Chamblee v. Chamblee, 92-CA-01252
| Decision Date | 02 June 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-CA-01252,92-CA-01252 |
| Parties | Sheila Rozina Phillips CHAMBLEE v. David Glenn CHAMBLEE. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Daniel S. Spivey, Jackson, Jack W. Brand, Gerald & Brand Firm, Newton, for appellant.
Julie Sneed Muller, Phelps Dunbar, Jackson, Robert W. Long, Herring Long & Joiner, Canton, for appellee.
Before HAWKINS, C.J., and McRAE and JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr., JJ.
David Glenn Chamblee sued for a divorce from Sheila Rozina Phillips Chamblee on the grounds of adultery. Sheila Rozina Phillips Chamblee then countersued for divorce on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment. The chancellor granted a divorce to David Glenn Chamblee on the grounds of adultery. Sheila Rozina Phillips Chamblee has appealed the chancellor's findings in regards to several issues in a divorce case, arguing that these issues were wrongfully decided. This court holds that some but not all of the issues were wrongfully decided. We therefore affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.
Sheila Rozina Phillips Chamblee and David Glenn Chamblee were legally married in Leake County, Mississippi on August 22, 1981. Justin Glenn Chamblee, the one child produced by this marriage, was born five years later on October 11, 1986. The couple separated on May 30, 1991, when Sheila moved out of the marital home located at 950 Pine Hill Circle in Carthage, Mississippi.
Sheila claimed in her testimony that the two of them had been arguing for some time before the separation and that much the marital discord was caused by her husband's attitude towards her career. Sheila had been an employee of the Carthage Company since 1975. In 1989 Sheila started working for them under Gary Brashers as a contract manager, a job that required much more traveling than her previous position. According to Sheila, this additional traveling greatly upset her husband.
David and I virtually argued every single day that he was home about my job. He would call me at work; he would call me when he would be at work. If I would tell him that I was going on a trip, he would just, you know, tell me not to go, tell me I was his wife, that he did not want me to go, that he wanted me to quit my job, and he would even call me at the plant on occasions when he knew that I would be leaving that morning or that afternoon demanding that I not take that trip.
Sheila also testified that David's temper would sometimes push him beyond using words to using physical force, both with her and their son Justin. She claimed that she was physically abused by David on three specific occasions in the three months that led up to their separation. The first alleged instance of abuse came when Sheila intervened while David was disciplining their son.
He admitted that he had lost control, but we were virtually arguing over the discipline that he had given Justin. We were arguing back and forth, and he slapped me; he grabbed me; he threw me against the wall, told me that Justin was his son, and he could discipline him any way he wanted to.
Sheila claimed that the second such instance came in April of 1991. "I was at home one day for lunch, and we started arguing again over the same thing, about the fact that I was going to take a trip or had taken a trip, or just about the traveling, and we started arguing, and he slapped me."
According to Sheila the final occasion that David physically abused her was in May of 1991.
David had moved out of the marital bed in March of '91, the same night that we had the fight with Justin, and David and I had the fight, David moved out of the marital bed. This was in May before he was going back to work--I think it was like a couple of nights before he was going back to work. He came into the bedroom, and he told me that I was his wife, and that he was going to have sex with me. I told him that I was not, and he forced me to have sex against my will. He came back the next night or a night later and told me again that he was going to have sex with me, and I told him if he touched me again, I'd leave. He called me after he had gone back to work; he told me that he was going to leave work, was going to take all the money out of the savings account, that he was going to take Justin, and that they could leave, and I would never see either one of them again.
Sheila also cited several other non-specific instances of physical abuse.
Sheila claimed that these incidents would leave bruises on her arms and make her face red. Pam Wiskus, a neighbor and friend of Sheila's, testified that she saw one of these physical manifestations. "I have watched her; I saw bruises, and--on her arms from here (indicating)--that was the result of arguments." However, on cross-examination it was revealed that Pam Wiskus did not have first-hand knowledge as to how the bruises were caused.
Q. You don't know how they got there of your own personal knowledge; do you?
A. Apparently not.
Q. Other than what you have been told, you weren't there and you didn't see it?
A. That's right.
After these instances of physical abuse were alleged to have happened, David sent a letter to Sheila postmarked May 28, 1991, which says in part,
Sheila testified about two specific instances of David physically abusing Justin. The first occurred when David was trying to make Justin sleep in his own bed.
