Faith Abercrombie v. Jonathan Abercrombie, 193 So. 3d 680

Faith and Jonathan Abercrombie married in 2008; their son Remington was born in Mississippi in 2010. The family lived in Louisiana for a period thereafter. Jonathan moved out of the marital home June 14, 2014.
Jonathan filed for divorce in Lamar County, Mississippi, on December 23, 2014, alleging habitual cruel and inhuman treatment (alternative: irreconcilable differences) and asserting Mississippi residency/home-state jurisdiction for the child.
Faith did not answer the complaint; the chancery court entered a final judgment granting the divorce to Jonathan (April 15, 2015), awarding custody of the minor child to Faith and ordering Jonathan to pay $280/month child support.
On appeal (Faith proceeded pro se), she argued the chancery court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the family and child resided in Louisiana, and alternatively that Jonathan procured the divorce by fraud (she says he texted that he had filed a dismissal and she relied on that message and did not answer).
The record contains Jonathan’s complaint asserting Mississippi residency/home-state facts; Faith’s contrary factual assertions appeared only in her appellate brief and in attachments (Louisiana protective order; school enrollment documents). Jonathan did not file an appellee’s brief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Subject-matter jurisdiction (divorce/custody)	Faith: Family and child lived in Louisiana; Mississippi court lacked jurisdiction.	Jonathan: He was a bona fide resident of Lamar County >6 months; Mississippi was the child’s home state.	Court: May raise jurisdiction on appeal, but will not consider new evidence first raised on appeal; record supports presumption in favor of appellee — affirmed.
Fraudulent procurement / set-aside of judgment	Faith: Judgment obtained by fraud because she relied on Jonathan’s text saying he had filed dismissal and therefore did not answer.	Jonathan: (No appellate brief filed.)	Court: Requests to set aside for fraud must first be presented to trial court; appellate court declines to address unraised postjudgment fraud claim.
Consideration of new evidence on appeal	Faith: Relies on attachments and factual assertions submitted on appeal to challenge jurisdiction.	Jonathan: N/A	Court: Will not consider new evidence or factual assertions raised for first time on appeal; appellate briefs are not evidence.
Appellee’s failure to file brief	Faith: N/A	Jonathan failed to file a brief; appellee’s failure can be treated as confession but is not automatic reversal.	Court: Despite Jonathan’s non-appearance on appeal, court reviews record (especially because custody involved) and affirms judgment.

Arrington v. Arrington, 80 So. 3d 160 (review standard for chancery court custody/divorce decisions)
Myers v. State, 145 So. 3d 1143 (new evidence not considered first raised on appeal)
Craft v. Craft, 32 So. 3d 1232 (same—appellate court will not consider new evidence)
Bishop v. Miss. Dep’t of Emp’t Sec., 145 So. 3d 1254 (appellate brief assertions are not evidence)
Onyia v. Miss. Emp’t Sec. Comm’n, 98 So. 3d 1136 (appellate assertions insufficient as evidence)
Harrison v. Boyd Miss. Inc., 700 So. 2d 247 (when trial court makes no specific findings, facts resolved for appellee)
Newsom v. Newsom, 557 So. 2d 511 (same principle regarding inference in favor of appellee)
Ory v. Ory, 936 So. 2d 405 (must present fraud-on-the-court/set-aside claims to trial court first)
Carlson v. City of Ridgeland, 131 So. 3d 1220 (appellee’s failure to file brief may be treated as confession but does not mandate reversal)
Wade v. Wade, 967 So. 2d 682 (custody issues receive appellate review notwithstanding appellee’s failure to brief)