Baggett v. Baggett
| Decision Date | 07 November 2017 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2016–CA–00537–COA,2016–CA–00537–COA |
| Citation | 246 So.3d 887 |
| Parties | Sonja Renee BAGGETT, Appellant v. James Darrell BAGGETT, Appellee |
| Court | Mississippi Court of Appeals |
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: CAROL ANN ESTES BUSTIN
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: RISHER GRANTHAM CAVES, TERRY L. CAVES
EN BANC.
IRVING, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶ 1. Renee Baggett filed a complaint for divorce from her husband James Baggett on the bases of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment and habitual drunkenness, or, alternatively, irreconcilable differences. The Chancery Court of Wayne County dismissed her complaint after a short trial. Renee appeals, asserting that the chancery court erred in (1) dismissing her complaint in light of the overwhelming weight of the evidence proving her alleged grounds for divorce, (2) failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and (3) excluding the proffered testimony of Dr. Bharat Patel. We affirm.
¶ 2. James and Renee married on August 27, 1998. The couple raised Renee's two children. At the time that Renee filed her complaint, the couple had recently adopted Renee's grandchild and were raising him.
¶ 3. For fourteen years prior to trial, James worked as an oil-rig manager, which required him to work away from home for two weeks, then stay home for two weeks. Both Renee and James testified that he drank alcohol when he was home. When asked at trial if James "got drunk every[ ]day," Renee replied, Renee also testified that James's behavior would change depending on how much he had had to drink. Renee stated that she "begged [James] to quit drinking over twenty years," and that while he might sometimes quit for months, he would always begin drinking again. James testified that Renee knew before they married that he drank alcohol—as the couple had dated for several years and lived together prior to marrying—and she married him anyway. Renee responded that she and James had discussed his drinking prior to their marriage, and that she had relied on James's assertions that he hoped to stop drinking once he settled down and had a family.
¶ 4. Both Renee and James testified that they had separated on multiple occasions throughout the marriage. However, until their most recent separation, they had always reconciled, even after James was arrested and pleaded guilty to domestic violence in August 2006. At trial, Renee and James presented differing versions of the events leading to James's arrest: Renee asserted that James punched her in the face and beat her until the police came, while James testified that he merely grabbed Renee. Renee stated that, in addition to this particular incident, James would often push or grab her by her arms or clothes. Renee also testified that James was emotionally abusive, in that he would scream at her, call her names, and make derogatory comments.
¶ 5. Renee filed her complaint for divorce on June 25, 2015, on the grounds previously stated. James initially filed a counterclaim, in which he asserted his own grounds for divorce; however, he later withdrew his counterclaim. Trial was conducted before the chancery court, during which James, Renee, and six other witnesses—Patsy Harper (Renee's mother), Benton Harper (Renee's stepfather), Brittany Welborn (Renee's daughter), and three of Renee's friends: Michelle Collins, Felicia Sellers, and Sandy Toombs—testified.
¶ 6. Patsy and Benton both testified that they had lived with James and Renee for about a year in 2014; however, they presented differing accounts of James and Renee's marriage: Patsy testified that, while she lived at the home, she observed that James was easily angered and that he was drunk once or twice in the two-week spans that he lived at home; however, Benton testified that he did not see anything unusual with James and Renee's marriage. Brittany, who lived in a mobile home on James and Renee's property, corroborated Patsy's statement that James was easily angered, testifying that he Brittany further testified that she had observed James drink and get drunk a "[c]ouple nights a week." Brittany also testified that while she had never personally observed physical violence between James and Renee, on the date of the August 2006 domestic-violence incident, she had personally observed that "the whole left side of [Renee's] face was bruised."
¶ 7. Michelle lived with Renee and James from about 2003 to 2005; she testified that, at the time of trial, she lived next door to Renee and saw her nearly every day. However, she had not been inside Renee and James's home on a regular basis "in the last few years." While she had never seen James hit Renee, she had "seen him push her and be in her face, [and] cuss her in front of several people." Michelle also testified that she had seen Renee with a "horrific black eye."1 Michelle maintained that James drank "[a]s much as he could hold" every day, and that he would begin drinking at least by lunch.
Michelle testified that she had seen him leave the house and come home drunk "[m]any times." Felicia and Sandy testified that Renee and James argued, and that Renee had expressed concern about James's drinking. Felicia further testified that Renee had told her about James inflicting physical violence on her, but that she had never witnessed Renee with any injuries. Several witnesses—including Patsy, Michelle, and Renee—testified that James's conduct had negatively impacted Renee's mental health.