David had laid down with Justin to try to get him to sleep. David thought it was time for Justin to sleep in his own bed, and he was trying to force him to do that, and after about 30 minutes, David started screaming at Justin, and one thing led to another, and I knew the situation was getting out of hand just by the tone of David's voice, and yes, I did go into the bedroom ... (H)e was hitting Justin, and he was shaking him also.
According to Sheila, David's treatment of Justin went beyond normal disciplinary measures.
Sheila said that the second incident of abuse took place when David was trying to give Justin a bath.
Justin had decided this night that he did not want to take a bath, and he and David were in the bathroom, and David was telling him to take his clothes off, and Justin was telling him, no, he wasn't, and this went back and forth, and then David kept getting louder and louder; Justin was crying, and I went into the bathroom, and David was spanking Justin, and I told Justin don't, just please stop, that I would finish the bath, and David left the house. He was out of control, and he left the house.
According to Sheila, David's temper led to many of the arguments and much of the physical abuse. She testified that when David would lose his temper,
In his testimony, David denied ever physically abusing Sheila.
I have never hit Sheila in the entire time we were married. I have never hit her. She accused me of pushing her against the wall in the deposition. I have not. On one, possibly two occasions, I did grab her arms around her wrist and hold her. Once I remember we were arguing, and she was going to walk off and not listen to what I had to say, so I grabbed both wrists and held her there until I finished what I was saying, but I did not hold her with enough force to harm her.
In his testimony David specifically mentions the letter postmarked May 28 that he sent Sheila. According to him he was not speaking of physical pain he had caused Sheila but
David also denied that he has ever lost his temper with Justin or that he has ever used unnecessary force when he was disciplining Justin. He further testified that
When Sheila went traveling for the Carthage Company, she was sometimes accompanied by her boss, Gary Brashers. David testified that this too caused problems.
She started traveling with him, and she was not concerned with the home activities as much then, and I discussed this with her. And I didn't like the fact that when they traveled they would go back to the lounge at night and drink drinks before going back to the motel rooms, and I didn't think this was appropriate for her to be doing with another man.
David suspected his wife was engaged in an adulterous affair with Gary Brashers even before their separation. He testified that it was not until after she had moved out, however, that he was able to get what he considered to be the first real proof of their liaison.
She moved out that Friday. She did not come back to Carthage that Friday night. Saturday she returned, and I went down Saturday night, and she and I moved some furniture to her apartment. I left her apartment around midnight that night, drove back to Carthage. Then when I got to Carthage, I started thinking, wondering if she was going to stay at that apartment or not, so I left and went...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boswell v. Boswell
...evidence was presented that child was harmed or endangered by contact with non-custodial parent's paramour). See also Chamblee v. Chamblee, 637 So.2d 850, 862 (Miss.1994)(following Dunn holding in striking down order that mother could not have any male companion unrelated to her by blood or......
-
Dill v. Southern Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., No. 1999-CA-01130-SCT.
...applied an erroneous legal standard." Williams v. Williams, 656 So.2d 325, 330 (Miss.1995); Smith, 654 So.2d at 485; Chamblee v. Chamblee, 637 So.2d 850, 860 (Miss.1994), quoted in Brocato v. Brocato, 731 So.2d 1138, 1140 DISCUSSION ¶ 35. This Court has held that a beneficiary who had wilfu......
-
Lowrey v. Lowrey
...(Miss.Ct.App.2007). "[A]n equitable division of property does not necessarily mean an equal division of property." Chamblee v. Chamblee, 637 So.2d 850, 863-64 (Miss.1994). "[F]airness is the prevailing guideline in marital division." Ferguson, 639 So.2d at 929. Here, the chancellor made fin......
-
Layton v. Layton
...of property does not necessarily mean an equal division of property." Lowrey, 25 So.3d at 285 (¶ 26) (quoting Chamblee v. Chamblee, 637 So.2d 850, 863–64 (Miss.1994) ). It is apparent that the chancellor sought to use alimony as a tool to equalize the relationship of the parties rather than......