Fournet v. Fournet, No. 56516

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
Writing for the CourtBefore PATTERSON; PRATHER; PATTERSON
Docket NumberNo. 56516
PartiesJohn Dupuis FOURNET, Jr. v. Sarah Mullins FOURNET.
Decision Date18 December 1985

Page 326

481 So.2d 326
John Dupuis FOURNET, Jr.
v.
Sarah Mullins FOURNET.
No. 56516.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Dec. 18, 1985.

Page 327

Daniel H. Fairly, Stratton & Fairly, Brookhaven, for appellant.

Patricia R. Alexander and Harlon Varnado, Jackson, for appellee.

Before PATTERSON, C.J., and PRATHER and ROBERTSON, JJ.

PRATHER, Justice, for the Court:

The sufficiency of evidence for the granting of a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment is the subject of this appeal. Sarah Mullins Fournet filed suit against her husband, John Dupuis Fournet, Jr., seeking a divorce, alimony, and property division. Following the award of all these requests to Mrs. Fournet, the husband appeals.

John Dupuis Fournet assigns the following errors, to wit:

(1) The lower court erred in failing to sustain appellant's motion to dismiss the complaint for divorce and in granting a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment.

(2) The lower court erred in granting appellee title to the Mercedez-Benz automobile.

(3) The lower court erred in requiring appellant to pay temporary alimony.

(4) The lower court erred in failing to sign the bill of exception.

(5) The lower court erred in overruling appellant's motions for new trial or in the alternative amendment of final judgment and motion for bill of exceptions.

(6) The lower court erred in awarding appellee $200.00 attorney's fee pursuant to Rule 11(b) of Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure.

I.

Appellant and appellee were married June 5, 1982, and resided together in Jackson, Mississippi. No children were born to this marriage. They separated October 4, 1984 when appellee left the marital domicile and moved in with her sister.

Mrs. Sarah Fournet alleged as her grounds for divorce habitual cruel and inhuman treatment and irreconcilable difference. She testified about only four (4) specific occasions wherein appellant was abusive, cruel and inhuman, as she describes it. First, she accuses the appellant of having fussed at her about their checkbook and checking account. The discussion took place in the bedroom of their home while appellant was having a drink of whiskey. Second, appellee testified that appellant called her "bitch" on one (1) occasion. Third, appellee says appellant beat his dog on one (1) occasion because the dog got paint on appellant. This upset appellee. Finally, appellee charges appellant with berating her after she bumped a car in the parking lot of a hospital.

Appellee further testified that appellant intimidated her by his silence and ignoring her. She was anxious because appellant's sister is retarded and appellant would not discuss with her the possibility of a child born of their union having the same condition. As witness for appellee, Kathy Dedeaux, her sister, testified that appellant became enraged at the hospital the day appellee bumped another car. Dedeaux testified that appellant intimidated appellee and that appellee is much happier since she left appellant. Dedeaux charges appellant with having said "goddammit" on one occasion--the incident at the hospital. However, she further testified that appellant did not curse in her presence and that he never had or would strike appellee. Appellant answered and filed no counter-claim for divorce. He denied that his wife had grounds for divorce on the habitual cruel and inhuman treatment premise, but admitted

Page 328

he did not object to her being granted a divorce. He was by occupation an oil and gas broker who spent most of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 practice notes
  • McKee v. Flynt, No. 91-CA-0987
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • December 23, 1993
    ...There must exist some causal connection between the habitual cruel and inhuman treatment and the parties' separation. Fournet v. Fournet, 481 So.2d 326, 329 (Miss.1985). However, application of this rule was limited by Bias v. Bias, 493 So.2d 342, 345 Absence of proof of proximate cause doe......
  • Rakestraw v. Rakestraw, No. 96-CA-01118
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Mississippi
    • April 21, 1998
    ...year relationship, we cannot fault the chancellor's opinion that this was one such situation. ¶11 William also cites Fournet v. Fournet, 481 So.2d 326 (Miss.1985), wherein it was held that a spouse seeking divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment must offer proof as to ......
  • Rawson v. Buta, No. 90-CA-1034
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • October 22, 1992
    ...Mullins v. Ratcliff, 515 So.2d 1183, 1193 (Miss.1987); Devereaux v. Devereaux, 493 So.2d 1310, 1312 (Miss.1986); Fournet v. Fournet, 481 So.2d 326, 328 Rawson admits that his answer to the complaint was late. He nonetheless complains that, procedurally, Buta was not entitled to the judgment......
  • Peters v. Peters, No. 2003-CA-01907-COA.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Mississippi
    • December 7, 2004
    ...connection between the cruel and inhuman treatment and the separation of the parties. Chamblee, 637 So.2d at 859; Fournet v. Fournet, 481 So.2d 326, 329 (Miss.1985). However, subsequent case law has somewhat lessened this ¶ 21. For example, in the case of Rakestraw v. Rakestraw, 717 So.2d 1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
27 cases
  • McKee v. Flynt, No. 91-CA-0987
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • December 23, 1993
    ...There must exist some causal connection between the habitual cruel and inhuman treatment and the parties' separation. Fournet v. Fournet, 481 So.2d 326, 329 (Miss.1985). However, application of this rule was limited by Bias v. Bias, 493 So.2d 342, 345 Absence of proof of proximate cause doe......
  • Rakestraw v. Rakestraw, No. 96-CA-01118
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Mississippi
    • April 21, 1998
    ...year relationship, we cannot fault the chancellor's opinion that this was one such situation. ¶11 William also cites Fournet v. Fournet, 481 So.2d 326 (Miss.1985), wherein it was held that a spouse seeking divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment must offer proof as to ......
  • Rawson v. Buta, No. 90-CA-1034
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • October 22, 1992
    ...Mullins v. Ratcliff, 515 So.2d 1183, 1193 (Miss.1987); Devereaux v. Devereaux, 493 So.2d 1310, 1312 (Miss.1986); Fournet v. Fournet, 481 So.2d 326, 328 Rawson admits that his answer to the complaint was late. He nonetheless complains that, procedurally, Buta was not entitled to the judgment......
  • Peters v. Peters, No. 2003-CA-01907-COA.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Mississippi
    • December 7, 2004
    ...connection between the cruel and inhuman treatment and the separation of the parties. Chamblee, 637 So.2d at 859; Fournet v. Fournet, 481 So.2d 326, 329 (Miss.1985). However, subsequent case law has somewhat lessened this ¶ 21. For example, in the case of Rakestraw v. Rakestraw, 717 So.2d 1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT