Anderson White, II v. Barbara White
208 So. 3d 587
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Anderson and Barbara White married in 2004; they separated in March 2011 and had no children. Barbara filed for divorce in December 2011 alleging uncondoned adultery and habitual cruel and inhuman treatment; trial occurred in September 2014.
- Evidence included repeated marital conflicts, police calls, Anderson allegedly discarding Barbara’s belongings, a 2005 incident where Barbara had a black eye (Anderson denied causing it), and a 2009 “cocked gun” episode where witnesses heard a gun click after an argument (Anderson denied leaving the room).
- The chancery court granted divorce to Barbara on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment and divided marital property and debt between the parties.
- Chancellor awarded Barbara two houses (401 Farmer St. and 130 Memory Ln.) and one vehicle (2011 Lexus ES350); Anderson received the marital home (135 Memory Ln.) and other vehicles; marital debt was split equally.
- Anderson appealed, arguing (1) the evidence did not support habitual cruel and inhuman treatment and (2) the property division was inequitable. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Barbara proved habitual cruel and inhuman treatment | Barbara: incidents (black eye, gun incident) plus ongoing mean and threatening conduct, corroborated by witnesses, meet the preponderance standard | Anderson: incidents were isolated, insufficiently corroborated, and some prior allegations were precluded by a 2012 dismissal | Court: Affirmed—viewing the conduct cumulatively and deferring to chancellor credibility findings, evidence supports habitual cruel and inhuman treatment |
| Whether the chancery court properly considered and admitted pre-2012 allegations | Anderson: January 2012 dismissal precludes use of 2009 counterclaim allegations | Barbara: Rule 60(a) correction allowed the court to reflect intent and consider relevant earlier conduct | Court: Affirmed—chancellor did not abuse discretion in using Rule 60(a) to correct the prior order so Barbara could rely on earlier acts alleged in her 2011 complaint |
| Whether the property division was inequitable under Ferguson factors | Anderson: Barbara made no contribution to the contested properties and should not receive Farmer St. or 130 Memory Ln.; homemaker role not satisfied | Barbara: Her domestic contributions and emotional value of assets justify awards; chancellor applied Ferguson factors | Court: Affirmed—chancellor classified property as marital, applied Hemsley/Ferguson factors, credited homemaker evidence, and did not abuse discretion |
| Whether the chancellor misapplied legal standards or abused discretion in division and divorce ruling | Anderson: argued legal error/manifest injustice in conclusions | Barbara: chancellor applied correct legal standards and credibility determinations | Court: Affirmed—no manifest error or improper legal standard applied; appellate court will not reweigh credibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So. 2d 921 (Miss. 1994) (benchmark factors for equitable division of marital property)
- Hemsley v. Hemsley, 639 So. 2d 909 (Miss. 1994) (definition of marital property and presumption of equal value of spouses’ contributions)
- Rakestraw v. Rakestraw, 717 So. 2d 1284 (Miss. Ct. App. 1998) (standards for habitual cruel and inhuman treatment)
- Daigle v. Daigle, 626 So. 2d 140 (Miss. 1993) (definition and scope of cruel and inhuman treatment)
- McKee v. Flynt, 630 So. 2d 44 (Miss. 1993) (single violent incident may suffice if sufficiently grave)
- Burnett v. Burnett, 271 So. 2d 90 (Miss. 1972) (habitual conduct means recurring or continuous conduct)
- Shavers v. Shavers, 982 So. 2d 397 (Miss. 2008) (burden of proof and need for corroboration in cruel-and-inhuman claims)
- Gatlin v. Gatlin, 234 So. 2d 634 (Miss. 1970) (defendant’s testimony can corroborate plaintiff)
- Phillips v. Phillips, 904 So. 2d 999 (Miss. 2004) (appellate review limited to whether chancellor applied correct legal standards in Ferguson analysis)
- Sproles v. Sproles, 782 So. 2d 742 (Miss. 2001) (chancellor’s application of legal criteria governs review)