Rankin v. Rankin
| Decision Date | 06 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2019-CA-00238-COA,2019-CA-00238-COA |
| Parties | KEMILY RANKIN APPELLANT v. KELVIN RANKIN APPELLEE |
| Court | Mississippi Court of Appeals |
¶1. On December 19, 2018, the Warren County Chancery Court denied Kemily Rankin's complaint for divorce from her husband, Kelvin Rankin, on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. Kemily appeals, claiming the chancery court erred in denying (1) her request for a divorce and (2) her motion for reconsideration or a new trial. Contrary to the chancery court's ruling, we find there was sufficient evidence to support granting the divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, and we reverse and remand for further findings in accordance with this opinion.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2. Kelvin and Kemily were married in July 2007 and separated in November 2017. They had two children born of the marriage.1 On December 6, 2017, Kemily filed a "Complaint for Divorce, Petition for Temporary Relief and Petition for Temporary and Permanent Restraining Order." In the complaint, Kemily requested a divorce on the ground of habitual and inhuman treatment or, in the alternative, irreconcilable differences. Kelvin filed a counter-complaint in January 2018, likewise requesting a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment or, in the alternative, irreconcilable differences. On June 4, 2018, a temporary order was entered, awarding joint legal and physical custody of the children to both parties. The chancery court denied Kemily's request for a temporary restraining order. Prior to trial, Kelvin filed a motion to dismiss, and his counter-complaint was dismissed without prejudice.
¶3. A trial was held on October 29, 2018. Kemily testified that the couple's marital problems began as early as their honeymoon when Kelvin got upset with Kemily while talking to her sister on the phone, and the couple had a disagreement about her giving food to a homeless person. Kemily also recalled an instance where she arrived home from work to find her dog tied to a tree and foaming at the mouth because Kelvin had forced feces down its throat after the dog had an accident inside the house. Kemily testified that in 2008 or 2009, Kelvin pushed her once during an argument while she was pregnant and that he had kicked a suitcase in 2015 or 2016, which hit her and bruised her leg. On another occasion, after Kemily had locked her herself in the bathroom during a disagreement, Kelvin picked the lock on the bathroom door, followed her into the bathroom, and continued to yell at her.
Kemily testified that Kelvin had called her a b****, wh***, stupid, and dumb and that he had belittled her in front of his church congregation.2 She claimed that the "final straw" was when Kelvin wanted to have sex one morning, and she did not; so Kelvin yelled at her and took their children to Brookhaven, telling them, "Momm[y can't] go because she ha[s] issues." Thinking she heard Kelvin's vehicle the next day, Kemily was worried that he had come back to harm her. She testified that Kelvin had also taken the children to a hotel for a few nights and would not tell her where they were, causing her distress over their whereabouts.
¶4. Kemily claimed Kelvin's behavior had affected her physical health. She testified that she suffered from intense migraines during the last five years of the marriage. Although she noted that her blood pressure was elevated, Kemily acknowledged she had never been diagnosed with high blood pressure. Kemily said her migraines and blood pressure had not been an issue since she separated from Kelvin in November 2017. She said Kelvin also inflicted emotional, mental, and spiritual harm on her and insisted that reconciliation with Kelvin was not in her best interests.
¶5. Kemily's mother, Loraine Alexander, testified that she had overheard Kelvin call Kemily stupid. In May 2018, Kelvin told Alexander that Kemily "might get what she was asking for," which Alexander perceived to be a threat. According to Alexander, Kemily had been talkative and smiled all the time prior to the marriage but that during the marriage,Kemily often complained of headaches. Alexander testified that she believed it was not in Kemily's best interests to remain married to Kelvin.
¶6. Kelvin acknowledged that he and Kemily had problems throughout their marriage. He also admitted that it had made him "sick" to hear Kemily's sister on the phone, but he testified that he did not want to hinder Kemily's relationship with her family. Kelvin explained that the issue with the homeless man was about security. He denied that he had yelled at Kemily's dog all the time and berated Kemily in front of his church congregation. Kelvin admitted that he bumped into Kemily one time, but he said that it was not intentional. Kelvin also confirmed that he had kicked a suitcase, but he did not recall the suitcase hitting Kemily.
¶7. According to Kelvin, Kemily did not "take any personal accountability" for anything and accepted advice from everyone except him. Kelvin admitted he followed Kemily during arguments, but he referred to his yelling as "pastor intense fellowship" and explained that he was just "naturally loud." He also acknowledged calling Kemily a b**** and a wh*** after her ex-boyfriend had emailed her. Kelvin testified that he had probably said Kemily was being stupid and that they have both criticized each other and called each other dumb. Kelvin believed that reconciliation was in everyone's best interests.
¶8. On December 19, 2018, the chancery court denied Kemily's request for a divorce and attorney's fees, finding that the "evidence presented [was] insufficient to grant [Kemily] a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment." Noting there was no evidence of physical abuse, the court concluded that "the parties may be unable to livetogether in the future; however, this [c]ourt is bound to apply the law." Kemily filed a motion for a new trial, as well as a motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, to alter or amend the final judgment. The chancellor denied Kemily's motions, and Kemily appeals, asserting that (1) the chancellor should have granted her a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, and (2) the chancellor erred by denying her post-trial motions.
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). We will not disturb the chancery court's decision on appeal if there is substantial evidence to support the court's findings of fact. Id.
DISCUSSION
¶10. Because the issues Kemily raises concern the same standard of review and determination of findings of fact, we will address them together. "To obtain a divorce on the grounds of habitual, cruel and inhuman treatment, a petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, acts which constitute such treatment." Reed v. Reed, 839 So. 2d 565, 569 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (citing Chamblee v. Chamblee, 637 So. 2d 850, 859 (Miss. 1994)). In determining whether a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment is warranted, the chancery court has a "dual focus"—"the conduct of the offending spouse and its impact on the offended spouse." Gwathney, 208 So. 3d at 1089 (¶6) (quoting Harmon v. Harmon, 141 So. 3d 37, 42 (¶16) (Miss. Ct. App. 2014)). "This specificinquiry is subjective." Id. "As the trier of fact, the chancellor 'evaluates the sufficiency of proof based on the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of their testimony.'" Littlefield v. Littlefield, 282 So. 3d 820, 827 (¶19) (Miss. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting Rawson v. Buta, 609 So. 2d 426, 431 (Miss. 1992)).
¶11. "As a general rule the charge of cruel and inhuman treatment must be founded on conduct that is continuous and not based on one isolated incident." Reed, 839 So. 2d at 570 (¶21) (citing Ellzey v. Ellzey, 253 So. 2d 249, 250 (Miss. 1971)). In its findings, the chancery court focused on the lack of physical abuse. However, the Mississippi Supreme Court has held that "habitual ill-founded accusations, threats and malicious sarcasm, insults and verbal abuse may cause such mental suffering as to destroy health and endanger the life of an innocent spouse." Holladay v. Holladay, 776 So. 2d 662, 677 (¶64) (Miss. 2000); see also Johnson v. Johnson, 281 So. 3d 70, 75 (¶22) (Miss. Ct. App. 2019) () (quoting Reed, 839 So. 2d at 570 (¶19)). We find that sufficient evidence, which if believed, was provided to establish a pattern of emotionally abusive behavior by Kelvin that negatively affected Kemily's health and would support the chancery court's granting of a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment.
¶12. Had Kemily's testimony only been that Kelvin had called her derogatory names, criticized the way she took care of the home, and once kicked a suitcase in a fit of anger toward her, we might agree this would be insufficient to support a finding of habitual crueland inhuman treatment. However, Kemily also testified that "[i]t was just constant abuse and . . . constant yelling and screaming and berating" and that she "was always on eggshells." Kemily testified that Kelvin picked the lock and barged in on her in the bathroom after she had retreated there for safety. She claimed that when ...
To continue reading
Request your trial