Maxwell Lomax v. Tara Johnson Lomax
172 So. 3d 1258
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Maxwell (Max) and Tara Lomax married October 25, 2013, separated January 11, 2014; no children or real property from the marriage.
- Tara filed for divorce (habitual cruel and inhuman treatment; alternatively irreconcilable differences) and later amended to allege Max’s illicit drug addiction.
- At the May 23, 2014 hearing Tara produced photographic evidence of bruises and facial injuries she said occurred during the marriage, text messages showing emotional abuse, and counselor testimony advising divorce; Max disputed that the injuries occurred post-marriage and denied post-marriage physical assaults.
- Chancellor granted divorce on ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, found no marital real property, allocated $5,000 in debt and ordered Max to pay Tara $3,500, awarded Tara the engagement ring (an inter vivos gift) and both vehicles (titles in Tara’s name), and denied attorney’s fees to both parties.
- Max appealed pro se raising sufficiency of evidence for the cruelty finding, admissibility/relevance of pre-marriage altercation testimony, property division (engagement ring, Range Rover), and attorney’s fees; appeal affirmed by Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lomax) | Defendant's Argument (Max) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habitual cruel and inhuman treatment supported divorce | Tara: presented photographs, texts, counselor testimony showing routine physical and emotional abuse making marriage unsafe | Max: denied any physical assaults after marriage, argued insufficient proof and preferred counseling | Court: Affirmed — substantial evidence supported habitual cruel and inhuman treatment (routine physical and emotional abuse) |
| Admissibility/relevance of testimony about pre-marriage altercations | Max: testimony and deputy’s report show injuries pre-dated marriage, so photos not proof of post-marriage abuse | Tara: injuries and other evidence show post-marriage abuse; pre-marriage incidents undisputed and not determinative | Court: No error — pre-marriage testimony was allowed; chancellor reasonably found it not dispositive and Deputy could not tie photos to that incident |
| Ownership/division of engagement ring and vehicles | Max: ring was conditional (to be returned if marriage failed) and originally belonged to his mother; Range Rover was marital so he should have interest | Tara: ring was an inter vivos gift without enforceable return condition; vehicles titled to her and she paid loan | Court: Affirmed — engagement ring was a pre-marital/inter vivos gift not subject to equitable division; vehicles belonged to Tara |
| Award of attorney’s fees and Rule 38 sanction request on appeal | Tara: chancery court erred by not awarding her fees; Max’s appeal is frivolous and warrants Rule 38 fees | Max: denied filing frivolous claims; contested various trial rulings | Court: Denied — Tara failed to cross-appeal fee ruling; record shows both had ability to pay; Max’s appeal not frivolous though not meritorious |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Jackson, 114 So. 3d 768 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (standard for appellate review in domestic cases)
- Henrichs v. Henrichs, 32 So. 3d 1202 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (substantial-evidence review of chancery findings)
- Harmon v. Harmon, 141 So. 3d 37 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (definition/standard for habitual cruel and inhuman treatment)
- Smith v. Smith, 90 So. 3d 1259 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (conduct threshold for cruel and inhuman treatment)
- Moore v. Moore, 757 So. 2d 1043 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) (cruel treatment must be routine and continuous)
- Neville v. Neville, 734 So. 2d 352 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (engagement ring as pre-marital gift not marital asset)
- Faerber v. Faerber, 150 So. 3d 1000 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (attorney’s-fee awards based on necessity)
- Delta Chem. & Petroleum Inc. v. Citizens Bank of Byhalia, Miss., 790 So. 2d 862 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (cross-appeal requirement to alter unchallenged trial rulings on appeal)
- Balius v. Gaines, 95 So. 3d 730 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (Rule 38 frivolous-appeal standard analogous to Rule 11)
- Creekmore v. Creekmore, 651 So. 2d 513 (Miss. 1995) (chancellor’s discretion on awarding attorney’s fees in divorce)