Green v. Green

Citation349 So.3d 1187
Decision Date18 October 2022
Docket Number2021-CP-01167-COA
Parties Lakeisha C. GREEN, Appellant v. Torrance T. GREEN, Appellee
CourtCourt of Appeals of Mississippi

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: LAKEISHA C. GREEN (PRO SE)

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: E. CHARLENE STIMLEY PRIESTER, MELVIN VINCENT PRIESTER JR.

BEFORE BARNES, C.J., McDONALD AND McCARTY, JJ.

McDONALD, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Lakeisha Green appeals from the Hinds County Chancery Court's judgment that, among other things, granted her ex-husband, Torrance Green, a divorce, set child support, and distributed the property of the parties. Although she filed the initial complaint for divorce, participated in discovery, and attended one hearing on temporary relief, Lakeisha failed to appear at trial. Representing herself pro se, Lakeisha appealed the judgment. After reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

Facts

¶2. Lakeisha, a nurse practitioner, and Torrance, a doctor, were married on September 3, 2006. During their marriage, the parties had two children: I.G. and K.G.1

¶3. The parties each owned homes prior to their marriage; Torrance owned a home in New Orleans, and Lakeisha owned a home in Jackson. However, during the marriage, they purchased a home together in Jackson in which they lived until they separated on November 9, 2019.2 Prior to the marriage, Torrance owned a 2005 GMC Sierra, and Lakeisha owned a 1999 Ford Mustang. Together they purchased a 2014 Cadillac CTS and a 2017 Cadillac XT5. The 2014 Cadillac CTS was titled solely in Lakeisha's name, but Torrance used it on a daily basis.

¶4. On December 19, 2019, Lakeisha filed for divorce, alleging grounds of adultery and desertion pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 93-5-1 (Rev. 2021) or, in the alternative, on the ground of irreconcilable differences pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 93-5-2 (Rev. 2021). In her complaint, Lakeisha requested sole and exclusive use of the 2017 Cadillac XT5, 2005 GMC Sierra, and 1999 Ford Mustang. Lakeisha asked the court to order Torrance to maintain a life insurance policy with coverage in the amount of $3,000,000 naming the children as the beneficiaries.3

¶5. In her complaint, Lakeisha also sought custody of the children, child support, and alimony. She further specifically requested that the court award her "an equitable portion of all cash accounts, checking accounts, savings accounts, certificates of deposit, cash money, stocks, bonds, IRA accounts, pension funds, retirement plans and savings, including, but not limited to IRAs, 401ks and employer sponsored retirement accounts, life insurance, real property or any other accounts funds or securities which are presently held in the defendant's name." On the Rule 8.05 financial statement he later filed, Torrance listed assets totaling $201,802.11 that were titled in his name. See the following chart:

Name(s) on Account Type of Account Balance (estimated totals)
Torrance Green Checking $60,118.97
Torrance Green CD $50,000.00
Torrance Green CD $52,022.49
Torrance Green CD $2,514.10
Torrance Green CD $33,629.87
Torrance Green CD $3,516.68

Torrance also included two Roth IRA accounts, one valued at $12,419.78 and another at $2,898.37, totaling $15,318.15. However, he did not indicate the titleholder of these accounts. In her complaint, Lakeisha further sought sole and exclusive use of any accounts that were in her name, but she did not indicate what those accounts were.

¶6. Torrance also listed certain indebtedness on his Rule 8.05 financial statement, including $98,000 owed to the IRS for 2018 taxes, three obligations owed to Trustmark in the amounts of $48,727.09; $22,477.09; and $2,107.07, as well as a $23,998.59 note to Wells Fargo. There was no information included about when the latter obligations were incurred or in whose name these debts were listed.

¶7. On January 28, 2020, Lakeisha requested that the chancellor who had been assigned to her case recuse herself. The chancellor agreed and was replaced by another chancellor on June 2, 2020. Lakeisha made no further motions for recusal concerning the replacement chancellor.

¶8. On March 16, 2020, Torrance filed his answer, affirmative defenses, and a counter-claim for divorce. Torrance denied any fault, but he agreed to a divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences. In the alternative, Torrance counter-claimed for divorce on the grounds of constructive desertion or habitual cruel and inhuman treatment by Lakeisha. Torrance sought the exclusive use and ownership of the 2014 Cadillac CTS and the 2005 GMC Sierra and sole and exclusive use of all bank accounts and retirement accounts held in his name. Torrance asked the court to order both parties to maintain life insurance policies naming the children as beneficiaries.

¶9. On March 17, 2020, Lakeisha filed an answer to the counter-claim for divorce, denying all allegations. Lakeisha reiterated her previous requests regarding property distribution.

Pre-trial Motions and Orders

¶10. On June 8, 2020, Torrance filed a motion for temporary relief, requesting temporary custody and/or visitation with the children, and temporary exclusive ownership of the 2014 Cadillac CTS. On that same day, Lakeisha's attorney filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. On June 12, 2020, the court granted the attorney's motion, and on June 15, 2020, a new attorney entered an appearance on Lakeisha's behalf.

