Baughman v. Baughman
| Decision Date | 01 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2021-CA-00074-COA |
| Parties | NATASHA L. BAUGHMAN APPELLANT/ CROSS-APPELLEE v. BENJAMIN ALAN BAUGHMAN APPELLEE/ CROSS-APPELLANT |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Mississippi |
BEFORE BARNES, C.J., WESTBROOKS AND SMITH, JJ.
¶1. On January 6, 2021, the Marion County Chancery Court entered a judgment denying Alan Baughman's claim for separate maintenance, as well as Natasha Baughman's counterclaim for a divorce on the grounds of uncondoned adultery, habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, or irreconcilable differences. Natasha appeals, arguing that the chancery court erred when it did not grant her a divorce on the grounds of adultery or habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. Alan cross-appeals his denial of separate maintenance, arguing that the chancery court applied an erroneous legal standard and an incorrect burden of proof. We find no error with the chancery court's determinations regarding Alan's claim for separate maintenance or Natasha's divorce ground of adultery. However, we do find that it was clear error for the chancery court to find that Natasha's claim of cruel and inhuman treatment was not proven. Because the chancellor applied the incorrect legal standard in his determination on this ground, and because substantial credible evidence supports granting a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, we reverse and render judgment in favor of Natasha on this issue, and we remand the case to the chancery court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
¶2. Alan and Natasha were married on June 9, 2001. No children were born of the marriage, but Alan's son from a previous marriage lived in the marital home until he reached the age of majority.
¶3. The couple separated in 2018, though testimony diverges on the exact date Natasha moved out of the marital home. Each party gave conflicting testimony regarding the date, but both parties mentioned May 2018. Since Natasha's counseling records also list May 2018 as the month for separation, the chancellor made a factual finding that May 2018 was the correct date for separation.[1]
¶4. On August 8, 2018, Alan filed a complaint in the Marion County Chancery Court for separate maintenance and related relief. Alan contended that Natasha had formally abandoned the marriage, and he requested use of the homestead property insurance coverage for the vehicles, and medical and dental insurance. He also requested that Natasha "satisfy and pay all debts incurred by the parties." Natasha answered on August 16, 2018, with the defense that Alan's conduct "[was] the sole proximate cause of the parties['] separation," preventing him from being entitled to separate maintenance. She also raised the defense that Alan "[would] not allow her to return [to the homestead] to even retrieve . . . clothing and personal property." Natasha counterclaimed for divorce on the grounds of (1) uncondoned adultery; (2) habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, or, in the alternative, (3) irreconcilable differences. She also requested a hearing to establish temporary relief in order to "force [Alan] to provide support."
¶5. A temporary hearing was held on August 22, 2018. A temporary order was issued October 30, 2018, which gave Alan use and possession of the marital home and divided the debts between the parties. The order set a time later the same day for Natasha to remove her personal belongings from the home. In November 2018, Alan was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, which Alan testified eventually led to the loss of his job the following year. ¶6. On October 24, 2019, the parties were both ordered to submit updated Rule 8.05 financial statements after Natasha failed to disclose land she owned on her statement and misstated the amount she paid for Alan's health insurance. See UCCR 8.05. After the conclusion of a contentious discovery period, the matter was set for trial for August 26 - 27, 2020. The parties agreed beforehand to bifurcate the issues: the first hearing would be held for issues related to the separation grounds for divorce, and later, if necessary, a second hearing would be held for issues related to property division. The court permitted the bifurcation.
¶7. Testimony commenced regarding the cause of the separation and the grounds for divorce. Alan testified that Natasha was having an affair, "talking to another guy." Alan said he discovered the "affair" from a text conversation initiated by the other man's spouse on June 4, 2018. Natasha acknowledged she had a flirtatious relationship with another man in 2018, but in her deposition and answers, she denied that the relationship became sexual until May 2019, about one year after the separation. Alan testified that despite Natasha's affair, he did not seek a divorce and would be willing to reconcile with Natasha.
¶8. Natasha's account of the cause of separation is significantly different. Natasha first pointed to Alan's history of adultery. Both Alan and Natasha acknowledged Alan's adulterous contact with a woman in 2006. Both parties also testified that after this incident, they sought counseling and continued the marriage. Natasha testified about her other suspicions regarding affairs. She described her discovery of emails and texts from various women, once finding Alan at another woman's apartment. Alan did not admit to any additional affairs.
¶9. Natasha next described Alan's fits of rage, testifying that "he would yell and cuss" and break objects, including family items with sentimental value. In her deposition, she specifically mentioned a cross her grandmother gave her that Alan broke and that he laughed when she became upset. Natasha testified that although Alan did not hit her, "he would be intimidating towards me in word and body language." She also testified to a physical altercation between Alan and his son where she intervened and was cowed by Alan into a corner. She also described incidents where Alan "busted through doors" (, twice breaking a utility room door) to "come[] after [her]." Alan's testimony confirmed one instance of breaking glass in an exterior door. He described the incident as breaking the glass to enter the home because Natasha (who had the only key) would not let him inside and wanted to argue outside the home. He stated that he had to go inside and "use the bathroom really bad" due to a bowel issue, so he broke the window to enter the home. His testimony also alludes to the utility room door incident described by Natasha. Alan testified that Natasha explained her state of mind during the marriage as "[t]hrough the years there was just a constant anxiety of not knowing what might trigger these bouts of rage."
¶10. Natasha's counseling records, which were admitted into evidence, detailed marital issues starting in 2005. Few incidents were mentioned with specificity, as the notes provided only a one- or two-sentence summary of the counseling session. The records did, however, mention two specific instances where Alan "broke a cross [the] client's grandmother gave to her," and "[Alan's] rage including kicking a door." There were many additional references in the records of discussions of "threats of aggression," "the need for safety," "abuse by her husband," "escalating violence," "consequences to physical violence in the home," and "anger and rage episodes." General notes regarding Natasha's attempts to deal with violence and fear of Alan permeated the counseling records as far back as 2006.
¶11. Natasha then testified to two incidents she characterized as the "final straw" in her marriage. First, Natasha testified that after she moved out of the marital home Alan sent her text messages that included nude and partially clothed pictures of her. The parties disputed whether these photos were taken voluntarily. In this series of texts, Alan outlined an offer that "expires at 4:45 sharp." Alan stated, Natasha testified this referred to a "blackmail"[2] offer "for me to come to the house or else he is going to send out the [nude] photos to my dad and everybody." He also threatened to send the pictures to her sister and post them publicly on social media unless she agreed to talk to him in person regarding the allegations of her affair. Alan, in his testimony, acknowledged being the person who sent the photographs to Natasha in the text-message exchange labeled as Exhibit 21. When questioned about the accompanying text messages threatening to release them, Alan stated, "I don't recall that."
¶12. Natasha next testified that after receiving the text messages, she met with Alan at the marital home to talk. She then described an incident that she depicted as a sexual assault or forced sex by Alan in order "to dominate and humiliate me." Natasha testified that she Alan testified that this sexual encounter was consensual and that "[he] would not do that."[3]
¶13. The date of the sexual encounter was never fully established. Natasha testified that after staying the remainder of the night in the home, she reported the encounter to her counselor the next day. This report is not reflected in her counselor's records around the time of the encounter. Natasha's...
To continue reading
Request your trial