Doster v. Doster
| Docket Number: | 2001-CA-01103-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-19-2003 Opinion Author: Lee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Prenuptial agreement - Loss of furniture Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Thomas, Irving, Myers and Griffis, JJ. Dissenting Author : Chandler, J. Dissent Joined By : Bridges, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-17-2001 Appealed from: Itawamba County Chancery Court Judge: John C. Ross, Jr. Disposition: DIVORCE GRANTED ON GROUNDS OF IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES; COURT ORDERED SALE OF THE MARITAL HOME WITH PROCEEDS PAID AS DIRECTED; PROCEEDS FROM INSURANCE CLAIM FOR STOLEN HOUSEHOLD ITEMS TO BE DIVIDED EQUALLY; ATTORNEY'S FEES DENIED. Case Number: 2000-0108 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | James Lee Doster |
JAK SMITH |
||
| Appellee: | Iva Ruth Doster | PRO SE |
|
|
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 - Prenuptial agreement - Loss of furniture |
| Summary of the Facts: | James and Ruth Doster were granted a divorce based on irreconcilable differences. The chancellor denied James's request to nullify the prenuptial agreement concerning the marital home and ordered that the marital home be sold and proceeds distributed as directed. He also directed that insurance monies from personal property which was stolen be divided one-half to each party, and declined to award attorney's fees to either party. James appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Prenuptial agreement James argues that the court erred in enforcing the specific provision in the prenuptial agreement which provides Ruth would receive the first $25,000 equity in the home, because Ruth lied about losing her railroad retirement which is why he agreed to the provision. No evidence was produced to show why, at the time the document was drawn up, the $25,000 provision was included. The chancellor did not find James's argument persuasive, and his decision is not subject to reversal absent proof of clear error. James also argues that because Ruth failed to abide by the agreement to make payments on the home, the chancellor's award of $25,000 to Ruth was unjust. Looking at the language of this provision in the agreement, the wording is not definite to imply whether breach occurs if Ruth fails to make the payments. The termination of a contract is an extreme remedy that should be sparsely granted. The chancellor's remedy of restoring to James the monies he paid on the home when Ruth was unable to pay is sufficiently without error. Issue 2: Loss of furniture James argues that Ruth took $16,000 worth of his furniture without his permission, then hid it, and when the court asked that she return it, she claimed it was stolen. Because James fails to cite authority on this issue, it will not be addressed. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
