Sallis v. Sallis
Docket Number: | 2002-CA-00800-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CA-00800-COA |
|
Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-30-2003 Opinion Author: Lee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce - Jurisdiction Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-06-2002 Appealed from: Prentiss County Chancery Court Judge: John C. Ross, Jr. Disposition: APPELLANT'S COMPLAINT FOR DIVORCE DISMISSED. Case Number: 2001-281 |
Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
Appellant: | Joseph A. Sallis |
TOMMY DEXTER CADLE
KENNETH EUGENE FLOYD |
||
Appellee: | Shirley D. Sallis | JOHN A. FERRELL |
|
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 - Jurisdiction |
Summary of the Facts: | Joseph Sallis filed a complaint for divorce against Shirley Sallis. After the chancellor granted Joseph a divorce, Shirley filed a motion to set aside the judgment claiming she was only served with a Rule 81 summons. The chancellor granted Shirley's motion, and Joseph filed another complaint for divorce. Shirley again filed a motion to dismiss which the court granted on the basis that Illinois, not Mississippi, had jurisdiction. Joseph appeals. |
Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Joseph argues that Mississippi had jurisdiction. The pendency of a case in one jurisdiction is not a necessary bar to the same action in another jurisdiction. The chancellor has discretion to decide which state will have jurisdiction over the matter at issue, taking into consideration the existence of any exigent circumstances, the parties' needs, and consideration for comity and protection against forum shopping. Here, the chancellor found that jurisdiction inured to Illinois, because the parties separated while residing in Illinois and Shirley had filed for divorce in Illinois, as well. Under the circumstances, dismissal of the Mississippi action was proper. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court