Parker v. Parker case brief summary
519 So. 2D 1232 (1988)
CASE FACTS
The parties were married and lived together for 18 years until they separated. They had no children. The wife ran a beauty shop and the husband a garage, both located on the same property as the parties' residence. The wife sought a divorce for cruel and inhuman treatment. The wife presented witnesses who testified about various incidents. The husband declined to appear at trial. He put on no evidence and did not testify. When the wife rested her case the husband's attorney rested as well. The trial court denied the wife's petition for a divorce.
DISCUSSION
The court reversed the decision of the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Suggested law school course materials, hornbooks, and guides for Constitutional Law
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
519 So. 2D 1232 (1988)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant wife sought review of a
decision from the Chancery Court, Winston County (Mississippi), which
denied her a divorce from her marriage to appellee husband and
dismissed her complaint.CASE FACTS
The parties were married and lived together for 18 years until they separated. They had no children. The wife ran a beauty shop and the husband a garage, both located on the same property as the parties' residence. The wife sought a divorce for cruel and inhuman treatment. The wife presented witnesses who testified about various incidents. The husband declined to appear at trial. He put on no evidence and did not testify. When the wife rested her case the husband's attorney rested as well. The trial court denied the wife's petition for a divorce.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the court held that the record showed a pattern of systematic, continuous abuse on the part of the husband that went beyond mere incompatibility and resulted in the wife's hospitalization for anxiety-related disorders.
- The court held that the trial court erroneously allowed the husband to use the defense of recrimination on the grounds of the wife's adultery when:
- (1) the husband was responsible for the failure of the marriage,
- (2) the wife's misconduct occurred only after the parties' separation,
- (3) public policy was not served by protecting a bad marriage, and
- (4) a divorce would protect the wife's economic well-being.
The court reversed the decision of the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Suggested law school course materials, hornbooks, and guides for Constitutional Law
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment