I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 7 - CA- 0 0 6 8 9 - S CT S ANDRA ANN CRAFT I RBY
v. ES TAT E OF HENRY EDW

ARD I RBY, DECEAS

ED, BY GLORI

A DEAN I

RBY M A R S H A L L , E X E C U T R IX
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 04/ 18/ 2007 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. DA N H
. FAI RLY COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: RANKI N COUN TY CHANCERY COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : J OHN G. HOL ADAY PRENTI SS M
. GR AN T ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LE E: CHRI S TOP HER A. TABB LI SA A ND ERSON REPP ETO 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 : A FFIRM E D
- 04/ 23/ 2009 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 A V E S, P . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D P I E R C E , JJ. PI ERCE, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. T h is ca se c o m e s to th e C o u rt o n a p p e a l fro m th e R a n k in C o u n ty C h a n c e ry C o u rt, i n
w hi ch a f i nal j udgm entw as ent er ed gr ant i ng Sandr a A nn C r af tI rby and H enry E dw ar d I rby, M .D ., a d iv o rc e o n th e g ro u n d o f i rr e c o n c ila b le d if fe re n c e s .

### 2 F AC T S AN D D I S P OS I T I ON B E L OW ¶2. O n M ay 18, 2005, af t ertw el ve yea r s of

m arr i age, Sandr a f

i l ed a c om pl ai ntf

or di vor ce i n chanc ery courtagai ns therhus band, H enry, on the gr ounds of habi tual cruel and i nhum an tr ea tm en t and /or h ab itu al dru g u se a s p rov ided b y M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec tio n 9 3 -5 -1; o r, alt ern ati v ely, ba sed o n irrec o n cil ab le d iff ere n ce s as p rov ided b y S ec ti o n 9 3 -5-2
. H en ry
ans w er ed the compl ai ntand count er cl ai m ed f ordi vor ce on J ul y 6, 2005. H enry deni ed that Sandr a w as ent i t l ed t o a di vor ce on a ny of t he st at ed f aul tgr ounds , ora di vor ce ba s ed on i rr econc i l abl e di f

f er ence s , and i n hi s cr os s - compl ai ntas ked f ora di vor ce on the gr ound of habi tual cruel and i nhum an tr eatm ent . Sandr a t i m el y a ns w er ed and deni ed thatH enry w as
e n title d to a d iv o rc e o n h is a lle g e d fa u lt g ro u n d
. ¶3. B oth part i es r ece i ved not i ce i n J anuary 2006 thattr i al w as s chedul ed f orM ay 4, 2006. O n M ay 3, 2006, Sandr a f i l ed a mot i on f

orcont i nuance on the bas i s thatH enry w oul d obj ect t o al l docum ent s S andr a f ai l ed t o produc e i n a t i m el y m anner , as w el l as t o al l w i tnes s es not i dent i f i ed i n a t i m el y m annerf

ordi s covery. T he chanc el l ordeni ed t he m ot i on, and rul ed that th e tr ia l w o u ld b e g in th e fo llo w in g d a y a s s c h e d u le d
. ¶ 4
. S h o rtly a fte r th e sta rt o f th e tr ia l o n M a y 4 , th e p a rtie s file d w ith th e c o u rt th e ir C ons ent of Part i es t o D i vor ce on I

r r econc i labl e D i

f f er ence s , j oi nt l y aski ng t he cour tt o gr ant them a di vor ce on t he gr ound of i r r econc i l abl e di f f er ence s . T he par t i es s ubm i t t ed t o the tr i al
courtthe f

ol l ow i ng i s s ues f

ordet erm i nat i on: 1
. A ll m a tte rs o f re a l an d p e rso n a l p ro p e rty , inc lu d in g b u t n o t li m ited to the hous es , l and , c on do mi ni ums , bu s i ne s s pr op e rty, r e t i r ement s and any 401K s acc um ul at ed dur i ng the mar r i age.

### 3

2. A t t orney fees. 3. A l i m ony. 4. T he eq uit able di vis i on of any m ari t al asset s. 5. P aym ent of

deb t s. 6. T he di vi s i on of

t ax r ef unds / l i abi l i t i es , i ncl udi ng the l i en of the I nt ernal R evenue Ser vi ce on r ecor d i n R anki n C ounty. 7
. M in e ra l rig h ts a n d o il & g a s le a se re v e n u e s in c lu d in g a m o u n ts in suspense b y D enb ury R esources. 8. T he B ack Cl i ni c. 9. E nt i t l ementt o an or derpr ohi bi t i ng H enry f r om conductcal cul at ed or d esig n ed to h ara ss, th rea ten, or inti m idate S an d ra o r ca u se b o d il y h arm t o Sandr a. 10. E nt i t l ementt o l i f e i ns ur ance . 1 1
. C a sh h e ld in th e re g istry o f th e c o u rt. ¶5. A t the concl us i on of day tw o of the tr i al , the j udge or der ed the tr i al cont i nued t o M ay 16, 2006, i n or dert o compl et e t es t i m ony i n the mat t er . O n M ay 11, 2 00 6, d ue t o her att orney’ s a dm i s s i on i nt o the hos pi t al , Sandr a, pr o s e, moved f orc ont i nuance . T he mot i on
w as gr ant ed, and tr i al w as cont i nued t o J une 13, 2006. O n J une 5, 2006, due t o her att orney’ s w i thdr aw al f r om the ca s e, Sandr a, agai n pr o s e, r eques t ed anothercont i nuance . T he cha ncel l orappr oved the cont i nuance , and or der ed thattr i al be s etf orf i nal hear i ng on A ugus t22 and 23, 2006. ¶6. O n J ul y 21, 2006, Sandr a, thr ough new couns el , f i l ed a m ot i on t o al l ow her t o r eopen the ca s e and r eques t ed anothercont i nuance . T he chanc el l orappr oved the mot i on. T r i al w as cont i nued unt i l Sept ember14, 2006, and ul t i m at el y concl uded on thatdat e. ¶7
. The c ou r t e nt e r e d i t s f i na l j ud gmen t on D e c e mber 19 , 20 06 , rul i ng tha t t he par t i es
w ere ent i t l ed to a di vo rce based on i rr econ ci l able di ff erences.

### 4

¶8
. O n D ec em b er 2 9 , 2 0 0 6 , S an d ra fi led a m o ti o n to rec o n side r. B e fo re the tr ial co u rt i s s ued i t s rul i ng, H enry di ed on February 6, 2007. O n M ar ch 28, 2007, Sandr a f i l ed a mot i on to d e c lar e th e fin a l ju d g m e n t v o id , as a ffo rd e d b y R u le 6 0 (b ) o f th e M iss iss ip p i R u les o f C iv il Pr ocedur e. T hatm ot i on w as deni ed. A ggr i eved, Sandr a appe al s t o thi s C our tr ai s i ng the fo llo w in g a ss ig n m e n ts o f e rro r: I
. THE TRI AL C OU RT ERRED W HEN I T EXC LUD ED D OC UM ENTS OFFERED A T TRI AL B Y SA ND RA DU E TO A N A LLEGED DI S CO VE RY VI OL AT I ON. II
. T H E T R IA L C O U R T E R R E D W H E N IT D E N IED S A N D R A ’S M OTI ON S TO CO NTI NU E THE TRI AL. I I I
. THE TRI AL COURT E RRE D W HEN I T E XCLUDED AN EXP ERT W I TNESS OFF ERED BY SAN DR A A T TRI AL. I V. T HE T RI AL CO UR T AB US E D I T S DI S CR E T I ON I N T HE EQU I TAB LE PROPERTY D I STRI BU TI ON SET F OR TH I N I TS FI NA L J UD GM ENT. A
. T he tr i al courterr ed i n f i ndi ng thatSandr a w as r es pons i bl e f

orany port i on of

the I R S t axes ow ed by H enry. B
. T he t ri al courterred i n fi nd i ng that S and ra acqu i red as a m ar i t al as s etappr oxi m at el y $75, 000
. 00 i n a home she ow ned pr i ort o the mar r i age. C
. T he tr i al courterr ed i n f i ndi ng thatSandr a ac qui r ed a p p ro x im a tely $ 1 9 3 ,0 0 0 .0 0 in a p e rso n a l i n ju ry law su it. D
. T he tr i al courterr ed i n f i ndi ng thatSandr a s pentf orher o w n p erso n al us e ap p rox im ately $ 2 2 5 , 0 9 1
. 0 8 o f H en ry’s m o n e y w h ich h e ac q u ire d fro m a p e rso n a l i n ju ry law su it. E
. T he tr i al courterr ed i n f ai l i ng t o a l l otH enry val ue i n the eq u it ab le distr ibu ti o n for the tr ac tor an d b u ll d o ze r.

