Peters v. Peters, No. 2003-CA-01907-COA.
| Court | Court of Appeals of Mississippi |
| Writing for the Court | Before BRIDGES, P.J., MYERS and BARNES, JJ. |
| Citation | 906 So.2d 64 |
| Decision Date | 07 December 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 2003-CA-01907-COA. |
| Parties | Michael William PETERS, Sr., Appellant, v. Catherine Lynne PETERS, Appellee. |
906 So.2d 64
Michael William PETERS, Sr., Appellant,v.
Catherine Lynne PETERS, Appellee
No. 2003-CA-01907-COA.
Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
December 7, 2004.
Dean Holleman, Gulfport, attorney for appellee.
Before BRIDGES, P.J., MYERS and BARNES, JJ.
MYERS, J., for the Court.
¶ 1. On January 18, 2001, Catherine Lynne Peters filed for divorce in the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Harrison County. The court entered a temporary order on January 31, 2001, and before the trial there were various other minor proceedings, such as an amendment to the temporary order, a motion for contempt for failure to pay for appraisals, and other matters that are not currently before this Court. Amid this string of pre-trial proceedings, Catherine filed an amended complaint on November 7, 2001. A significant issue added by this amended complaint involved an allegedly fraudulent transfer incident to a loan between Michael and his brother, Steven D. Peters.
¶ 2. The amended complaint was the subject of the trial on the merits. Ultimately, on May 2, 2003, after the trial on the merits, the chancellor entered a final judgment granting Catherine a divorce on the grounds of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, awarding her custody of the minor children, ordering child support payments, and making division of the marital assets. In addition, the conveyances between Michael and Steven D. Peters were set aside, and Steven was given a judgment against Michael for the amount of the loan that had been secured by the property the court found to be fraudulently conveyed.
¶ 3. On May 12, 2003, an addendum to judgment was entered correcting a math error in the original judgment and ordering each of the parties to be responsible for the costs of court-ordered appraisals and evaluations performed by Dr. Gasparini, a doctor brought in to conduct psychological evaluations. Also on May 12, 2003, Michael filed a motion to reconsider, or in the alternative, motion for new trial. This motion was voluntarily dismissed by Michael on July 30, 2003. On July 31, 2003, a second addendum to judgment was entered, stating that Steven D. Peters would not be taxed with any costs of experts and/or appraisers.
¶ 4. Aggrieved by the May 2, 2003 judgment, Michael filed this appeal, raising the following issues:
I. DID THE TRIAL COURT COMMIT MANIFEST ERROR IN FINDING THAT CATHERINE HAD MET HER BURDEN OF PROOF AND IN AWARDING CATHERINE A DIVORCE ON THE GROUNDS OF HABITUAL CRUEL AND INHUMAN TREATMENT?
II. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN ITS AWARD OF CHILD SUPPORT?
III. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN ITS DIVISION OF THE MARITAL ASSETS?
¶ 5. Finding that the chancellor did not commit manifest error or abuse his discretion, we affirm the judgment.
FACTS
¶ 6. On June 17, 1977, Catherine and Michael married. They met while working together at Sears. In addition to the job at Sears, Michael at this time also owned several rental properties in Gulfport. After marrying, they acquired several other rental properties, and Catherine left her job at Sears to manage the rental properties. In the years that followed, they continued to purchase rental properties, and
¶ 7. In contrast to their financial growth, Michael and Catherine experienced a gradual decline in their relationship. Eventually, the computer business began to decline as well, and before their divorce proceedings began, the computer business had been closed down. By this time Michael had begun farming operations on land that he and Catherine had purchased over a period of years. A single-wide mobile home was placed on the land, and Michael and the rest of the family eventually moved to the mobile home.
¶ 8. In the words of the chancellor's judgment:
This 24 year marriage was marked by loud arguments, verbal assaults, cursing, and an increasing escalation of physical violence which culminated in the separation of the parties.... The arguments between Mike and Cathy were loud, with each cursing the other. Mike's face would get extremely red and to on-lookers, he appeared to be in a rage. All witnesses agreed that Mike never hit or beat Cathy during these arguments, although he would shove, push and slap her, and Cathy never sought medical treatment as a result of any of the arguments. Following the arguments there were long periods of "the silent treatment" where Mike refused to speak with Cathy. He would, however, shove Cathy into the walls with his shoulders when they would pass in the hallways of their home; all four children witnessed this behavior.
¶ 9. The chancellor detailed a list of incidents beginning in 1984 and proceeding up to and beyond the time of separation. Among these incidents, which were also testified to by Catherine and corroborated by the children, the following conduct is described: Michael choking Catherine on numerous occasions after loud arguments; Michael throwing various objects at Catherine including a baseball, telephones, and television remote controls; Michael threatening to commit suicide, in front of the children; Michael accusing Catherine of committing adultery; Michael referring to his grandchild as a "bastard;" and Michael canceling all of Catherine's credit cards and closing her checking account without any notice or warning. The chancellor's listing goes into more detail, but these are a representative sample of the conduct about which Catherine complained.
