Stennis v. Stennis, 54648
| Decision Date | 06 March 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 54648,54648 |
| Parties | Hardy R. STENNIS v. Jo Ann Harrell STENNIS. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Robert D. Jones, Martin & Jones, Meridian, for appellant.
Conrad Mord, Tylertown, for appellee.
Before ROY NOBLE LEE, P.J., and SULLIVAN and ANDERSON, JJ.
This is an appeal from a divorce granted in Noxubee County on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. Appellant contested this action to dissolve their eighteen-year marriage, which was childless. Appellant, after retiring from the military, is currently engaged in the practice of law. Appellee was a housewife for a great majority of time of the marriage, although she worked during appellant's two tours of duty in Viet Nam.
Appellee alleged a lengthy history of cruelty and drunkenness on the part of her husband. Appellant admitted in the mid-1960's to once slapping her, once putting her in a hammer-lock in 1967, and once washing her mouth out with soap in 1979. While he admitted casual drinking and acknowledged that appellee was bothered by this, he denied continuing drunkenness and attendant abuse. It should be noted that appellee did not allege habitual drunkenness as an alternative ground for divorce. At trial appellant was able to produce affidavits corroborating the fact that his drinking was social, and appellee did not produce any witnesses corroborating her testimony alleging drunken abuse on the appellant's part. Appellee admitted that she had lost her love for appellant, resented living in a small town, and incompatibility with appellant. The chancellor found that appellant drank and granted a divorce for habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, awarding appellee both lump sum and temporary monthly alimony. This Court is forced to reverse.
A careful review of the case law in Mississippi shows that the conduct of appellant did not rise to the level of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. There are two recent decisions applicable to the case at bar. In Marble v. Marble, 457 So.2d 1342 (Miss.1984), this Court stated that:
In discussing habitual cruel and inhuman treatment as grounds for divorce, we said in Howard v. Howard, 243 Miss. 301, 303-304, 138 So.2d 292, 293 (1962).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ferguson v. Ferguson, 92-CA-00058
...that it may reasonably be said a permanent condition. See also Haralson v. Haralson, 483 So.2d 378, 379 (Miss.1986); Stennis v. Stennis, 464 So.2d 1161, 1162 (1985); Gallaspy v. Gallaspy, 459 So.2d 283, 285 (Miss.1984); Marble v. Marble, 457 So.2d 1342, 1343 Billy's proof in the case at bar......
-
Jones v. Jones, 57912
...but to affirm. See, e.g., Day v. Day, 501 So.2d 353, 354 (Miss.1987); Haralson v. Haralson, 483 So.2d 378 (Miss.1986); Stennis v. Stennis, 464 So.2d 1161 (Miss.1985); Gallaspy v. Gallaspy, 459 So.2d 283, 285 (Miss.1984); Wires v. Wires, 297 So.2d 900, 902 The assignment of error is denied. ......
-
Steen v. Steen, 92-CA-01316
...Smith v. Smith, 614 So.2d 394, 396 (Miss.1993), citing Wilson v. Wilson, 547 So.2d 803, 805 (Miss.1989). See also Stennis v. Stennis, 464 So.2d 1161 (1985); Gallaspy v. Gallaspy, 459 So.2d 283 (Miss.1984); Marble v. Marble, 457 So.2d 1342 While habitual cruel and inhuman treatment may be es......
-
Williams v. Williams, 2016-CA-00413-COA.
...to sanction divorces based on habitual cruel and inhuman treatment where much more serious conduct occurred. See Stennis v. Stennis , 464 So.2d 1161, 1162 (Miss. 1985) (insufficient evidence of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment where a husband slapped his wife, put her in a headlock, and......