Jundoosing v. Jundoosing, No. 2001-CA-01423-SCT.

CourtMississippi Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBefore McRAE, P.J., and EASLEY and GRAVES, JJ.
Citation826 So.2d 85
PartiesEsworlallsing JUNDOOSING a/k/a Zandu Jundoosing v. Sheila JUNDOOSING.
Docket NumberNo. 2001-CA-01423-SCT.
Decision Date12 September 2002

826 So.2d 85

Esworlallsing JUNDOOSING a/k/a Zandu Jundoosing
v.
Sheila JUNDOOSING

No. 2001-CA-01423-SCT.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

September 12, 2002.


826 So.2d 86
Sidney Franklin Beck, Jr., Olive Branch, Attorney for Appellant

John Andrew Hatcher, Booneville, Attorney for Appellee.

Before McRAE, P.J., and EASLEY and GRAVES, JJ.

GRAVES, J., for the Court.

¶ 1. Esworlallsing Jundoosing, also known as Zandu Jundoosing ("Zandu"), appeals from the final judgment of divorce entered by the Chancery Court of Prentiss County, Mississippi, awarding Sheila Jundoosing ("Sheila") a divorce and custody of the couple's four children. Zandu raises two salient issues: first, that the chancery court did not have jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter and secondly, that full faith and credit should have been given to a California judgment regarding divorce and custody. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

¶ 2. Sheila filed a complaint for divorce on April 11, 2001 against her husband. The grounds for divorce were habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, habitual drunkenness and irreconcilable differences. The couple was married on May 27, 1989, in Greenwood, Mississippi and resided there for approximately a year and a half. They then moved to the State of California, where they lived until September of 2000. However, through the years, they moved back and forth between California and Mississippi.

¶ 3. Sheila and Zandu were married for almost twelve years, during which four children were born: Zandu Jundoosing, Jr., born April 7, 1990 in New Orleans, Louisiana; Calvin Ramiz Jundoosing, born December 3, 1991 in Greenwood, Mississippi; BeeJay Jundoosing born June 25,

826 So.2d 87
1993 in Pasadena, California; and Dillon Jundoosing, born October 25, 1994 in Riverside, California. Sheila asserts that in September of 2000 the family moved back to Mississippi into her mother and stepfather's home. Shortly thereafter, on September 29, 2000, Zandu decided to move back to California, leaving behind Sheila and the children. However, Zandu left with no indication that there was a problem between Shelia and him and began to write letters and send money that indicated the family was currently establishing Mississippi as their home state. Sheila obtained employment in the state. Sheila also took the children to the Health Department of Prentiss County, Mississippi, to get their shots, so that she could register them for school in Prentiss County. Additionally, because of dire financial circumstances, Sheila had to seek food stamps and was eventually approved for Medicaid assistance in October 2000. She also enrolled the children in school in October 2000. Sheila filed a 2001 State of Mississippi income tax return showing she was a resident of Prentiss County, Mississippi. She claimed all four children as dependents on that tax return. Sheila also moved out of her parents' home to an apartment in Booneville, Mississippi. Sheila lived in Prentiss County for more than six months before the filing of this divorce action

¶ 14. Beginning in 2001, the chancellor made three separate rulings and findings regarding jurisdiction of Zandu and Sheila Jundoosing and their children. The chancellor, in his first opinion, entered a temporary judgment on May 11, 2001, determining that an emergency existed regarding the custody of the children, and awarding them to Sheila. At this point, Zandu filed a motion to dismiss.

¶ 5. On July 11, 2001, the chancellor heard oral argument and testimony on the motion to dismiss. Further, on August 3, 2001, in a second opinion the chancellor found based on clear and convincing evidence that the court had jurisdiction of all the actual and necessary parties and of the subject matter and fully considered the requirements of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, Miss.Code Ann. §§ 93-23-1 to -47 (1994).

¶ 6. Lastly, on renewal of the motion to dismiss ore tenus by Zandu, the chancery court heard, on the merits, the divorce case on August 22, 2001, granted the divorce, gave Sheila custody of the children, denied the motion to dismiss on subject matter jurisdiction, and incorporated the terms of its previously rendered opinion and judgment regarding the motion to dismiss. Thereafter, Zandu filed an appeal on August 31, 2001, contending that the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, had jurisdiction of the parties.

¶ 7. When Sheila filed for divorce, Zandu asserted that he had previously filed for a divorce in California. Because Sheila did not appear to defend herself at trial, a temporary order was granted requiring her to bring the children back to the State of California. Sheila denied having any knowledge of such a case, except the fact that she was served a summons on March 21, 2001, which had a return date of November 8, 2000.