¶ 10. While Michael testified to a somewhat different version of several of these events, Michael admits that many of these events happened. Michael's different version of some of the events, however, was uncorroborated and was usually contradicted by the version of events testified to by Catherine and the children. In the end, the chancellor made a credibility determination in Catherine's favor, accepting in substantial part the version of events presented by Catherine and the children.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
I. DID THE TRIAL COURT COMMIT MANIFEST ERROR IN FINDING THAT CATHERINE HAD MET HER BURDEN OF PROOF AND IN AWARDING CATHERINE A DIVORCE ON THE GROUNDS OF HABITUAL CRUEL AND INHUMAN TREATMENT?
¶ 11. Michael argues that his conduct, upon which Catherine relied in making her case for habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, was (1) too remote in time
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶ 12. We review a chancellor's decree of divorce for manifest or clear error as to law or fact. Southerland v. Southerland, 875 So.2d 204, 206(¶ 5) (Miss.2004) (citing Kilpatrick v. Kilpatrick, 732 So.2d 876, 880 (Miss.1999)); Fisher v. Fisher, 771 So.2d 364, 367(¶ 8) (Miss.2000); Chamblee v. Chamblee, 637 So.2d 850, 859 (Miss.1994). The sufficiency of the evidence is determined by the chancellor, who sits as finder of fact and makes determinations as to the weight and credibility of the evidence. Fisher, 771 So.2d at 367(¶ 8); Chamblee, 637 So.2d at 859. Regarding these findings of fact by the chancellor more specifically, we have said, "This Court views the facts of a divorce decree in a light most favorable to the appellee, and may not disturb the chancery decision unless this Court finds it manifestly wrong or unsupported by substantial evidence." Rawson v. Buta, 609 So.2d 426, 429 (Miss.1992). Thus, our standard of review of a divorce decree is very deferential, and we will not reverse in the absence of manifest error. Id.; New v. Comola, 881 So.2d 369, 372(¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App.2004).
DISCUSSION
¶ 13. To be granted a divorce on the grounds of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, the offended spouse must show:
[C]onduct that 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.
Richard v. Richard, 711 So.2d 884, 889 (¶ 22) (Miss.1998) (citing Daigle v. Daigle, 626 So.2d 140, 144...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart v. Stewart, NO. 2018-CA-01542-COA
...the chancellor, who sits as finder of fact and makes determinations as to the weight and credibility of the evidence," Peters v. Peters , 906 So. 2d 64, 68 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004), and "the facts of a divorce decree [are viewed] in a light most favorable to the appellee." Id. As the fac......
-
Jackson v. Jackson, No. 2004-CA-00976-COA.
...render it impossible for that spouse to discharge the duties of marriage, thus destroying the basis for its continuance. Peters v. Peters, 906 So.2d 64, 68 (Miss.Ct. App.2004) (¶ 13) (quoting Richard v. Richard, 711 So.2d 884, 889 (¶ 22) (Miss.1998)). "The conduct must consist of something ......
-
Pace v. Pace, No. 2007-CP-01052-COA.
...thus destroying the basis for its continuance. Jackson v. Jackson, 922 So.2d 53, 56(¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (quoting Peters v. Peters, 906 So.2d 64, 68(¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App. 2004)). "As a general rule, the habitual cruel and inhuman treatment must be shown to be routine and continuous; howeve......
-
Lacoste v. Lacoste, No. 2014–CA–01724–COA.
...to satisfy the statute's “written finding” requirement.¶ 25. Paul's argument is similar to the appellant's argument in Peters v. Peters, 906 So.2d 64, 72 (¶ 35) (Miss.Ct.App.2004). Like Paul, the appellant in Peters argued that the chancellor's findings failed to comply with the statute's w......
-
Stewart v. Stewart, NO. 2018-CA-01542-COA
...the chancellor, who sits as finder of fact and makes determinations as to the weight and credibility of the evidence," Peters v. Peters , 906 So. 2d 64, 68 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004), and "the facts of a divorce decree [are viewed] in a light most favorable to the appellee." Id. As the fac......
-
Jackson v. Jackson, No. 2004-CA-00976-COA.
...render it impossible for that spouse to discharge the duties of marriage, thus destroying the basis for its continuance. Peters v. Peters, 906 So.2d 64, 68 (Miss.Ct. App.2004) (¶ 13) (quoting Richard v. Richard, 711 So.2d 884, 889 (¶ 22) (Miss.1998)). "The conduct must consist of something ......
-
Green v. Green, 2021-CP-01167-COA
...an individual's income exceeds $100,000.[13] Lageman v. Lageman, 313 So.3d 1075, 1083 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021). In Peters v. Peters, 906 So.2d 64 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004), this Court noted that the statute required written findings when there was an income in excess of the statutory amount.......
-
Pace v. Pace, No. 2007-CP-01052-COA.
...thus destroying the basis for its continuance. Jackson v. Jackson, 922 So.2d 53, 56(¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (quoting Peters v. Peters, 906 So.2d 64, 68(¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App. 2004)). "As a general rule, the habitual cruel and inhuman treatment must be shown to be routine and continuous; howeve......