Pace v. Pace
| Citation | 324 So.3d 369 |
| Decision Date | 27 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 2019-CA-01377-COA,2019-CA-01377-COA |
| Parties | James Michael PACE, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Julie PACE, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Mississippi |
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: MARY LEE HOLMES
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: S. CHRISTOPHER FARRIS, Hattiesburg
BEFORE WILSON, P.J., LAWRENCE AND McCARTY, JJ.
WILSON, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. The Forrest County Chancery Court granted Julie Pace a divorce from James Michael Pace ("Michael") on the ground of adultery, granted Julie custody of the parties’ son, ordered Michael to pay child support, and divided the marital estate. On appeal, Michael argues that the chancellor erred by not compelling Julie to produce certain emails between her and her attorney, by ordering him to pay too much child support, by failing to distinguish marital property from separate property, by awarding Julie certain funds, and by giving Julie authority to sell the parties’ personal property and the marital home. On cross-appeal, Julie argues that the chancellor should have awarded her alimony. We find no error and affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2. Julie and Michael married in 2005. Julie was married previously and has a minor daughter from her first marriage. Michael also was married previously and has a son, who is now an adult, from his first marriage. Julie and Michael have one child together, a son, who was born in 2006. In 2018, Julie filed for divorce after she discovered that Michael, a doctor, was having an affair with a nurse who worked at his medical clinic.
¶3. Michael owned his own medical clinic in Richton. Earlier in his career, he struggled with drug use, and the Mississippi Physicians’ Health Program (MPHP) required him to undergo treatment for addiction.
¶4. In 2018, Michael began to smoke marijuana again. Julie disclosed Michael's renewed drug use to Scott Hamilton, the director of the MPHP. Hamilton informed Michael that in order to keep his medical license, he needed to complete a treatment program and then participate in a monitoring program. Michael completed the treatment program, but he "retired" his medical license rather than participate in the monitoring program. He testified that the monitoring program, which would include semiannual polygraph testing and random drug testing, would cost around $14,000 per year. Michael claims that he could not afford the program because Julie had taken all their money. Julie alleges that Michael wanted to quit practicing medicine, move to California, and grow marijuana with his brothers.
¶5. During the parties’ marriage, Julie operated a business, Medical Nutrition Consultants, that provided administrative services to Michael's clinic. At the time of trial, Julie was unemployed and looking for work.
¶6. The parties’ relationship was tumultuous from the start. Michael alleges that Julie stole money from him even before they were married, although he chose to marry her anyway. At some point during the marriage, Michael began an affair with a nurse at his clinic. In June 2018, he admitted to the affair and told Julie that he wanted a divorce.
¶7. Michael claims that after the parties discussed divorce, Julie went to their bank and accessed a safe deposit box that held a significant amount of cash. He alleges that Julie took approximately $700,000 from the safe deposit box but then reconsidered and returned approximately half of the cash one hour later. Michael says that he then went to the bank and took the remaining $360,000. Michael put the $360,000 into the toolbox on his truck, but Julie later took the $360,000 from the toolbox.
¶8. Julie denied that she took any money from the safe deposit box. She testified that she went to the bank after Michael admitted to his affair, but "there was nothing left in [the box]." Julie admitted that she took approximately $350,000 from the toolbox on Michael's truck. She testified that she did so because Michael was behaving erratically and had threatened to harm himself. Julie also believed that Michael had taken approximately $250,000 in cash that they kept in a safe in their home.
¶9. There is little in the record to support either party's claims regarding their undocumented cash. Julie's initial Uniform Chancery Court Rule 8.05 statement listed a safe deposit box containing $400,000. However, in a subsequent/updated Rule 8.05 statement, Julie represented that the box contained only $150,000. Bank records show only who accessed the box and do not show what, if anything, was removed.
¶10. After telling Julie that he wanted a divorce, Michael entered an addiction treatment center in Tennessee. Julie provided him with funds for his treatment. He remained at the treatment center for three months before returning to Mississippi.
