I N T H E C O UR T O F APPEA LS O F TH E STAT E O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO . 2 0 1 3 - CA - 0 0 4 3 4 - CO A M I CH AE L J AC KS ON AP P EL LA NT
v. RO S I E J AC KS ON APP ELLEE
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 02/ 26/ 2013 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. T AL M ADGE D. L I T T L E J OHN CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: M ONROE COUNTY CHA NCERY COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : RI CH AR D S HANE M CL AUGHL I N N IC O L E H
. M C L A U G H L IN AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : L UANNE S T AR K T HOMP S ON NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CI VI L - DOMES T I C R E L AT I ONS T RI AL CO UR T DI S P OS I T I ON: GR ANT E D DI VOR CE T O AP P E L L E E ON THE G RO UN D O F HA BI TUA L CRU EL AND I NHUMAN T RE AT M E NT D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 11/ 04/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E G R I F F I S, P . J. , I SH E E , R O B E R T S A N D C A R L T O N , JJ. I S HEE, J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. O n M ay 20, 2009, Rosi e J acks on f i l ed f ora di vo rce f

rom her husb and , M i chae l J acks on. Fol l ow i ng a thr ee- day tr i al , the M onr oe C ounty C hance ry C our tgr anted R os i e a divorce on the groun d o f habi tual cruel and i nh um an tr eat m ent. T he ch ancery co urtal so di vi ded the mar i t al es t at e and a w ar ded l um p-sum al i m ony t o R os i e. A ggr i eved, M i chae l app eal s. S TA TE M EN T OF F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2. M i chae l and R os i e mar r i ed on D ece m ber26, 1976. T ogether , they had tw o chi l dr en,

### 2

both of w hom w er e emanci pat ed by the t i m e of t hes e pr ocee di ngs . R os i e f i l ed f ordi vor ce on M ay 20, 2009, on the gr ound of habi tual cruel and i nhum an tr eatm ent . M i chae l ans w er ed hercompl ai nt , and l at erf i l ed a mot i on i n l i m i ne request i ng the courtt o l i m i tt es t i m ony
re g a rd in g se x u a l alle g a tio n s. A t trial, the m o tio n w a s o v e rru led . A th re e -d a y tria l w a s h e ld
o n A p ri l 2 , 2 0 1 2 , M a y 2 1 , 2 0 1 2 , a n d A u g u s t 2 1 , 2 0 1 2
. ¶3. Fr om the dat e of thei rm arr i age un t i l aroun d 19 86 , R os i e made m or e money than M i chae l
. M i chae l obt ai ned hi s bache l or ’ s degr ee i n s peci al educa t i on i n 19 75
. H e l at er obt ai ned a mas t er ’ s degr ee i n gui dance educa t i on i n 1977 and a mas t er ’ s degr ee i n s peci al
e d u c a tio n in 1 9 7 9 o r 1 9 8 0 . M ich a e l w o rk e d se v e ra l d iffe re n t p a rt-tim e jo b s in a d d iti o n to t eac hi ng w i th t he A ber deen Publ i c School S ys t em and l at erw i th the O kol ona Publ i c School S y ste m . W h ile M ich a e l co n tin u e d h is e d u c a tio n , R o sie su p p o rte d the fam ily w o rk in g fu llti m e a s a c o sm etolo g istat V asse r’s B ea u ty S h o p , w h ich is ow n ed b y h er sist er, L il li e V asse r. In 2 0 0 8 , R o sie b eg an to w o rk as a c are g iver to th e e lderly in ad d it ion to w o rkin g at V asse r’s B e a u ty S h o p se e in g tw o to th re e c lien ts a w e e k
. D u e to h e a lth p ro b lem s, M ich a e l re tired in 2 0 1 0
. ¶4. I n 1980, M i chae l and R os i e bui l ta hom e l ocat ed i n M onr oe C ounty. N ear l y a deca de l at er , R os i e’ s s i s t er , M ar i an V as s er , m oved i nt o t he hom e w i th the J acks ons af t ers he s uf

f er ed
a s tr oke thatl ef

theri n need of

as s i s t ance . T he home w as l at erm od i fi ed t o be handi capacc es s i bl e t o acc om m odat e V as s er ’ s di s abi l i t i es . V as s ercontr i but ed to t he costof the al t er at i ons and s t i l l r es i des w i th R os i e i n the home t oday. T he part i es s t i pul at ed attr i al that t he m ari t al hom e w as w or th $78, 000. T her e w as al s o evi dence pr es ent ed thata mort gage bal ance of

$50, 103 r emai ned on the home, w i th $27, 897 r emai ni ng i n equi ty.

### In the inte re st of c onfi dentiality, we have c hose n to c hangethenam es of s omeof the 1 

### witnes se s involve d in t

he c as e. 3 ¶5. T he m arr i age betw een R os i e and M i chae l had det er i or at ed year s pr i or t o the di vor ce pr ocee di ngs . R os i e cl ai m ed thatt hey had notbeen t ogethersexua l l y si nce 1999, and t hats he had m oved outof

the mar i t a l be dr oo m i n 2 00 7. I n 2 00 8, Ros i e r e c e i ve d i nf ormat i on in v o lv in g s e x u a l a lle g a tio n s a b o u t M ic h a e l. ¶6. A ttr i al , R os i e t es t i f i ed r egar di ng a phone c onver s at i on s he had w i th M i chae l ’ s f r i end, Jo h n D o e. S h e stat ed tha t, in F eb rua ry 2 0 0 8 , Jo h n ca ll ed the J ac k so n s’ ho m e a n d told h er,

1 “W i l l you pl eas e t el l yourhus band t o l eave me al one?” J ohn t es t i f i ed attr i al a nd w as as ked
w hetherhe h ad an y k i nd of sexual r el at i on shi p w i th M i chael, to w hich he sai d n o. R osi e al so
s t at ed underoath that , i n A pr i l 2008, s he w as appr oache d by one of M i chae l ’ s f

or m er stu d e n ts, Ja m e s D o e , w h o in fo rm e d h e r th a t M ich a e l ha d se x u a lly m o les ted h im tw e n ty -six year s ear l i er . J ames t es t i f i ed, i n det ai l , thatM i chae l m ol es t ed hi m once w hen J ames w as t en year s ol d and w as att endi ng the s am e ch urch as the J acks ons . A l m a J acks on Fl ow er s , the J acks ons ’ daught er , al s o t es t i f i ed thati n 20 08 s he part i ci pat ed i n a thr ee- w ay phone
conver s at i on w i th M i chae l and anotherm an, unbeknow ns tt o M i chae l , w her e M i chae l
s o lic ite d th e m a n fo r o ra l s e x . ¶7. B oth R osi e an d F l ow ers st at ed t hat t hey co nfr on t ed M i chael abo utthe s exual al l egat i ons , buthe de ni ed them. A ttr i al , M i chae l de ni ed al l s exual a l l egat i on s r egar di ng hom os exual i t y and ch i l d m ol es t at i on. A f t erconf r ont i ng M i chae l , R os i e t es t i f i ed thatthe atm os pher e i n the home became very bad. She st at ed thatM i chae l st art ed com i ng hom e l at e, br i ngi ng m en i nt o the home, and cutt i ng of f the phone a nd el ectr i ci ty. Fur ther , s he cl ai m ed

### 4

th a t h e in tim id a te d h e r, b u llie d h e r, a n d ta lk e d c ru e lly to h e r. ¶ 8
. R o sie tes ti fie d th a t sh e w a s tra u m a tize d b y th e in fo rm a tio n sh e lea rn e d a b o u t M ich a e l. She s t at ed thats he bega n t o exper i ence pr obl ems w i th he rbl ood s ugarand bl ood pr es s ur e,
c o u ld n o t sle e p a t n ig h t, an d w a s p re sc rib e d X a n a x to h e lp w ith h e r a n x iety . A s a re su lt, R o sie m o v e d o u t o f th e h o m e o n F e b ru a ry 2 3 , 2 0 0 9
. M ich a e l re m a in e d in th e h o m e u n til a t empora ry or derw as ent er ed i n Sept ember2009 gr ant i ng R os i e pos s es s i on of the hous e. ¶9. Fol l ow i ng tr i al , the chanc el l or concl uded t hat R osi e had pr oven habi tual cruel and i nhum an tr eatm entby pr ovi di ng e vi dence of M i chae l ’ s homosexua l behavi or , and the ef f ect thatthi s conducthad on R os i e’ s h eal t h. T he cha ncel l orgr ant ed the di vor ce, di vi ded the
m ar i t al es t at e, and aw ar ded R os i e l um p- s um al i m ony. ¶10. O n app eal , M i chael argues thatthe ch ancery cour terr oneous l y gr ant ed R os i e a di vor ce w her e: ( 1) the evi dence w as i ns uff i ci ent t o s uppor ta di vor ce on the gr ound of habi tual cruel and i nhum an tr eatm ent , ( 2) the evi dence r el i ed upon by the cha ncel l orw as i nadmi s s i bl e, and ( 3) the equi t abl e di s tr i but i on and the al i m on y aw ar d w er e bas ed on i nco rr ectcal culat i on s. ¶11. A ddi t i onal f

act s , as nece s s ary, w i l l be re l at ed duri ng our anal ys i s and di s cus s i on of the is sues. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶12. “Thi s Courte m pl oys a l i m i t ed st and ard of r eview w hen con si deri ng do m es t i cr el at i ons cas es . ” J

ac k s on v. Jack

s on , 114 S o. 3d 768, 773 ( ¶10) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2013) (cit ati o n s o m itted). “C o n seq u en tl y , an a p p ell ate co u rtw il l no t distu rb th e c h an ce ry c o u rt ’s fi n d ing s u n less su ch fin d in g s are m an if estl y w ron g [or] clea rl y erro n eo u s, o r th e c o u rt

### 5

appl i ed the w r ong l egal s t andar d. ” Id
. H ow ever , qu est i on s of l aw ar e r evi ew ed de novo. G or don v. G or don , 1 2 6 S o . 3 d 9 2 2 , 9 2 5 (¶9 ) (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 1 3 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). DI S CU S S I ON I . H abi t ualC r ue l and I nhum an Tre at m e nt ¶13. “The chanc el l or ’ s det erm i nat i on of w hether a s pous e’ s conduct r os e t o the l evel of
cruel and i nhum an tr eatm enti s a det erm i nat i on of l aw . ” Jones v. Jones , 43 So. 3d 465, 469 (¶7 ) (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 9 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). M issi ssipp i C o d e A n n o tat ed sec ti o n 9 3 -5-1 ( R ev. 2013) pr ovi des tw el ve f aul t - bas ed gr ounds f

ordi vor ce, i ncl udi ng habitual cruel and i nh um an tr eat m ent. In order t o est abli sh a divorce on such g round , the o ff end ed spo use m ust sh o w c o n d u c t th a t eith e r: ( 1) endange r s l i f

e, l i m b, or hea l th, or cr eat es a re as onabl e appr ehens i on of s uch d a n g e r, re n d e rin g th e re latio n sh ip u n sa fe fo r th e p a rty s e e k in g re lief o r (2 ) is s o unnatur al and i nf

am ous as t o m ake the mar r i age r evol t i ng t o the non- of f endi ng s pous e and r enderi ti m pos s i bl e f ort hats pous e t o di s char ge the dut i es of m arr i age, thus des tr oyi ng the bas i s f ori t s cont i nuance . Jones , 4 3 S o . 3 d a t 4 6 9 (¶ 9 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ). ¶14. In revi ew i ng w hether the conduct r eac hes that of cruel and i nhum an tr eatm ent , the chanc el l ormustc ons i der : “1) the conduc tof the of f endi ng s pous e and 2) the i m pactof that conductupon the pl ai nt i f f
. ” F is herv. F is her , 771 So. 2d 364, 36 7 (¶10) ( M i s s . 2000) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons a nd c i t at i ons omi t t ed)
. T he eval uat i on of the i m pactof

the conduc ton th e p la in tif

f i s s u b je c tiv e . Sm ith v . Sm ith , 90 So. 3d 1259, 1263 ( ¶11) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2011) ( ci t i ng Far i es v. Far i es , 607 So. 2d 1204, 1209 ( M i s s . 1992) )
. “The foc us i s on the ef f ectthe conducthas on the part i cul ars pous e, noti t s ef f ecton an or di nary, r eas onabl e per s on. ” I d. ¶15. “The gr ound of ha bi tual c ruel and i nh um an tr eat m ent m ay b e est abli shed b y a

### 6

pr eponder ance of

the evi dence , r atherthan cl earand convi nci ng evi dence , and the cha r ge
m eans s om ethi ng m or e than unki ndness or rudenes s orm er e i ncompat i bi l i ty orw antof af f ect i on. ” F is her , 771 So. 2d at367 ( ¶9)
. T he cha ncel l orgr ant ed R os i e a di vor ce ba s ed on a f i ndi ng thatM i chae l ’ s hom os exual r el at i on s w er e s uch thatthey made the mar r i age
r evol t i ng t o R os i e. T heref ore, w e w i l l f

ocus on the s econd pr ong of the t es tf

orhabi tual
cruel ty – w hetherM i chae l ’ s conductw as s o unnatur al and i nf amous as t o m ake the mar r i age
re v o ltin g to R o s ie
. ¶ 1 6
. T h e re h a s o n ly b e e n o n e c a se w h e re th e M iss iss ip p i S u p re m e C o u rt h a s fo u n d th a t a h o m o s e x u a l a ff

a ir , a lo n e , c o n s tit u te d h a b itu a l c ru e l a n d in h u m a n tr e a tm e n t. See Crutcher
v. C r ut cher , 86 M i s s . 231, 231, 38 So. 337, 337 ( 1905)
. I n C r utcher , the s u p rem e c o u rt fo u n d tha t “[u ]nn a tu ra l pr a c tice s o f [p e d e ra sty ] a re an inf a m o u s in d ig n ity to th e w if e . . . w h ich w o u ld m a k e th e m a rria g e rela tio n so re v o lti n g to h e r th a t itw o u ld b e c o m e im p o ss ib le f orhert o di s char ge the dut i es of w i f e. ” I d. Si nce C r utcher , thi s Courtha s f ound t hat
e v id e n c e o f h o m o s e x u a l a ff a ir s , w hen com bi ned w i th otherm is conduct , can j us t i f y a di vor ce b a s e d o n h a b itu a l c ru e l a n d i n h u m a n tr e a tm e n t. Mo rr is v . Mo rr is , 783 So. 2d 681, 689 (¶¶ 2 7 -28 ) (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ). ¶ 1 7
. T h e re c o rd h e re r e fl e c ts it w a s n o t o n ly a lle g e d th a t M ic h a e l w a s in v o lv e d in hom os exual af

f ai r s , butt hathe had al s o m ol es t ed a c hi l d. R os i e t es t i f i ed t o l earni ng about b o th a lleg a tio n s w ith in ra p id su c c e ss io n o f o n e a n o th e r. W e fin d th a t th e c o m b in a tio n o f th is
con du ctw as so repu gn ant t o R osi e that i trendered her un able t o p erf orm her m ari t al du t i es. H o w ev er, i t i s w ell sett led th at a sp o u se ’s t esti m o n y reg ard ing a n o ffe n d ing sp o u se’s b e h a v io r m u s t b e c o rr o b o ra te d w h e n h a b itu a l c ru e l a n d in h u m a n tr e a tm e n t is a s s e rt e d
. P ace

### 7

v. P ace , 1 6 S o . 3 d 7 3 4 , 7 4 1 (¶ 3 1 ) ( M is s . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 9 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ). ¶18. R os i e’ s t es t i m ony w as s uppor t ed by both Fl ow er s and J ames. Fl ow er s corr obor at ed the all egati on s of a hom osexu al aff ai r by t est i fyi ng t o the con versat i on she hea rd w here M i chae l s ol i ci t ed s exual f avor s f r om anotherm an. I n s uppor tof the chi l d- m ol es t at i on al l egat i ons , J ames ga ve det ai l ed t es t i m ony r egar di ng the mol es t at i on thato ccurr ed atthe h a n d s o f M ich a e l w h e n Ja m e s w a s o n ly ten y e a rs o ld
. In a d d iti o n to re ly in g o n th is t e s t i mo n y , th e c h a n c e ry c o u r ta l s o r e l i e d o n o th e rs t a t e me n t s ma d e b y Ro s i e . Ho we v e r , we
w i l l a dd r e s s the othe rt e s t i mony i n M i c ha e l ’ s ne xti s s ue . W e f i nd tha tRos i e ’ s t e s t i mony, coupl ed w i th the cor roborat i ng t es t i m ony of both Fl ow er s and J ames, w as s uf f i ci ental one t o s uppor tthatM i chae l ’ s conductw as cruel and i nhum an. ¶ 1 9
. M ich a e l co n ten d s th a t, ev e n if h is c o n d u c t w a s fo u n d to b e in h u m a n o r c ru e l, R o sie fa iled to e sta b lish a c a u sa l co n n e c tio n b e tw e e n h is c o n d u c t, th e se p a ra tio n , an d h o w it i m pact ed her
. W e di s agr ee. T her e i s no l ongera r equi r ementthata s peci f i c actcaus ed a separat i on but “[ i ] ti s, i nst ead, hab i tual or cont i nu ou s beh aviorover a peri od of t i m e, cl ose i n pr oxi m i ty t o the s epar at i on, orcont i nui ng af t era s epar at i on occur s , thatm ay s at i s f y the gr ounds f

ordi vor ce. ” F is her , 771 So. 2d at367- 68 ( ¶10)
. R os i e t es t i f i ed that , upon l earni ng of thes e s exual a l l egat i ons , s he began t o e xper i ence a dver s e phys i cal r eac t i ons t o le arni ng aboutM i chae l ’ s s exual r el at i ons hi ps and hi s t ory. She al s o not ed, once s he conf r ont ed M i chae l , t he atm os pher e i n t he home changed a nd s he gave exampl es of how M i chae l tr eat ed h e r. ¶ 2 0
. M ich a e l a lso a ss e rts th a t, if h is c o n d u c t w e re fo u n d to b e tru e , R o sie c o n d o n e d h is behavi orby r emai ni ng i n the mar i t al hom e for nearl y a yea raf t erl earni ng aboutthe

### 8

hom os exual af

f ai r s and chi l d m ol es t at i on. T he cha ncel l ornot ed, how ever , thatR osi e had al r eady l ef

tthe mar i t al bedr oom i n 2007 and had notengaged i n sexua l re l at i ons si nce 1999. Fur ther , s he w as l i vi ng w i th herdi s abl ed s i s t er , M ar i an, in t he m ar i t al hom e thathad bee n speci fi cal l y b een reno vated t o acco m m od at e M ari an’s di sabi l i t i es. T h e ch ancell or al so
comm ent ed thatR os i e m ay have been i n f i nanci al dur es s s i nce s he had t o t ake a s econd j ob t o coverherexpens es f ol l ow i ng the s eparat i on. I n hi s f i nal j udgm ent , the cha ncel l or acknow l edged thatther e w as no evi dence pr es ent ed by ei therparty as t o w hy R os i e w ai t ed t o l e a ve M i c ha e l
. N on e the l e s s , the c ha nc e l l orc on c l ud e d tha te a c h o f the s e f a c t or s pl ayed
a ro le in h is fin d in g th a t R o sie h a d n o t co n d o n e d M ich a e l’s c o n d u c t. ¶21. T he chanc el l or f ound that the evi dence , M i chae l ’ s conduct , and the i m pact i t had on R os i e es t abl i s hed a di vor ce on t he gr ound of habi tual cruel and i nhum an tr eatm ent . A l though M i chae l deni ed the al l egat i ons , and s ever al w i tnes s es t es t i f i ed on hi s behal f

, the cha ncel l or f ound R os i e’ s t es t i m ony t o be cr edi bl e. T he s upr eme cour thas hel d that“[ i ] ti s the r ol e of th e c h a n c e llo r to a sc e rta in w h e th e r w itn e ss e s a n d e v id e n c e a re c re d ib le a n d th e w e ig h t to gi ve ea ch. ” R ob i nson v. L an f ord , 841 So. 2d 1119, 1122 ( ¶9) ( M i s s . 2003) ( ci t i ng C ham bl ee
v. C ham bl ee , 6 3 7 S o . 2 d 8 5 0 , 8 6 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 4 )). F o r th ese rea so n s, w e fin d M icha el’s
over al l conducts uf

f i ci entt o s uppor ta di vor ce ba s ed on habi tual cruel ty. I I . A dm i s s i on of

E vi dence ¶22. M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of E vi dence 801( c) pr ovi des that “‘ [ h] ear s ay’ i s a s t at ement , other th a n o n e m a d e b y th e d e c lar a n t w h ile te stify in g a t th e trial o r h e a rin g , o ffe re d in e v id e n c e to pr ove the truth of

the mat t eras s ert ed. ” U nl es s the s t at ementfal l s w i thi n an exc ept i on pr ovi ded by l aw , hear s ay i s notadmi s s i bl e. M
. R
. E
. 802. “The adm i s s i on of t es t i m oni al

