I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 1 - I A- 0 1 2 8 7 - S CT RO BERT

G. GERMANY
v. GI NGER G

ER M AN Y
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 12/ 2011 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. J OH N H UEY EM FI NG ER COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: M ADI S ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LANT: M YLE S A. P ARKER J AM ES L. CA RRO LL S TACE Y P. S TRACE NER CLI FTON M . DEC KER ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEE: SETH C. LI TTLE BARRY W . GI LM ER THO M AS A . W ALLER NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CI VI L - DOMES T I C R E L AT I ONS D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 10/ 17/ 2013 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

EN BA NC. W ALLER, CH I EF J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T hi s i nt er l ocut ory appeal ar i s es fr om t he M adi s on C ounty C i r cuit C ou rt ’ s deni al of R obertG erm any’ s m ot i on t o seve rand t r ans f ercl ai m s fi l ed agai ns thi m by hi s w i f e, G i nger G erm an y , to the G erm an y s’ pe n d ing d ivo rce p roc ee d ing in the H ind s C o u n ty C h an ce ry C our t . Fi ndi ng thatm any of G i nger ’ s cl ai m s agai ns tR obertar e ei therequi t abl e i n natur e or ar e r el at ed t o di vor ce a nd al i m ony, w e r ever s e the ci r cui tcourtand r emand w i th i ns truct i ons

### 2

t o s everand tr ans f

erthos e cl ai m s t o the pendi ng di vor ce a ct i on i n the C hance ry C our tof t he F irst Ju d icia l D istric t o f H in d s C o u n ty , M iss iss ip p i. STA TE M EN T O F T H E C A SE ¶2. G i nger f

i l ed a compl ai nt agai ns t R obert and H ol l y M or gan for m oney damages , an acc ount i ng, and i nj unct i ve r el i ef i n the C i r cui tC our tof M adi s on C ounty, M i ssi ssi ppi , on F ebruary 24 , 20 11 . O n F ebruary 28 , 20 11 , R o bertfi l ed a co m plai nt f or di vo rce agai nst G in g e r i n th e C h a n c e ry C o u rt o f t h e F ir s t J u d ic ia l D is tr ic t o f H in d s C o u n ty , M is s is s ip p i. ¶3. I n he rc om pl ai nta gai ns tRober t , G i ngera s s ert ed cl ai m s f orbr eac h of

contr act ; f

r aud, dece i tand dece pti on; cons truct i ve trus tand unj us tenr i chment ; conver s i on; acc ount i ng; i ntent i on al i nfl i ct i on of m ental di stres s; negli gen ti nfl i ct i on of m ental di stres s; and a r equ est f ori nj unct i ve r el i ef

. She re ques t ed j udgm enti n t he f or m of a cons truct i ve trus ti n herf avor as w el l as a m oney j udgm entagai ns tR obertforbot h actual and puni t i ve dam ages . G i nger al s o r eques t ed a j udgm entagai ns tD ef endantM or gan f

oractual and puni t i ve dam ages f orher cl ai m s of

al i enat i on of

af f ect i on, i nt ent i onal i nf

l i ct i on of

m ent al di s tr es s , and negl i gent in fl ic tio n o f e m o tio n a l d is tr e s s . ¶4. O n A pr i l 7, 2011, R obert f i l ed i n the ci r cui t court a m ot i on t o di s m i s s , an al t ernat i ve
m o ti o n t o tran sfer, an d an alt ern ati v e m o ti o n t o st ay pro ce ed ing s, argu ing th at G ing er’s cl ai m s agai ns thi m ar e mat t er s of equi ty orar e r el at ed t o di vor ce a nd al i m ony and w oul d be bett eraddr es s ed i n chance r y cour t . A hear i ng on the m ot i on w as hel d on J une 17, 2011, and
o n Au g u s t1 2 , 2 0 1 1 , th e c i r c u i tc o u r tj u d g e f i l e d h i s o r d e rd e n y i n g Ro b e r t ’ s mo t i o n . On A u g u st 22 , 2 0 1 1 , R o b ert fi led a m o ti o n to rec o n side r an d req u ested that the c ir cu itco u rt ju d g e sta y th e p ro c e e d in g s u n til th is C o u rt re n d e rs its d e c isio n o n th e in ter lo c u to ry a p p e a l.

### 3

¶ 5 . O n S e p tem b e r 2 , 2 0 1 1 , R o b e rt fil e d a p e tit io n fo r in ter lo c u to ry a p p e a l w ith th is C o u rt, rai si ng the fol l ow i ng i ssues: I . W he t he r t he M adi s on C ount y Ci r c ui t C our t e r r e d i n de nyi ng R obe r t ’ s M ot i on t o Se ve r and Trans f e r G i nge r ’ s c l ai m s t o t he pendi ng di vorce act i on i n t he C hancery C ourt f or t he F i rs t Judi ci al D i s t ri ct of

H i nds C ounty. I I . W het her t he M adi s on C ounty C i rcui t C ourt erre d i n denyi ng M r. G e r m a n y ’s M o tio n to S ta y in li g h t o f th e p e n d in g d iv o r c e a c tio n in t he C hancery C ourt f

or t he Fi rs t Judi ci al D i s t ri ct of H i nds C ounty. ¶6. T he ci r cui t court j udge i s s ued an or der on N ov em ber 2, 20 11, t o hol d i n abeya nce R o b e rt’s m o tio n to rec o n sid e r p e n d in g th e d isp o sitio n o f th e p e tit io n fo r in ter lo c u to ry a p p e a l. T he courtnot ed thatther e w as “pot ent i al f orconf l i ct s i n a s i tuat i on w her e the Pl ai nt i f f and the D efe n d ant R ob ertG erm any m ay b e i nv olved i n li t i gati on i n tw o d i ff erentcou rt s, in v o lv in g s im ila r e v id e n tia ry m a tte rs , a t th e s a m e tim e .” ¶ 7 . H a v in g g ra n ted R o b e rt’s p e tit io n fo r in ter lo c u to ry a p p e a l, w e lim it o u r d isc u ss io n to th e fi rs t is s u e , fi n d in g it to b e d is p o s itiv e . S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶8. R obert ar gues that G i nger ’ s cl ai m s , “i f vi abl e at al l , ar e w i thi n the excl us i ve s ubj ect
m att erj ur i s di ct i on of

the C hance r y C our t , and s houl d pr oper l y be det erm i ned w i th al l ot her issue s in the p e n d ing D ivo rce A cti o n . ” Ju ri sd ict ion is a q u esti o n o f l aw w h ich th is C o u rt
re v ie w s d e n o v o . T

r ust m ark N at ’l B ank v. Johnson , 865 So. 2d 1148, 1150 ( M i s s . 2004) (cit ati o n s o m itted). T h e stan d ard o f rev iew fo r a ruli n g o n a m o ti o n to tr an sfer from ch an ce ry courtt o ci r cui tcourt , orvi ce- ver s a, f orl ack of

s ubj ect - m att erjur i sdi ct i on i s al s o de novo. U ni on N at ’l L i f e I ns. Co. v. Cr os by , 8 7 0 S o . 2 d 1 1 7 5 , 1 1 7 8 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ).