¶11. Shortly after Michael returned to Mississippi, Julie filed a complaint for divorce based on adultery and other grounds. Michael testified that Julie told him that he "had to find another place to live," so he moved to California and applied for disability benefits based on his 2011 stroke and alleged back pain, anxiety, and insomnia.
¶12. In October 2018, Michael filed an emergency ex parte motion for an order directing Julie to return the funds from the safe deposit box or, in the alternative, deposit the funds in the court registry. Three days later, the first chancellor assigned to the case entered an ex parte order restraining Julie from using any of the funds from the safe deposit box. The case was reassigned due to the first chancellor's retirement, and the new chancellor set a hearing on Michael's motion for March 6, 2019. After listening to the parties’ arguments regarding who took what and when, the chancellor dissolved the restraining order, set a new hearing for April 11, and ordered the parties to create an accounting of the disputed funds.
¶13. Both parties testified at the April 11 hearing regarding the disputed cash, and Michael's attorney examined Julie about the discrepancy between her initial Rule 8.05 statement and her updated Rule 8.05 statement. Julie testified that her initial statement that the safe deposit box contained $400,000 in cash was an error. She testified that she initially completed a Rule 8.05 statement, emailed it to her attorney, and then went to her attorney's office to discuss it with him. She further stated that she could not "testify as to how all of that got confused" because she "was even confused at that point at where all the money went." Julie later testified that the $400,000 referenced in her initial statement was not all in a safe deposit box. Rather, that figure included $150,000 that she placed in a safe deposit box and $250,000 cash that she deposited in a bank account, which she accounted for. She testified that the $400,000 total derived from the money that she had removed from Michael's toolbox and additional cash (approximately $50,000) that they kept in a safe in the marital home.
¶14. Following the hearing, Michael asked the court to order Julie to produce all emails between her and her attorney regarding the relevant parts of her Rule 8.05 statements. However, the chancellor later denied Michael's request. Michael also asked the court to order Julie to share the remaining cash with him because he was "destitute." The chancellor denied that request as well, reasoning that Julie needed the funds to repair and maintain the marital home for sale and because she had custody of the parties’ son.
¶15. The case proceeded to trial in June 2019. Michael admitted that he had committed adultery, and he did not oppose Julie's request for a divorce on that ground. Accordingly, the chancellor granted Julie a divorce based on uncondoned adultery.
¶16. Michael testified that he had moved to California and that he was unable to earn a living and had no income because he had retired his medical license. He testified that in order to resume practicing medicine he would need to enter into a drug monitoring program, which would cost approximately $14,000 per year. He blamed Julie for the loss of his license, stating that he could not afford the monitoring program because Julie "stole [their] money." He admitted that after their separation in 2018, Julie had given him $75,000 for his addiction treatment and then another $25,000 for expenses related to his medical clinic. He used the $75,000 for his addiction treatment but then used the $25,000 to pay alimony that he owed to his first wife. He admitted that he could have used some of the $25,000 for a drug monitoring program instead. Michael stated that he had no intention of returning to the practice of medicine. He also admitted that no doctor had found that he was permanently disabled. Michael did not provide any evidence or argument concerning any separate property. He simply testified that he "want[ed] half of everything."
¶17. Julie testified she was unemployed due to the closure of Michael's clinic. She had worked as a diet/nutrition consultant to home health agencies prior to her marriage to Michael, and she was trying to find consulting work again. She was concerned about the prospect of her son going to California with Michael because Michael had told them "that he was going to go file for disability and grow marijuana." She testified that Michael's older brother was already in the marijuana business in California.
¶18. The parties’ son, who was twelve years old at the time of trial, testified in chambers that he wanted to live with his mother and have visitation with his father. The chancellor granted Julie sole custody of the child and granted Michael visitation. On appeal, Michael does not raise any issue related to custody or visitation. The chancellor also ordered Michael to pay Julie $1,200 per month in child support after finding that Michael had the "capacity" to earn "substantial" income of "more than" $100,000 per year and that Michael had failed to produce "any medical testimony to support his claim of disability."
¶19. The chancellor ordered the parties to sell...
To continue reading
Request your trial