### 5 F. T he tr i al courterr ed i n acc ept i ng H enry’ s s pecula t i ve val ue of the B ack Cl i ni c at$128, 000. 00. G
. T h e tr ial c o u rt e rre d in fa ili n g to c o n sid e r fu n d s in H e n ry ’s b a n k a c c o u n ts in re latio n to th e e q u itab le di s tr i but i on. H
. T h e tr ial c o u rt e rre d in g iv in g H e n ry th e 1 9 2 8 W ill is K ni ghtvehi cl e pur chas ed by Sandr a. V
. T H E T R IA L C O U R T E R R E D W H E N IT D E N IE D S A N D R A ’S M OT I ON T O DE CL AR E J UDGMENT NUL L AND VO I D.

S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶ 9
. T h e fin d in g s o f a c h a n c e llo r in d o m e stic re latio n s m a tters w ill n o t b e d istu rb e d b y th is C our tunl es s the cha ncel l orw as m ani f es t l y w r ong, cl ear l y err oneous , oran err oneous l egal
s ta n d a rd w a s a p p lie d
. Mont gom er y v. Mont

gom er y, 759 So. 2d 1238 ( M i s s . 200 0). For q u e s tio n s o f la w , th e sta n d a rd o f r e v ie w is d e n o v o . D unc an v. D unc an, 774 S o. 2d 418, 419 (M is s . 2 0 0 0 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ). DI S CU S S I ON I . DI D THE T RI AL CO URT ERR W HEN I T EXCLUDED DOCUM EN TS OF F ER ED AT TRI AL BY S ANDRA DUE TO AN AL LE GED D I S COVE RY VI OLAT I ON? II. D ID T H E T R IA L C O U R T E R R W H E N IT D E N IE D S A N D R A ’S M OTI ON S TO CO NTI NUE TH E TRI AL? I I I . DI D T HE T RI AL COURT ER R W HEN I T E XCL UDE D AN EXPERT W I TNES S OFFERED BY S AND RA A T TRI AL? ¶10. I s s ues I , II , an d II I ar i se fr om an d/orrel at e to the s ame gr i evanc e and w i l l be add res sed t og et her. S and ra co n tend s that the tr i al cou rtexcluded nu m erous do cum ents ,A ccor di ng t o the r ecor d, H enry pr opounded hi s d i scover y r eques t s i n J ul y 2005. 1 S a n d ra in iti a lly a n sw e re d in D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 5 , an d su p p lem e n ted a s fo llo w s: 6 2 8 d o c u m e n ts 

### 6 al ong w i th an exper tw i tnes s , base d on ei therunt i m el y produc t i on or unt i m el y not i f i cat i on
u n d e r th e ru les o f d isc o v e ry . S a n d ra as se rts th a t th is ru lin g w a s p re ju d icia l to h e r c a se , as it pr ev e nt e d h e rf

r om us i ng e vi de nc e c on c e rni ng he rc on tr i bu t i on s t o the mar i t a l a s s e t s a nd H e n ry ’s d iss ip a tio n o f v a st a m o u n ts o f m o n e y d u e to g a m b lin g . S a n d ra m a in tain s th a t, instead o f ex clud ing the d o cu m en ts an d the e x p e rt w itne ss, th e c h an ce ll o r ha d ev ery oppor tuni ty t o gr anta cont i nuance of the tr i al i n or dert o al l ow H enry t i m e to revi ew t he d o c u m e n ts a n d to p re p a re fo r h e r e x p e rt w itn e s s . ¶11. T hi s C our t r evi ew s a tr i al j udge’ s deci s i on t o i m pos e s anct i ons f or di s covery abus es
u n d e ra n a b u s e -o f- d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd
. L adn er v. L adn er, 436 So. 2d 1366, 1371 ( M i s s. 1983)
. T he deci s i on w i l l be a f f i r m ed “unl es s ther e i s a de f i ni t e and f

i r m convi ct i on thatt he
courtbel ow comm i t t ed a cl earer r orof j udgm enti n t he concl us i on i tr eac hed upon w ei ghi ng of r el evantf

act or s . ” Co o

p e rv. S ta te Fa r m Fir e & Ca s . C o ., 56 8 S o. 2d 68 7, 69 2 (M i ss. 1990 ) ( c i t a t i on o mi t t e d)
. The d e c i s i on t o gr a nto rd e ny a c on t i nu a nc e i s l e f tt o t he s ound dis cret i on of the ch ancell or, “and w i l l no tbe reversed un l ess there i s show n a m anif estabu se of di s cr et i on. ” R i ves v. R i ves, 4 1 6 S o . 2 d 6 5 3 , 6 5 6 (M is s . 1 9 8 2 ).

A . D ocum ent A dm i s s i on . ¶ 1 2
. T h e re c o rd sh o w s th a t th e p a rties e n g a g e d in p ro tr a c te d d is c o v e ry th ro u g h o u t th is
cas e. O n M ay 2, 2006, tw o da ys be f or e tr i al , Sandr a pr oduced appr oxi m at el y 1, 700 pages of do cum ent s as s uppl ement at i on t o di s covery. T he mat t erw as notbr oughtt o the tr i al 1on A pr i l 4, 2006; 202 doc um ent s on A pr i l 25, 2006; a nd 1, 700 doc um ent s on M ay 2, 2006.

S h e p ro v id e d H e n ry w ith a w itn e s s lis t o n M a y 1 , 2 0 0 6
. T he part i es ’ j oi ntt ax r eturns f r om the yea r s 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998 di d m ake 2 i ti nto the record. E ach return repo rt ed gam bli ng incom e o ff setb y an eq ual gam bli ng l oss, r es pect i vel y as f

ol l ow s : 1995–$314, 746; 1996–$486, 950; 1997–$285, 360; 1998–$248, 550. 

### 7 court ’ s att ent i on unt i l the da y bef or e tr i al w hen Sandr a moved f ora cont i nuance t o al l ow H e n ry a d d iti o n a l ti m e to re v iew th e d o c u m e n ts, w h ich th e tria l c o u rt d e n ied . T h e re c o rd is uncl earas t o exac t l y w hatthe document s c ons i s t ed of , buti ndi cat es thata num berof t hem app arent l y w ere r ecords fr om vari ou s casi no s that w ere t o b e used a s evi den ce t o est abli sh H enry’ s al l eged pr obl em w i th gambl i ng. 2 ¶13
. W hen tri al beg an the nex t day , H enry’s cou nsel , on his prom i se, obj ect ed t o the fi rs t d o c u m e n t S a n d ra a tte m p te d to in tr o d u c e o n th e b a s is th a t it w a s u n tim e ly s u p p le m e n te d . A l engthy back- and- f

orth betw een c ouns el then ens ued r egar di ng al l of the d ocu m ents produced
o n M a y 2 . In h is r u lin g , th e tria l ju d g e h e ld th a t, ev e n th o u g h th e d o c u m e n ts w e re n o t ti m e ly p ro d u c e d fo r d isc o v e ry , h e w o u ld n o t ex c lu d e th e m o u trig h t fro m the trial; in ste a d , h e w o u ld ad m itthem ind ividu all y d u ri n g tr ial if ad m issi b le an d p rop erly a u then ti ca ted. T h e re co rd reveal s, ho w ever, that because a n um ber of the d ocu m ents cou l d n ot be au then t i cat ed, m ost
w e re n o t a llo w e d in to e v id e n c e . ¶14. A t r i al cour t ’ s aut hor i ty fori m pos i ng sanc t i ons fordi s covery vi ol at i ons der i ves f r om tw o s our ces : R ul e 37 of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e and a tr i al court ’ s i nher ent p o w e r to p ro te c t th e in te g ri ty o f i ts p ro c e s s . Co o p e rT ir e & R u b b e rCo . v. Mc G ill, 890 So. 2 d 8 5 9 , 8 6 4 ( M i s s . 2 0 0 4 ) ( c i t a t i o n s o mi t t e d )
. Bo th Ru l e 3 7 ( e ) a n d a tr i a l c o u r t ’ s o wn

