William W. Williams v. Ursel Williams
2017 Miss. App. LEXIS 482
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Ursel and William (Wayne) Williams married in 1983; Wayne left the marital home in December 2013 and Ursel filed for separate maintenance in August 2014. The chancery court entered temporary support in December 2014; Wayne counterclaimed for divorce based on habitual cruel and inhuman treatment.
- Wayne is a disabled veteran with chronic health problems; Ursel also has health issues and claims she cannot work but has not been found disabled.
- Wayne testified that on four occasions between 2012–2013 Ursel refused to take him to the hospital; on some occasions others transported him and once he allegedly rode his motorcycle to the hospital himself.
- During discovery Ursel failed to timely respond to requests for admissions; the chancellor deemed them admitted but nonetheless heard contradictory trial testimony and credited Ursel’s testimony over Wayne’s.
- The chancery court granted Ursel $600/month separate maintenance plus payment of a $365 mortgage, and denied Wayne’s divorce claim for habitual cruel and inhuman treatment; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether chancellor erred in awarding separate maintenance to Ursel | Wayne: Ursel’s untimely discovery responses were deemed admissions that establish she was at fault and not abandoned, so she cannot prove separate maintenance | Ursel: Even with deemed admissions, conflicts exist and chancellor properly exercised discretion to hear testimony and award maintenance | Affirmed: chancellor did not abuse discretion; considered factors and credited Ursel’s testimony |
| Whether requests for admission barred Ursel from proving elements of her claim | Wayne: Requests deemed admitted conclusively established wife’s fault and no willful abandonment or refusal to support | Ursel: Contradictory admissions and trial evidence allowed chancellor to resolve conflicts in testimony | Affirmed: court found admissions produced conflicting results and 33‑day delay not critical; chancellor within discretion to rely on testimony |
| Proper amount of separate maintenance and mortgage obligation | Wayne: Award ($600 + $365 mortgage) is erroneous / excessive given financial facts and admissions | Ursel: Needs and health justify award; chancellor considered statutory factors (health, earning capacity, needs, payor expenses, use of home) | Affirmed: chancellor considered the Daigle factors and did not clearly err in amount awarded |
| Whether Wayne proved habitual cruel and inhuman treatment to obtain divorce | Wayne: Four incidents where Ursel refused to assist endangered his health and created reasonable apprehension; corroborating witnesses support claim | Ursel: Disputes most incidents; testimony shows incompatibility and health issues, not conduct rising to habitual cruelty; corroboration weak/uncertain | Affirmed denial: evidence insufficient to show habitual, routine, corroborated cruelty; mere unkindness/incompatibility inadequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921 (Miss. 1994) (standard of appellate review in domestic relations)
- Locklear v. Sellers, 126 So.3d 978 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (deemed admissions do not require further proof)
- DeBlanc v. Stancil, 814 So.2d 796 (Miss. 2002) (Rule 36 should not be applied in draconian fashion; admissions binding absent withdrawal)
- Jackson v. Jackson, 114 So.3d 768 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (elements and availability of separate maintenance)
- Daigle v. Daigle, 626 So.2d 140 (Miss. 1993) (factors to determine separate maintenance amount)
- Rakestraw v. Rakestraw, 717 So.2d 1284 (Miss. Ct. App. 1998) (definition and standards for habitual cruel and inhuman treatment)
- Shavers v. Shavers, 982 So.2d 397 (Miss. 2008) (burden of proof and need for corroboration in cruel-and-inhuman claims)
- Stone v. Stone, 824 So.2d 645 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (mere unkindness, rudeness, or incompatibility insufficient for divorce on cruel-and-inhuman grounds)
- Burnett v. Burnett, 271 So.2d 90 (Miss. 1972) (habitual means routine and continuous; recurrence may be expected)