### 9

e v id e n c e is w ith in the so u n d d isc re tio n o f th e tri a l co u rt, w h ich w ill b e fo u n d in e rro r o n ly i f the rul i ng w as a n abus e of di s cr et i on. ” B a iley v . S ta te , 95 6 S o. 2d 10 16 , 10 25 (¶26) ( M i ss. C t . A pp. 2007) ( ci t i ng L

y n c h v . S ta te , 877 So. 2d 1254, 1281 ( ¶86) ( M i s s . 2004) )
. “A ny err or i n the admi s s i on orexcl us i on of evi dence i s notgr ounds f orr ever sal unl es s the err or adver s el y af

f ect ed a s ubs t ant i al r i ghtof a party. ” I

d. ¶23. M i chae l as s ert s thatthe chanc ery c our te rr ed w hen i ta dm i t t ed and r el i ed on a m yr i ad of i nadm i s s i bl e evi dence i n f i ndi ng gr ounds f

ordi vor ce i n f

avorof R os i e. Speci f

i cal l y, M icha el di rect s this C ou rt ’s at t enti on t o the f oll ow i ng : R osi e’s t est i m on y o f out -of -cou rt stat em en ts m ad e b y Jo h n to R o sie i n a p h o n e c o n v ersa ti o n ; Flow ers’s testi m o n y o f ou t- o fcourts t at ement s m ade by J ohn; and J ames’ s t es t i m ony r egar di ng the m oles t at i on that
occurr ed w hen he w as t en yea r s ol d. ¶24. D ur i ng tr i al , Rosi e w as que s t i oned as t o w hetherornots he l earned more i nf orm at i on thati nvol ved al l egat i ons aboutM i chae l and w hen she le arned thi s i nf orm at i on. Subse quent l y, the f

ol l ow i ng di al ogue ens ued: A
. February 9, 2008, that ’ s w hen I cam e hom e f r om w ork one Satur day eveni ng ar ound 7: 15. W hen I s t epp ed i n the doorof m y hous e, the t el ephone w as r i ngi ng. M i chae l w as s i t t i ng t here on t he edge of the couch. W i th m e know i ng M i chael as a phonohol i c, he w as not ans w er i ng the phone. O urphone — the f i r s tphone i s i n the ki t chen on the w al l
. I di dn’ teven geta chance t o putm y purs e dow n. I w entand a n s we r e d th a tp h o n e . W h e n I a n s we r e d th a tp h o n e , th i s p e r s o n t o l d me

— M R
. B E N N IE L
. JO N E S , JR : I o b ject t o h ea rsay , Y o u r H o n o r. C H A N C E L L O R T A L M A D G E D
. L I T T L E J O H N : Sust ai ned unl es s i tw as M i chae l orunl es s i tw as done i n hi s pr es ence . W as M i chae l ther e hea r i ng the phone c onver s at i on?

### 10

Q
. C oul d M i chae l hearthe conve r s at i on, R os i e? A
. I don’ tknow w hetherhe hea r d i t . H e w as s i t t i ng ther e i n the den and I w as w on deri ng w hy he w asn’tansw eri ng the p ho ne an d I’ m j ust w alkin g in the d o o r. C H A N C E L L O R T A L M A D G E D
. L I T T L E J O H N : O verrul ed. Q
. A l l r i gh t . Ros i e , d on ’ tt e l l u s whatthe p e r s on s a i d on the p ho ne , but you l earned s om e m or e i nf orm at i on on the phone abouts om e ac t i vi t i es th a t M ich a e l w a s in v o lv e d in ; is th a t co rre c t? A
. Y es , I di d. C H A N C E L L O R T A L M A D G E D
. L I T T L E J O H N : I a s ked i f he overhear d the conve r s at i on. I t ’ s nothear s ay. T hat ’ s w hy I a s k e d h e r a n d s h e s a id h e w a s th e re . M S. LU A N N E S. TH O M PSO N : I ’ m Sorry. I mi s un de r s t ood, Y o u r H o n o r. Q
. So, R os i e, w ho w as on the phone? M R
. B E N N I E L
. J O N E S, J R
. : Y ourH onor , i f I m ay? T H E W I T N E SS: Y ou w antm e t o t el l w ho w as on the phone? C H A N C E L L O R T A L M A D G E D . L IT T L E JO H N : Ju st a m inu te. Y es sir. M R
. B E N N I E L
. J O N E S, J R
. : She s ai d s he l earned s om ethi ng, and thatw as m y obj ect i on t o hear s ay. C H A N C E L L O R T A L M A D G E D
. L ITT L E JO H N : I unde r s t and thatpart . B utI’ m saying i f he w as ther e and he ar d the conver s at i on, that ’ s nothear s ay i f yourcl i entw as ther e. M R
. B E N N IE L
. JO N E S , JR
. : Y es, si r. C H A N C E L L O R T A L M A D G E D
. L IT T L E JO H N : Sh e h asn ’t d e v e lo p e d th a t y e t. M R
. B E N N I E L
. J O N E S, J R
. : B uts he s ai d s he di dn’ tknow