¶11. On August 10, 2020, Torrance filed an amended motion for temporary relief. Torrance restated his previous allegations regarding custody and visitation of the children and his request for ownership of the 2014 Cadillac CTS. Torrance further petitioned the court to give him an opportunity to retrieve his personal property from the marital home including but not limited to power tools, electronics, files and paperwork, security hardware, kitchen utensils, etc.

¶12. On September 25, 2020, Lakeisha responded to Torrance's amended motion for temporary relief and filed a motion to restrict Torrance's visitation and other relief. In this pleading, Lakeisha argued that Torrance had mental and physical health conditions that made him unfit to care for the children and that he was a danger to the safety of himself and others. Lakeisha sought sole and exclusive use of the 2014 Cadillac CTS, which was titled solely in her name although Torrance currently had possession of the car.

¶13. The parties met with the court on September 29, 2020, and "hammered out an order."4 However, the agreement was not read into the record at that time, and later the parties were unable to agree on a draft of a proposed written order. So no order was entered as a result of that meeting with the court.

¶14. On February 5, 2021, Lakeisha's second attorney filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. However, she still represented Lakeisha at another meeting with the court concerning Torrance's amended motion for temporary relief via Zoom on February 12, 2021.5 As a result of that meeting the chancery court issued an order giving Torrance access to an account with Wells Fargo that secured the 2014 Cadillac so that he could negotiate payments and obtain its possession. The court further ordered Lakeisha to transfer the title of the 2014 Cadillac CTS to Torrance, after Torrance provided proof of payment of the outstanding debt owed to Wells Fargo. The court issued a written order that same day which awarded the parties joint custody of the children and visitation to Torrance. The court ordered Torrance to pay child support beginning March 5, 2021. The court also ordered that Torrance was allowed to retrieve his property that he listed in his amended motion from the marital home.

¶15. On February 12, 2021, the court allowed Lakeisha's second attorney to withdraw as counsel. Thereafter, Lakeisha represented herself pro se.

¶16. On February 26, 2021, Torrance filed a motion to amend/correct the February 12, 2021 temporary order. Torrance alleged that the order erroneously ended visitation at 2:00 p.m. instead of 6:00 p.m. He also requested that the court set a specific time for him to retrieve his belongings from the marital home. This motion was noticed for hearing on March 10, 2021, and a Rule 81 summons was also issued on February 26, 2021, regarding this hearing. See M.R.C.P. 81.

¶17. On February 28, 2021, Lakeisha wrote the chancery court judge an eight-page letter with email attachments which she filed for the record. She accused Torrance of being a social deviant, suicidal, homicidal, and abusive. She explained that she had provided her attorney a key to the 2014 Cadillac because she had been ordered to turn the vehicle over to Torrance. However, the payments were not made, despite her providing Torrance with the account information. The car was repossessed. Lakeisha asked the court to rescind the temporary order and give her time to get an attorney. The unsworn letter was not copied to Torrance's attorney.

¶18. On March 10, 2021, the court heard Torrance's motion to correct the temporary order. Torrance and his counsel appeared as did Lakeisha, representing herself. During the hearing, Lakeisha repeatedly tried to raise issues that were not before the court.6 She talked over and/or cut off the court and the other parties who were speaking. The court, noting that Lakeisha was not represented by counsel, tried to give her as much leeway as possible, but kept the hearing on track. The court approved the time changes regarding the visitation schedule and set March 20, 2021, as both the date for the first visitation and the date for Torrance to retrieve his property from the marital home. The Court further found that Lakeisha violated the court's previous order by selling the 2014 Cadillac. The court ordered that Lakeisha either produce the vehicle to Torrance or pay him the value of the car. The court's written order was filed on March 16, 2021.

¶19. On July 14, 2021, Torrance filed a motion to hold Lakeisha in contempt for allegedly...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Hill v. Cent. Sunbelt Fed. Credit Union
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Mississippi
    • 18 Octubre 2022
  • Langley v. Bd. of Educ.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Mississippi
    • 1 Agosto 2023
    ...... no authority for this proposition, and thus this issue is. waived on appeal. See, e.g. , Green v. Green , 349 So.3d 1187, 1200 (¶47) (Miss. Ct. App. 2022) ("Our caselaw clearly provides that the failure to. cite supporting ......
  • Schaubhut v. Schaubhut
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Mississippi
    • 7 Noviembre 2023
    ...clearly provides[,] the failure to cite supporting legal authority precludes consideration of an issue on appeal." Green v. Green, 349 So.3d 1187, 1200 (¶47) (Miss. Ct. App. 2022) (quoting Hardin v. Hardin, 335 So.3d 1088, 1094 (¶21) (Miss. Ct. App. 2022)). ¶14. The same deficiency (i.e., t......

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