Elmer Gene Farris v. Rebecca Lee Jones Robertson Farris, 202 So. 3d 223

Background

Becky and Gene married in 2006 after cohabiting for ~3 years; they signed a prenuptial agreement the day before marriage; Becky's signature was obtained in the attorney's office where the attorney represented Gene only.
Becky later claimed she contracted herpes during the marriage and that Gene knew or should have known he might have the disease but did not disclose it; they separated in 2012 and Becky sued for divorce on habitual cruel and inhuman treatment (alternative irreconcilable differences).
The chancery court granted Becky a divorce for habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, found the prenuptial agreement invalid, divided marital property, awarded Becky alimony and attorneys’ fees, and ordered Gene to maintain a $200,000 life insurance policy for Becky’s benefit.
Gene appealed, contesting (inter alia) the divorce ground, invalidation of the prenup, several monetary awards, attorneys’ fees, and the life-insurance requirement.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the divorce finding, held the prenup valid and enforceable, reversed awards linked to the cattle (per the prenup), reversed the attorneys’ fees award, reduced the life-insurance requirement to cover remaining alimony, and affirmed other portions of the property division and the alimony award (characterizing it as lump-sum alimony).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Becky)	Defendant's Argument (Farris)	Held
Whether habitual cruel and inhuman treatment was proven (STD transmission)	Gene knowingly transmitted herpes, causing harm and justifying divorce	No adequate corroboration; disease did not cause separation; insufficient proof he transmitted it	Affirmed: court found Gene’s admissions and testimony sufficient corroboration and that knowing transmission may constitute habitual cruel and inhuman treatment
Validity of prenuptial agreement	Agreement was signed under pressure, with inadequate disclosure and no independent counsel for Becky, so invalid	Agreement was voluntary, Becky knew of Gene’s assets, and lack of independent counsel alone does not invalidate it	Reversed: prenup valid and enforceable; parties’ separate-property terms control
Division of rental property and related income	Becky entitled to equitable share given contributions and circumstances	Gene argued award disproportionate to Becky’s $5,000 cash contribution and post-separation withdrawals/expenses	Affirmed: chancellor did not abuse discretion; equitable division need not mirror cash contributions
Alimony (character/amount)	Lump-sum needed due to Becky’s age, health, limited assets, and Gene’s resources	Award excessive relative to Gene’s income	Affirmed in substance: award upheld as lump-sum alimony (chancellor mischaracterized it as periodic)
Attorneys’ fees award to Becky	Fees justified by Gene’s fault and disparity in resources	Gene challenged award given his limited liquid income	Reversed: record shows Becky able to pay; awarding fees to her was an abuse of discretion
Life insurance to secure alimony	Required to protect alimony payments	Amount ($200,000) excessive relative to alimony owed	Reversed in part: insurance required but limited to remaining alimony amount ($58,500) or remaining balance, whichever is less

Key Cases Cited

Mabus v. Mabus, 890 So. 2d 806 (Miss. 2003) (prenuptial agreements enforceable like other contracts; must be fair in execution)
Smith v. Smith, 656 So. 2d 1143 (Miss. 1995) (premise that premarital agreements are valid contracts)
Sanderson v. Sanderson, 170 So. 3d 430 (Miss. 2014) (fair disclosure may be shown by disclosure statements or independent knowledge; independent counsel not always required)
Moses v. Moses, 879 So. 2d 1043 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (reversing STD-based cruelty finding where no credible evidence of transmission)
Buckley v. Buckley, 815 So. 2d 1260 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (transmission of an STD is relevant to fault, property division, and alimony)
Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So. 2d 1278 (Miss. 1993) (factors for alimony determinations)