McNeese v. McNeese
119 So. 3d 264
| Miss. | 2013Background
- Kenton and Katherine McNeese married Dec 9, 2006; they have one child, Hattie (born Jan 2009).
- Katye filed for divorce Oct 1, 2010, alleging habitual cruel treatment or irreconcilable differences.
- Consent agreement to irreconcilable differences divorce was entered on the first trial day; court to decide custody, visitation, support, assets, and alimony.
- Trial occurred Apr 11 and Jun 1, 2011; Sept 2, 2011 order granted irreconcilable differences divorce; Katye awarded physical custody; Kenton ordered $588/mo child support; no alimony or attorney’s fees.
- Katye filed a motion to reconsider; Kenton filed no response. Amended final judgment issued Jan 4, 2012.
- Kenton, proceeding pro se, challenged the judgment through multiple post-trial motions and subpoenas; he appeals the denial of post-trial motions and the grant of divorce.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of the consent agreement for irreconcilable differences | Kenton: not properly notarized and not signed by counsel | Katye: consent meets statute; not required to be notarized or signed by attorneys | Consent valid under Miss. Code § 93-5-2; notary/attorney-signature not required |
| Divorce granted on irreconcilable differences supported by substantial evidence | Kenton: consent agreement should be withdrawn; evidence supports fault | Katye: consent and trial evidence support irreconcilable differences | Chancellor’s irreconcilable differences ruling affirmed; supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether court erred in denying amendment of pleadings/withdrawal of consent | Kenton: Rule 15(b) allows amendment to reflect evidence including withdrawal | Counterclaims untimely; no proper motion to amend | No abuse; amendment/withdrawal not properly before court; counterclaim untimely |
| Whether post-trial motions were properly denied | Kenton: errors in findings of fact and fraud upon court | Chancellor properly denied; no new evidence or fraud shown | Rule 59/60(b) motions denied; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether contempt and attorney’s fees were proper | Kenton: alleged misrepresentations; due process concerns | Chancellor found intentional misrepresentations; fees warranted | Contempt and $750 in fees affirmed; substantial evidence supported |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanderson v. Sanderson, 824 So.2d 623 (Miss.2002) (defers to trial court's factual findings when supported by substantial evidence)
- Duncan v. Duncan, 774 So.2d 418 (Miss.2000) (clear error standard for factual findings in post-trial relief)
- Fletcher v. Lyles, 999 So.2d 1271 (Miss.2009) (notice of appeal controls scope if issues clearly shown)
- Meeks v. Meeks, 757 So.2d 364 (Miss.Ct.App.2000) (mandatory withholding order interpretation)
- Trim v. Trim, 33 So.3d 471 (Miss.2010) (false information must be substantial to reopen a case)
- Curtiss v. Curtiss, 781 So.2d 142 (Miss.Ct.App.2000) (withholding orders from inception)
- Butt v. State, 986 So.2d 981 (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (ex-spouses' nonconfidential testimony not barred by privilege)
- Jones v. Jones, 995 So.2d 706 (Miss.2008) (perjury reporting discretion of the court)
- O.W.O. Investments, Inc. v. Stone Inv. Co., Inc., 32 So.3d 439 (Miss.2010) (avoidance of unsupported error assignments; record excerpts prerequisites)