Slaughter v. Slaughter
| Docket Number: | 2003-IA-00278-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-01-2004 Opinion Author: Easley, J. Holding: Affirmed in Part; Reversed and Rendered in Part |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Venue - Jurisdiction - Section 93-5-11 - Section 93-11-65 - Section 93-5-23 Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Carlson, Graves and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Concurs in Result Only: Cobb, P.J. Procedural History: Interlocutory Appeal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-29-2003 Appealed from: Coahoma County Chancery Court Judge: William Willard Disposition: Denied the motion to consolidate and transfer. Case Number: 2002-685 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Mitchell Stuart Slaughter |
CHARLES E. WEBSTER
TINA MARIE DUGARD SCOTT |
||
| Appellee: | Monica Woods Slaughter | NANCY ALLEN WEGENER |
|
|
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: Irreconcilable differences - Venue - Jurisdiction - Section 93-5-11 - Section 93-11-65 - Section 93-5-23 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Monica Slaughter filed a complaint for divorce against Mitchell Slaughter alleging the fault grounds of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment and, in the alternative, irreconcilable differences. Mitchell filed a motion to dismiss based on improper venue. The court denied the motion to dismiss in part, dismissing the fault ground divorce but retaining jurisdiction over the action solely on Monica's request for an irreconcilable differences divorce and the custody and support issues. Mitchell filed his answer for divorce contesting the subject matter and in persona jurisdiction and denying that Monica was entitled to a divorce. He also filed a motion to consolidate and transfer to the Chancery Court of Chickasaw County which the court denied. Mitchell entered a motion to amend prior orders and requested that the chancellor certify his rulings pursuant to M.R.A.P. 5 in order for Mitchell to petition for an interlocutory appeal. The court did so, and the Supreme Court granted an interlocutory appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Mitchell argues that pursuant to section 93-5-11, the proper venue for filing the divorce was Chickasaw County, the defendant's county of residence and that the chancery court lacked jurisdiction to enter any orders in the action and the action was not subject to transfer to Chickasaw County. In divorce proceedings, section 93-5-11 provides that if the defendant is a resident of this state, the complaint shall be filed in the county in which the defendant resides or may be found at the time, or in the county of the residence of the parties at the time of separation, if the plaintiff is still a resident of such county when the suit is instituted. Section 93-11-65 provides that the chancery court of the proper county shall have jurisdiction to entertain suits for the custody, care, support and maintenance of minor children and to hear and determine all such matters. Clearly, section 93-5-11 provides for both contested and uncontested divorces. For a contested divorce, where as in this case the defendant is a resident of Mississippi, a divorce complaint must be filed in the county in which the defendant resides, may be found, or in the county where the couple separated provided the plaintiff remains a resident of that county at the time of the filing of the complaint. However, if both parties are residents of the State of Mississippi and a complaint is filed solely for irreconcilable differences, then the complaint may be filed in the county or counties where either party resides at the time of filing. Mitchell resided in Chickasaw County at all times. Therefore, the fault ground of divorce should have been filed in Chickasaw County. At the time Monica filed the complaint she had been in Coahoma County for approximately 48 hours and Mitchell resided in Chickasaw County. Therefore, an irreconcilable difference divorce would be proper in either Coahoma or Chickasaw counties. By dismissing the contested ground of divorce which should have been filed in Chickasaw County, the residence of Mitchell as the defendant, the chancellor kept the divorce claim viable. While the chancellor correctly determined that Coahoma County did not have jurisdiction over the contested divorce, he could not “cure” the jurisdictional error by simply dismissing the contested divorce and retaining the irreconcilable differences divorce. Since the chancellor had no jurisdiction for the contested divorce, the chancellor had no jurisdiction over the entire action. Because the chancellor had no jurisdiction over the divorce the case should have been dismissed and cannot be transferred. The statutory requirements for proper filing of a divorce action are straightforward and clear and may not be circumvented by an attempt to expand section 93-5-11 through the use of section 93-11-65, nor indirectly through section 93-5-23. Monica’s divorce action should be dismissed in toto, and she cannot attempt to cure her failure to follow section 93-5-11 by relying upon the section 93-11-65 filing requirements for the care, custody, support and maintenance of a child. A proper reading of sections 93-5-11, 93-5-23 and 93-11-65 does not provide for a custody matter to proceed under section 93-11-65 when a divorce is pending. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
