Title: Craft v. Craft

State: mississippi

Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court

Document:

478 So. 2d 258 (1985) Mrs. Helen Tisdale CRAFT v. Wyatt Eugene CRAFT. No. 55039. Supreme Court of Mississippi. October 2, 1985. *259 Dixon L. Pyles, Pyles & Tucker, F. Kent Stribling, Jackson, for appellant. James W. Nobles, Jr., Jackson, for appellee. Before PATTERSON, C.J., and PRATHER and SULLIVAN, JJ. SULLIVAN, Justice, for the Court: These parties were divorced on September 14, 1977, on the grounds of irreconciliable differences. The divorce was granted by the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi. The parties have three children: Steven, who was born April 11, 1962; Suzanne, born February 20, 1964, and Stacey, born December 9, 1969. The parties separated in November of 1976. In December of that year they began negotiations for a property settlement and support agreement. Unable *260 to obtain Mr. Craft's business records, Mrs. Craft filed a bill for discovery in the Chancery Court of Hinds County. A demurrer to this bill was sustained but Mrs. Craft was given time to plead over. In the interim, a property settlement agreement was reached and joint motion was made for the dismissal of the bill for discovery which was granted. Some two years later, Mr. Craft filed a petition to modify the decree, asking the chancery court to spell out his visitation rights with his daughter, Stacey. Thereupon, Mrs. Craft filed a cross-claim charging Mr. Craft with fraud in procuring the settlement agreement for the divorce. She further requested that she be awarded an additional property settlement and child support by an upward adjustment based upon the fraud. Mrs. Craft also sought attorney's fees in this action for $45,841.25. After the claim and cross-claim were filed Mrs. Craft filed a notice to take Mr. Craft's deposition and to produce documents and memoranda showing property interests and income. On April 23, 1981, Mr. Craft moved for a protective order. No order was entered on this motion, and Mr. Craft failed to appear at the deposition. Mrs. Craft then moved for sanctions, asking for among other things attorney's fees and expenses. The chancellor found that Mr. Craft did not seasonably move for a protective order nor did he attempt to procure a protective order from the court. He, therefore, ordered Mr. Craft to pay Mrs. Craft the sum of $3,224.45 in attorney's fees and expenses. The case then came on for trial and we include herein the chancellor's finding: Based upon these findings, the chancellor ordered the appellee to increase Stacey's child support payments to $900 per month, and awarded Mrs. Craft $2,500 in attorney's fees. The case came on for trial on June 16, 1982, and then was recessed to be continued on September 15, 1982. Mr. Craft objected to the recess for the reason that during the period of time until the case could be concluded he would have no visitation rights with Stacey. The court ordered the parties to work out some regular visitation rights within five days, and that if they failed to do so the court would set its own visitation schedule. Temporary visitation was worked out between the parties and Mrs. Craft now contends that as the two parties worked out the visitation it was not necessary for the *262 court to make the determination. It is true that equity favors amicable adjustments. It is equally true that this adjustment did not take place until the parties were in court before the chancellor. We, therefore, find that the chancellor was not manifestly wrong in fixing the visitation and/or approving the visitation agreed upon by the parties under duress, and where the chancellor is not manifestly wrong he will not be reversed. Ross v. Segrest, 421 So. 2d 1234 (Miss. 1982). There is no merit to this assignment of error. These two assignments will be discussed together, in view of the fact that the crux of the argument by Mrs. Craft is that Mr. Craft at the time of the separation agreement withheld from her information about his financial condition, deprived her of independent advice, and perpetrated a fraud upon her so as to invalidate the original agreement. She further contends that at this time as Mr. Craft was the dominant figure in the marriage and the parties were still married there existed between them a fiduciary relationship and that, therefore, the burden of proof was upon Mr. Craft to prove that he had not withheld information from her and had not perpetrated a fraud upon her. Both parties cite numerous cases from other jurisdictions which discuss this issue but to which we are not compelled to go. In the first instance the chancellor ruled that there was no fiduciary relationship, and he further ruled that Mr. Craft had not perpetrated a fraud in inducing the agreement. On this record, there is ample evidence to uphold that finding of fact. Furthermore, we find that when parties have separated and have entered into negotiations in contemplation of a divorce, each party having obtained competent counsel, and a suit has actually been instituted between the parties seeking discovery in order to facilitate the entry of an agreement in contemplation of divorce, it can no longer be said that a fiduciary relationship exists between the parties. They are adversaries plain and simple. This is particularly true where both of the parties are adults under no disabilities and well educated. It cannot be said that the parties to this action were not throughout the time of the separation, the agreement, and the divorce actively represented by competent counsel. Furthermore, in the case of Warner v. Warner, 175 Miss. 476, 167 So. 615 (1936), this Court has already addressed this issue. In Warner, the parties separated and subsequently divorced. Prior to the divorce they entered into an agreement that read, Id. at 478, 167 So. 615. The wife then alleged that the agreement was executed at a time when she wasn't advised of her rights, and that she didn't have a chance to discuss it or seek advice from friends or relatives. Furthermore, she alleged that she was "induced to sign it by the false and fraudulent representations of the appellant as to his financial condition." Id. at 478, 167 So. 615. The chancellor found the settlement to be void, because the wife was not aware of her husband's financial ability to pay more and was not advised by him of the nature and extent of his holdings. *263 This Court reversed, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding of any misrepresentation or fraud that would invalidate the previous settlement. We find ourselves in the same situation this Court was in when it reviewed the record in Warner. There being no fiduciary relationship, the burden of proving the fraud fell upon Mrs. Craft and that burden calls for clear and convincing evidence. Gardner v. Jones, 464 So. 2d 1144 (Miss. 1985). The burden was not met. In summary, in view of the fact that Mrs. Craft, (1) was represented by competent counsel, (2) sent a proposed settlement agreement to her husband's attorney, (3) did not complain about the settlement until some three and a half years after the divorce, (4) realized she was executing the settlement while dismissing the bill of discovery without gaining the business records, (5) and her attorney signed and agreed to the property settlement, and (6) was not unduly influenced nor was there a confidential relationship since the parties were adversaries, represented by counsel, and dealing with one another at arms' length, there is no merit to these assignments of error. At the beginning of the trial, Mr. Craft made a motion in limine pertaining to the proposed testimony of Dr. James Parks, an economist from Belhaven College. The court reserved ruling on the motion, and then after hearing the testimony from Dr. Parks sustained the appellee's motion. Mrs. Craft argues that the trial court should have awarded her $61,416.63. This is the difference between the $2500 per month she received during the separation from November, 1976 to October, 1977, and the $8,083.33 per month she should have received according to the tables showing household expenses increased by the consumer price index from 1977 until each child reached age 21. She arrives at the figure of $8,083.33 by reasoning that the amount needed to maintain the same standard of living as in 1977 is $97,000 per year. Divided by twelve, she reaches the figure $8,083.33. The basis of this argument seems to be that the statistical data proferred by Mrs. Craft through the testimony of Dr. Parks should have been admitted into evidence and taken as conclusive. It was not reversible error for the chancellor to refuse to admit into evidence the expert testimony from Dr. Parks. Speaking for the Court, Justice Walker in Sipe v. Farmer, 398 So. 2d 1325 (Miss. 1981), said: "Since an expert witness, in a sense discharges the functions of a juror, his opinion should be admitted if it is clear that the jurors themselves are not capable ... of drawing a conclusion from the facts." Id. at 1329. It would be a decision of desperation for this Court to hold that the chancellor, sitting as a factfinder, is not capable of drawing a conclusion concerning child support from the facts presented to him. This is not to say that the chancellor might not have admitted the expert opinion testimony, but he would not be bound by it. The record shows that from January 1, 1978, to December 31, 1980, Mr. Craft provided $46,547.80 for Steven, $60,726.07 for Suzanne, and $24,443.05 for Stacey. These amounts were sufficient to provide all of life's necessities plus many of its luxuries. We concede that this does not cover the period from November of 1976 through October of 1977. However, the record there reflects that Mrs. Craft received $2500 per month for household expenses, which is corroborated by Mr. Craft. The record is silent as to what Mr. Craft expended in support of his children during the separation. Mr. Craft did testify, and it is uncontested, that the only thing that *264 changed in the life of his children when he moved out of the house was that he wasn't in the house anymore. Their monetary situation did not change one iota. Mrs. Craft offers no proof showing that during the separation from November of 1976 until October of 1977 only $2500 per month and no more was paid to the family by Mr. Craft. The assignment of error is without merit. The chancellor awarded Mrs. Craft $2,500 in attorney's fees for defending the petition to modify. She claims that $45,841.25 should have been awarded, since it was supported by evidence and there was no evidence to controvert the testimony showing her attorney's fees. Many times this Court has stated the ground rules for the award of attorney's fees. See McKee v. McKee, 418 So. 2d 764 (Miss. 1982); Kergosien v. Kergosien, 471 So. 2d 1206 (Miss. 1985). Kergosien at 1212. We note, however, that both McKee and Kergosien were actions for divorce. This cause is a modification, where the rule is slightly different. We draw attention to our decision in Robinson v. Robinson, 112 Miss. 224, 72 So. 923 (1916). Robinson was also a modification. Justice Stevens, speaking for the Court, succinctly stated our law and stated it so well that we will quote it here in toto: 72 So. 923-24. On this record it was established that Mrs. Craft did have a separate estate. It was further testified by counsel for Mrs. Craft from the witness stand that Mrs. Craft was able to pay the legal fees. Once this testimony was given, the reasonableness of the fee charged by her attorneys became of no moment as she had not cleared the first hurdle to determine that she would be entitled to fees at all. It is further pointed out that this Court has stated in Walters v. Walters, 383 So. 2d 827 (Miss. 1980), that the matter of determining attorney's fees in divorce cases is largely entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court and the award must be fair and just to all concerned after it has been determined that the legal work being compensated was reasonably required and necessary. Again, Walters discusses attorney's fees in a divorce. Under our law and the facts presented on this record, Mrs. Craft was not entitled to attorney's fees in any sum in this action. However, counsel for Mr. Craft makes no point of the $2500 attorney's fee awarded by the chancellor and has filed no cross-appeal complaining of its award. We, therefore, affirm the chancellor in his award of $2500 and find no merit to the assignments of error by Mrs. Craft. Mississippi Code Annotated § 13-1-237(d) (Supp. 1984), provides: Mississippi Code Annotated § 13-1-226(c) (Supp. 1984), provides: The chancellor reasoned, Mr. Craft argues more against the amount of the sanction than against the sanction itself. He contends that the expenses of one competent attorney and the court reporter is all that is called for under Rule 37(d) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure and, therefore, the award should be reduced to $1,398. We disagree. The sanction was proper. The amount was justified on the record, and we affirm the chancellor in his award of sanctions. In summary, we conclude that there was no confidential relationship between the parties since they were adversaries dealing at arms length; that the burden of proof was not upon Mr. Craft to show by clear and convincing evidence that Mrs. Craft made a voluntary and knowing decision in dealing with the property settlement; that Mrs. Craft proved no fraud in the procuring of the settlement agreement by Mr. Craft; that Mrs. Craft was not entitled to retroactively adjust child support from November of 1976 through October of 1977; that the chancellor did not err in granting sanctions against Mr. Craft for failing to appear at the noticed deposition; and that Mrs. Craft failed to prove that she was entitled to attorney's fees of $45,841.25 in pursuit of this modification hearing, and that the $2500 attorney's fees awarded will be affirmed as it was not appealed. AFFIRMED ON DIRECT AND CROSS APPEALS. PATTERSON, C.J., WALKER, ROY NOBLE LEE, P.JJ., and HAWKINS, DAN M. LEE, PRATHER, ROBERTSON and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.