Johnson v. Johnson


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2010-CA-01193-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 12-13-2011
Opinion Author: Griffis, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Divorce: Habitual cruel and inhuman treatment - Alimony - Attorney's fees on appeal
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Myers, J.
Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Irving, P.J., concurs in part and in the result.
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 06-21-2010
Appealed from: Hinds County Chancery Court
Judge: Patricia D. Wise
Disposition: APPELLEE GRANTED DIVORC E ON GROUND OF HABITUAL CRUEL AND INHUMAN TREATMENT AND AWARDED $900 PER MONTH IN ALIMONY AND $3,000 IN ATTORNEY’S FEES
Case Number: G2001-2002 W/4

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Willie C. Johnson




FELECIA PERKINS



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: Hazel Gwendolyn Johnson SHARON PATTERSON THIBODEAUX  

    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 - Alimony - Attorney's fees on appeal

    Summary of the Facts: Hazel Johnson was granted a divorce from Willie Johnson on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. The chancellor divided the marital property and awarded Hazel $900 per month in permanent alimony and $3,000 in attorney’s fees. Willie appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Habitual cruel and inhuman treatment Willie argues that the chancellor’s finding of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment was manifestly wrong. He contends that the only support for the chancellor’s finding was his adultery and Hazel had condoned his adultery. To establish habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, the petitioner must show, by a preponderance of the evidence that the other spouse’s conduct was cruel and inhuman, and the petitioner’s physical or mental health was negatively impacted by that conduct. Conduct is cruel and inhuman if it either endangers life, limb, or health, or creates a reasonable apprehension of such danger or is so unnatural and infamous as to make the marriage revolting to the other spouse. While Willie might be correct that adultery alone cannot support a finding of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, a pattern of adultery, when combined with other cruel and inhuman conduct, can support such a finding. There was substantial evidence that Willie had committed several acts of adultery and that he had, on at least one occasion, committed an act of physical violence. Willie fathered at least two – possibly three – children out of wedlock with two different women during his marriage to Hazel. Hazel’s testimony and the hospital records indicate Willie physically assaulted her in their former marital home in May 2004. These facts are sufficient to establish that Willie’s conduct was cruel and inhuman. Hazel has shown the requisite impact on her physical or mental health. The hospital records indicate that she suffered bruises and lacerations following the incident in May 2004. Also, Willie’s affair caused significant stress for Hazel. The other woman became possessive, jealous, and threatening. She made harassing phone calls to Hazel, damaged property in Hazel’s garage, and scattered Hazel’s wedding photographs on the street in front of Hazel’s house. Hazel testified that as a result of that behavior, she felt terrified and would often barricade herself inside her home. Although Hazel did continue in the marriage after she learned about Willie’s affairs, but the evidence indicates she expected him to end the affairs and recommit to the marriage. She forgave him for his past indiscretions, but she did not consent to live in a marriage with a habitually unfaithful husband. Hazel had not condoned Willie’s habitual adultery. Thus, there is no error in the chancellor’s determination that Hazel was entitled to a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. Issue 2: Alimony Willie argues that the chancellor was manifestly wrong when she decided that alimony was appropriate. After dividing the marital property, the chancellor conducted the proper analysis to determine whether alimony was appropriate. Her judgment listed each Armstrong factor and made thorough findings of fact under each factor. The chancellor highlighted four facts: Willie has a substantial income and significant retirement savings, while Hazel is unemployed and has little saved for retirement; Willie is in good health, while Hazel is plagued by numerous health problems; Willie and Hazel were married for twenty-seven years; and Willie’s fault caused the dissolution of the marriage. The chancellor’s determination and award of alimony was not erroneous. Issue 3: Attorney’s fees Hazel asks the Court to award her attorney’s fees on appeal in the amount of one-half the attorney’s fees that she was awarded by the chancellor. Because the chancellor did not err in finding that Hazel’s financial condition made her unable to compensate her attorney, she is awarded an additional $1,500 in attorney’s fees on appeal.


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