¶ 8. At the end of the trial, Renee's counsel sought to introduce the deposition of Dr. Patel.2 James objected on the basis that Renee had only given notice of the deposition to opposing counsel on January 25, 2016, when the deposition itself was to take place on January 26, 2016. Due to such short notice, James's counsel had been unable to attend the deposition. The chancellor denied Renee's request on the bases that notice was untimely and that opposing counsel had not been present for the deposition.
¶ 9. After the chancellor denied Renee's attempt to introduce Dr. Patel's deposition, James's counsel moved to dismiss Renee's complaint under Rule 41(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. The chancellor granted the dismissal on the basis that Renee only presented one incident of domestic violence occurring over ten years prior to the filing of her complaint, which was insufficient to constitute habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. Further, the chancellor ruled that Renee had only presented evidence that James habitually drank, not that he was habitually drunk, which was insufficient to constitute habitual drunkenness.3 Renee filed this timely appeal.
¶ 10. "In domestic-relation cases, our review is limited to whether the chancery court's findings were manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous, or [whether] the court applied the wrong legal standard." Lomax v. Lomax , 172 So.3d 1258, 1260 (¶ 5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "If there is substantial evidence in the record to support the chancery court's findings of fact, we will not reverse its decision on appeal." Id. (citation omitted). However, "[w]hen reviewing a chancellor's interpretation and application of the law, our standard of review is de novo." Smith v. Smith , 90 So.3d 1259, 1262 (¶ 8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (citation omitted).
¶ 11. Rule 41(b) states in pertinent part:
After the plaintiff, in an action tried by the court without a jury, has completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant, without waiving his right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, may move for a dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. The court may then render judgment against the plaintiff or may decline to render any judgment until the close of all the evidence.
The Mississippi Supreme Court has expounded upon this rule, providing the following:
The standard of review applicable on [a] motion to dismiss under Rule 41(b) is different [than] that applicable to a motion for a directed verdict. In considering a motion to dismiss, the judge should consider the evidence fairly, as distinguished from in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and the judge should dismiss the case if it would find for the defendant. The court must deny a motion to dismiss only if the judge would be obliged to find for the plaintiff if the plaintiff's evidence were all the evidence offered in the case. [An appellate court] applies the substantial evidence/manifest error standards to an appeal of a grant or denial of a motion to dismiss pursuant to [ Rule] 41(b).
Stewart v. Merchs. Nat'l Bank , 700 So.2d 255, 258–59 (Miss. 1997) ().
¶ 12. Here, Renee asserts that the chancellor erred in dismissing her complaint because she presented overwhelming evidence in favor of both habitual cruel and inhuman treatment and habitual drunkenness.
¶ 13. "A chancellor's determination that a spouse's conduct rose to the level of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment is a determination of law, which we review de novo." Smith , 90 So.3d at 1262 (¶ 8) (citation omitted). To obtain a divorce on the grounds of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, the offended spouse must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the offending spouse's behavior either:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roley v. Roley
...it impossible for that spouse to discharge the duties of marriage, thus destroying the basis for its continuance. Id. (quoting Baggett v. Baggett , 246 So. 3d 887, 892 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) ). "[T]he [defendant's] conduct must exceed ‘unkindness or rudeness or mere incompatibility or ......
-
Wangler v. Wangler
...Ct. App. 2005) ). "The offending spouse's conduct ... ‘must be shown to have been systematic and continuous.’ " Baggett v. Baggett , 246 So. 3d 887, 892 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (quoting Horn , 909 So. 2d at 1155 ). "Further, the offended spouse must show a causal connection between the offend......
-
Rankin v. Rankin
...have been systematic and continuous.’ " Wangler , 294 So. 3d at 1143 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Baggett v. Baggett , 246 So. 3d 887, 892 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) ). "The conduct must consist of something more than unkindness or rudeness or mere incompatibility or want of affec......
-
Gilmer v. Gilmer
...and render it impossible for that spouse to discharge the duties of marriage, thus destroying the basis for its continuance. Baggett v. Baggett , 246 So. 3d 887, 892 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017). But "[t]he offending spouse's conduct must exceed ‘unkindness or rudeness or mere incompatibilit......