Ilene Reynolds Roach v. Paul Ellis Roach, Sr., 2024-CA-00236-COA

Paul Roach filed for divorce from Ilene Roach, alleging habitual cruel and inhuman treatment after Ilene left the marital home in October 2022.
Ilene moved to Texas, and service of process for the divorce was attempted at her Texas address by certified mail, which she signed for twice.
Ilene did not respond to the divorce complaint, did not attend the divorce hearing, and the court granted Paul a divorce. The court also voided a deed transferring a life estate to Ilene and her children based on findings of Paul's incapacity and Ilene's fraud.
Ilene filed a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment, claiming defective service, lack of notice, prior counsel's ineffectiveness, and that the divorce was wrongly granted.
The chancery court denied Ilene's Rule 60(b) motion, finding her claims without merit and affirming personal jurisdiction, effective service, and the validity of the underlying proceedings.
On appeal, the court of appeals reviewed only the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion, not the divorce judgment itself, due to procedural defaults by Ilene.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of Service of Process by Certified Mail	Ilene claimed she was a Mississippi resident, so service outside the state by certified mail was improper	Paul argued Ilene had moved to Texas, making certified mail service proper	Service was effective; Ilene was outside the state
Lack of Notice/Default Judgment	Ilene argued her failure to receive notice and lack of defense amounted to improper default judgment	Paul claimed Ilene was properly served and never made an appearance	No notice required for non-answering defendants; not a default judgment
Attorney Ineffectiveness as Grounds for Relief	Ilene cited her former attorney's failure to act as grounds for setting aside the judgment under Rule 60(b)	Paul contended there was no communication indicating representation	Mere attorney ineffectiveness not "exceptional circumstances" for relief
Jurisdiction of the Court	Ilene questioned personal jurisdiction due to alleged service deficiencies	Paul argued jurisdiction was proper given Ilene's service and residency facts	Chancery court properly had jurisdiction

Stringfellow v. Stringfellow, 451 So. 2d 219 (Miss. 1984) (explains that attorney negligence is not typically grounds for relief under Rule 60(b))
Hackler v. Hackler, 296 So. 3d 773 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020) (sets role of chancery court in weighing testimony and credibility)
Carlisle v. Carlisle, 11 So. 3d 142 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (notice of hearings not required for non-answering/defaulting party)
Clark v. Clark, 43 So. 3d 496 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (even absent a defendant, a plaintiff must prove grounds for divorce at hearing)