Martinez v. Martinez
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-01709-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-09-2003 Opinion Author: Southwick, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Property settlement agreement - Release of claims - Jurisdiction - Property rights Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King, P.J., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-30-2002 Appealed from: Madison County Circuit Court Judge: William E. Chapman, III Disposition: DISMISSED Case Number: CI-2001-0173 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Deana Martinez |
DAVID M. SESSUMS |
||
| Appellee: | Ricardo Alfredo Martinez | WILLIAM CHARLES BELL |
|
|
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: | Contract - Property settlement agreement - Release of claims - Jurisdiction - Property rights |
| Summary of the Facts: | Deana and Ricardo Martinez were divorced on the grounds of irreconcilable differences, and a property settlement agreement was incorporated into the final judgment. Prior to seeking the divorce, Deana had filed a criminal affidavit against Ricardo alleging that he assaulted her. The agreement required her to drop the charges which she did. A few months later, Deana filed a civil suit against her former husband in circuit court seeking damages for the same assault. Ricardo denied the alleged assault and requested a transfer to chancery court. The court dismissed the suit because of the agreement between the parties and awarded Ricardo attorney’s fees. Deana appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Jurisdiction Deana argues that the claim that she has now brought for personal injuries was never within the jurisdiction of the chancery court to resolve at the time of divorce. Claims can be the basis for suit by an injured party, can be assigned for others to pursue, or can be voluntarily abandoned. The property settlement agreement was an appropriate location for a release of claims to appear. Issue 2: Property rights Deana argues that a claim for personal injury does not fall within the description of property rights. A "chose in action" is personal property. The right to bring a suit for tort damages is a personal property interest. Therefore, the relinquishment of these tort claims was a valid provision in the agreement. Issue 3: Property settlement agreement Deana argues that she has not violated the agreement, because paragraph XIII of that agreement only required that she drop any charges filed by her against Ricardo while her husband was required not to file any charges against Deana. She concludes that only claims then pending were relinquished. However, each party released the other from all claims according to paragraph XV. Since there was no language that only the claims that had already been brought were affected by the agreement to release claims, Deana’s argument fails. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