### 11 w h e th e r h e h e a rd h e r o r n o t. T H E W I T N E SS: H e w as s i t t i ng on t he edge of t he couc h i n the den. H e knew w ho i tw as cal l i ng. T hat ’ s w hy he di dn’ tans w er the phone. C H A N C E L L O R T A L M A D G E D
. L I T T L E J O H N : T hat ’ s w hat s he s ai d. T H E W I T N E SS: A nd the per s on — C H A N C E L L O R T A L M A D G E D . L IT T L E JO H N : Ju st a m in u te, m a ’a m . Ju st a m in u te, p lea se . T h e o b jec tio n is overrul ed on thatbas i s . G o ahea d. A fte r a re v iew o f th is te stim o n y a n d th e re c o rd , itis n o t cle a r w h e th e r M ich a e l w a s a c tu a lly pr i vy t o the phone c onver s at i on thatR os i e had w i th J ohn. W hi l e i tm ay be true thathe w as i n the r oom , R os i e w as notcert ai n thatM i chae l hear d any of t he actual conver s at i on. M ich a e l’s p re se n c e in th e ro o m a lo n e d o e s n o t n e g a te th e fa c t th a t, at trial, Jo h n ’s s tate m e n ts
m a d e to R o sie o v e r th e tele p h o n e w e re h e a rsa y . W e ca n n o t sa y th a t th e se h e a rsa y sta tem e n ts f al l w i thi n any exc ept i on pr ovi ded by l aw . T her ef or e, the cha ncel l or er r ed i n overrul i ng M i chael’ s object i on . N on etheles s, the err or w as harm l ess, and as st at ed pre vi ous l y, ther e w as
s uf f i ci entevi dence t o s uppor ta di vor ce on the gr ound of habi tual cruel and i nhum an treatm ent w i tho ut R osi e’s t est i m on y regardi ng John ’s ou t -of -courtst at em ents . ¶ 2 5
. W ith re g a rd to F lo w e rs’ s tes tim o n y , M ich a e l’s a tto rn e y o b jec ted w h e n sh e b e g a n to test if y as to th e o u t- o f-co u rtst atem en ts all eg ed ly m ad e to he r by Joh n . T h e c h an ce ry c o u rt then all o w ed the testi m o n y a s a p roffer. F o ll o w ing the p roffer, th e c h an ce ry c o u rt overrul ed the mot i on and al l ow ed Fl ow er s ’ s t es t i m ony t o become a partof the r ecor d. H ow ever , i n the fin al j u d g m en t, the c h an ce ll o r rev isi ted th e issu e a n d rev erse d the ru li n g m ad e a t trial,

### 12

there b y su stai n ing the o b jecti o n to F low ers’s statem en ts as they p ertaine d to th e o u t- o f-co u rt
s t at ement s a l l egedl y made by J ohn, a nd s tr i ki ng thatt es t i m ony f r om the r ecor d. The
c h a n c e llo r de cli n ed to co n side r th is pa rt icular li n e o f t esti m o n y in the fi n al j u d g m en t. T h e re fo re , this a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r is m o o t. ¶26. M i chae l al s o a s s ert s thatJ ames’ s t es t i m ony r egar di ng an eve ntthatoccurr ed tw entys i x year s earl i ers houl d have be en exc l uded bec aus e i tw as i rr el evant , hel d no pr obat i ve val ue, and w as st al e evi dence
. T her ef or e, he ar gues thatthe cha ncery courterr ed i n denyi ng h is m o tio n in lim in e . W e fi n d n o m e ri t to th is a s s ig n m e n t o f e rr o r. ¶2 7. “The st a nd a r d of r evi ew r egar di ng R ul e 403 det er m i nat i ons i s . . . abus e of di s cr et i on. ” F i t ch v. V

al ent i ne , 959 So. 2d 1012, 1022 ( ¶23) ( M i s s . 2007)
. A l though the t es t i m ony r egar ded an e ventthatoccurr ed tw enty- s i x year s ear l i er , i tw as r el evantt o the i nf or m at i on Rosi e l earned i n 2008 aboutM i chae l
. Fur ther , i tc oncerned M i chae l ’ s conduct dur i ng thei rm arr i age. I n overrul i ng M i chae l ’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne, t he cha ncel l orconcl uded that“[ w hether ] the t es t i m ony of W i l l i am S haw i s cr edi bl e s houl d be the i s s ue r atherthan
w hetherhi s t est i m on y shou l d be excluded
. ” W e fi nd that the ch ancery co urtdid not abuse its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g M ich a e l’s m o tio n in lim in e . A s s u c h , this iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. I I I . E qui t abl e D i vi s i on and A l i m ony A w ard ¶ 2 8
. In d iv o rc e c a se s, o u r re v iew o f a c h a n c e llo r’s d iv isio n a n d d istrib u tio n o f p ro p e rty is lim ite d
. Jenki ns v. Jenki ns , 67 So. 3d 5, 8 ( ¶8) (M i s s . C t . A pp. 2011) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. “A
c h a n c e llo r' s d iv isio n a n d d istrib u tio n w ill b e u p h e ld if it is su p p o rte d b y su b sta n tial c re d ib le evi dence
. H ow ever , thi s Courtw i l l nothe s i t at e t o r ever s e i f i tf i nds the cha ncel l or ' s deci s i on i s m ani f es t l y w r ong, orthatthe courtappl i ed an err oneous l egal s t andar d. ” Jenki ns , 67 So.

### 13

3 d a t 8 -9 (¶ 8 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ). ¶29. T he s upr eme cour tdeci s i on i n Fer guson v. Fer

gus on , 6 3 9 S o . 2 d 9 2 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 4 ), p ro v id e s th e f

ra m e w o rk f

o r p ro p e rt y d iv is io n a n d d is tr ib u tio n . D i cke rs on v . D i cke rs on , 34 So. 3d 637, 643 ( ¶23) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2010)
. “C hance l l or s are di re ct ed t o ( 1) cl as s i f y the part i es ’ as s et s as m ar i t al ors epar at e; ( 2) de t erm i ne the val ue of thos e as s et s ; ( 3) di vi de the
m ar i t al es t at e equi t abl y bas ed upon the f act or s s etf

or th i n Fer

gus on ; and ( 4) cons i derthe appr opr i at enes s of

a l i m ony i f

e i therpa r ty i s l ef

tw i th a def

i ci ency. ” Id
. (cit ati o n s o m itted). T he Fer gus on fa c to rs in c lu d e : ( 1) Subst ant i al contr i but i on t o the ac cumul at i on of the pr operty; (2) T he d egree t o w hich each spo use h as exp end ed, w i thd raw n, or otherw i se di s pos ed of

m ar i t al asset s and any pr i ordi s tr i but i on of s uch as s et s by agr eement , decr ee, orotherw i s e; ( 3) T he marke tva lue a ndthe e mot i ona l val ue of the as s et s s ubj ectt o di s tr i but i on; ( 4) T he val ue of

as s et s notor di nar i l y, abs entequi t abl e f act or s t o the contr ary, s ubj ectto such di s tr i but i on, s uch as pr operty br oughtt o the mar r i age by the part i es and prope r ty acqui r ed by i nher i t ance ori nt ervi vos gi f tby ort o an i ndi vi dual s pous e; ( 5) T ax and othereco no m i c cons equenc es , and contr actual orl egal cons equenc es t o thi r d part i es , of the pr opos ed di s tr i but i on; ( 6) T he ext entt o w hi ch pr operty di vi s i on m ay, w i th equi ty t o both part i es , be u ti li ze d to e li m inate p eriod ic pa y m en ts an d o ther p o tential so u rce s o f future fr i ct i on betw een the part i es; ( 7) T he nee ds of

the part i es for f

i nan ci al s ecur i ty w i th due r egar d t o the combi nat i on of

as s et s , i ncome, and ea rni ng capa ci ty; and, ( 8) A ny otherf

act orw hi ch i n equi ty s houl d be cons i der ed. P i card v. Picard , 8 5 S o . 3 d 3 4 0 , 3 4 3 (¶1 0 ) (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 1 2 ). F u rth er, “[ c]ha n ce ll o rs

### 14

s houl d al s o cons i dereac h party’ s m ar i t al f aul t . ” B on d v. B ond , 69 So. 3d 771, 773 ( ¶5) (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 1 1 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). ¶30
. A ppl yi ng the Fer gus on fact ors, the c h an ce ll o r di vided the m ari t al asset s and l i abil i t i es,
res pecti vely, as f

oll ow s: M i chae l M icha el’s P E R S reti rem en t acc o u n t, w ith sti p u lat ed b alan ce o f $118, 350. 64 Jo h n H an co ck li fe insu ran ce p o li cy w ith ca sh v alue o f $500. 00 M icha el’s sav ing s ac co u n t, w ith b alan ce o f $460. 00 T w o ( 2) s of

as f r om the de n i n the mar i t al hom e, f urni tur e i n A l m a’ s and E nos ’ s bedr oom s i n the mar i t al hom e, cal cul at ed atone- hal f of the t ot al f

or furn ishing s ($1 , 5 0 0
. 0 0 /2= $ 7 5 0
. 0 0 ), $750. 00 2006 For d F- 150 pi ckup truck 1998 C hevy 1500 pi ckup truck 1 9 9 7 M e rc u ry M a rq u is 1 9 9 2 C a d ill a c S e v ill e , v a lu e d a t $250. 00 1990 V ol vo T w o ( 2) hor s es and as sort ed equi ne equi pm ent , i ncl udi ng hor s e tr ai l er s and t ack A l l of M i chae l ’ s per s onal pr operty al r eady i n hi s pos s es s i on T ot al : $120, 310. 64 R o sie M ar i t al r es i dence and the thr ee ( 3) acr es i ts i t s on, w i th equi ty of $27, 897. 00 A ddi t i onal thr ee ( 3) acr es of l and thatar e adj ace ntt o t he m ari t al hom e and pr operty, w i th equi ty of $2, 000. 00 R os i e’ s chec ki ng ( $206. 00) and s avi ngs ( $500. 00) a c c ou nt s , w i th t ot al bal ance o f $706. 00 A l l r emai ni ng per s on pr operty, i ncl udi ng, butnotl i m i t ed t o, one ( 1) comput er ( $300. 00) , tw o ( 2) t el evi s i ons ( $1 50
. 00 ) , on e ( 1) pus h- m ow er( $25. 00) , one ( 1) r i di ng m ow er( $100. 00) , and al l r emai ni ng h ou sehol d f urni s hi ngs , val ued at one- hal f of t he t ot al f

orf urni s hi ngs ( $1, 500. 00/ 2=$750. 00) , f ort ot al of $1, 325. 00 T ot al : $31, 928. 00

. . . . M i chae l C ap it al O n e d eb t, b alan ce o f $950. 00 S h ell O il d eb t, b alan ce o f $1, 400. 00

