Carambat v. Carambat
72 So. 3d 505
| Miss. | 2011Background
- James and Stacy Carambat married March 20, 1993 and resided in Mississippi through 2004; they separated in August 2008 with Stacy filing for divorce September 17, 2008 on grounds including habitual and excessive drug use.
- Trial evidence showed James regularly used marijuana from a young age, continuing during the marriage, with some attempts to quit; Stacy and family testified to the impact on interaction and family life.
- Chancellor denied James's motion for directed verdict on habitual cruelty and on opium-like drug grounds but granted Stacy a divorce on habitual and excessive drug use; custody of twins awarded to Stacy, home and fees awarded, James granted visitation and child support.
- James admitted long-term marijuana use; Stacy claimed use affected work performance, finances, and family dynamics; evidence included James’s demotion and financial strain.
- Court held that the evidence supported habitual and excessive drug use and that marijuana qualifies as an “other like drug” under Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-1, affirming the divorce grant.
- Dissent by Carlson, joined by Dickinson and Kitchens, argued marijuana is not legally an “other like drug” and would reverse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether condonation was waived as a defense | James: condonation should bar relief | Stacy: condonation not properly pleaded; not preserved | Waived |
| Whether recrimination precludes Stacy’s divorce | James: Stacy’s adultery negates divorce | Stacy: recrimination not properly pleaded; not dispositive | Barred from review |
| Whether marijuana constitutes an 'other like drug' for the ground of habitual and excessive use | James: marijuana is not like opium/morphine | Stacy: marijuana has like effects and evidence supports judgment | Affirmed: marijuana found to be habitual/excessive and like drug; grounds satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Ladner v. Ladner, 436 So.2d 1366 (Miss. 1983) (test for 'other like drug' and effect-based analysis)
- Ashburn v. Ashburn, 970 So.2d 204 (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (abuse of prescription drugs can constitute 'opium, morphine, or other like drug')
- Lawson v. Lawson, 821 So.2d 142 (Miss.Ct.App.2002) (drug type determined by effects, not chemical content)
- Sproles v. Sproles, 782 So.2d 742 (Miss.2001) (credibility lies with chancellor as finder of fact)
- Culver v. Culver, 383 So.2d 817 (Miss.1980) (habitual drunkenness analogy in fault-based grounds)
- Smithson v. Smithson, 113 Miss. 146, 74 So. 149 (1917) (early role of drugs under divorce grounds)