: Res judicata Grace argues that the awards to her in the original separate maintenance action are res judicata and not subject to modification. Alimony and separate maintenance are the same thing in different situations, and therefore there is nothing inherent in the substance of the claims to prevent the separate maintenance action from being converted to one for alimony, without the necessity of amending the pleadings. Here, Grace and Michael manifested their consent to the chancellor's modification of the original judgment and division of the marital property on numerous occasions during the years covered in this appeal. There was no surprise or prejudice occasioned as a result of the judge's decision to grant the agreed request of the parties. The consent of the parties gave the chancellor the authority and jurisdiction to adjudicate issues relating to division of the marital property, without requiring the parties to amend their pleadings.


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