### 4 DI S CU S S I ON W h eth er th e M a d ison C o u n ty C ircu it C o u rt e rr ed in d en y ing R o b er t’s M ot i on t o Se ve r and Tra ns f e r G i nge r ’ s e qui t abl e c l ai m s t o t he pe ndi ng di vorce act i on i n t he C hancery C ourt f or t he F i rs t Judi ci al D i s t ri ct of H i nds C ounty. ¶9 . R o b ert asse rt s tha t th e c ir cu itco u rt e rre d in fa ili n g to se v er a n d tr an sfer G ing er’s cl ai m s agai ns thi m i n the under l yi ng ci r cui tcour tact i on t o the G erm anys ’ pendi ng di vor ce a c tio n in th e C h a n c e ry C o u rt o f th e F irst Ju d icia l D istric t o f H in d s C o u n ty , M iss iss ip p i. R o b e rt a rg u e s th a t, alth o u g h G in g e r’s c laim s w e re b ro u g h t “u n d e r th e g u ise o f b e in g ‘le g a l’ cl ai m s , ” they ar e subs t ant i vel y “m att er s i n equi ty” or“di vor ce a nd al i m ony. ” I n s uppor tof hi s ar gum ent , R obertr el i es on A r t i cl e 6, Sect i on 159 of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on, w hi ch st at es: T he cha ncery courts hal l have f ul l j ur i s di ct i on in t he fol l ow i ng m att er s and c a s e s , v iz .: (a) A ll m a tters in e q u ity ; ( b) D i vor ce and al i m ony ;

. . . ( f ) Al l c a s e s o f

wh i c h th e s a i d c o u r th a d j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e rth e l a ws i n f or ce w hen thi s C ons t i tut i on i s puti n oper at i on. ( E m phas i s added. ) A ddi t i onal l y, A r t i cl e 6, Sect i on 157, of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on req u ir es th at “[a] ll ca u ses th at m ay b e b rou g h t i n the c ir cu itco u rtw h ere o f th e c h an ce ry c o u rt has excl us i ve j ur i s di ct i on sh a llb e tr a n s fe rr e d to th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt .” (E m p h a s is a d d e d .) T hi s C our thas r ej ect ed the as s ert i on thatA r t i cl e 6, Sect i on 159 of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on conf

err ed exc l us i ve j ur is di ct i on i n al l m att er s o f equi ty w hen i tconf

err ed fu ll j ur is di ct i on o v e r s u c h m a tte rs . W . H or ace W il liam s Co. v. Fed. Cr edit Co. , 21 So. 2d 582, 583 ( M i s s . 1945) ( emphasi s added)
. H ow ever , the Legi s l atur e has i ns truct ed that

### 5

“pr ocee di ngs t o obt ai n a di vor ce sh a llbe by compl ai nti n c hance ry . . . . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 9 3 -5-7 (R ev . 2 0 0 4 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶10. T he r eal q uest i on b efor e thi s C ou rtis w hetherG i nger ’ s compl ai ntpr es ent s l egal
c laim s th a t sh o u ld b e d e c id e d b y a ju ry in c irc u it co u rt, o r w h e th e r h e r c laim s a re re a lly
m att ers o f eq u ity o r relat ed to h er m arriage an d /or d ivo rce that sh o u ld b e h ea rd in ch an ce ry court . T hi s C our thas hel d that , i n det erm i ni ng w het hera courthas s ubj ect - m att er ju risd ictio n , “o n e m u st lo o k a t th e su b sta n c e , an d n o t th e fo rm , o f th e c laim in o rd e r to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e c laim is le g a l o r e q u itab le” a n d “ w e lo o k to th e fa c e o f th e c o m p lain t, exami ni ng the nat ur e of the contr over s y and the r el i ef

s ought
. ” T

r ust m ark N at ’l B ank v. Johnson , 8 8 5 S o . 2 d 1 1 4 8 , 1 1 5 1 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ); D er rPlantati on, I nc. v. Sw ar ek , 14 So. 3d 71, 716 ( M i s s . 2009) ( emphasi s added) ( ci t i ng RAS Famil y Pa r tne rs, LP
v. Onnam B ilox i

, LLC , 968 So. 2d 926, 928 ( M i s s . 2007) )
. T hus , w e mustl ook t o t he
s ubs t ance of

eac h of G i nger ’ s c l ai m s , e xami ni ng the natur e of the contr over s y a nd the r el i ef
s ought , t o det erm i ne w hetherthey ar e trul y l egal orequi t abl e i n natur e.

A . B reac h of

C ont ract ¶11. G i ngeral l eges thats he and R obertform ed an or al cont r actpri ort o t hei rm arr i age and cont i nui ng t o the pr es entw her ei n s he agr eed t o s etoverhermoney and a s s et s t o R ober tf or his use, m anag em ent, and fi nan ci al invest m ent purpo ses. G i ng er al so all ow ed R ob ertt o u se h er m o n ey for the p ay m en t of i n co m e ta x e s. G ing er c lai m s tha t, in ex ch an g e, R o b ert pr om i s ed thatt hey w oul d equal l y s har e $1 2, 000, 000 f r om hi s t obacc o s ett l ement( the
se ttl e m e n t w a s e a rn e d b y R o b e rt in 1 9 9 9 b u t h e c h o se to d e fe r re c e ip t o f th e m o n e y u n til 2011)
. A l though notexpr es s l y s t at ed, i tappea r s thatG i ngeri s s eeki ng s peci f i c per f or m ance

### 6

of the contr act– s he cl ai m s thatthey agr eed thats he w oul d r ece i ve r epaymentof her cas h
co n tr ibu ti o n s as w ell as an eq u al pa rtof th e tob ac co m o n ey . S h e a lso a ll eg es th at R o b ert’s br eac h o f contr actw as w i l l f ul , capr i ci ous , and mal i ci ous and thatthe br eac h amount s t o a se p a ra te to rt a n d sh e sh o u ld b e e n tit led to a c tu a l an d p u n iti v e d a m a g e s to g e th e r w ith att orneys ’ f

ees and othercos t s as s oci at ed w i th the l i t i gat i on. ¶ 1 2 . A lth o u g h lab e led a s a b re a c h -o f-c o n tra c t c laim , th e “ c o n tra c t” th a t G in g e r re fe rs to is a n ag re e m e n t sh e a n d R o b e rt m a d e , w h e n th e y liv e d to g e th e r a n d c o n tin u in g d u rin g th e ir
m arr i age, f

orthe m anage m entof thei rm oney and a s s et s . I tw as hel d l ong ago that“mar r i age i t s el f , as a per s onal r el at i on betw een the part i es, is n ot a m att erof contr actw i thi n t he
m eani ng of

the cons t i tut i on a l pr ovi s i on i n r ef er ence t o the i nvi ol abi l i ty of contr act s . ” Cars on v. Cars on , 4 0 M is s . 3 4 9 , 3 5 1 (M is s . 1 8 5 6 ). ¶1 3. W hi l e G i ng e r ’ s c l a i m t o the “ t ob a c c o mone y” i s a r t f ul l y pl eade d, t hi s al l egat i on c a n n o t be co n sid e re d in iso latio n . T h e p a rties o p e ra ted u n d e r th e term s o f th is “ c o n tr a c t” th ro u g h o u t th e ir ten -y e a r m a rria g e , ac c u m u latin g a n d c o m m in g lin g p ro p e rty , u n til th e ir
se p ara ti o n in 2 0 1 0 . F o r ex am p le, the fu n d s G ing er a ll eg ed ly en tru sted to R o b ert’s
m anage m entw er e us ed t o pur chas e mar i t al pr operty, s uch as the part i es ’ hom es i n J acks on, M i s s i s s i ppi , and Scott s dal e, A ri zona. A s di s cus s ed bel ow , the cha ncel l orhas f ound t hat G in g e r r e c e iv e d p ro c e e d s fro m th e s a le o f th e J a c k so n h o m e , c o n tra ry to th e a lleg a tio n s in hercompl ai nt . T he part i es al so accum ul at ed a s ubs t ant i al w i ne col l ect i on, w hi ch G i nger ar gues s houl d be s ol d, w i th the pr ocee ds be i ng ha nded overt o he r . G i ngera l s o cl ai m s that herf unds w er e us ed f

orthe paymentof

the i ncome t ax debtr es ul t i ng f r om Rober t ’ s t obacc o l i t i gat i on f

ee, an d thata s ubs t ant i al partof G i nger ’ s es t at e w as comm i t t ed dur i ng the

