294 So.3d 1138
Miss.2020Background:
- Karrah and Richard Wangler married in September 2016; one child was born in July 2017 and the couple separated December 26, 2017.
- Karrah filed for divorce on January 3, 2018 alleging habitual cruel and inhuman treatment (after a 2017 statutory amendment that expressly included "spousal domestic abuse").
- Richard initially counterclaimed but withdrew his counterclaim the day before trial; Karrah moved that day to amend to expressly plead "spousal domestic abuse," and the chancellor denied that motion.
- At the close of Karrah’s case-in-chief she moved under Miss. R. Civ. P. 15(b) to amend the pleadings to conform to the evidence; that motion was granted.
- Richard moved to dismiss under Rule 41(b) for failure to prove habitual cruel and inhuman treatment; the chancellor granted dismissal, finding Karrah’s evidence insufficient, and this Court affirmed on appeal.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the chancellor erred in denying Karrah’s pretrial motion to amend her complaint to allege "spousal domestic abuse" | Karrah: Rule 15(a) requires leave be freely given; amendment would track the 2017 statutory language and clarify her claim | Richard: The amendment was futile and untimely; the operative statutory language already applied to her original pleading | Denial not reversible: amendment was futile (the 2017 statute already applied) and any error was harmless because Rule 15(b) amendment at trial allowed the evidence to be considered |
| Whether the chancellor erred in granting Richard’s Rule 41(b) motion to dismiss Karrah’s complaint for habitual cruel and inhuman treatment | Karrah: Her testimony showed a pattern of threats/intimidation, emotional abuse, forced isolation, false accusations, abandonment and some physical contact amounting to spousal domestic abuse | Richard: The conduct amounted to criticism, incompatibility, and isolated incidents—not a pattern rising above unkindness or rudeness; plaintiff failed to prove required elements | Affirmed: Chancellor’s dismissal stands—Karrah failed to prove by a preponderance a pattern of conduct rising above mere unkindness; chancellor’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Webb v. Braswell, 930 So. 2d 387 (Miss. 2006) (Rule 15(a) and discretion to grant leave to amend)
- Stewart v. Merchants Nat'l Bank, 700 So. 2d 255 (Miss. 1997) (standard for dismissals under Miss. R. Civ. P. 41(b))
- Osborne v. Osborne, 202 So. 3d 639 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (habitual cruel and inhuman treatment requires conduct beyond unkindness or rudeness)
- Richard v. Richard, 711 So. 2d 884 (Miss. 1998) (elements and examples of cruel and inhuman treatment)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 281 So. 3d 70 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019) (post-amendment example where chancellor found a pattern of emotional/limited physical abuse sufficient for divorce)