Whittington v. Whittington, No. 97-CA-01470 COA.

• Court: Mississippi Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: BEFORE BRIDGES, C.J., PAYNE, AND SOUTHWICK, JJ.
• Citation: 724 So.2d 922
• Parties: Richard Kent WHITTINGTON, Appellant, v. Tina M. WHITTINGTON, Appellee.
• Decision Date: 24 November 1998
• Docket Number: No. 97-CA-01470 COA.

724 So.2d 922

Richard Kent WHITTINGTON, Appellant,
v.
Tina M. WHITTINGTON, Appellee

No. 97-CA-01470 COA.

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

November 24, 1998.

724 So.2d 923

Earl P. Jordan, Jr., Meridian, Attorney for Appellant

William B. Jacob, Joseph A. Kieronski, Jr., Daniel P. Self, Jr., Meridian, Attorneys for Appellee.

BEFORE BRIDGES, C.J., PAYNE, AND SOUTHWICK, JJ.

PAYNE, J., for the Court:

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 1. Tina Whittington filed her complaint for divorce on September 15, 1995. On that same date a motion for temporary relief was filed by Tina. On September 21, 1995, Kent Whittington filed a counter-motion for temporary relief against Tina. Kent also filed a counter-complaint for divorce that same day.

¶ 2. On October 3, 1995, the parties entered into an agreed temporary order. Thereafter, on October 24, 1995, a hearing was held on the motions for temporary relief. Later, on April 18, 1997, a consent for divorce was executed by the parties.

¶ 3. A trial was held in this cause on June 23, July 2, and July 30, 1997. From the chancellor's decree and opinion, Tina was granted the permanent care, custody, and control of the minor child Kristina.

¶ 4. Kent filed a motion for a new trial and a motion for reconsideration on August 25, 1997. On October 22, 1997, a judgment was rendered overruling and denying both motions. Feeling aggrieved, Kent filed his notice of appeal on November 20, 1997.

¶ 5. Having read the record and studied the law, we affirm the chancellor's decree below.

FACTS

¶ 6. Kent and Tina Whittington were married on December 1, 1990. The couple separated on September 11, 1995. From that marriage, the couple produced one child, Kristina.

724 So.2d 924

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 7. Our standard of review is well known. The scope of review in domestic relations matters is limited by the substantial evidence/manifest error rule. Stevison v. Woods, 560 So.2d 176, 180 (Miss.1990).

This Court will not disturb the findings of a chancellor unless the chancellor was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous or an erroneous legal standard was applied. Bell v. Parker, 563 So.2d 594, 596-97 (Miss.1990). See also Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921 (Miss.1994); Faries v. Faries, 607 So.2d 1204, 1208 (Miss.1992). In other words, "[o]n appeal [we are] required to respect the findings of fact made by a chancellor supported by credible evidence and not manifestly wrong." Newsom v. Newsom, 557 So.2d 511, 514 (Miss. 1990). See also Dillon v. Dillon, 498 So.2d 328, 329 (Miss.1986). This is particularly true in the areas of divorce, alimony and child support. Tilley v. Tilley, 610 So.2d 348, 351 (Miss.1992); Nichols v. Tedder, 547 So.2d 766, 781 (Miss.1989). The word "manifest", as defined in this context, means "unmistakable, clear, plain, or indisputable." Black's Law Dictionary 963 (6th ed.1990).

Magee v. Magee, 661 So.2d 1117, 1122 (Miss. 1995).

¶ 8. This fact is as true of ultimate facts as of evidentiary facts. Spain v. Holland, 483 So.2d 318, 320 (Miss.1986). In other words, this Court will generally affirm a...