Christopher Daniel Lee v. Nikki G. Lee
154 So. 3d 904
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Christopher and Nikki Lee married in May 2008; their son was born in 2009.
- Nikki filed for divorce in May 2011 alleging habitual cruel and inhuman treatment and habitual drunkenness.
- Chancellor granted divorce to Nikki on the ground of habitual drunkenness, awarded Nikki sole physical custody, joint legal custody, and "reasonable" visitation to Chris.
- Nikki planned to relocate to Wisconsin; the chancellor required Chris to bear all transportation costs for visitation exchanges between Mississippi and Wisconsin.
- Chris appealed, challenging (1) sufficiency of evidence for habitual drunkenness (and related defenses of condonation/antenuptial knowledge) and (2) the chancellor’s allocation of travel costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Nikki) | Defendant's Argument (Lee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported divorce for habitual drunkenness | Nikki: testimony and witnesses showed frequent drinking, negative marital impact, and continued drinking at trial | Chris: Nikki's proof was uncorroborated; she knew of drinking before marriage (antenuptial knowledge) and condoned it | Court: Affirmed — substantial evidence supported habit, impact, and continuation; condonation/antenuptial defenses were waived for failure to plead or try by consent |
| Whether chancellor erred by requiring Chris to pay all visitation travel costs | Nikki: relocation justified assignment of travel burden to Chris; no evidence that cost would prevent visitation | Chris: chancellor should have divided costs; Nikki had agreed to share costs and best interests favor division | Court: Affirmed — Chris failed to preserve/establish error; chancellor has discretion on visitation costs and did not abuse it (no showing costs would preclude visitation) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jundoosing v. Jundoosing, 826 So. 2d 85 (Miss. 2002) (standard of appellate review in domestic cases: substantial-evidence/manifest-error rule)
- Turner v. Turner, 73 So. 3d 576 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (elements required to prove habitual drunkenness)
- Sproles v. Sproles, 782 So. 2d 742 (Miss. 2001) (frequent heavy drinking that causes abuse supports habitual-drunkenness divorce)
- Culver v. Culver, 383 So. 2d 817 (Miss. 1980) (moderate drinking without adverse marital impact does not support habitual-drunkenness divorce)
- Carambat v. Carambat, 72 So. 3d 505 (Miss. 2011) (affirmative defenses like condonation or antenuptial knowledge must be pleaded or are waived)
- Mabus v. Mabus, 890 So. 2d 806 (Miss. 2003) (requirements for finding issues were tried by implied consent)
- Ballard v. Ballard, 843 So. 2d 76 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (custodial parent’s relocation does not automatically require sharing travel costs; chancellor has discretion guided by child's best interests)