### It w as rev eal ed at oralargume nt be for e this Court that Ginger

has sought

and wa s 1 

### awarde d separat e m ainte nanc e in thepending divorceproce eding. The chance ll or i ss ued a te mporar y order grantingGing e r

s eparat e m ainte nanc e on Marc h 20, 2013. Rober t’ s pe ti ti on for inte rl ocut ory appe alc hal le nging theaward of s eparatem ainte nanc e was de nie d. See Robert G. Ger

many v . Gi nger M. Germany , No. 2013-M- 01180-SCT (Aug. 28, 2013).

7 m ar r i age . Fi nal l y, as expl ai ned more f ul l y bel ow , G i ng er has soughtand bee n aw ar ded sep ara te m a in ten an ce in the ch an ce ry c o u rtp roc ee d ing , b ase d in large p art on R o b ert’s
s ubs t ant i al i ncome f

r om the t obacc o l i t i gat i on. Looki ng a tthi s c as e as a w hol e, i tw oul d be i m pos s i bl e f

or a ci r cui tcourtt o s epar at e G i nger ’ s br eac h- of
- contr actcl ai m f

r om herother claim s tha t are su b stan ti v ely eq u it ab le in n ature a n d c o n ce rn th e d istri b u ti o n o f th e c o u p le’s pr operty. T he s ubs t ance of G i nger ’ s br eac h- of

- contr actcl ai m i s w hetherthe part i es comm i ngl ed thei ras s et s dur i ng the mar r i age a nd w hethers he i s ent i t l ed t o r ece i ve a port i on of R obert ’ s t obacc o l i t i gat i on fe e. T he cha ncery courtcoul d bett eraddr es s w hetherG i nger i s e nt i t l e d t o a ny o f

thi s mone y w he n i td e t e r mi ne s h ow t he p a r t i e s ’ a s s e t s s houl d be
s epar at ed upon dis sol ut i on of the mar r i age, bas ed on the f act or s s etouti n Fer

guson . See Fer guson v. Fer

guson , 6 3 9 S o . 2 d 9 2 1 , 9 2 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 4 ). ¶1 4 . G in g e r h a s b ee n aw ard ed sep ara te m ainten an ce i n th e d iv o rc e a c tio n . S e p a ra te 1
m ai nt enanc e i s an equi t abl e r emedy bas ed upon the mar r i age r el at i ons hi p, and a de cr ee f or s epar at e mai nt enanc e i s a comm and t o t he husba nd t o r es um e coha bi t at i on w i th hi s w i f e or to p ro v id e s u ita b le m a in te n a n c e “ u n til s u c h tim e a s th e y m a y b e re c o n c ile d to e a c h o th e r.” D a ig le v . D a ig le , 626 So. 2d 140, 145 ( M i s s . 1993) ( ci t i ng L ynch v. L

ynch , 616 So. 2d 294, 296 ( M i s s . 1993) )
. T he purpos e of s epar at e mai nt enanc e i s “t o pr ovi de, as near l y as m ay be pos s i bl e, t he sa m e sortof norm al s uppor tand mai nt enanc e f orthe w i f

e, al l thi ngs cons i der ed,

### 8

a s s h e w o u ld h a v e re c e iv e d in th e h o m e , if th e p a rt ie s h a d c o n tin u e d n o rm a l c o h a b ita tio n . .

. . ” R obinson v. R obinson , 554 So. 2d 300, 305 ( M i s s . 1989)
. W hen maki ng an aw ar d of sep ara te m ainten an ce , the c h an ce ry c o u rtis t o co n side r: ( 1) T he hea l th of

both hus band and w i f

e; ( 2) T hei rcombi ned ea r ni ng capa ci ty; ( 3) T he r eas onabl e nee ds of the w i f e and c hi l dr en; ( 4) T he nec es s ary l i vi ng expens es of the hus band; ( 5) T he f

actthatthe w i f

e has f r ee us e of

the home and f

urni s hi ngs ; and ( 6) O thers uch f

act s and ci r cumst ance s bear i ng on t he subj ectt hatm i ghtbe s h o w n b y th e e v id e n c e . D a ig le , 6 2 6 S o . 2 d a t 1 4 5 . ¶1 5. I n a di vor c e p r oc e e di ng , the c ha nc e ry c ou r twi l l d e t e r mi ne the d i vi s i on of m ar i t al
asse ts th rou g h eq u it ab le distr ibu ti o n an d w il l con side r: 1 . S u b sta n tial c o n trib u tio n to th e a c c u m u latio n o f th e p ro p e rty . F a c to rs to be co nsi dered i n d et erm i ning con tri bu t i on are as fol l ow s: a. D i r ectori ndi r ecteconomi c contr i but i on t o t he acqui s i t i on of the pr operty; b. C ontr i but i on t o the s t abi l i ty a nd ha r m ony of the m ar i t al and f a mi l y r e l a t i o n s h i p s a s me a s u r e d b y q u a l i ty , q u a n t i ty o f t i me s penton f

ami l y dut i es and dur at i on of the mar r i age; and c. C ontr i but i on t o the educa t i on, tr ai ni ng orotheracc om pl i s hm ent bear i ng on the earni ng pow erof the s pous e acc um ul at i ng the asset s. 2. The degr ee to w hi ch eac h s pous e has expe nded, w i thd raw n or other w is e dis

pos ed of m ar i talas s et

s and any pr i ordis tr i but i on of s uch as s et s by agr eem ent

, decr ee orother w is e. 3. T h e m a rk e t va lu e a n d

th e e m o tio n a l v a lu e o f th e a ss e ts s u b

jec t to dis tr i but i on . 4. Th e va l ue of

as s et s notor di nar i l

y, abs ent

equi tabl e f

actors t o the contr ar y, s ubj ect

t o s uch dis tr i but i on, s uch as pr oper t y br oughtt o the m ar r i age by the par t i es and pr oper t y acqui r ed by i nher i tance ori nt er vi vos gif tby o r to a n indi vi du al s po use ; 5. T ax and ot her e conomi c cons equenc es , and contr actual orl egal cons equenc es t o t hi r d part i es , of the pr opos ed di s tr i but i on;

