Dickinson v. Dickinson

• Decision Date: 31 March 2020
• Docket Number: NO. 2018-CA-00827-COA,2018-CA-00827-COA
• Citation: 293 So.3d 322
• Parties: Michael Merritt DICKINSON, Appellant v. Lisa Fazzio DICKINSON, Appellee
• Court: Mississippi Court of Appeals

293 So.3d 322

Michael Merritt DICKINSON, Appellant

v.Lisa Fazzio DICKINSON, Appellee

NO. 2018-CA-00827-COA

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

March 31, 2020

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: MARK H. WATTS, Pascagoula

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: GARY L. ROBERTS, Gautier

BEFORE CARLTON, P.J., GREENLEE AND TINDELL, JJ.

TINDELL, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Michael Dickinson raises two issues on appeal relating to a decision of the Jackson County Chancery Court entered on April 20, 2017, which granted a divorce in favor of Lisa Dickinson on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. Michael challenges the chancellor's decision to grant the cruelty-based divorce and the chancellor's valuation of the couple's marital home. Upon review, we find that substantial evidence supports the chancellor's findings, and we therefore affirm the chancellor's judgment of divorce and valuation of the marital home.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. Michael and Lisa were married on June 5, 1995, and lived together in Jackson County, Mississippi, until their separation in early 2014.¹ The couple had no children together, but Lisa had two daughters from a previous marriage. On April 4, 2014, Lisa filed for divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment or, in the alternative, due to irreconcilable differences. On April 23, 2014, Michael filed his answer and counterclaim for divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. But Michael later withdrew his counterclaim on the first day of the couple's divorce proceedings.

¶3. Bifurcated divorce proceedings occurred on January 14, 2015, and February 6, 2015; they concluded on October 5, 2015. The chancellor heard testimony from Lisa, Michael, and Lisa's sister Laura Lindsey regarding Michael's alleged habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. On the matter of equitable distribution, Lisa and Michael presented the chancellor separate valuations on their marital home of $126,170 and $500,000, respectively. After hearing all the evidence, on October 23, 2015, the chancellor entered his "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment of Law" and granted Lisa's request for a divorce based on habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. The chancellor also found that the value of the couple's marital home was $126,170 and awarded the home to Lisa.

¶4. Aggrieved, Michael appealed. This Court dismissed Michael's first appeal, finding that the chancellor's judgment did not constitute a final, appealable judgment. The chancellor then entered a ruling on April 20, 2017, and Michael raises two issues on this appeal.²

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶5. We apply a limited standard of review when examining a chancellor's decision in domestic-relations matters. Williams v. Williams , 224 So. 3d 1282, 1284 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017). "Chancellors are afforded wide latitude in fashioning equitable remedies in domestic[-]relations matters, and their decisions will not be reversed if the findings of fact are supported by substantial credible evidence in the record." Henderson v. Henderson , 757 So. 2d 285, 289 (¶19) (Miss. 2000). We review the facts involved in rendering a divorce decree "in a light most favorable to the appellee," and unless the chancellor's judgment was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, or applied an erroneous legal standard, the judgment should stand. White v. White , 208 So. 3d 587, 592 (¶10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). When reviewing a chancellor's judgment of property division, we are required "to ensure that the chancellor followed the appropriate standards and did not abuse his discretion." Wells v. Wells , 800 So. 2d 1239, 1243 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001).

ANALYSIS

I. Whether the chancellor erroneously granted a divorce based upon habitual cruel and inhuman treatment.

¶6. Michael first argues that the chancellor erred in granting Lisa a divorce based upon habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. Mississippi law allows for a fault-based divorce upon the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-1 (Rev. 2013). The burden of proving habitual cruel and inhuman treatment lays on the offended spouse, who "must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the offending spouse's behavior either:

(1) endangers life, limb, or health, or creates a reasonable apprehension of such danger, rendering the relationship unsafe for the party seeking relief, or

(2) is so unnatural and infamous as to make the marriage revolting to the non-offending spouse 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 incompatibility or want of affection’ and ‘must be shown to have been systematic and continuous.’ " Id . (quoting Horn v. Horn , 909 So. 2d 1151, 1155 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) ). There must be some proof of "a causal connection between the offending spouse's conduct and the impact on the offended spouse." Id . "Such an inquiry is subjective, and ‘the focus is on the effect the conduct has on the particular spouse, not its effect on an ordinary, reasonable person.’ " Id . (quoting Smith v. Smith , 90 So. 3d 1259, 1263 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) ).

¶7. To establish a causal connection, the offended party must corroborate his or her testimony of the alleged treatment. White , 208 So. 3d at 593 (¶13).³

"[C]orroborating evidence need not be sufficient in itself to establish habitual cruelty, but rather need only provide enough supporting facts for a court to conclude the [offended spouse]’s testimony is true." Id . (quoting Smith , 90 So. 3d at 1263 (¶12) ). On appeal, Michael argues that Lisa failed to provide the evidence and corroboration required for a chancellor to grant a habitual-cruel-and-inhuman-treatment divorce. Michael further argues that Lisa failed to prove that his alleged cruel and inhuman behavior had any causal effect on Lisa or prevented her from being able to continue their marriage.

¶8. At trial, the chancellor heard testimony from Lisa, Lisa's sister Laura, and Michael regarding his conduct throughout the twenty-year marriage. Lisa testified that when their marriage began, Michael made Lisa and her daughters excited for "a new adventure" and a new family. But that excitement ended once Michael began living with Lisa and her daughters. Michael soon became a very angry person to live with and created a "miserable" and "tense" environment at home.

¶9. Lisa testified that Michael rigidly controlled every aspect of their lives, including the way in which Lisa and her daughters behaved around him. Michael would not allow Lisa and her daughters to do basic things, such as chew gum, use too much hot water, or have leftovers in the refrigerator, and he would become irate if they disobeyed him. Lisa described one instance when Michael became irrationally upset and yelled at Lisa's mother when she gave Lisa's daughter a piece of gum. On another occasion, Michael discovered pieces of dried parsley in their kitchen and proceeded to "rant and rave," screaming at Lisa for being wasteful in his home. Lisa also testified that Michael became angry if the house was not quiet at a particular time every night. Lisa described the atmosphere at night in their home as very stressful and tense because she and her daughters were afraid to accidentally wake Michael. Lisa explained that Michael's anger was so unpredictable that it often seemed like he was "looking for reasons to be riled up" at Lisa or her daughters, and this made everyone stressed and afraid to live in their own home.

¶10. Michael also prevented Lisa from cleaning their home. Lisa testified that Michael accumulated piles of trash and dishes throughout their house but forbade Lisa from throwing anything away or washing the dishes. Michael also hoarded "junk" outside their home, such as rusted nails, scraps of wood, or pieces of clay, but he yelled at Lisa for moving anything. When Lisa left the marital home, Michael had accumulated trash in almost every room of their home, and he stated that he had done so in order to "punish" Lisa for moving his belongings in the past. Lisa stated she was embarrassed to have company over because their home was so disheveled, and she could only clean when Michael was away on tennis trips.

¶11. Lisa also testified that Michael hated her daughters and openly expressed that sentiment around them. Michael taught school during their marriage, and he told Lisa and her daughters that he "dealt with kids all day and didn't want to deal with Lisa's kids when he got home." Lisa's daughters eventually became so upset by Michael's behavior and distaste for them that they chose to leave Lisa's home and move in with their father. Lisa testified that once her daughters moved out, they refused to visit her and Michael, and Lisa's relationship with her daughters rapidly deteriorated from that point forward.

¶12. Lisa testified that Michael would also express his anger by using the "silent treatment" with her. Lisa explained that Michael would become so angry that he refused to speak to Lisa or acknowledge her, except to yell at her to not touch him. Michael's silent treatment also carried over into holidays and vacations. One time, Lisa testified that Michael became so angry because family members were late for a holiday meal that he locked himself in his bedroom and refused to talk to Lisa or the family members for the entire length of their stay. On another occasion, Lisa and Michael went on a trip with another couple. Michael became so furious at Lisa that he refused to speak to anyone for the remainder of the trip, and he refused to walk on the same side of the street as Lisa or the other couple. Lisa testified that Michael's silent treatment lasted for weeks or sometimes months at a time. Michael admitted at trial that he used the "silent treatment" at least eight times during the marriage and...