Rahman v. Lyons
| Decision Date | 03 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | 2020-CA-00788-COA |
| Citation | 332 So.3d 311 |
| Parties | Omar Ali RAHMAN, Appellant v. John Joseph LYONS, Appellee |
| Court | Mississippi Court of Appeals |
¶1. On March 27, 2018, the Chancery Court of Madison County entered an agreed final judgment of divorce wherein Omar Rahman and John Lyons were granted a divorce based upon irreconcilable differences. A property settlement agreement that resolved the division of marital property and all financial obligations was attached as an exhibit to the agreed final judgment of divorce and incorporated therein. Rahman filed a petition to set aside the agreed final judgment on August 16, 2018, and an amended petition to set aside the agreed final judgment on April 9, 2019. Shortly thereafter on April 26, 2019, Lyons filed a petition for contempt alleging Rahman's non-compliance with the property settlement agreement. After an evidentiary hearing on July 22, 2019, Rahman's amended petition to set aside was denied by an order dated August 26, 2019. After a separate hearing on March 16, 2020, Lyons's petition for contempt was granted by an order dated April 29, 2020. On May 8, 2020, Rahman filed a motion to amend the order of contempt or, in the alternative, for a new trial. After a hearing on July 7, 2020, Rahman's motion was denied in a bench ruling and by an order entered on July 8, 2020. Rahman filed his notice of appeal on July 29, 2020, wherein he appealed all three orders, including: (1) the order denying his amended petition to set aside; (2) the order of contempt; and (3) the order denying his motion to amend or for a new trial. We affirm in part and dismiss the appeal in part.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2. Rahman and Lyons, who were both Mississippi residents at the time, were lawfully married on October 25, 2013. On January 24, 2018, the parties filed a joint complaint for divorce in the Chancery Court of Madison County, Mississippi. Paragraph two of the complaint stated that "Omar Ali Rahman is an adult resident of Omaha Nebraska ...." Paragraph three of the complaint stated that "John Joseph Lyons has been a resident of the State of Mississippi for at least six (6) months next preceding the filing of this Complaint." Both Rahman and Lyons signed sworn affidavits as part of the joint complaint that stated in part "that the matters and facts set forth in the foregoing Joint Complaint for Divorce are true and correct as therein stated."
¶3. On March 27, 2018, an agreed final judgment of divorce based on irreconcilable differences was entered and included an attached property settlement agreement. The agreed final judgment of divorce also stated that Lyons was a resident of Mississippi for at least six months before the filing of the joint complaint. Among other terms, the property settlement agreement divided the parties' personal property, obligated Rahman to pay alimony, and ordered him to maintain life insurance for himself, with Lyons named as the primary beneficiary.
¶4. Approximately four months following the agreed final judgment of divorce, Rahman filed a petition to set aside the agreed final judgment on August 16, 2018, wherein he alleged that he signed the judgment of divorce and property settlement agreement under duress, coercion, intimidation, and threats. He further alleged that the property settlement agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Seven months and twenty-four days following the filing of his original petition to set aside the agreed final judgment, Rahman filed an amended petition to set aside the agreed final judgment on April 9, 2019. In his amended petition, Rahman claimed that the judgment of divorce and property settlement agreement should be set aside for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the parties' divorce proceedings.
¶5. On April 26, 2019, Lyons filed a petition for contempt and other relief, wherein he alleged that (1) Rahman refused to allow Lyons to take possession of property that he was awarded pursuant to the property settlement agreement; (2) Rahman refused to make any monthly alimony payments to Lyons pursuant to the property settlement agreement; and (3) Rahman failed to provide proof of life insurance listing Lyons as the beneficiary. Lyons requested that the chancery court find Rahman in contempt and that he be "imprisoned in the Madison County Common Jail at Canton, Mississippi, for a period of time to be determined by the Court to purge himself of the contempt complained of herein ...." He further requested an award of attorney's fees and court costs. Rahman filed an answer and affirmative defenses on July 12, 2019.