¶ 8. In his amended complaint in the California action, Zandu asserted that he did not know why Sheila and the children were in Mississippi. However, in his original complaint he acknowledged that he took Sheila and the children to Mississippi, and there is a letter from Zandu indicating his appreciation of the help by Sheila's parents help in establishing the family residency in the State of Mississippi.

¶ 9. Lastly, the motion to dismiss filed by Zandu had unsigned, unsworn and uncertified

826 So.2d 88
copies of documents purportedly from the California court which enclosed temporary orders which were entered with no notice to Sheila. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
46 practice notes
  • JONES v. JONES, No. 2008-CA-00675-COA.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Mississippi
    • 9 Septiembre 2010
    ...substantial evidence/manifest error rule." Samples v. Davis, 904 So.2d 1061, 1063-64(¶ 9) (Miss.2004) (citing Jundoosing v. Jundoosing, 826 So.2d 85, 88(¶ 10) (Miss.2002)). "[We] will not disturb the chancellor's opinion when [it is] supported by substantial evidence unless the chancellor a......
  • Jones v. Jones, No. 2008-CA-00675-COA (Miss. App. 12/15/2009), No. 2008-CA-00675-COA
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Mississippi
    • 15 Diciembre 2009
    ...evidence/manifest error rule." Samples v. Davis, 904 So. 2d 1061, 1063-64 (¶ 9) (Miss. 2004) (citing Jundoosing v. Jundoosing, 826 So. 2d 85, 88 (¶ 10) (Miss. 2002)). "[We] will not disturb the chancellor's opinion when [it is] supported by substantial evidence unless the chancellor abused ......
  • Cotton v. Cotton, No. 2008-CA-00626-COA (Miss. App. 1/26/2010), No. 2008-CA-00626-COA.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Mississippi
    • 26 Enero 2010
    ...substantial evidence/manifest error rule." Samples v. Davis, 904 So. 2d 1061, 1063-64 (¶9) (Miss. 2004) (citing Jundoosing v. Jundoosing, 826 So. 2d 85, 88 (¶10) (Miss. 2002)). We "will not disturb the chancellor's opinion when [it is] supported by substantial evidence unless the chancellor......
  • Greater Canton Ford Mercury, Inc. v. Ables, No. 2005-CA-01316-SCT.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 1 Febrero 2007
    ...183 (abridged 6th ed.1991). ¶ 25. The courtesy of comity is applied at the discretion of the trial court. Jundoosing v. Jundoosing, 826 So.2d 85, 90 (Miss.2002); Laskosky, 504 So.2d at 729. The circuit court stayed the identical action in its court to await the outcome in federal district c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
46 cases
  • JONES v. JONES, No. 2008-CA-00675-COA.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Mississippi
    • 9 Septiembre 2010
    ...substantial evidence/manifest error rule." Samples v. Davis, 904 So.2d 1061, 1063-64(¶ 9) (Miss.2004) (citing Jundoosing v. Jundoosing, 826 So.2d 85, 88(¶ 10) (Miss.2002)). "[We] will not disturb the chancellor's opinion when [it is] supported by substantial evidence unless the chancellor a......
  • Jones v. Jones, No. 2008-CA-00675-COA (Miss. App. 12/15/2009), No. 2008-CA-00675-COA
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Mississippi
    • 15 Diciembre 2009
    ...evidence/manifest error rule." Samples v. Davis, 904 So. 2d 1061, 1063-64 (¶ 9) (Miss. 2004) (citing Jundoosing v. Jundoosing, 826 So. 2d 85, 88 (¶ 10) (Miss. 2002)). "[We] will not disturb the chancellor's opinion when [it is] supported by substantial evidence unless the chancellor abused ......
  • Greater Canton Ford Mercury, Inc. v. Ables, No. 2005-CA-01316-SCT.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 1 Febrero 2007
    ...183 (abridged 6th ed.1991). ¶ 25. The courtesy of comity is applied at the discretion of the trial court. Jundoosing v. Jundoosing, 826 So.2d 85, 90 (Miss.2002); Laskosky, 504 So.2d at 729. The circuit court stayed the identical action in its court to await the outcome in federal district c......
  • Cotton v. Cotton, No. 2008-CA-00626-COA (Miss. App. 1/26/2010), No. 2008-CA-00626-COA.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Mississippi
    • 26 Enero 2010
    ...substantial evidence/manifest error rule." Samples v. Davis, 904 So. 2d 1061, 1063-64 (¶9) (Miss. 2004) (citing Jundoosing v. Jundoosing, 826 So. 2d 85, 88 (¶10) (Miss. 2002)). We "will not disturb the chancellor's opinion when [it is] supported by substantial evidence unless the chancellor......
  • 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