### 8

a u th o rity p ro v id e o u r tr ia l ju d g e s g re a t flex ib ili ty w ith w h ich to d e a l su m m a rily w ith d isc o v e ry a b u se s, w h e n e v e r a n d h o w e v e r th e a b u se is b ro u g h t to th e a tten tio n o f th e c o u rt. See M
. R
. C
. P. 37 cmt
. ; and Her r ington v. Her r ington , 660 So. 2d 215, 219 ( M i s s . 199 5) ( “U nderthe i nher entpow erof court s t o pr ot ectthe i nt egr i ty of t heirpr oces s , court s m ay im p o se sa n c tio n s w ith o u t a c o u rt o rd e r.”) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). A s h a s b e e n sa id b y this C o u rt,
ourpr ocedur al rul es ar e “de s i gned t o as s ur e t o the m axi m um e xt entpr act i cabl e thatcas es be d e c id e d o n the ir m e rits,” a n d n o t de c id e d b a se d o n o n e p a rty ’s u n fa ir am b u sh
. Harris v. G e n . Ho s t Co r

p ., 5 0 3 S o . 2 d 7 9 5 , 7 9 6 -9 7 (M is s . 1 9 8 6 ). ¶1 5
. W h il e the re i s no clear i n d icati o n o f de li b era te ga m esm an sh ip at p lay h ere , the fail u re t o pr oduce the document s i n a t i m el y mannerw as cons equent i al nonethel es s . T he tr i al j udge, f ace d w i th a dec i s i on of w hethert o gr anta cont i nuance atthe expe ns e o f the nonf aul t i ng party orw hethert o pr ocee d f orw ar d provi s i onal l y, chose i n hi s di s cr et i on w hathe bel i eved
w a s m o re in th e in te re s t o f ju s tic e a n d fa irp la y . Hu ff v. P o lk, 40 8 S o. 2d 13 68 , 13 71 (M i ss. 1 9 8 2 ). ¶16. T he r ecor d s uppor t s thi s f i ndi ng. Sandr a f

ai l ed t o provi de the t ri al cou rtw i t h a
r eas onabl e expl anat i on f ornothavi ng pr oduced thes e docum ents i n a t i m el y m anner . T he tr i al court ’ s deci s i on on thi s poi nti s af f i r m ed. B. T es t i m ony of

E xpert W i t nes s T om D i al
. ¶ 1 7
. O n d a y tw o o f th e trial, S a n d ra so u g h t to p ro ffe r th e tes tim o n y o f T o m D ial, a p riv a te i nves t i gat or , w ho s uppos edl y had w i tnes s ed H enry’ s vi s i t s t o var i ous cas i nos . H enry m oved t o excl ude t he i nves t i gat or ’ s t es t i m ony on the bas i s thatD i al ’ s i nves t i gat i ve r eport s had not

### Rule26(b) (4) (A) (i ) of theMis si ss ippiRule s of Civi l Proce durese ts forth t he proper 3 

### proc edur e f

or obt aining thei dentit

y of an expe rt

witnes se s, not ot

her wis e di sc overabl e unde r 9 been pr oduced unt i l ni ne days bef or e tr i al , on A pr i l 25, and thatSandr a had notdi s cl os ed that h e w a s to te s tif

y a t tr ia l u n til M a y 1 , th re e d a y s b e fo re tr ia l. ¶18. T he tr i al co urth eard argum ents fr om both s i des on the mat t er . A ccor di ng t o the
re c o rd , S a n d ra h a d d isc lo se d a t h e r d e p o sitio n h e ld o n M a rc h 1 6 , 2 0 0 6 , th a t sh e h a d a p riv a te i nv est i gator . T he record show s that Sand ra possessed t he invest i gator ’s report s f or atl east
s e v e n m o n th s p ri o r t o p ro d u c in g th e m o n A p ri l 2 5
. ¶1 9
. T h e tri al co u rtfou n d that S an d ra ha d fail ed to ti m ely p rov ide th e n am e o f an ex p ert
w itn e ss a n d ru led th a t D ial w o u ld n o t b e p e rm itt e d to tes tify a s to th e c o n ten ts o f h is inv esti g ati v e re p o rt s. A t th at po int, S an d ra a g ain m o v ed for a co n ti n u an ce to allow H en ry
a d d itio n a l tim e to p re p a re fo r h e r e x p e rt w itn e s s . T h a t m o tio n w a s d e n ie d
. ¶2 0
. P u rsu a n t to R u le 2 6 (f) o f th e M iss iss ip p i R u les o f C ivil P roc ed u re, d isco v ery
re sp o n se s a re to b e su p p lem e n ted se a so n a b ly . T h e re is n o b rig h t-line ru le a s to w h a t am o u n ts to s e a s o n a b le s u p p le m e n ta tio n . E a s to v e rB a n kfo rS a v. v. H a ll, 58 7 S o. 2d 26 6, 27 2 (M i ss. 1991)
. R ather , “s eas onabl enes s m us tbe det erm i ned on a case by cas e bas i s l ooki ng att he to tality o f th e c irc u m s ta n c e s s u rro u n d in g th e su p p lem e n tal in fo rm a tio n th e o ffe rin g p a rty
s eeks t o admi t . ” B lan ton v. B d. of Su pervisors, 7 2 0 S o . 2 d 1 9 0 , 1 9 6 (M is s . 1 9 9 8 ). ¶21
. W e note atthe o uts etthat, even tho ug h D i al w as desi gn at ed as an exp ertw i tnesses, th e re c o rd n e g a tes c a teg o riz in g h im a s th e ty p e o f e x p e rt c o n tem p late d b y R u le 26( b) ( 4) ( A ) ( i ) of

the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e. T he r ecor d c l ear l y s how s t hat 3

### sub section(b)(1 ) of Rule 2 6, whichis thro ug h interrog atories, n ot d epo sition s. 10 D i al , w hi l e m aybe a w i tnes s w i th exper t i s e, w as for emostan “occurr ence w i tnes s . ” I n ot her
w or ds , havi ng di r ect l y obs erved H enry’ s vi s i t s t o cas i nos , conductw hi ch Sandr a al l eges w as detr i m ental t o the m ari t al est at e, D i al w as a w i tness t o ev ents ati ssue in this case. T hu s, p u rsu a n t to R u le 2 6 (b )( 1 ) o f th e M iss iss ip p i R u les o f C iv il P ro c e d u re , b o th D ial’s id e n tity
a n d th e s u b

je c t m a tte r o f h is p ro p o s e d te s tim o n y w e re d is c o v e ra b le m a tte rs . See a l so L adner
v. L a dn e r

, 436 So. 2d 1366, 1372 ( M i s s . 1983) ( a party i s e nt i t l ed t o a l i s tof “occu rr ence
w itn esse s” d u ri n g d isco v ery ). ¶22
. A ft er hav i ng res po nd ed i n her dep osi t i on that she had hir ed a pri v ate inv esti g ator, Sandr a, w i thoutr eas onabl e expl anat i on, w ai t ed unt i l thr ee da ys bef or e tr i al t o di s cl os e that the i nves t i gat orw as t o t es t i f y a s a w i tnes s . W hen H enry moved t o e xcl ude thatt es t i m ony, Sandr a aga i n r eques t ed a c ont i nuance s o as t o al l ow H enry addi t i onal t i m e t o pr epar e. T he tr i al j udge deni ed herr eques tf or t he sam e reas on he deni ed herr eques tw i th r egar d t o t he unt i m el y s uppl ement ed document s . B as ed on the r ecor d, thi s C our tcannots ay thatthe tr i al
cou rtabu sed i t s di scr et i on bo th by ex cl ud i ng D i al as a w i tness and den ying S and ra’ s r equ est fo r a c o n tin u a n c e . Iss u e s I, II, a n d III a re w ith o u t m e rit. I V. T HE T RI AL CO UR T AB US E D I TS DI S CR E T I ON I N T HE EQUI TABLE- PRO PER TY DI STRI BU TI ON S ET F OR TH I N I TS F I N A L J U D G M E N T . ¶23. Sandr a ave r s thatthe tr i al cour ter r ed i n the equi t abl e di s tr i but i on of the pr operty of the part i es , as ther e w er e a num berof di s cr epanc i es betw een the tr i al court ’ s f i nal f i ndi ngs

### 11

and the t es t i m ony attr i al
. She m ai nt ai ns thatt he t r i al court ’ s f i ndi ngs ar e nots uppor t ed by
s u b s ta n tia l c re d ib le e v id e n c e , a n d s h o u ld b e o v e rt u rn e d
. ¶24. Fordomest i c m att er s on appea l , thi s Courti s r equi r ed t o r es pectthe f i ndi ngs of

f act
m a d e b y a c h a n c e llo r s u p p o rt e d b y c re d ib le e v id e n c e a n d n o t m a n if e s tly w ro n g . N

ew s om
v. Ne w s o m, 5 5 7 S o . 2 d 5 1 1 , 5 1 4 (M is s . 1 9 9 0 ). ¶25. T he d i vis i on o f m ar i t al as s et s i s governed by He m s le y v. He m s le

y, 639 So. 2d 909 ( M i s s . 1994) , and Fer

gus on v. Fer

gus on, 639 So. 2d 921, ( M i s s . 1994)
. T he cha ncel l or
m u s t fir s t id e n tif

y w h e th e r t h e p ro p e rt y to b e d iv id e d is m a ri ta l o r n o n m a ri ta l. Hem s ley, 639 So. 2d at915. T he cha ncel l ors houl d then empl oy the fol l ow i ng fa ct or s i n arr i vi ng atan
e q u itab le d iv isio n o f m a rital a ss e ts: (1) S u b stan ti al co n tr ibu ti o n t o th e ac cu m u lat ion of the p rop erty, w ith fac tors t o be cons i der ed s uch as a ) di r ectori ndi r ecteconomi c contr i but i on t o the acqui s i t i on of

the pr operty, b) cont r i but i on t o t he s t abi l i ty and harm ony of the m ar i t al and f

ami l y r el at i ons hi ps as m eas ur ed by qual i ty, quant i ty of t i m e s pent on f ami l y dut i es and dur at i on of the mar r i age, and c) con t r i but i on t o the educa t i on, tr ai ni ng orotheracc om pl i s hm entbear i ng on the ea rni ng pow erof the s pous e ac cumul at i ng the a s s et s ; ( 2) degr ee t o w hi ch ea ch s pous e has expende d, w i thdr aw n orotherw i s e di s pos ed of m ar i t al as s et s and any pr i or di s tr i but i on of s uch as s et s by agr eement , decr ee orot herw i s e; (3) m arketval ue 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 d istrib u tio n ; (4 ) v a lu e o f a ss e ts notor di nar i l y, abs enteq ui t abl e f act or s t o the contr ary, s ubj ectt o s uch di s tr i but i on, s uch as pr operty br oughtt o the mar r i age by t he part i es and pr operty 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 othereconomi c cons equences , an d cont r actual orl egal c o n se q u e n c e s to th ird p a rties , o f th e p ro p o se d d istrib u tio n ; ( 6 ) th e e x ten t to w h ich p ro p e rty d iv isio n m a y , w ith e q u ity to b o th p a rties , b e u til ize d to el i m i nat e per i odi c payment s and otherpot ent i al sources of f utur e f r i ct i on betw een the part i es ; ( 7) the needs of the part i es f

orf i nanci al s ecur i ty w i th due r egar d t o the combi nat i on of a s s et s , i ncome and earni ng capa ci ty; and ( 8) any o th e r f a c to r w h ic h in e q u ity s h o u ld b e c o n s id e re d
.

### Acco rdin g to our calculatio n, th e Equitytotal sh ou ld readas $1 ,18 7,2 77
. 4 

### 12 Fe r g u s o n , 639 So. 2d at928. ¶26. I n the tr i al cou rt ’s f i ndi ngs of f

act and concl us i ons of l aw , the val ue of the mar i t al est at e, supp l i ed b y b oth docu m entary an d o ral evidence, w as descri bed as f oll ow s: 1
. R e a l E sta te H o m e a n d 2 8 0 A c re s o f P ro p e rty on Stum p R i dge R oad V al ue: $ 1, 525, 000 4 D ebt : $ 337, 723 E qui ty: $ 1, 205, 000
C ondom i ni um atO r ange Beach V al ue: $ 420, 000 D ebt : $ 160, 000 E qui ty: $ 260, 000 2. A ut om obi l es C hevr ol et V al ue: $ 12, 000 D ebt : $ 9, 050 E qui ty: $ 2, 950 2001 L i ncol n N avi gat or V al ue: $ 18, 000 D ebt : $ 8, 500 E qui ty: $ 9, 500 1927 W i l l i s K ni ght V al ue: $ 10, 000 D ebt : $ 0 E qui ty: $ 10, 000 2003 C adi l l ac Esc al ade V al ue: $ 25, 000 D ebt : $ 18, 075 E qui ty: $ 6, 925 1984 For d F- 150 V al ue: $ 1, 500 D ebt : $ 0

### 13 E qui ty: $ 1, 500

3. H ous ehol d G oods and Furni s hi ngs

L aw n M ow er $ 1, 000 Four
- w heel er $ 1, 000 G ol f cart $ 2, 000 Fur ni tur e ( ant i que) $ 35, 000 J ew el r y $ 5, 000 E qui pm ent( bus i nes s ) $ 128, 000 G uns $ 7, 000 R emai ni ng hous ehol d f urni tur e $ 85, 000 C om put er$ 150 4
. B a n k A c c o u n ts

Sandr a I rby ( B ank Pl us ) $ 14, 000 Sandr a I rby ( V i s i on B ank) $ 2, 500 H enry I rby ( B ank Pl us ) $ 126 H enry I rby ( C i t i zens B ank) $ 176 H enry I rby ( H er i t age Bank) $ 1, 540 5
. M isc . P ro p e rty

B ul l dozer V al ue: $ 20, 000. 00 D ebt : $ 20, 000. 00 E qui ty: $ 0 C as e V al ue: $ 30, 000. 00 D ebt : $ 30, 000. 00 E qui ty: $ 0 D enbury R es our ces ( O i l and G as ) V al ue: $56, 000. 00 G ol d M as t erM i ni ng V al ue: 0 E q u ity in h o m e d ee d ed b y S an d ra to d a u g h ter M e lissa B re e d lo v e in 2006 at130 L andf

or d C ove. V al ue: $ 75, 000. 00

### Acco rding t o the financ ia l st at em ent s, the cor re ct debt am ount is $160, 000, as is 5 

### correctlyden otedun der th e real estate valu ation , sup ra . 14 A G E dw ar ds A ccount( Sandr a) V al ue: $ 2, 583. 06 6
. D e b ts Feder al L and B ank ( H om e) $ 7, 382. 25

Feder al L and B ank ( H om e) $ 40, 984. 86 Feder al L and B ank ( H om e) $ 170, 751. 30 Feder al L and B ank ( H om e) $ 118, 605. 52 H er i t age Bank ( H enry) $ 48, 293. 67 H er i t age Bank ( H enry) $ 9, 780. 00 A m er i can Expr es s ( H enry) $ 1, 600. 00 G M A C ( H enry C adi l l ac Esc al ade) $ 18, 075. 00 C has e M or t gage ( O r ange Beach Condo) $ 130, 000. 00 5 Pr i or i ty O ne B ank ( equi pm entl oan at B ack Cl i ni c) $ 62, 000. 00 T rus t m ark ( Sandr a Li ncol n N avi gat or ) $ 14, 000. 00 V i s i on B ank $ 43, 000. 00 7
. O ther D eb ts N o t L ist ed E lsew h ere

