Peters v. Peters


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2003-CA-01907-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 12-07-2004
Opinion Author: Myers, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Divorce: Habitual cruel and inhuman treatment - Sufficiency of evidence - Child support - Section 43-19-101(4) - Marital assets
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Irving, J.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 05-02-2003
Appealed from: Harrison County Chancery Court
Judge: Carter Bise
Disposition: JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE ENTERED AWARDING CHILD CUSTODY AND SUPPORT, AND DIVIDING MARITAL ASSETS.
Case Number: C2401 01-0118

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Michael William Peters, Sr.




CLARE SEKUL HORNSBY WILLIAM E. TISDALE



 

Appellee: Catherine Lynne Peters DEAN HOLLEMAN  

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 - Sufficiency of evidence - Child support - Section 43-19-101(4) - Marital assets

Summary of the Facts: Catherine Peters was granted a divorce from Michael Peters on the grounds of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, awarding her custody of the minor children, ordering child support payments, and making division of the marital assets. Michael appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Michael argues that his conduct, upon which Catherine relied in making her case for habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, was too remote in time to establish a causal connection between the separation and the ground for divorce, and did not rise to the level of placing Catherine in reasonable apprehension of danger to life, limb or health. To be granted a divorce on the grounds of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, the offended spouse must show conduct that either endangers life, limb, or health, or creates a reasonable apprehension of such danger, rendering the relationship unsafe for the party seeking relief, or is so unnatural and infamous as to make the marriage revolting to the non-offending spouse and render it impossible for that spouse to discharge the duties of marriage. The chancellor made extensive findings of fact which illustrated a continuous pattern of conduct that could safely be called unnatural and infamous, beginning sometime in 1984 and continuing up to and beyond the separation in late 2000. While the incidents described in these findings were based largely upon the testimony of Catherine, there was corroborating testimony presented by the children of the parties. Therefore, the chancellor did not err in granting Catherine a divorce on the grounds of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. Issue 2: Child support Michael argues that the chancellor erred in his award of child support by failing to take into account various factors that would have reduced Michael’s income for purposes of calculating the amount of child support. The record shows that Michael gave conflicting reports about his income, debts, expenses, and the like, and because of Michael’s failure to be completely candid, the chancellor was required to figure an amount based upon the credible evidence available at trial. Given Michael’s lack of candor in describing his financial condition, he can hardly complain now about possible inaccuracies in the income amount used by the chancellor in computing the award. Michael argues that the chancellor did not comply with section 43-19-101(4) which requires a written finding that the application of the statutory guidelines to an income in excess of $50,000 was reasonable. The chancellor stated that at this point in time, he saw no reason to deviate from the statutory child support guideline of twenty percent of the adjusted gross income. While this statement is rather succinct, it is nonetheless a written finding of reasonableness. Issue 3: Marital assets Michael argues that the court committed various errors in its valuation and division of the marital assets. Michael has cited to no legal authority in support of his arguments on this issue. Assignments of error not supported by legal authority need not be considered on appeal.


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