Tag: Domestic Relations

Summaries of the Mississippi Court of Appeals opinions of April 26, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals dropped eight nine opinions today and there is a lot to sort through. Two divorce cases (one involving equitable distribution of a marital residence and the other a life estate via constructive trust for a mother-in-law), a PCR case, a workers’ comp case involving medical causation, an adverse possession/tax sale case, a personal injury via falling through a roof case, an appeal of an estate case dismissed for lack of final order, and two criminal cases. One of the criminal cases is the second “should the indictment for attempt have alleged an overt act” case we have gotten in a row and it sees a dissenting Judge Westbrooks align herself with Justice Coleman’s dissent last week.

I am always balancing the desire to post these summaries quickly and the need to get back to paying work with the desire to provide a reasonably polished [free] product. Due to the number of cases and the fact that I have to leave the office a little early to coach a little league baseball game, there is extra weight on the “speed” side of the balance today.
Thanks,
Management

Archie v. Archie, 2020-CA-01370-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations/Equitable Distribution/Marital Residence)
Affirming the chancellor’s modification of a final judgment of divorce as to equitable distribution of the marital residence, holding that there was no error in the chancellor ordering the ex-wife to sell the paid-off martial home in order to satisfy the ex-wife’s obligation to pay her ex-husband his share of the equity where the ex-wife had been unable to secure a loan on the paid-off house, even though the ex-husband had not pleaded a request for an order requiring the ex-wife to sell the residence. The court repeatedly noted that the chancellor had broad discretion to “fashion an equitable remedy” and held that the chancellor’s remedy here was appropriate.
(Judge Wilson concurred in part and the in the result without separate written opinion.)

Bevalaque v. State, 2021-CP-00150-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming dismissal of a pro se plaintiff’s third PCR motion, holding that the motion was time-barred and successive-writ barred and that no exceptions applied.
(All judges concurred.)

Bowdry v. City of Tupelo, 2021-WC-00390-COA (Civil – Workers’ Compensation/Medical Causation)
Affirming the MWCC’s finding that the claimant’s neck claim was not related to his compensable work-injury, holding that the Commission’s finding that the claimant failed to prove causation was supported by substantial evidence.
(All judges concurred.)

PRACTICE POINT: The Court of Appeals noted that on appeal they do not review the AJ’s findings, but the Commission’s findings and did not address the claimant’s arguments about the AJ’s findings:

This is because the Commission does not function as an appellate court reviewing the AJs’ findings. This is because the Commission, not the AJ, is the ultimate trier and finder of fact for workers’ comp claims. See, e.g., Hugh Dancy Co. Inc. v. Mooneyham, 68 So. 3d 76 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011)

Anderson v. Jackson, 2019-CA-01773-COA (Civil – Real Property/Adverse Possession/Unclean Hands/Tax Sale)
Reversing the chancellor’s findings granting title of real property to one party (Levon) based on findings that Levon had obtained title by adverse possession or by tax sale and that the opposing party (Rosie) had unclean hands, holding that the chancellor erred in granting title to Levon because he failed to prove the elements of adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence, that the tax sale was void due to flawed notice of redemption, and that the doctrine of unclean hands was erroneously applied to bar Rosie’s challenge because Rosie’s conduct was related to a forty-year-old estate case, not the transaction at issue.
(All judges concurred.)

Since accusations of “unclean hands” get thrown around in litigation on occasion, I thought this summary of the equitable doctrine of unclean hands is a useful refresher:

NOTE – As always, but only more so here, if this case applies to your practice you need to read it yourself. There are many details in this forty-page opinion that I have not even attempted to tease apart.

Herron v. Herron, 2021-CA-00090-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations/Constructive Trust/Property Valuation)
Affirming the chancellor’s findings in a divorce action granting a life estate via constructive trust in a home on the marital property to the ex-wife’s mother in assigning value to property awarded to the ex-husband, holding that there was clear and convincing proof that the house was intended to be owned by the mother in a life estate and that there was substantial credible evidence supporting the chancellor’s valuations of the personal property in question.
(All judges concurred.)

Gillespie v. Lamey, 2021-CA-00076-COA (Civil – Personal Injury/Summary Judgment/Duty to Warn)
Affirming summary judgment in favor of a defendant dismissing the plaintiff’s claim for personal injuries sustained when the plaintiff fell through a roof while working on a skylight on the defendant’s property, holding that (1) the plaintiff presented no evidence that the defendant failed to warn the plaintiff of any dangerous condition of which the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge and (2) the allegedly dangerous condition was “intimately connected” to the work he was hired to do.
(Judge Smith did not participate, all other judges concurred.)

Smith v. Richmond, 2020-CP-01064-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts, and Estates/Civil Procedure)
Dismissing the appeal, holding that the pro se appellant’s attempted appeal of the chancery court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion to set aside an interim order, a motion to recuse, and a “motion to change jurisdiction” must be dismissed because each of these motions was an interlocutory order not appealable as of right.
(All judges concurred.)

Wayne v. State, 2021-KA-00084-COA (Criminal – Felony/Rebuttal Evidence/Sufficiency and Weight of Evidence)
Affirming murder conviction, holding that there was no error (1) in allowing the State to recall a State’s witness and introduce and play the defendant’s recorded statement in rebuttal because the recorded statement contradicted the defendant’s trial testimony, (2) in introducing the defendant’s entire statement because it was proper impeachment evidence, or (3) in denying the defendant’s post-trial motion because the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the conviction was not against the weight of the evidence.
(All judges concurred.)