T axes ow ed t o I nt ernal R evenue Ser vi ce $ 104, 130. 90 (plu s interest an d p en alt ies) ¶ 2 7
. H a v in g ide n tifie d th e m a ri ta l p ro p e rt y , th e tr ia l c o u rt fo u n d th a t a n e q u ita b le di s tr i but i on of

the m ar i t al e s t at e, bas ed on the evi dence s ubm i t t ed attr i al , w oul d r equi r e the f ol l ow i ng di vi s on:

It em H en ry S an d ra 2003 C adi l l ac Esc al ade $9, 500. 00 2001 L i ncol n N avi gat or $8, 000. 00 1932 C hevr ol et $2, 950. 00 1927 W i l l i s K ni ght $10, 000. 00 L aw n M ow er $1, 000. 00

### 15

Four
- w heel er $1, 000. 00 G ol f cart $2, 000. 00 C om put er $150. 00 A G E dw ar ds A ccount( Sandr a) $2, 583. 06 E q u ity in h o m e d e e d e d b y S a n d ra to daught erM el i s s a B r eedl ove i n 2006 at130 L angf

or d C ove, B r andon, M s . $75, 000. 00 T he B ack Cl i ni c $66, 000. 00 N on- ant i que Fur ni tur e $85, 000. 00 T O T A L : $24, 000. 00 $238, 733. 06 ¶28
. In i t s f

i nal j ud gm ent grant i ng the pa rt i es a d i vo rce based on i rr econ ci l able dif fer ences, th e trial c o u rt fo u n d th a t ea c h p a rty sh o u ld h a v e u se , p o ss e ss io n , a n d o w n e rsh ip o f th e ir per s onal pr opert y and jew el r y. T he tr i al courtrul ed thatthe r eal pr operty ( the pr operty at S tum p R i dg e R oad and the O range B each c on do m i nium ) w ere t o b e sol d, w ith the fi rs t $214, 283. 06 of

netpr ocee ds ( af

t ert axes ) f

r om the s al es t o be aw ar ded t o H enry, and the bal ance of

the pr ocee ds di vided fi fty per centt o H enry, and f i f ty per centt o Sandr a. T he obl i gat i ons of

the part i es t o Fede r al Land Bank, V i s i on Bank, a nd the I R S w er e f ound t o be j oi ntdebt s , and w er e or der ed t o be pai d fr om the s al e of the r eal pr operty. T he pr ocee ds f r om the s al e of

the O r ange Beach c ondo w ere t o, f i r s t , pay the not es t o C has e M or t gage,
w i th the r ema i ning b al ance t o be di vi ded equa l l y. H enry w as or der ed t o pay s eventy- f i ve per centof

the f eder al t ax l i en, i ncl udi ng seve nty- f i ve per centof

al l penal t i es and i nt er es tat th e tim e o f th e p a y m e n t, an d S a n d ra w a s o rd e re d to p a y th e re m a in in g tw e n ty -fiv e p e rc e n t, inclu d ing tw en ty-fi v e p erc en t of all p en alt ies a n d interes t at the ti m e o f the p ay m en t. H en ry
w a s a w a rd e d e x c lu siv e o w n e rsh ip o f th e a n tiq u e fu rn itu re in h e rited b y h im , to g e th e r w ith h is personal i t ems, the 2003 C adi l l ac Esc al ade, the 1932 C hevr ol et , the 1927 W i l l i s K ni ght

### 16

veh i cl e, and the g olf

cart . S and ra w as aw arded ex cl usi ve o w nershi p o f herpersonal i t em s, the B ac k C li n ic, n o n -an ti q u e fu rnitu re in the h o m e, co m p u ter, fo u r-w h ee ler, law n m o w er, 2001 L i ncol n N avi gat or , and herA G E dw ar ds account . F i nal l y, the tr i al courtor der ed that the f unds f r om the D enbury R es our ces ( oi l and gas l eas e) acc ou nt w ere t o pay curr entt he
no t es on the real propert i es t o p reventfor ecl osure du ri ng theirl i st i ng s.

A . S a n d ra ’s re sp o n sibil ity fo r tw en ty-five p er ce n t of a Fede r alTax Li e n of

$104, 13 0. 90 ( pl us i nt e r e s t and penal t i es ) due t o a busi nes s ow ned by H enry. ¶29. I n hi s f

i ndi ng of f act s and concl us i ons of l aw , t he t r i al j udge f ound the f

eder al t ax l i en that h ad b ee n asse ssed ag ains t a bu sine ss o w n ed b y H en ry to b e a joint de b t. T h o u g h H en ry
o w n ed th e b u sin e ss, and w as p ri m aril y resp o n sible for inc u rri n g the lien, th e tri al co u rt d e ter m in e d th a t b o th p a rties n o n e th e les s e n jo y e d th e fru its o f th is b u sin e ss a n d th a t th e a ss e ts of both part i es w oul d ha ve been r educe d e qual l y, ha d the t axes been pa i d t i m el y. T he tr i al
courtal so f

ound t hatboth part i es j oi nt l y s pentthe pr ocee ds f r om a s ett l ementthatw as
r ece i ved f

r om a l aw s ui tf

i l ed t o recove rthes e t axes . T he tr i al courtther ef or e apport i oned S a n d ra tw e n ty -fiv e p e rc e n t o f th e d e b t. ¶ 3 0
. C iti n g th e In ter n a l R e v e n u e C o d e , S a n d ra a rg u e s th a t, be c a u s e s h e c a n n o t b e h e ld
cr i m i nal l y r es pons i bl e for H enry’ s w i l l f ul vi ol at i on of

the f eder al t ax code , the t ax debt
c a n n o t b e c o n s id e re d a jo in t d e b t. ¶ 3 1
. U n d e r M iss iss ip p i law , tax lien s a n d th e c o n se q u e n c e s th e re o f to the m a rital e sta te fa ll underthe Fer

guson fa c to rs . Fe r

g u s o n , 6 3 9 S o . 2 d a t 9 2 8 . A s w a s fo u n d b y th e trial c o u rt,
w hi l e Sandr a may notknow i ngl y have be en the ca us e of i ncurr i ng the t ax l i en i t s el f , s he

### 17

n o n e th e les s b o re so m e r e s p o n sib ili ty a s fa r a s th e m a rital e sta te w a s c o n c e rn e d . In th is C our t ’ s opi ni on, the t r i al cour t ’ s deci s i on t hatS andr a be r es pons i bl e f ortw enty- f

i ve per cent
o f t h is d e b t f

ro m h e r d iv id e d s h a re o f t h e m a ri ta l e s ta te is w ith o u t e rr o r. B . D i d t he t ri al court err i n f i ndi ng t hat S andra acqui red a s a ma r i t a l a s s e t a p p r o x i ma t e l y $ 7 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 i n a h o me s he had ow ned pri or t o t he m arri age? ¶32. T he tr i al court f

ound the hom e at 130 L angf or d C ove t o be a m ar i t al as s et . A l though S a n d ra h a d o w n e d th e h o m e p rio r to th e m a rria g e , sh e b e g a n p a y in g th e m o rtg a g e w ith
m arit al fun d s follow ing the m arriage
. B ase d on he r da u g h ter’s t esti m o n y at tri al, the c o u rt det erm i ned thatther e w as $75, 000. 00 of equi ty i n the home. I n m aki ng i t s det erm i nat i on, the tr i al courtt ook i nt o consi derat i on the f actthatSandr a al s o had pur chas ed a numberof
res i den t i al l ots , i ncludi ng a con do m i nium , w i th m ari t al funds. S he lat er s old these prop ert i es, and w as unabl e t o acc ountf orthe pr ocee ds
. T he r ecor d s uppor t s thi s f i ndi ng. C . T he t ri al court ’ s f i ndi ng t hat Sand ra acqui red approxi m at el y $193, 000. 00 i n a pers onal i nj ury law su it . ¶33
. T h e tri al courtf ou nd that S and ra had acquir ed $1 9 3 , 0 0 0 from a p erso n al injury law su it. S a n d ra co rre c tly p o in ts o u t th a t th e am o u n t, as w a s s tip u late d to b y H e n ry a t trial,
w as actual l y $156, 597. 08. A tt r i al , Sandr a cl ai m ed thats he had s pent$111, 657. 57 outof her per s onal i nj ury s ett l ementaw ar d on m ar i t al debt s i ncur r ed dur i ng the part i es ’ i ni t i al
s epar at i on, a nd ther ef

or e s oughta c r edi ti n thata m ount . T he tr i al c our tc oncl ud ed tha t Sandr a w as notent i t l ed t o a cr edi t , as s he had f ai l ed t o pr ovi de the courtw i th a ny acc ount i ng
o f t h e s e a lle g e d e x p e n d itu re s .

