Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

After After Corey Lee failed to appear at his divorce hearing, the chancellor granted his wife's complaint for divorce and divided the marital property. On appeal, Mr. Lee argued, among other things, that the chancellor erred by not making the findings of fact and conclusions of law required by case law. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that Mr. Lee's claim was procedurally barred for failing to raise the issue before the chancellor. But because Mr. Lee did raise the issue, and because the chancellor's failure to make findings of fact and conclusions of law was manifest error, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The Hancock County Chancery Court granted Stacy Ruth Carambat a divorce from James Edward Carambat on the ground of habitual and excessive drug use. James appealed, arguing that the chancellor erred by granting the divorce, because his marijuana use did not affect the marriage, was not excessive, and was not akin to using opium, morphine, or other, like drugs. The couple married in 1993, and had twin boys in 1999. The couple separated in 2008 and Stacy filed for divorce later that year. Before the couple married, Stacy knew that James regularly smoked marijuana, and James admitted that he had been smoking marijuana since he was fourteen years old. James continued smoking marijuana throughout the marriage. Although the couple had conversations about James’s need to cease his marijuana use, James stated Stacy never asked him to quit. Stacy thought James would stop his drug use once the twins were born. Stacy alleged three grounds for divorce: irreconcilable differences, habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, and habitual and excessive drug use. She requested custody of the twins, child support, equitable distribution of the assets, alimony, and attorney’s fees. James answered Stacy’s complaint for divorce denying Stacy’s grounds for divorce, her claim that they had not cohabited since the separation, and her claim that she should have custody of the twins. Upon review of the chancery court's record, the Supreme Court found no error in its grant of the Carambats' divorce.

Chancery Court granted James and Johnnie Irving a divorce. Mr. Irving filed a petition for modification of his child-support payments, based on a change of circumstances brought about by the loss of his job which had occurred three weeks prior to the entry of an order that upwardly modified his support obligations. The chancellor declared that res judicata prevented Mr. Irving from presenting evidence of his job loss before the entry of the court's order. Mr. Irving appealed, alleging the chancellor erred by ruling res judicata prohibited him from presenting the evidence. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the chancellor erred in its ruling in Mr. Irving's case. The Court reversed the chancellor's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

This case stems from an interlocutory appeal by Kelly Blossom regarding the issuance of a protective order by the Rankin County Chancery Court that denied her attempt to take two depositions in her divorce case. In 2009, Michael Blossom filed a complaint and obtained a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and permanent injunction against Ms. Blossom enjoining her from any contact with their children. At the time the trial court issued the protective order, Ms. Blossom was being prosecuted for sexual battery in the circuit court. One of the witnesses was the minor victim in the criminal case. In the criminal case, Ms. Blossom eventually pled guilty to having committed sexual battery. The other potential deponent, another minor, was identified by Ms. Blossom as having knowledge about the the sexual battery from the criminal case. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found that the chancellor of the court below erred by granting the protective orders without meeting the requirements set out in the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure: "the fact that a witness is an 'alleged minor victim of a crime' alone does not constitute sufficient grounds to deny a party the right to depose that witness." Therefore, the Court reversed the decision of the lower court and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

Dr. Daniel Dare appealed a ruling of the Chancery Court that denied him the ability to intervene in the modification of a marital property agreement entered into by Paul and Sharon Stokes. Mr. and Mrs. Stokes were married in 1985. In 2007, Mrs. Stokes had an affair with Dr. Dare. Shortly after the affair began, Mr. Stokes filed for divorce. With the entry of a divorce decree, the Chancery Court incorporated a child-custody and property-settlement agreement that was "executed" by Mr. and Mrs. Stokes. Pertinent to the Supreme Court's review of this matter was a "covenant not to sue" included in the property agreement. Mr. Stokes filed a petition to modify the property agreement and sought to delete that part of the provision that barred him from bringing suit against "any other person for alienation or affection." Mrs. Stokes did not contest Mr. Stokes' petition, and the court deleted the term "any other person." Mr. Stokes then sued Dr. Dare for "alienation of affection." Dr. Dare sought to intervene in Mr. Stokes' modification matter. The court held that Dr. Dare was not a party to the divorce or the property agreement, and as such, had no legally cognizable interest in the divorce. Dr. Dare argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the modified "covenant not to sue" implicitly targeted Dr. Dare as a party, and that he should be allowed to intervene in the modification proceedings. The Supreme Court agreed with the Chancery Court that Dr. Dare had no legally protected interest in the Stokes' divorce and affirmed the lower court's decision.