Beale v. State, 2020-KA-00614-COA (Criminal – Felony/Overt Act)
Affirming conviction two counts of attempted murder of two police officers, holding (1) an indictment for the crime of attempted murder does not require the description of an overt act, (2) that two jury instructions did not constitute a constructive amendment to the indictment, and (3) testimony from an officer about what a witness told him at the crime scene was not hearsay because they were not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted but to explain the next steps in the course of his investigation.
(Judge Westbrooks dissented, joined in part by Judge McDonald. Judge McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part without separate written opinion. Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Judge Wilson concurred in result only without separate written opinion. All other judges concurred.)

NOTE – We have gotten an “is the indictment missing an alleged overt act” case in back-to-back hand-down days. In her dissent, Judge Westbrooks’s argues that she is taking a position consistent with the position that Justice Coleman took just last week in Brady v. State (my post here) (opinion link here).

Other Opinions

Durrant Inc. v. Lee County, Mississippi, 2019-CA-01826-COA (denying motion for rehearing)
Bell v. State, 2020-CT-00592-COA (denying motion for rehearing)

Hand Down List

Summaries of the Mississippi Court of Appeals opinions of April 5, 2022

After a slow week on the opinion front the Mississippi Court of Appeals is back in action with eight opinions today. There is a domestic relations case dealing with a slew of arguments about child support and child custody, a criminal appeal addressing waiver of potential conflicts with codefendants being represented by a single attorney, a disability opinion, an unemployment opinion, and several PCR opinions.

Wallace v. Wallace, 2020-CA-01148-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations/Custody/Child Support)
Affirming the chancellor’s decisions related to a series of motions related to child support and custody modification:
1. No error in finding the father in arrears for child support for the period of time during which the mother had voluntarily modified the custody arrangement, but not the child support arrangement.
2. No error in finding the father in arrears for nonapyment of daycare and after-school expenses even though the mother “stockpiled” receipts for years rather than presenting them every 30 days as required by the MDA.
3. No error in decision that the mother was not in contempt for withholding visitation in light of the “substantial discretion regarding contempt matters” afforded to chancellors and evidence in the record that visitation was never withheld.
4. No error in no awarding both parents the right to claim the children as dependents for tax purposes because in the absence of specific findings of fact the court assumes the chancellor resolved any factual disputes in favor of the appellee.
5. No error in declining to hold the mother in contempt over the aforementioned stockpiling of daycare/after-school receipts.
6. No error in awarding the mother attorney’s fees in light of the fact that the father was held in contempt.
7. No error in awarding just $1,000 in attorney’s fees to the father for the mother’s violation of the morals clause considering the discretion chancellor’s enjoy on such decisions.
8. No error in ordering the father to provide for the children’s health insurance considering the children’s loss of access to employment-related insurance after the mother’s job was eliminated due to COVID-19.
(Judge Westbrooks and Judge McCarty concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Magee v. State and Haynes v. State, 2020-KA-01378-COA (Criminal – Felony/Waiver of Potential Conflicts/Dual Representation/Sufficiency of the Evidence/Jury Instructions)
Affirming convictions of co-defendants in consolidated appeals. The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court’s ruling giving the defendants what they asked for by allowing them to waive potential conflicts with being represented by the same attorney, finding that the defendants knowingly and intelligently waived the potential conflicts. The court of appeals held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions of both defendants for kidnapping and conspiracy, and the conviction of one defendant for sexual battery. Finally, the court of appeals held that there was no error in denying two of the defendants’ proposed jury instructions or in the circuit court’s sua sponte conspiracy instruction.
(All judges concurred)

Hickerson v. State, 2021-CA-00176-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of a petition for PCR, holding that there was no error in finding that the petition was procedurally deficient for failing to attach competent affidavits and that the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was meritless.
(Chief Judge Barnes concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Lawrence did not participate)

Barbour v. Singing River Health System Employees’ Retirement Plan and Trust, 2020-CA-01407-COA (Civil – State Board and Agencies/Disability)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision denying disability benefits, holding that to the extent the chancellor’s reference to an incorrect standard of review was in error, it was harmless because the plaintiff was not an “employee” of Singing River at the time of his injury.
(Judge Wilson concurred in part and in result, joined by Judge Smith and Judge Emfinger and in part by Judge McCarty)

Handyman House Techs, LLC v. Mississippi Department of Employment Security, 2021-CC-00029-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies/MDES)
Affirming the circuit court’s decision affirming MDES’s determination that an applicant for unemployment benefits was a “employee” rather than an “independent contractor,” holding that the MDES Board of Review’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious.
(Chief Judge Barnes and Judge McCarty concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Ford v. State, 2020-CP-00372-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of a PCR motion, holding that the circuit court correctly ruled that the second PCR motion was an impermissible successive motion.
(All judges concurred)

Thompson v. State, 2020-CP-01236-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of a PCR, finding no merit to the claims that the indictment was defective, that the guilty plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered, that the defendant’s attorney had a conflict of interest and provided ineffective assistance of counsel, or that the defendant’s statement and the victim’s statement were coerced.
(All judges concurred)

Booker v. State, 2018-CA-00664-COA (Civil – PCR/Miller)
On rehearing, withdrawing a previous opinion and substituting an opinion holding that the circuit court did not err in determining that the defendant did not have a statutory right to be resentenced under Miller, that the circuit court did not err in denying the defendant’s request for parole eligibility, that the defendant was not deprived of an opportunity to be heard on the issue of rehabilitation, that the defendant failed to prove ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the sentence was not unconstitutional based on arguments about the defendant’s age and IQ.

Other Orders

Walker v. State, 2020-KA-228-COA (denying motion for rehearing)

Hand Down List