### 18

¶3 4
. T h at aside , the re co rd a lso sh o w s tha t th e tri al co u rtd id n o t t ak e S an d ra’s injury aw ard i t s el f i nt o cons i der at i on i n i t s equi t abl e di vi s i on of the mar i t al asset s . T hus , the mi s s t at ed total w as w h o ll y inco n seq u en ti al t o the e n d resu lt , an d there fore h arm less erro r.

D . D i d t he t r i alc our t e r r i n f i ndi ng t hat Sandr a s pe nt f or her own p ers onal use approxi m at el y $225, 091. 08 of H enry’ s m oney wh i ch he acqui red f rom a pers onal inju ry law su it ? ¶ 3 5
. Th e t r i a l c o u r tf o u n d th a tHe n ry h a d r e c e i v e d a p p r o x i ma t e l y $ 4 0 0 , 4 9 1
. 0 8 f r o m a per s onal i nj ury l aw s ui t . A ccor di ng t o the r ecor d, H enry had pl ace d the f unds i nt o a j oi nt
acc ountw i th Sandr a. Sandr a ther eaf t errem ov ed t he f

unds and pl ace d them i n a di f f er ent
acc ounta nd pu tthe na me of he ryo un ge s tda ug ht e rf r om an othe rmarr i a ge on the a c c ount “PO D ” ( pai d- on- death)
. I n J une 2004, Sandr a pl ace d H enry’ s name on t he ac count , w hi ch atthatpoi nthad a ba l ance of $278, 019. 67. T he f

ol l ow i ng O ct ober , H enry re m oved $175, 000 fr o m th a t a c c o u n t a n d p la c e d it in to a n a c c o u n t w ith a n o th e r b a n k
. ¶ 3 6
. T h e tri a l co u rt fo u n d tha t S a n d ra h a d s p e n t $ 2 2 5 ,0 9 1 .0 8 o f H e n ry ’s s e ttle m e n t. H ow ever , the tr i al courtal s o m ade a Fer guson fi ndi ng and concl uded thatthe money f r om H e n ry ’s s e ttle m e n t w a s a m a ri ta l a s s e t, d iv id in g it e v e n ly b e tw e e n th e p a rt ie s . Fer guson , 639 So. 2d. at928. T hus , si m i l art o S andr a’ s ar gum entre gar di ng hersett l ementaw ar d, t he tr i al court ’ s f

i ndi ng on thi s poi ntw as i ncons equent i al t o the f i nal di vi s i on. E . W het her t he t ri al court err ed i n fai l i ng t o al l ot H enry va l ue i n t he e qui t abl e di s t r i but i on f or t he t r ac t or and bul l doz er. ¶37. D ue t o the debti ncurr ed on ea ch i t em, the tr i al courtas s es s ed no val ue on ei ther
. T he

### 19

r ecor d s uppor t s thi s f

i ndi ng. F . T he t ri al c ourt e rre d i n accept i ng H enry’ s s pecul at i ve val ue of t he B ack C l i ni c at $128, 000. 00. ¶38. T he onl y evi dence pr es ent ed t o the tr i al court as t o the val ue of the B ack C l i ni c w as the uncontr overt ed t es t i m ony of H enry. T he chanc el l or s of thi s s t at e ar e notr es pons i bl e f or the evi dence thati s pr es ent ed at t ri al
. A s the C our tof A ppeal s has s ai d, “i ti s i ncumbent upon the part i es , and notthe cha ncel l or , t o pr epar e evi dence t ouchi ng on mat t er s pert i nent t o the i s s ues t o be tr i ed. ” D unaw ay v. D unaw ay, 749 So. 2d 1112, 1118 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 1999)
. W her e a pa r ty f ai l s to provi de i nf

or m at i on, the cha ncel l ori s ent i t l ed t o pr ocee d on th e b e s t in fo rm a ti o n a v a il a b le
. I d. T he val ue of

the B ack Cl i ni c w as a f actual f i ndi ng
s u p p o rt e d b y c re d ib le e v id e n c e . N ew s om , 5 5 7 S o . 2 d a t 5 1 4
. G . T h e trial co u rt er re d i n fail ing to co n side r fu n d s in H e n ry ’s b a n k a cc o u n ts i n re lati o n to th e e q u it a b le di s t r i but i on. ¶39. Sandr a as s ert s that the chanc el l or di d not cons i der al l of H enry’ s bank acc ount s , and thatthe ac tual amount s i n the ac count s l i s t ed i n H enry’ s f i nanci al s t at ements ubm i t t ed t o the tr ia l c o u rt w e re w ro n g . ¶40. A ccor di ng t o t he recor d, h ow ever, S and ra provided n o evi dence attr i al t o the
c o n tr a ry . T h u s , th is p o in t is w ith o u t m e ri t. D unaw ay , 7 4 9 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 1 8
.

H . T h e tria l co u r t er r e d in g iv in g H e n r y th e 1 9 2 8 W ill is K ni ght vehi cl e purchas ed by San dra.

### 20

¶41. T he tr i al courtf

ound the W i l l i s K ni ghtvehi cl e t o be mar i t al pr operty and apport i oned th e as se t t o H e n ry as p a rt o f th e eq u itab le d istrib u tio n o f th e p ro p e rty . Fe r g u s o n , 639 So. 2d at928. T he r ecor d s uppor t s thi s f i ndi ng. ¶4 2. I n c on s i de r i ng t he Fer guson f a c to rs , w e c a n n o t sa y th a t th e trial c o u rt m a n ife stly
e rr e d in th e d iv is io n o f t h e m a ri ta l a s s e ts . I d. V. W HETH ER THE TRI AL CO URT ER RE D W HEN I T DENI ED S AND RA’ S M OTI ON TO DEC LARE THE J UDG M ENT NULL AND VOI D. ¶43
. S an d ra avers that the proceed i ng s of the divorce did no t com ply w i th the s tatu tory
r equi r ement s of

M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 93-5- 2. S he ar gues that , des pi t e the part i es havi ng ent er ed i nt o a cons entagr eementt o di vor ce on the gr ound of i rr econc i l abl e di f

f er ence s att he begi nni ng of

the hear i ng on M ay 4, 2006, the part i es neverw i thdr ew the f aul tgr ounds s t at ed in the iro ri g inal p lead ing s. T h ere fore , ac co rdin g to S an d ra, pu rsua n t t o S ec ti o n 9 3 -5-2 (5),
w hi ch pr ovi des that“no di vor ce s hal l be gr ant ed on t he gr ound of i rr econc i l abl e di f f er ence s wh e r e th e r e h a s b e e n a c o n t e s to rd e n i a l
. . . [ u n l e s s ] th e c o n t e s to rd e n i a l h a s b e e n wi th d r a wn
orc ance l l ed by the party f i l i ng the s ame by l eave and or derof the court , ” the f

i nal j udgm ent
aw ar di ng the par t i es a di vor ce on sa i d grounds i s voi d. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 93- 5- 2( 5) ( R ev. 2 0 0 4 ). ¶44. H enry’ s es t at e ( “Est at e”) ar gues , how ever , thatw hen r ead i n i t s en t i r e ty, Se c t i on 93
- 5- 2( 5) i s exce pt ed by subs ect i on (3) of the st atut e, w hi ch al l ow s part i es t o cons entt o a di vor ce
o n the g rou n d o f irrec o n cil ab le d if feren ce s a n d to sti p u lat e to w h at i ssu es th ey w ish the co u rt t o deci de f

orthem. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 93- 5- 2( 3) ( R ev. 2004)
. T he Est at e cont ends thatt he