### 9

6. T he extentt o w hich prop ert y divisi on m ay, w i th eq uit y t o b oth part i es, be ut i l iz ed t o el i m i nat e per i odi c paym ent s and otherpot ent i als our ces of f ut ur e f r i ct i on betw een the par t i es ; 7. The needs of

the par t i es f

orf i nanci als ecur i t

y w i th due r egar d t o the c o m b in a tio n o

f a ss e ts, in c o m e a n d

e a rn in gc a

p a c ity ; and, 8. A ny otherf

actorw hi ch i n equi t

y s hould be cons i der ed
. Fer guson , 6 3 9 S o . 2 d a t 9 2 8 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). ¶1 6. G i ng e rc l a i ms tha ts he l e a r ne d tha tRobe r th a d br e a c he d the i r“ cont r act ” w hen he
a n n o u n c e d o n N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 0 , tha t h e w a s h a v in g a n a ffa ir a n d w a n ted a d iv o rc e . It i s s i gni f i cantt o not e thatG i ngerc ons i der s the dat e thatR obertannounce d hi s i nt entt o f i l e f or di vor ce a s t he dat e t hatt he “contr act ” w as bre ache d. T he t obacc o m oney, t o w hi ch G i nger al l eges s he i s ent i t l ed an e qui t abl e sha r e, m ay orm ay notbe dee m ed mar i t al pr operty i n t he d ivo rce ac ti o n , b u t i t w o u ld b e c o n side red d u ri n g the e q u it ab le distr ibu ti o n o f th e c o u p le’s pr operty and i n det erm i ni ng t he am ountof s epar at e mai nt enanc e oral i m ony, i f any, t o w hi ch
s h e w o u ld b e e n title d
. See Johnson v. Johnson , 650 So. 2d 1281, 1287 ( M i s s . 1994) ( “I f t he situ ati o n is suc h that an eq u it ab le divisi o n of m arit al pro p erty, co n side red w ith ea ch p arty’s
nonm ar i t al as s et s , l eave s a def i ci tforone party, then al i m ony bas ed on the val ue of
nonm ar i t al as s et s s houl d be cons i der ed. ”) T her ef or e, w e fi nd t hatthe s ubs t ance of t he br eac h- of

- contr act cl ai m i s r el at ed t o di vor ce a nd al i m ony and, thus , s houl d be tr ans f err ed t o the cha ncery courtpr ocee di ng.

B . F raud, D ece i t , and D ece pt i on ¶17. I n her cl ai m f

or f r aud, G i nger r ei t er at es that s he s et over a s ubs t ant i al amount of her in h e ri ta n c e , w h ic h o th e rw is e w o u ld h a v e b e e n n o n m a ri ta l p ro p e rt y . See Hem s ley v. Hem s ley , 63 9 So. 2d 909, 914 ( M i s s . 1994) ( “A s s et s acqui r ed oracc um ul at ed dur i ng the

### 10

cour s e of a mar r i age a r e s ubj ectt o equi t abl e di vi s i on u nles s i tcan be s how n by pr oof t hat
s uch as s et s ar e attr i but abl e t o one of t he part i es ’ s epar at e es t at es pr i ort o the mar r i age or o u tsi d e the m arriage
. ”); buts ee Johnson , 650 So. at1286 ( nonm ar i t al as s et s m ay l os e s uch
s t atus i f the as s etis co m m i ngl ed w i th m ar i t al pr operty orus ed f orf ami l i al benef

i t )
. She cl ai m s that“al l of

thi s comm i ngl i ng of

as s et s and furni shi ng of m oney t o D ef

endant G erm any w as bas ed on hi s f al s e m at er i al mi s r epr es ent at i ons thatPl ai nt i f f’ s m oney and other
as s et s w oul d be i nves t ed, s af el y keptand otherw i s e r eturned t o Pl ai nt i f f upon the r ece i ptand d is tr ib u tio n o f t h e ‘t o b a c c o m o n e y ’. . . .” ¶1 8. G i ngers eeks p un i t i ve d a mage s “ i n a s um s uf f i c i e ntt o de t e rs uc h conduct [ f r aud, d e c e it, a n d d e c e p tio n ] i n th e fu tu re .” In su p p o rt o f h e r c o n ten tio n th a t h e r c laim fo r fra u d is l egal a nd note qui t abl e, s he ci t es thi s C our t ’ s hol di ng i n S o u th e rn L e isu re Ho m e s v . H a rdin , 742 So. 2d 1088 ( M i s s . 1999)
. I n H a rdin , th e H ard ins fil ed su itag ains t So u thern L eisu re H o m e s , In c ., i n th e C h a n c e ry C o u rt o f W a s h in g to n C o u n ty . I d. at1089. T he H ar di ns al l eged thatSouthern ha d br eac hed a contr actt o s el l a mobi l e hom e t o the H ar di ns, t hat Sout hern had ent er ed the contr actw i th f ul l know l edge that t he property al r eady ha d been contr act ed t o be s ol d t o anotherparty, and thats uch ac t i ons w er e both negl i gentand fr a u d u le n t. I

d. T he H ar di ns s oughtt o r ecove rboth actual and puni t i ve dam ages a nd
a tt o r n e y s ’ f

e e s . I d. Thi s Cour tf

ou nd tha t , a l tho ug h a c t s of f r a ud may g i ve r i s e t o a c t i ons i n equi ty, the H ar di ns c l ear l y w er e s eeki ng a l egal , r atherthan equi t abl e r emedy— $10, 000 in a c tu a l d a m a g e s a n d $ 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 in p u n itiv e d a m a g e s . I d. a t 1 0 9 0 . ¶19. T he f

act s of the ca s e s ub j udi ce ar e di s t i ngui s habl e f r om thos e i n H

a rdin . I n H

a rdin , w e c o n c lu d e d th a t th e p lain tiff’s c laim s a m o u n ted to “e ss e n tially a b re a c h o f co n tra c t cla im

### 11

w hi ch i s bes thear d i n ci r cui tcourt . ” I d. B u t H ar din i nvol ved a c om m er ci al “arm ’ s l ength” tr ans act i on, ra thert han an agr eementbet w een spous es conce rni ng how the coupl e’ s f i nance s
w oul d be managed. T he r emedy G i ngers eeks f orR obert ’ s al l eged f

r aud – “the pr om i s ed
e q u a l s h a r e o f

th e ‘ t o b a c c o mo n e y ’ ”

– f u r th e ri l l u s tr a t e s th e e q u i t a b l e s u b s t a n c e o f h e rc l a i m. T he f actthats he i s s eeki ng puni t i ve damages s houl d notbe the det erm i ni ng f act orof w hether h e r c la im is le g a l r a th e r t h a n e q u ita b le
. See T ide w a y O il Prog ra m s, In c . v. S e rio , 431 S o. 2d 4 5 4 , 4 6 4 (M iss. 1 9 8 3 ) (C lai m s for p u n it ive d am ag es are lega l and n o t equ it ab le, b u t cha n ce ry court s have a ctual s ubj ect - m att erj ur i s di ct i on overpuni t i ve- damages cl ai m s)
. G i ngerhas all eg ed esse n ti all y the s am e se t of facts for h er frau d c laim a s sh e d id in h er b rea ch -ofcontr actcl ai m , w hi ch w e f i nd t o be equ i t abl e i n natur e and r el at ed t o the part i es ’ pendi ng di vor ce. A ccor di ngl y, w e f i nd thatG i nger ’ s f

r aud cl ai m i s r el at ed t o di vor ce a nd al i m ony and s houl d be tr ans f

