Lee v. Lee
| Docket Number: | 2009-CT-01850-SCT Linked Case(s): 2009-CP-01850-COA ; 2009-CP-01850-COA ; 2009-CT-01850-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-26-2012 Opinion Author: Dickinson, P.J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce - Default judgment - Equitable distribution - Post-trial motion - M.R.C.P. 59 - Ferguson factors Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson, P.J., Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler and Pierce, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): King, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS Writ of Certiorari: Granted Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-01-2009 Appealed from: DeSoto County Chancery Court Judge: Percy L. Lynchard, Jr. Disposition: GRANTED DIVORCE; DIVIDED MARITAL PROPERTY; AWARDED CUSTODY OF CHILDREN TO MOTHER; RESTRICTED FATHER’S VISITATION; DIRECTED FATHER TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT AND PRIVATE SCHOOL TUITION; AND HEALTH INSURANCE FOR MOTHER Case Number: 07-08-1564 |
|
| Note: | The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision affirming the trial court by finding that by dividing marital property without making a Ferguson finding, the chancellor committed reversible error. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Corey T. Lee |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | Corey T. Lee | CHARLES E. HODUM |
|
|
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 - Default judgment - Equitable distribution - Post-trial motion - M.R.C.P. 59 - Ferguson factors |
| Summary of the Facts: | After Corey Lee failed to appear at his divorce hearing, the chancellor granted his wife’s complaint for divorce and divided the marital property. Corey appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The Court of Appeals found that, because Corey never raised the property division issue before the chancellor, he was procedurally barred from arguing it for the first time on appeal. To obtain relief from a default judgment in a divorce action, absent parties are required to raise the issues in post-trial motions under M.R.C.P. 52, 59, or 60. Although Corey filed a Rule 59 motion, the Court of Appeals held that the motion did not address the equitable-distribution issue; and, therefore, the issue was procedurally barred. However, in his Rule 59 motion, Corey argued that the division of martial property was inequitable. At the hearing on the motion, Corey’s attorney specifically argued that the chancellor had failed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law, as required by Ferguson. Thus, the issue is not barred. The chancellor referred to Ferguson by case name in his ruling from the bench, but he never applied the factors, nor did he make findings of fact and conclusions of law. In the chancellor’s final decree of divorce, he made no mention of Ferguson or its guidelines. A chancellor must make certain that the obligation to explain the rulings is as rigorously followed in a default situation as in a normal evidentiary contest between the parties. By failing to appear at the hearing, Corey forfeited his right to present evidence and prosecute his divorce complaint. But he did not forfeit the right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence or the judgment. And whether absent or present at the trial, the appropriate time to challenge a judgment is after it has been entered. Corey did so in his Rule 59 motion and at the hearing following it. Thus, the case is reversed and remanded. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