¶6. On July 22, 2019, the chancery court held an evidentiary hearing on Rahman's amended petition to set aside the agreed final judgment of divorce. Rahman argued at the hearing that the Madison County Chancery Court lacked jurisdiction over the divorce proceedings because neither one of the parties were residents of Mississippi in the six months preceding the filing of the joint complaint for divorce, as required by statute. According to Rahman, both he and Lyons moved to Nebraska on July 21, 2017, and neither party returned to Mississippi thereafter for the purpose of establishing residency. Rahman also argued that he signed the agreed final judgment of divorce and property settlement agreement under duress, coercion, intimidation, and threats. At the conclusion of the hearing, the chancery court stated in part that "the Court finds that you have failed to meet the burden of proof, and the Judgment of Divorce shall remain as entered on the 27th day of March 2018." An order denying Rahman's amended petition to set aside the agreed final judgment of divorce was entered on August 26, 2019. Notably, Rahman failed to perfect an appeal of the chancery court's order denying his amended petition to set aside the agreed final judgment of divorce within the time prescribed by Rule 4 of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure. Ten months after the order was entered, Rahman included this ruling in his notice of appeal filed on July 29, 2020.
¶7. On March 16, 2020, the chancery court conducted a hearing on Lyons's petition for contempt. Lyons was present at the hearing with his attorney and testified on his own behalf. Rahman's counsel was present, but Rahman did not attend the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the chancery court found Rahman in contempt and issued an order for Rahman to be "picked up and placed into the Madison County Common Jail, at which time he shall remain until such time as he purge himself of his contempt and this judgment herein." The contempt order was entered on April 29, 2020.
¶8. On May 8, 2020, Rahman filed a motion to amend the order or, alternatively, for a new trial. Lyons filed his response to Rahman's motion on May 17, 2020. The chancery court conducted a hearing on the motion to amend on July 7, 2020. After hearing argument from counsel, the chancery court held in part:
Rule 59 is the basis that is argued for the relief by this movant. The Court finds that you have failed to meet the burden of proof as required under the very strict guidelines of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure under Rule 59. The Court's order of the 29th day of April 2020, known as Document No. 25 stands. Your motion is denied.
The chancery court entered an order denying Rahman's motion to amend or, alternatively, for a new trial on July 8, 2020. On July 29, 2020, Rahman filed his notice of appeal of the following orders: (1) the order denying the amended petition to set aside the agreed final judgment of divorce, dated August 26, 2019; (2) the order of contempt, dated April 29, 2020; and (3) the order denying the motion to amend or, in the alternative, for new trial, dated July 8, 2020.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶9. "In domestic-relation cases, our review is limited to whether the chancery court's findings were manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous, or the court applied the wrong legal standard." Gwathney v. Gwathney , 208 So. 3d 1087, 1088 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017). If there is substantial evidence in the record to support the chancellor's findings of fact, we will not disturb his decision. Id.
ANALYSIS
¶10. Rahman argues on appeal that the chancery court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the parties' divorce proceeding and that, as a result, the agreed final judgment of divorce entered on March 27, 2018, is null and void; thus, he contends his amended petition to set aside was wrongfully denied. Further, Rahman argues that because the agreed final judgment of divorce is null and void, so too is the order of contempt and the order denying his motion to amend the order of contempt. More specifically, Rahman claims that the chancery court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because both he and Lyons were residents of Nebraska (not Mississippi) six months prior to filing the joint complaint for divorce.
¶11. Rule 4(a) of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure states in part:
[I]n a civil ... case in which an appeal or cross-appeal is permitted by law as of right from a trial court to the Supreme Court, the notice of appeal required by Rule 3 shall be filed with the clerk of the trial court within 30 days after the date of entry of the judgment or order appealed from .
(Emphasis added). The Mississippi Supreme Court elaborated on the importance of Rule 4 in Tandy Electronics Inc. v. Fletcher , 554 So. 2d 308 (Miss. 1989). The supreme court stated:
We have adopted a procedure that is simple ... and allowed thirty days to complete the procedure. The thirty day limit is surely one with which anyone can comply. We cannot imagine it taking more than fifteen minutes of an attorney's time to perform the preparation and mailing...
To continue reading
Request your trial