Anderson v. Anderson

54 So. 3d 850 (Miss. App. 2010)

 

RULE:

More is required for a divorce on the grounds of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment than claimed mere unkindness, rudeness, or incompatibility. There must be corroboration of the complaining party's testimony.

FACTS:

A guardian ad litem was appointed and there was no conclusion that there was sufficient evidence of physical abuse of the children. The chancellor agreed. Without such a finding, this evidence could not be used to prove the husband's ground for divorce. False accusations of infidelity, made habitually over a long period of time without reasonable cause also constituted cruel and inhuman treatment. However, honestly made claims did not constitute habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. There was sufficient evidence to give the wife reason to believe that the husband was in an adulterous relationship. The wife's conduct did not meet the standard of cruel and inhuman treatment. 

ISSUE:

Did the trial court err by granting the husband a divorce on the grounds of cruel and inhumane treatment?

ANSWER:

Yes.

CONCLUSION:

The wife's conduct did not meet the standard of cruel and inhuman treatment. Divorce was a statutory act and the statutes must be strictly followed as they were in derogation of the common law.

Click here to view the full text case and earn your Daily Research Points.