Reno v. Reno
| Decision Date | 07 June 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 43576,43576 |
| Citation | 253 Miss. 465,176 So.2d 58 |
| Parties | Dorothy Elaine RENO, Appellant, v. Major W. RENO, Appellee. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Walker, Dillard & Baldwin, Laurel, for appellant.
Barnett, Montgomery, McClintock & Cunningham, W. E. Gore, Jr., Jackson, Paul G. Swartzfager, Laurel, for appellee.
This is a suit brought by Major W. Reno against his wife, Dorothy Elaine Reno, for divorce. It involves, in addition to divorce, a property settlement between the parties, the custody of a small child and support for the child. From an adverse decree Mrs. Reno files this appeal.
In order to understand the posture of the case, it is necessary that the pleadings and ruling thereon be set out somewhat in detail.
On September 28, 1963, Major W. Reno filed a suit for divorce against his wife on the grounds of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. In this bill of complaint, in addition to allegations for divorce, he alleged that the child of the parties by adoption was presently residing with the defendant; that he had agreed that she have the custody of the child, a little girl then three years of age, and that he had made a property settlement with his wife. To this bill of complaint Mrs. Reno filed a waiver of process and entered her appearance on October 4, 1963, and thereafter on October 21, 1963, filed an answer and cross-bill. The answer denied substantially the allegations of cruel and inhuman treatment as well as the averment of the bill of complaint as to the property settlement. The cross-bill alleged that it would be for the best interest of the child to be with the cross complainant and prayed for custody of the child, separate support and maintenance for Mrs. Reno and the child as well as for a property settlement between complainant and the defendant since it was alleged that the properties of the parties were acquired by their joint efforts, and cross complainant further prayed for attorneys' fees.
The husband filed his answer to the cross-bill and denied cruelty on his part. He denied that appellant was entitled to a division of money or property, alleging that the same was not acquired by their joint efforts, and he denied that the appellant was a fit and proper person to have the care and custody of the child due to her habitual use of alcoholic beverages and her neglect of the child. Mrs. Reno denied the affirmative matter set forth in the answer as to her unfitness to have the custody of the child, and she denied that the parties had a property settlement, and further averred the truth to be that since the separation of the parties in July 1963 that the complainant and cross defendant has wholly failed to support either herself or their minor child to the date of the answer, the same being April 22, 1964.
After hearing on the pleadings as portrayed, the court entered a decree on April 30, 1964, a day of the regular term of court, awarding a decree of divorce to the complainant, Major W. Reno, and confirming a property settlement found by the court to have been made by the parties. The court further found and held as follows:
'The court further finds that there were no children born to this union, but there was legally adopted by the parties one female child, namely, Sonja Elaine Reno, who is now approximately four years old, and the court further finds that both parties are heavy consumers of alcoholic beverages and the court is thereby taking the matter of the custody of this child into the custody of the Court and is withholding a final determination as to the custody due to the lack of sufficient evidence toward a decesion (sic) as to the best interest of the child at this time, however, the court is temporarily awarding joint custody to the parties with the right of the complainant to have the child from the 15th to the 30th of each month and the defendant to have the child from the 15th to the 1st of each month and that the complainant be required to pay to the defendant for the support of the said child the sum of $25.00 for each two weeks period that the custody is in the defendant.
A decree was entered in accordance with the above findings which included an attorney's fee in the sum of $500.00.
On May 7, 1964, during the regular term the court granted an appeal to the appellant from the decree of April 30, 1964. This appeal was perfected. The following day of the regular term the court entered the following decree in the same cause, the pertinent portion thereof as follows:
'This cause having been heretofore heard in open court on a day of the regular April, A.D., 1964 Term at which time a decree was entered whereby the court retained jurisdiction of the minor child Sonja Elaine Reno, approximately four years of age, but gave the temporary custody of the child to the complainant and the defendant as evidenced by the decree of this court and it now appearing to the court that circumstances have arisen whereby the court notified the attorneys for each party to appear before the court, which they did, and the court thereupon advised the attorneys that it had come to the attention of the court that the defendant and cross-complainant Dorothy Elaine Reno had committed perjury inasmuch as she had testified on direct examination that she worked at Davis Grill and the court was informed that Mrs. Reno was not in fact working at the Davis Grill on that date, but stated that she had been employed on February 5, 1964, and that her employment there had ceased on April 22, 1964, and the Court thereupon stated that he was modifying and changing the decree heretofore mentioned in regards to the custody of the child and was finding that because of the heavy drinking of both parties that neither pary was fit to have the custody of the child and that the custody of the child was being placed into the court and directing that the sheriff immediately and forthwith go to the address of the defendant and cross-complain- (sic) and Mrs. Reno in Jackson, Mississippi, and to take custody of the child and to deliver the custody of the child to the court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Court shall modify and change the custody of the child as heretofore provided for in the decree heretofore entered in this cause and is taking the custody of the child into the court and retaining jurisdiction of said child and directing that the said child be forthwith delivered to the court.
SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, on this the 8 day of May, A.D., 1964.
An appeal with supersedeas from the last order was denied, whereupon a petition for appeal with supersedeas and for a writ of habeas corpus was filed in this Court on May 12, 1964, and after hearing, an order was entered granting supersedeas, and a fiat was issued to the Circuit Judge of the Second Judicial District of Jones County for a hearing on the petition for writ of habeas corpus. This hearing on habeas corpus culminated in an order adjudicating that the custody of the minor remain with Mrs. Reno until the cause could be reviewed by this Court.
Appellant assigns as error on appeal to this Court, among numerous other assignments, the following:
(1) The Court erred in entering its decree of May 8, 1964, modifying the decree of April 30, 1964, as it had no jurisdiction in the cause having theretofore granted an appeal to this Court and such appeal had been perfected.
(2) The Court erred in finding that there was a property settlement between the parties as such was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(3) The Court was manifestly wrong and erred in granting a divorce to the complainant as this was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(4) The Court erred in dividing the custody of the child between the parties as the complainant did not seek the custody of the child and there was no finding on the part of the court that the mother was either immorally suited to have such custody or had abandoned the child.
The appellee has filed a motion to docket and dismiss the appeal and urges in support of the same that the appeal of May 7, 1964, was interlocutory and as such was improvidently granted.
We first address ourselves to the motion to dismiss the appeal as being interlocutory and improvidently granted. We hold that the motion should be overruled as the decree appealed from is final inasmuch as it was determinative of all issues before the court from the evidence there introduced until the same was submitted to the court for consideration and decision. A decree as to the custody of a child is never final, in a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McKee v. Flynt, 91-CA-0987
...Id. at 1216. Bell v. Bell, 572 So.2d 841 (Miss.1990), is similar in nature and reaches a similar conclusion. See also Reno v. Reno, 253 Miss. 465, 176 So.2d 58, 62 (1965). A child of divorcing parents is a ward of the court. As such, the chancery court is charged with the duty to determine ......
-
Reed v. High
...Mississippi. In particular, I note that four judges concurred in the result in Logan v. Rankin, supra. Moreover, in Reno v. Reno, 253 Miss. 465, 472, 176 So.2d 58, 61 (1965), the Supreme Court, in dictum, stated: "A decree as to the custody of a child is never final, in a sense, inasmuch as......
-
Reed v. High
... ... In particular, I note that four judges concurred in the ... result in Logan v. Rankin, supra. Moreover, in Reno v. Reno, ... 253 Miss. 465, 472, 176 So.2d 58, 61 (1965), the Supreme ... Court, in dictum, stated: "A decree as to the custody of ... a child is ... ...
-
Harden v. Scarborough, 2016–CA–01393–COA
...or which parent is the better person." Vassar v. Vassar , 228 So.3d 367, 375 (¶ 26) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (citing Reno v. Reno , 253 Miss. 465, 475, 176 So.2d 58, 62 (1965) ); Hollon v. Hollon , 784 So.2d 943, 947 (¶ 12) (Miss. 2001). "[T]he chancellor has the ultimate discretion to weigh t......