### 15

S ea rs de b t, b alan ce o f $1, 100. 00 T rustm ark d eb t, b alan ce o f $1, 500. 00 T ot al : $4, 950. 00 R o sie M o rt g ag e d eb t on the m arit al ho m e, ba lanc e o f $50, 103. 00 T ot al : $50, 103. 00 M icha el assert s that the ch ancell or erroneou sl y co un t ed the m ort gag e deb tagainstR osi e’s d istrib u tio n tw ice – o n c e b y ca lcu latin g the h o m e ’s e q u ity , a n d ag a in b y red u c in g th e e q u ity by the home’ s de bt
. M i chae l c ont ends , ther ef or e, thatR os i e’ s di s tr i but i on w as underval ued by $50, 103, and the cha ncel l orerr oneous l y concl uded thatR os i e’ s es t at e had a negat i ve
v a lu e o f $ 1 8 ,1 7 5 . M ich a e l arg u e s th a t, by a p p ro p ria tely c a lcu latin g th e m o rtg a g e d e b t o n ly once, then R os i e’ s es t at e w oul d be $31, 928. W e di s agr ee. ¶ 3 1
. “ In re v iew in g a c h a n c e llo r's j u d g m e n t, t h e a p p e lla te c o u rt d o e s n o t co n d u c t a Fer gus on anal ys i s anew , butr evi ew s the j udgm entt o e ns ur e thatthe cha ncel l orf ol l ow ed the appr opr i at e st andar ds and di d notabus e hi s di s cr et i on. ” Id
. “Equi t abl e di s tr i but i on does not
m ean e qual di s tr i but i on. ” Jenki ns , 67 So. 3d at11 ( ¶13) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. M i chae l w as gr ant ed the maj or i ty of

the mar i t al as s et s , w i th R os i e r ece i vi ng the maj or i ty of t he m ar i t al l i abi l i t i es . I n as s i gni ng the as s et s and l i abi l i t i es conce rni ng the mar i t al hom e, the cha ncel l or
s t at ed, “M i chae l w i l l no l ongerbe f i nanci al l y r es pons i bl e f orpa ym entof

the mort gage, and
w i l l be underno otherobl i gat i on, f i nanci al orotherw i se, w i t h r egar d t o the mar i t al hom e, af t erentry of

thi s Fi nal J udgm ent . ” I ti s cl ear t hat t he cha ncery court ’ s i nt entw as f or M i chae l t o no l ongerhave i nvol vementi n the mar i t al hom e. T her efor e, w e fi nd thatthe chanc el l or ’ s f

i ndi ngs ar e s uppor t ed by cr edi bl e evi dence and ar e notm ani f es t l y w r ong. ¶ 3 2
. F o llo w in g the eq u itab le d iv isio n o f m a rital p ro p e rty , “ if o n e p a rty is le ft w ith a d e fic it,

### 16

al i m ony ba s ed on the val ue of non- m ar i t al as s et s s houl d be cons i der ed. ” B a rn e tt v. B a rn e tt , 908 So. 2d 833, 843 ( ¶24) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2005) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. T he amountof al i m ony, i f aw ar ded, s houl d be r eas onabl e and com parabl e t o the “w i f e’ s acc us t om ed s t andar d of l i vi ng, m i nus her ow n res ou rc es , and cons i der i ng the abi l i ty of the hus band t o pay. ” I d. ( ci t i ng G r ay v. G r ay , 5 6 2 So
. 2 d 7 9 , 8 3 ( M i s s . 1 9 9 0 ) )
. “ As l o n g a s th e c h a n c e l l o rf o l l o ws thi s gener al s t andar d, the amountof the aw ar d i s l ar gel y w i thi n hi s di s cr et i on. ” I d. ¶33. N ext , M i chae l ar gues that a corr ect cal cul at i on of the as s et s t o eac h party w oul d not j us t i f y any aw ar d of

l um p- sum al i m ony t o R os i e. A s s t at ed pr evi ous l y, w e f i nd thatthe
c h a n c e llo r d id n o t er r in h is c a lcu latio n o f th e m a rital p ro p e rty . F o llo w in g th e e q u itab le di vi s i on, the cha ncery co ur tf ound thatR os i e w oul d be l ef tw i th a def

i ci t . T he cha ncel l or then pr ovi ded det ai l ed f i ndi ngs pur s uantt o an anal ys i s of the f act or s s etf

or th i n C heatham
v. C heatham , 537 So. 2d 435, 438 ( M i s s . 1988)
. T her ef or e, w e ca nnotf

i nd thatthe ch an ce ll o r erred in aw ard ing R o sie l u m p -sum ali m o n y . T h e jud g m en t of th e c h an ce ry c o u rt i s af f i r m ed. ¶34. T H E J U D G M E N T O F T H E M O N R O E C O U N T Y C H A N C E R Y C O U R T IS AF F I RMED . AL L CO S T S OF T HI S AP P E AL AR E AS S E S S ED TO T HE APP ELLANT. LE E, C. J . , I RVI NG AND GRI F F I S , P . J J . , ROBE RT S , CARL TON A ND M AXW EL L, J J . , CONCUR. J AM ES , J . , CONCURS I N P ART W I THOUT S EPARATE W RI TT EN OP I NI ON. BA RNE S AND F AI R, J J . , CONCUR I N P ART AND I N T HE RE S UL T W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON.