350 So.3d 1195
Miss. Ct. App.2022Background
- Anthony and Amanda Reading married in 1999, had five children, and separated after moving to Mississippi in 2017; Anthony later pled guilty in Florida to sexual activity with a child and was incarcerated.
- Amanda filed for divorce in Harrison County, Mississippi; Anthony was served in Florida and the chancery court granted divorce and reserved property distribution.
- Amanda later petitioned for distribution of the marital home; service by mail to Anthony in a Florida prison was returned as served.
- Anthony submitted filings alleging various due-process defects (e.g., lack of notice of an "order of extradition," failure to receive decrees, failure to investigate alleged criminal conduct) and requested investigation and document review.
- The chancery court found service sufficient and awarded title, possession, and ownership of the marital property to Amanda.
- On appeal Anthony challenged due-process protections, but the Court of Appeals held his brief failed to comply with M.R.A.P. 28(a)(7) (no developed legal argument or supporting authority) and affirmed the chancery court on procedural grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Notice of extradition/order and opportunity to object | Anthony: chancery court failed to notify him of an "order of extradition" and denied chance to waive objection | Amanda: process was sufficient; merits not adjudicated on appeal because briefing deficient | Court: claim procedurally barred for failure to brief with authority; no merits review |
| Failure to issue decree/documents preventing timely appeal | Anthony: court did not issue decree or documents, impeding his ability to appeal | Amanda: service and final judgment were sufficient; procedural briefing defect prevents review | Court: procedurally barred under M.R.A.P. 28(a)(7); appeal not considered |
| Court’s failure to read appellant’s motions/notices into the record | Anthony: court failed to place his motions/notices on the record, violating due process | Amanda: arguments inadequately briefed; record disputes not properly invoked on appeal | Court: claim barred for lack of developed argument and authority |
| Failure to investigate alleged criminal activity by Amanda/attorneys | Anthony: requested court investigation into alleged criminal acts and false statements | Amanda: such criminal allegations are baseless in the chancery-distribution context and not properly supported on appeal | Court: procedurally barred; allegations are factually and legally unsupported in appellate brief |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. State, 197 So. 3d 914 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (argument must use authority to develop meaningful legal points)
- Patton v. State, 109 So. 3d 66 (Miss. 2012) (appellant must support arguments with reasons and authorities)
- Hill v. State, 940 So. 2d 972 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (briefing that merely lists issues without developed argument is insufficient)
- Carter v. Carter, 324 So. 3d 327 (Miss. Ct. App. 2021) (failure to cite caselaw and provide reasoning procedurally bars appeal)
- Biglane v. Under the Hill Corp., 949 So. 2d 9 (Miss. 2007) (standard of review for chancery factual findings and legal questions)
- Rodgers v. Moore, 101 So. 3d 189 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (limited standard of appellate review for chancery decisions)