err ed t o t he cha ncery courtpr ocee di ng. C . C ons t r uc t i ve Trus t and Unj us t Enri c hm e nt ¶2 0 . G in g e r’s clai m th at R o b ert h as b ee n un justl y en ri ch ed an d th a t th e c o u rt sh o u ld i m po se a con struct i ve trustupo n cert ai n asset s i s based on the sam e setof f act s that gi ve ri se t o herothercl ai m s thats he contends ar e “pur el y l egal
. ” H ow ever , G i nger ’ s att or ney conce ded atthe hea r i ng on the mot i on t o tr ans f erthathercl ai m s forco nstruct i ve trus tand
u n ju st e n ric h m e n t ar e e q u itab le c laim s. S h e , in f a c t, as se rts th a t “ e q u ity s houl d r es t or e her t o herform erf

i nanci al pos i t i on t ogetherw i th an equ i tab l e share o f th e to b a c c o m o n e y . . . .” T h is C o u rth as m ad e itclea r th at th e re m ed ies o f co n stru cti v e trust an d u n just en ri ch m en t are
e q u ita b le
. See McN

eil v. Hes ter , 75 3 S o. 2d 1 05 7, 1 06 4 (M i ss. 20 00 ) ( “A con struct i ve trust is a fi cti o n o f e q u ity cr eat ed f orthe purpos e of

p revent i ng unj us tenr i chment
. . . . ”)

### 12

(e m p h a sis a d d e d ); K

oval v. K oval , 5 7 6 S o . 2 d 1 3 4 , 1 3 6 (M iss . 1 9 9 1 ) (U n ju st e n ric h m e n t is
an equi tabl e r em edy b a s e d o n c o n tr a c t la w ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). ¶21. G i ngers peci f

i cal l y r eques t s an e q u ita b le port i on of Rober t ’ s a s s et s . G i ngerar gues thats he i s nots eeking a d i vor ce oral i m ony, and the f actthathercl ai m s ar e bas ed on the part i es’ m arr i age and R ob ertl eaving such m arr i age shou l d no tconv erther clai m s to tho se o f “ d iv o rc e a n d a lim o n y .” H o w e v e r, G in g e r h a s a ss e rte d th a t sh e is e n tit led to se p a ra te
m ainten an ce an d all eg es th e sa m e se t of facts for c o n side rati o n in the ch an ce ry c o u rtm att er. E qui t abl e di s tr i but i on, al i m on y, and separat e m ai nt enanc e w oul d be cons i der ed i n the di vor ce act i on. O urhol di ng i n Fer guson , 6 3 9 S o . 2 d 9 2 1 , estab li sh ed the g u idelines that ch an ce ll o rs ar e t o consi der w hen di vi di ng m ar i t al pr operty. A nd al i m ony i s cons i der ed onl y af t ert he
m ari t al property h as been equ i t ably di vided an d the chan cel l or determ i nes t hat one spo use is a t a d e fi c it. J

o h n s o n , 650 So. 2d at1287. A l though G i ngerhas notre ques t ed al i m ony per s e , h e rc l a i ms f

i l e d i n th e c i r c u i tc o u r two u l d h a v e th e s a me e f f e c ta n d s e r v e th e s a me p u rpo se th at eq u it ab le distr ibu ti o n o r an aw ard o f ali m o n y w o u ld se rve in the d ivo rce m att er; ther ef or e, t o al l ow hert o purs ue a cl ai m forunj us tenr i chmenti n ci r cui tcourtbas ed on the
s ame f act s al l eged i n t he cha ncery courtm att erpot ent i al l y w oul d l ead t o doubl e r ecove r y. D . C onvers i on ¶2 2. G i ngercl ai m s t hatR ober tconv e r t e d h e rmone y t o h i s us e a nd tha ts he ha s be en i nj ur ed i n exce s s of

$1, 000, 000 beca us e of

thi s conver s i on. G i ngera r gues thatthi s i s a l egal cl ai m and r el i es on thi s C ou rt ’s hol di ng i n Cr os by , i n w hi ch thi s C our tf ound t hat

“ c o n v e rsio n , w h ich re q u ire s a n in ten t to e x e rc ise d o m in io n o r c o n tro l o v e r g o o d s w h ich is

### See Robert G. Ger many v . Gi nger M. Germany , No . G-2 01 1-3 09 , Jud g me nt w ith 2 

### Findings of

Fac t and Conclusion s of Law ( Hinds County Chance ry Cour t, Fir st Judi ci al District, Aug . 19 , 20 11 ). 13 in c o n sis ten t w ith th e tru e o w n e r’s rig h ts, is a n in ten tio n a l to rt . . . . T o rt c laim s a re h e a rd in ci r cui tcourt . ” Cr os by , 8 7 0 S o . 2 d at 11 8 2 (cit ati o n s o m itted). ¶23. G i nger al l eges i n her compl ai nt that the coupl e’ s J acks on, M i s s i s s i ppi , hom e s ol d f or $ 2 , 2 2 5 , 0 0 0 a n d th a tRo b e r tc o n v e r t e d $ 1 , 1 6 3 , 5 1 5 . 5 3 f r o m th e s a l e o f

th e h o me t o h i s o wn
u se, do m inion , an d c o n tr o l by e n d o rsi n g the c h ec k w ith h is si g n ature a n d fo rgin g G ing er’s sig n a tu re . In a tem p o ra ry h e a rin g th a t o c c u rre d su b se q u e n t to th e filing o f G in g e r’s c iv il compl ai nt , the cha ncel l oraddr es s ed s om e of the al l egati ons i n G i nger ’ s ci vi l compl ai nt
r el at ed t o the s al e of

the part i es ’ J acks on hom e. T he cha ncel l orf ound, contr ary t o t he 2 al l egat i ons i n G i nger ’ s compl ai nt , thatt he sa l e of t he hom e net t ed appr oxi m at el y $750, 000
a fte r fe e s, e x p e n se s, m o rtg a g e p a y o ff a n d th e p a y m e n t o f b a c k tax e s a n d th a t G i ngerr ece i ved $126, 000 f

r om the pr ocee ds of

the home. W i th the r emai ni ng money, Rober tpai d A m er i can E xpr es s $262, 619, pai d the I nt e rna l R evenue Ser vi ce ( I R S) $32, 398, pai d B ankPl us $32, 398, p a id h is la w y e r $ 1 5 ,0 0 0 in a n u n re late d d o m e stic m a tter, a n d p a id tw e lv e m o rtg a g e p a y m e n ts (i n c lu d in g ta x e s a n d in s u ra n c e ) o n th e A ri z o n a h o m e to ta lin g a p p ro x im a te ly $ 1 4 0 ,0 0 0 . ¶24. Par tof

G i ng er’ s “conv ers i on cl ai m ” i ncludes a j ud i ci al sal e of R ob ert ’ s w i ne col l ect i on w i th an or der set t i ng overthe pr ocee ds of the s al e t o her
. O w ner s hi p and di s pos i t i on of

the w i ne col l ect i on, partof w hi ch w as acqui r ed dur i ng the mar r i age, nece s s ar i l y s houl d be det erm i ned by the cha ncery courtas partof the di vor ce act i on. G i nger

### 14

has notas s ert ed how the subst ance of hercl ai m f

orconver s i on i s a l egal , r athert han
e q u ita b le , c la im
. ¶25 . W e fi n d thatG i ng er’ s cl ai m forcon versi on i s r eal l y a requ estforthe cir cuit co u rt j udge t o aw ar d herm ar i t al as s et s thator di nar i l y w oul d be di s tr i but ed i n the di vor ce a ct i on.

E. A c c ount i ng ¶26. G i ngerexpl ai ns thatR obertm ai nt ai ns dom i ni on and cont r ol overm os tof the r ecor ds
a n d d o c u m e n ts re fle c tin g d isp o sitio n o f th e m o n e y th ro u g h o u t th e ir m a rria g e . S h e re q u e sts
acc es s t o t he coupl e’ s fi nanci al re cor ds and as s ert s that“[ j ] us t i ce a nd e q u ity cannotbe done
w i thoutacc es s t o s uch r ecor ds and t he f or m ul at i on of

a s tr i ctacc ount i ng r ef l ect i ng t he d ispo sit ion o f said m o n ey tog ethe r w ith the fu ll d iscl o su re o f D efe n d an t G erm a n y ’s tr a n s a c tio n s , in c o m e , d e b ts , e x p e n d itu re s , a s s e ts a n d lia b iliti e s fr o m 1 9 9 3 to p re s e n t.” ¶27 . T he ch ancery co urtand ci rcui tcou rthav e concurr entj ur i s di ct i on over“s ui t s i nvol vi ng inq u iry into m att ers o f m u tual ac co u n ts. ” M iss. C o n st. a rt . 6 , § 1 6 1 . H o w ev er, i f a p lai n ti ff b rin g s s u it i n c irc u it c o u rt , th a t co u rt m a y “ tra n sfe r th e c a u se to th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt, i f it appea r s thatthe ac count s t o be i nves t i gat ed ar e mut ual and compl i cat ed. ” I d. W e f i nd t hat the fa cts o f th is case p rese n t suc h an instan ce w h ere the c ir cu itco u rt ’s tran sfer to c h an ce ry courtw oul d be pr oper , as the acc ount s ati s s ue ar e com pl i cat ed. T hi s concl us i on i s s uppor t ed by evi dence al r eady c ons i der ed i n the di vor ce pr ocee di ng. R oberta nd G i ngera l r eady ha ve filed fin a n c ial d isc lo su re sta tem e n ts (“ 8 .0 5 fo rm s” ) in th e p e n d in g d iv o rc e p ro c e e d in g in
c h a n c e ry c o u rt . See U R C C C 8. 05. T he cha ncery courtal r eady has begun t o anal yze the part i es ’ f i nanci al i nf

or m at i on, s uch as the s al e of the Ja cks on hom e. T he cha ncel l oral s o has
c o n sid e re d th e fin a n c ial s itu a tio n s o f th e p a rties fo r th e p u rp o se o f d e ter m in in g se p a ra te

### See sup ra n.1
. 3 

### 15 m a in ten a n c e . T h e c h a n c e ry c o u rt th e re fo re is in th e b e st p o sitio n to a d d re ss G in g e r’s c laim

3 f oracc ount i ng.

F . Intenti on al and N egli gen t I n fl i cti on of E m oti on al D i st ress ¶28. G i ng er h as assert ed cl ai m s of i ntenti o nal a nd neg l i gen t i nfl i ct i on of m ental dis tres s a g a in st R o b e rt. G in g e r c laim s th a t R o b e rt o p e n ly e n g a g e d in a n e x tra m a rital a ffa ir w ith H ol l y and thathe f

l aun t ed t he af

f ai rby t aki ng tr i ps us i ng G i ngerG erm any’ s A m er i can E xpr es s cr edi tcar d. She cl ai m s thatR oberti nt ended t o puni s h herf orcompl ai ni ng of
m ount i ng debtby i ncurr i ng a ddi t i onal de btw i th D ef endantM or gan. G i ngeral s o cl ai m s t hat sh e su ffe re d e m o tio n a l d istre ss d u e to R o b e rt’s f a ilu re to w a rn th a t h e w a s h a v in g a n a ffa ir
orthathe des i r ed t o di vor ce her
. She s eeks both compensa t ory and puni t i ve damages f ort he
m ental dis tres s w hich she cl ai m s she has suff ered as a r esul tof hi s act i on s. ¶29. R obertar gues thatG i nger ’ s c l ai m a gai ns thi m f ori nt ent i onal and negl i gent i nf l i ct i on of m ent a l d i s tr e s s a r e d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o the c ha nc e ry c ou r t ’ s d e t e r mi na t i on o f “ f a ul tor
m i s conduct ” and a r e “mat t er s i n equi ty” or“di vor ce and al i m ony” and s houl d be det erm i ned b y th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt . ¶3 0. I tapp e a r s tha tGi ng e r ’ s c l a i ms f orn e gl i ge nta nd i nt e nt i onal i nf l i ct i on of m ent al di s tr es s ar e s ubs t ant i al l y an at t empt t o r ecove rpuni t i ve damages agai ns tR obertthr ough a
c laim a k in to th e to rt o f a lien a tio n o f a ffe c tio n . “W h e re a h u sb a n d [w ife ] i s w ro n g fu lly d ep ri v ed o f his [her] r igh ts t o the ‘se rvice s an d co m p an ion sh ip an d co n so rt ium o f his [her]
w if e [hu sb an d ] , ’ h e [she ] h as a ca u se o f ac ti o n ‘ag ains t on e w h o h as in terfered w ith h is [ h er]

### Alth ou ghnot an issue in this case, Ging er’s claim for alienatio n o f affectionagain st 4 

### Holly Mo rganmay have t o be s eve re d from he r c laim s f or inte nti onaland ne gli gent inflictio n o f emotio nal d istress again st Ro bert. 16 dom es t i c r el at i ons . ’ ” Ca m p v. R o b e rts , 462 So. 2d 726, 727 ( M i s s . 1985) ( quot i ng W alter v. W il son , 2 2 8 S o . 2 d 5 9 7 , 5 9 8 (M iss. 1 9 6 9 ), o v e r r ul e d i n pa r to n othe rg r ou nds by S au n ders v. A l

ford , 607 So. 2d 1214 ( M i s s . 1992) )
. G i ngercert ai nl y i s ent i t l ed t o br i ng t he cl ai m s of al i enati on o f af fect i on and neg l i gen tand i ntent i on al i nfl i ct i on of em oti on al dis tres s agai ns tR obert ’s all eged pa r amour i n ci r cui tcourt ; how ever , w e have neverr ecogni zed a
caus e of act i on agai ns tone’ s ow n s pous e f orf ai l ur e t o w arn ei therof an af f ai r w i th a p a ra m o u r o r o f th e d e sire to o b tain a d iv o rc e . N e v e rth e les s, th is c laim c lea rly se e k s a p u re ly l egal r emedy – m onet ary and puni t i ve damages f orthe di s t r es s G i ngercl ai m s s he s uf f er ed because of

R obert ’ s act i ons . B eca us e the mer i t s of thi s cl ai m coul d notbe addr es s ed
s uf f i ci ent l y i n a di vor ce a ct i on, w e f i nd thatG i nger ’ s cl ai m agai ns tR obertf ori nt ent i onal and
n e g lig e n t in flictio n o f e m o tio n a l d istre ss sh o u ld b e re tain e d b y th e c irc u it co u rt.

G . A l i enat i on of

A f f ect i on ¶3 1. G i ngerr e qu e s t s a j ud gmen ta ga i ns tHol l y M or ga n f orthe s um of

$2, 000, 000 as a c tu a l an d p u n iti v e d a m a g e s fo r h e r c laim o f a lien a tio n o f a ffe c tio n . T h is c laim is p ro p e rly 4 b e fo re th e c irc u it co u rt.

H . I nj unct i ve R el i ef ¶32 . G ing er a sser t s that she i s enti t l ed t o i njunc ti v e re li ef in the form o f tem p o rary restrai n ing o rde rs an d /or p reli m in a ry injun cti o n s. S p ec if icall y , sh e re q u ests that R o b ert
em ploy al l m eans nece s s ary t o s at i s f y I R S cl ai m s f

r om hi s r es our ces otherthan the w i ne

### 17

c o llec tio n . . . o r th e sa le o f th e m a rital h o m e in S c o ttsd a le, A ri z o n a ; th a t h e b e o rd e re d to
s at i s f y the r equi r ement s of

L ydi an B ank and Trus tand B ankPl us re gar di ng f ul l paymentor s ervi ce of

the exi s t i ng m ort gag es and h om eow ners’ associ at i on fees , t axes and i ns ur ance ; that h e b e o rde red to p ay all su m s o w ed o n the A m erican E x p ress ac co u n t, w h ich is in G ing er’s name, and ce as e us e of

s uch; thathe be e nj oi ned f r om ent er i ng the Scott s dal e home; and s uch
o ther inju n cti v e re li ef a s the co u rtd ee m s p rop er. ¶33. A de t erm i nat i on of w ho i s r es pons i bl e f

orthe part i es ’ acc ount s s houl d be made i n the di vor ce a ct i on i n chanc ery cour t . G i nger ’ s cl ai m fori nj unct i ve r el i ef i s di r ect l y r el at ed t o t he
w i ndi ng dow n of

the mar i t al r el at i ons hi p. T hi s C our thas hel d thatinj un ct i ve r el i ef i s an e q u ita b le re m e d y w ith in th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt ’s ju ri s d ic tio n . D er rP lantati on, I nc. , 14 S o. 3d at718 ( ci t i ng Is sa q u e n a W a rr e n C o u n ties L a n d

C o . v. W a rr e n Co u n ty , 996 So. 2d 747, 751 ( M i s s . 2008) )
. A ccor di ngl y, w e f i nd thatthe s ubs t ance a nd the f or m of G i nger ’ s cl ai m f

or i nj unct i ve r el i ef

i s e qui t abl e and i s di r ect l y r el at ed t o the di s tr i but i on of mar i t al property. T her ef or e, the i s s ue pr es ent ed s houl d be dec i ded i n the di vor ce a ct i on. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 3 4 . G in g e r’s c laim s a g a in st R o b e rt th a t are m o re clo se ly rela ted to th e m a rital re latio n sh ip and f i nanci al af

f ai r s of the part i es s houl d be dec i ded i n chanc ery court . O n the otherhand, G i ng er’ s cl ai m s agai nstR ob ertfor i ntent i on al and neg l i gen ti nfl i ct i on of em oti on al dis tres s, alon g w ith G ing er’s claim s ag ains t H o ll y M o rga n , are p u rely lega l an d are p rop erly b efo re the ci r cui tcourt . T her ef or e, w e f i nd t hatt he t r i al cour ter r ed i n denyi ng t he mot i on t o s ever and tr ans f

erG i nger ’ s cl ai m s agai ns tR obertthatar e ei therequi t abl e orre l at e t o the pendi ng di vor ce t o chanc ery co urt . A ccor di ngl y, w e r ever s e the j udgm entof the tr i al courtand

### 18

rem an d w ith i n stru cti o n s t o tran sfer th e eq u it ab le cl aim s t o th e o n g o ing ch an ce ry c o u rt
a c tio n . ¶ 3 5 . RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. RANDOL P H, P . J . , LA M AR, CHANDL ER AND P I ER CE , J J . , CONCUR. CO LEM AN, J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN O PI NI ON J OI NED BY DI CK I NS ON , P . J . , AN D K I NG , J . KI T CH E NS , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . CO L E M AN , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶36. O n February 24, 2 01 1, G i ng er G erm any f i l ed a c om pl ai nti n the C i r cui tC our t of M ad ison C o u n ty, M issi ssipp i, ag ains t h er hu sb an d , R o b ert G erm an y , an d he r h u sb a n d ’s al l eged pa r amour. She as s ert ed the fol l ow i ng count s f orr el i ef agai ns therhus band: ( 1) breach o f cont ract ; (2) fr aud , deceit , and decep t i on ; (3) con struct i ve trustand un j ust
enr i chment ; ( 4) conver s i on; ( 5) a r eques tf oran ac count i ng; ( 6) i nt ent i onal i nfl i ct i on of
m ent al di s tr es s ; (7) negl i genti nf l i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s ; and ( 8) a r eques tf ori nj unct i ve
r e l i e f
. Be c a u s e I d i s a g r e e wi th t h e ma j o r i ty ’ s u n i v e r s a l r e l e g a t i o n o f M r s . Ge r ma n y ’ s c l a i ms t o chanc ery court– w her e s he w i l l be depr i ved of hercon st i tut i onal r i ghtt o a j ury t r i al sim p ly b e c a u se h e r e stra n g e d h u sb a n d f ile d a late r c o m p lain t fo r d iv o rc e – I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. ¶37. Pur s uant t o A r t i cl e 3, Sect i on 31 of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on, “The ri gh t of t r i al by j ury s hal l r emai n i nvi ol at e . . . . ” M i s s . C ons t . art . 3, § 31. M r s . G erm any’ s com pl ai nt cont ai ns cl ai m s f

orre l i ef t hatbel ong i n ci r cui tcourt , i ncl udi ng thos e f orbr eac h of

contr act and the tor tcl aim s o f intenti on al and neg l i gen ti nfl i ct i on of em oti on al dis tres s. S ou t h ern L e isu re Ho m e s, In c . v. H a rdin , 742 So. 2d 1088, 1090 ( ¶ 6) (M i s s . 1999) ( br eac h of contr act
c laim is “ b e st h e a rd in c irc u it co u rt” ); McLean v. G r een , 352 So. 2d 1312, 1314 ( M i s s . 1977)

### 19

(“court s of equi ty shou l d no tass um e j uri sdi ct i on over cl ai m s forpersonal i njury”). B ecause of the cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o a j ury t r i al , chanc ery cour t s shoul d notbe gi ven j ur i s di ct i on over to rt c la im s . McLean , 352 So. 2d at1314. ¶38 . T he inst ant cas e i s not one such as I s s aquena W

ar r en Counti es L an d C o. , L L C v. W a rr e n Co u n ty , 996 So. 2d 747 ( M i s s . 2008) , w her e w e j us t i f i ed cha ncery courtj ur i s di ct i on – and the coi nci di ng deni al of a j ury tr i al t o a party thatw ant ed one – be caus e damages
w o u ld b e b a s e d o n a n o rd in a n c e , th e re b y o b v ia tin g th e n e e d fo r a ju ry . I d. at 7 5 1 (¶ 11 ). If tried , M rs. G e rm a n y ’s c laim s fo r b re a c h o f c o n tra c t a n d in flictio n o f e m o tio n a l d istre ss w ill requi re a tri er o f f

actt o w ei gh evidence, m ake credibi l i ty d et erm i nati on s, and asses s d am ag es, i f an y . T h e C o n stitutio n is c lea r th at M rs. G erm an y h as th e righ t t o h av e a jury
m a k e th o s e d e te rm in a tio n s , a n d th e ri g h t to a ju ry tr ia l is in fr in g e d , i
. e. , vi ol at ed, w hen ca s es th a t o th e rw is e w o u ld b e d e c id e d b y a ju ry a re h e a rd in c h a n c e ry c o u rt . S ou th ern L eisure , 7 4 2 S o . 2 d at 1 0 9 0 (¶ 7 ). E v en if there is som e d o u b t as t o the n ature o f M rs. G erm an y ’s cl ai m s , they bel ong i n ci r cui tcourt . A s w e of t en have w r i t t en, “[ I ] ti s m or e appr opr i at e f or a ci r cui tcourtt o hearequi ty cl ai m s t han i ti s fora chance ry cour tt o hearact i ons atl aw s i nce c ir c u it c o u rt s h a v e g e n e ra l ju ri s d ic tio n b u t c h a n c e ry c o u rt s e n jo y o n ly li m ite d ju ri s d ic tio n .” U ni on N at ’l L i f e I ns. Co. v. Cr os by , 8 7 0 S o . 2 d 1 1 7 5 , 1 1 8 2 (¶ 2 4 ) (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ); S ou th ern L eisure , 7 4 2 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 9 0 (¶ 6 ); McD onald’s Cor p. v. Robinson I

ndus. , I nc. , 592 So. 2d 9 2 7 , 9 3 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 ). ¶39. I r emai n unper s uaded by the m aj ori t y’s rel i ance upon A r t i cl e 6, Sect i on 159 of t he M i s s i ssi ppi C ons t i tut i on, w hi ch pl ace s “f ul l j ur i s di ct i on” of

di vor ce pr ocee di ngs and
e q u itab le m att ers in c h an ce ry c o u rt . A ft er a ll – as th e m ajority ac k n o w ledg es – fu ll

### 20

ju risd ictio n d o e s n o t eq u a l ex c lu siv e ju risd ictio n . A s n o ted a b o v e , circ u it co u rts c e rta in ly
m a y h e a r e q u itab le c laim s. A lso , n e ith e r S e c tio n 1 5 9 n o r th e s tatu te u p o n w h ich th e m a jo rity
r el i es , M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 93- 5-7, appl i es t o M r s . G erm any’ s compl ai ntas her
com plai nt w as not one for di vo rce. Judici al econ om y is i nd eed served b y h aving M rs . G e rm a n y ’s c laim s a d

ju d ica ted in th e s a m e fo ru m a s M r. G e rm a n y ’s, a n d it i s a n o b le g o a l. H ow ever , i f

the bi l l comes due and s how s the pr i ce t o be M r s . G erm any’ s cons t i tut i onal r i ght t o a j ury tr i al , I bel i eve w e mustdecl i ne the bar gai n. ¶ 4 0 . W h e n c o n sid e rin g a fa c ial a ttac k a lleg in g lac k o f ju risd ictio n , w e m u s t c o n s id e r a ll
a lle g a tio n s in th e p la in tif f’ s c a s e to b e tru e . Schm idt v. Catholi c D i oces e of

B iloxi , 18 So. 3d 814 , 8 22 (¶ 1 5) ( M i s s . 2009)
. U nf or tunat el y, the maj or i ty appea r s t o go thr ough gr eat pai ns t o expl ai n w hy M r s . G erm any’ s al l egat i ons a r e untrue. T o us e herbr eac h of contr act
c laim a s a n e x a m p le, M rs. G e rm a n y a lleg e s th a t sh e m a rrie d M r. G e rm a n y a fte r th e c o u p le
a lre a d y h a d e n

jo y e d a c lo se , c o n fid e n tial r e latio n sh ip fo r e ig h t y e a rs. A lth o u g h th e m a jo rity
w r i t es thatthe G erm anys ent er ed i nt o t he al l eged contr actduri ng m arr i age ( M aj
. at¶ 12) , t he
com plai nt r eads as fol l ow s: D ef endantG erm any bec ame pr eci s el y f ami l i arw i th the natur e and e xt entof [ M r s . Ge r ma n y ’ s f

a th e r ’ s ] e s t a t e a n d Gi n g e r ’ s e n t i t l e me n t s a s a n h e i ra tl a w. R o b e rt G . G e rm a n y a c te d a s G in g e r’s a tto rn e y d u rin g th e c o n se rv a to rsh ip pr ocee di ngs . D r . M urphre e’ s es t at e w as l i qui dat ed and di s per s ed t o G i nger a n d h e r tw o siste rs. G in g e r M u rp h re e G e rm a n y rec e iv e d su b sta n tia l w e a lth u p o n th e d isb u rse m e n t o f th e e sta te a n d e n tr u s te d th e m a n a g e m e n t o f sa id m on e y t o Def

e nd a ntG e r many w i th the a gr e e menta nd trus ttha tD ef endant G erm any w oul d as s i s tthe Pl ai nt i f f i n f i nanci al i nves t m entm att er s and p a rt ic u la rl y th e p u rc h a s e o f re a l e s ta te . This c ours e of c onduct was car r i ed out f ors eve r alyear

s pr i ort o the m ar r i age of P lai nt i f f and D ef endant G er m any a n d c o n tin u e d s u b s e q u e n t to th e m a rr ia g e . . . .

### 21

( E m phas i s added. ) I f

M r s . G erm any’ s cl ai m forbre ach of cont r acti s nota vi abl e cl ai m f or b re a c h o f c o n tr a c t, o u r r u le s o f p ro c e d u re c o n ta in v e h ic le s , e. g. , R u les o f C ivil P roc ed u re 1 2 (b )(6 ) a n d 5 6 , fo r th e ir d ism iss a l. H o w e v e r, as sh o w n a b o v e , if i t is a cl ai m f orbr eac h of contr acts he has a co nst i tut i onal r i ghtt o a j ury tr i al
. B as ed on the al l egat i ons of her
c o m p lain t, w h ich w e a re b o u n d to a c c e p t as tru e , I b e liev e sh e h a s s tate d v iab le c laim s a s to
w h ich sh e h a s a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t to a ju ry trial. ¶41. J us tas the publ i c pol i cy f avor i ng a pl ai nt i f

f’ s r i ghtto cho ose the forum does not
o u tw e ig h th e c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t to a ju ry tr ia l, Cr os by , 870 So. 2d at1182 ( ¶ 22) , I do not bel i eve the pol i cy cons i derat i on of j udi ci al economy out w ei ghs M r s . G erm any’ s r i ghtt o a j ury tr i al
. I n m y opi ni on, the ci r cui tcour thas s ol e j ur i s di ct i on overM r s . G erm any’ s br eac h
o f con tr ac t an d t o rtclai m s an d sha res co n cu rren t juri sd ict ion ov er he r cl aim s for e q u itab le
r el i ef
. B eca us e the ci r cui tcourtf i r s tobt ai ned j ur i s di ct i on, i t“r et ai ns j uri s di ct i on overt he
w h o le c o n tro v e rsy to th e e x c lu sio n o r a b a tem e n t” o f M r. G e rm a n y ’s la w s u it. S crug gs, Mil le tte, Boz e m a n & D e n t , P. A. v Me rk e l

& Co c k e, P. A. , 804 So. 2d 1000, 1006 ( ¶ 15) (M iss . 2 0 0 1 ). A c c o rd in g ly , I d iss e n t. D I C K I N S O N , P .J ., A N D K I N G , J ., J O I N T H I S O P I N I O N .