### 21

part i es cl earl y co nsented to divorce on the grou nd o f i rr econ ci l able di ff erences on the fi rs t day of the hea r i ng, and subm i t s t hatatno t i m e di d Sandr a as k f orl eave t o w i thdr aw her
cons ent , nordi d s he r ai s e the i s s ue i n herM ot i on f orR econsi der at i on, and thats he w i s hes to d o s o n o w o n ly b e c a u s e H e n ry h a s p a s s e d a w a y . ¶4 5
. A t th e b e g in n in g o f th e tria l, a len g th y e x c h a n g e o cc u rred reg ard ing d isco v ery viol at i on s and the adm i ssi bil i ty o f evi d en ce . T he p art i es then request ed a b ri ef r ecess, f ol l ow i ng w hi ch Sandr a and H enry j oi nt l y f i l ed w i th the courta w r i t t en i ns trum entent i t l ed C ons ent of P ar t i es t o D i vor ce on I r r econc i labl e D i

f f er ence s . I n open cour t , t he tr i al j udge
re a d in to th e re c o rd th a t b o th p a rties h a d re q u e ste d th a t a d iv o rc e b a s e d o n irre c o n c ilab le di f f er ence s be gr ant ed, and thatthey had agr eed t o submi tt o the courtf ori t s det erm i nat i on
a ll m a tte rs o f r e a l a n d p e rs o n a l p ro p e rt y , a n d a ll o th e r t h in g s lis te d in th e in s tru m e n t. ¶ 4 6
. R e v iew o f th e d o c u m e n t sh o w s th a t ea c h p a rty , u p o n a d v ice o f c o u n se l, vo lu n tar ily agr ee d t o b e bo un d b y the c ou r t ’ s de c i s i on a nd un de r s t oo d tha ti tw ou l d b e a l aw f ul j udgm ent , a nd thatthe cons entgr ant ed coul d notbe w i thdr aw n by ei therparty w i thoutl eave of the court . T he documentw as s i gned by b oth part i es and thei ratt orneys . T he r ecor d, h o w e v e r, co n tain s n o m e n tio n o f a n o rd e r b e in g iss u e d o r re q u e ste d a llo w in g th e p a rties to
w i thdr aw orcanc el the cont es tordeni al r eques t ed by eac h i n thei rr es pect i ve compl ai ntand
c o u n ter c o m p lain t fo r d iv o rc e . N o r d id S a n d ra se e k lea v e o f c o u rt to w ith d ra w h e r c o n se n t. ¶47. I n denyi ng Sandr a’ s m ot i on t o s eta s i de the j udgm entas voi d, the cha ncel l or r eas oned as f oll ow s:

### 22 B y th e c le a r a n d u n a m b ig u o u s la n g u a g e o f t h e s ta tu te , 9 3 -5 -2 (5 ), a d ivo rce o n the g rou n d s o f i rreco n cil ab le differen ce s m ay b e g ran ted o n ly w her e and i f

cont es t s ordeni al s have be en w i thdr aw n orcanc el l ed w i th l eave and by or derof

the court . T he exc ept i on t o thi s i s cont ai ned in t he fi r s t10 w o rd s o f 9 3

– 5 -2 (5 ): “ E x c e p t as o th e rw ise p ro v id e d in su b se c tio n (3 ) o f th is se c tio n . . . . ” It is th e o p in io n o f th is c o u rt th a t in w riting th e sta tu te in th is m anner , the l egi s l atur e i nt ended thatw hen the part i es e xecut e a cons entunder s ubs ect i on ( 3) , the r equi r ement s of s ubs ect i on ( 5) ar e notre qui r ed. L ogi cal l y, i f the part i es cons entt o a di vor ce on the gr ound of i rr econc i l abl e di f

f er ence s and meetthe r equi r ement s of s ubs ect i on ( 3) , s uch an a ctnece s s ar i l y s how s and est abli shes that the part i es i ntend t o and do w i thd raw al l con t est s and d enial s. Itis th e o p inion o f th is co u rtthat the re q u ire m en ts of su b sec ti o n (5) a re a p p lic a b le o n ly w h e re a d iv o rc e c o m m e n c e s a s a c o n tes ted d iv o rc e w ith gr ounds as s ert ed and i s concl uded w i th a w r i t t en agreem entcont ai ni ng adequa t e and s uf

f i ci ent provi s i on f

orthe cus t ody and mai nt enanc e of any chil dren an d for the set t l em ent of any property ri gh t s bet w een the p art i es. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 93- 5- 2. M or eover , as s um i ng the pl ai nt i f f i s c orr ecti n herm ot i on and w er e the c o u rt to g ra n t th e p lain tiff’s m o tio n , su c h w o u ld e n c o u ra g e p a rties to e n ter in to a cons entpur s uantt o s ubs ect i on ( 3) , aw ai tthe deci s i on of the tr i al court , and th e n a ss e rt th a t th e ju d g m e n t is v o id
. G e n e ra lly , m a tters n o t o b jec ted to c o n tem p o ra n e o u sly w ith th e o c c u rre n c e c a n n o t l a ter b e co n sid e re d err o r. T h is c o u rt fin d s th a t th e p lain tiff’s a ss e rt io n th a t th e p a rties , h e rse lf in c lu d e d , d id notcompl y w i th s ubs ect i on ( 5) s houl d and had t o have be en m ade atthe comm ence m entof

the tr i al , notaf

t er 3 d ays of

pr oof and t es t i m ony, and b e c a u se o f h e r d iss a tisfa c tio n w ith th e d e c isio n o f th e trial c o u rt. S u c h a c laim s houl d and mustbe made atthe t i m e the al l eged e rr ororf ai l ur e occurr ed, not p o st ju d g m e n t. ¶48. W e agr ee. Sect i on 93- 5- 2 governs di vor ces bas ed on i rr econc i l abl e di f f er ence s , and sta tes in p e rtin e n t p a rt a s fo llo w s:

( 3) I f the part i es ar e unabl e t o agr ee upon a dequat e and s uf f i ci ent pr ovi s i ons f

orthe cus t ody and mai nt enanc e of any chi l dr en of

t hatm arr i age orany pr operty r i ght s betw een them, they may con s entt o a di vor ce on the gr ound of

i r r econc i l abl e di f

f er ence s and perm i tthe courtt o de ci de the i s s ues upon w hi ch they ca nnotagr ee. Such consent m ustbe i n w r i t i ng, s i gned by b o th p a rties p e rso n a lly , m u st sta te th a t th e p a rties v o lu n tar ily c o n se n t to p e rm it the courtt o deci de s uch i s s ues , w hi ch s hal l be s peci f i cal l y setf

orth i n s uch

### 23

cons ent , and t hatt he par t i es under s t and thatthe dec i s i on of the courts hal l be b in d in g a n d law fu l ju d g m e n t. S u c h c o n se n t m a y n o t b e w ith d ra w n b y a p a rty w i thoutl eave of

the courtaf

t erthe courthas comm ence d any pr ocee di ng, in c lu d in g th e h e a rin g o f a n y m o tio n o r o th e r m a tter p e rta in in g th e re to
. T he f ai l ur e orr ef

us al of ei therparty t o agr ee a s t o adequa t e and s uf f i ci ent pr ovi s i ons f

orthe cus t ody and ma i nt enanc e of any chi l dr en of

thatm arr i age orany prope r ty ri ght s bet w een the part i es , orany port i on of s uch i s s ues , orthe f ai l ur e orr ef

us al of any party t o cons entt o perm i tthe courtt o deci de s uch i s s u e s , s h a l l n o tb e u s e d a s e v i d e n c e , o ri n a n y ma n n e r , a g a i n s ts u c h p a r ty . No di vor ce s hal l be gr ant ed pur s uantt o thi s s ubs ect i on unt i l al l m att er s i nvol vi ng c u sto d y a n d m a in ten a n c e o f a n y c h ild o f th a t m a rria g e a n d p ro p e rty rig h ts betw een the part i es r ai s ed by the pl eadi ng have be en ei theradj udi cat ed by the courtoragr eed upon by t he par t i es and found t o be adequat e and s uf f i ci entby th e c o u rt a n d in c lu d e d in th e ju d g m e n t o f d iv o rc e . ( 5) Exc e pta s o the r w i s e p r ov i de d i n s ub s e c t i on ( 3) o f thi s s e c t i on , no d ivo rce sh all b e g ran ted o n the g rou n d o f irre co n cil ab le differen ce s w h ere ther e has been a cont esto r de ni al ; pr ovi ded, how ever , thata di vor ce may be gr a nt e d o n the gr ou nd s of i r r e c on c i l a bl e di f

f e r e nc e s w he r e the r e ha s be en a cont es tor deni al , i f

the cont es tordeni al has been w i thdr aw n orcanc el l ed by th e p a rty filing sa m e b y lea v e a n d o rd e r o f th e c o u rt. ( 6) I r r econc i l abl e di f

f er ence s m ay be a s s ert ed as a s ol e gr ound f or di vor ce oras an al t ernat e gr ound f ordi vor ce w i th any othercaus e f ordi vor ce s etouti n Sect i on 93- 5- 1. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 3 -5-2 (R ev . 2 0 0 4 ). ¶49. T he l egi s l at i ve purpos e behi nd Sect i on 93- 5- 2 “i s t o pr ovi de a l es s pai nf ul al t ernat i ve t o the tr adi t i onal gr ounds f ordi vor ce w hi ch r equi r e[ s ]
. . . part i es t o publ i cl y puton pr oof of
s ens i t i ve pr i vat e mat t er s . ” G r ie rv. G r ie r , 6 1 6 S o . 2 d 3 3 7 , 3 3 9 (M iss
. 1 9 9 3 ). T h e s ta tu te
e x p re ss ly p e rm its p a rties to “ b a rg a in o n th e p re m ise th a t re a c h in g a n a g re e m e n t w ill a v o id the nec es s i ty of

pr es ent i ng pr oof

attr i al
. ” I

d . “T he cornerst on e of

the pr oces s i s m utual
cons ent . ” I

d . T o e n s u re th a t e n d , th e sta tu te c o n ta in s c e rt a in c o n d itio n s . P erkin s v. P erkin s, 78 7 S o. 2d 12 56 , 12 61 (M i ss. 20 01 ) ( ci t at i on s om i t t ed). T he ch i ef of these co nd i t i on s i s,Sect i on 93- 5- 2 w as a m ended i n 1990 t o pr ovi de f ors ubs ect i on ( 3) , w hi ch Ma ss in g ill 6 te rm e d th e “ tr ia l b y m u tu a l c o n s e n t” p ro v is io n . Ma s s in g ill, 594 S o. 2d at1176; M i s s . C ode A n n . § 9 3 -5-2 (R ev . 2 0 0 4 ). 

### 24 “thatnei thers pous e cont es ti t s gr ant i ng. ” I d. ( quot i ng Sanfor d v. Sanfor d, 749 So. 2d 353, 3 5 7 (M is s . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 9 ))
. ¶5 0. Suc h w a s the u nd e r s t a nd i ng i n Ma s s in g ill v . Ma ss in g ill , 59 4 S o. 2d 11 73 (M i ss. 1992) , i n w hi ch the par t i es, h avi ng f ai l ed t o pr ove a f

aul t - bas ed di vor ce, w er e gr ant ed a di vor ce ba s ed on i r r econc i l abl e di f f er ence s , havi ng pl eade d thatgr oun d i n t he al t ernat i ve. I n r ev e r s i ng , thi s Courth e l d tha ts i mpl y pl e a di ng the g r ou nd i s n ote no ug h t o s at i s f y t he
co n sen t pro v isio n s re q u ir ed b y su b sec ti o n (3). Id
. at1176. T hes e pr ovi s i ons ar e thatt he 6
cons ent(1) m ustb e i n w r i t i ng and s i gned by both part i es ; ( 2) m us ts t at e thatthe part i es vol unt ar i l y cons entt o perm i tthe courtt o deci de the i s s ues u po n w hich t he part i es cannot agr ee; ( 3) m us ts peci f

i cal l y s etf

or th the i s s ues upon w hi ch the part i es ar e unabl e t o agr ee; and ( 4) musts t at e thatthe part i es under s t and thatthe dec i s i on of the courts hal l be a bi ndi ng
a n d la w fu l ju d g m e n t. I d. at1177. T he C our tf ound that , ev en though both part i es had
r eques t ed a di vor ce ba s ed on i r r econc i l abl e di f f er ence s , the hus band nonethel es s had deni ed thatthe w i f

e w as ent i t l ed t o a di vor ce on t hi s ground, and had al s o fi l ed a compl ai ntcl ai m i ng fa u lt g ro u n d s . Id
. at1778. B y vi r tue of s ubs ect i on ( 5) , ther e r emai ned both a con t es tand d e n ia l. I d. T he C our topi ned, “[ a] ccor di ngl y, the f act s negat e any c oncl usi on ther e w as
m ut ual cons ent

t o a di vor ce on the gr ound of i rr econc i l abl e di f

f er ence s . ” I

d. ( ci t at i onB eca us e t he pa r t i e s w e r e no ts ub mi t t i ng a ny i s s ue s f orthe tr i a l c ou r tt o d e c i de, 7 s u b s e c tio n (3 ) d id n o t a p p ly
. 

### 25 om i t t ed) ( emphasi s a dded)
. W i thouts peaki ng a ny f ur theron s ubs ect i on ( 5) , the Ma ss in g ill C o u rt c o n c lu d e d o n th is p o in t w ith th e fo llo w in g : [ I ] ti s conce i vabl e the r equi r ed mu tual cons enti n w r i t i ng co uld have be en acc ompl i s he d b y wr i t t e n s t i pu l a t i on , w r i t t e n a gr e e ment , orby s ome o ther v iable m ea n s e ith er p ri o r to o r d u ri n g the last ap p ea ran ce b efo re the ch an ce ll o r. I d. ¶51. I n Perkins , thi s C our t r ever s ed a chanc el l or ’ s j udgm ent gr ant i ng a di vor ce bas ed on i rr econc i l abl e di f

f er ence s as r eques t ed i n a s et t l ementagr eementbetw een the s pous es f or i t s f ai l ure t o com pl y w i th a numberof s t atut ory r equi r ement s s etf or th by Sect i on 93- 5- 2. Pe r kins , 787 S o. 2d at1264- 65. T hough s ubs ect i on ( 3) w as notati s s ue, the Perkins 7 C o u rt ’s op inion n o n ethe less ex p o u n d ed o n so m e o f Massin gil l ’s im p lic a tio n s . I

d. at1263. O f r el evan ce w as P erkin s’s tr eatm entof a poi ntar gued by the appe l l ee i n counter i ng t he
a p p e lla n t’ s c h a rg e th a t t h e a p p e lle e h a d fa ile d to w ith d ra w h is o ri g in a l f a u lt g ro u n d s . I

d. at 1262. T he appe l l ee a r gued thats ubs ect i on ( 5) w as m etw hen the s ett l ementagr eementw as
s ig n e d
. I

d. Perkins r es ponded onl y by s ayi ng thatthe C our ti nt erpr et s s ubs ect i on ( 5) as p e rta in in g to c a se s w h e re irre c o n c ilab le d iffe re n c e s h a d b e e n p lea d e d in th e a ltern a tiv e to fa u lt g ro u n d s , w h ic h n e ith e r o f t h e P e rk in s e s h a d d o n e . I d. a t 1 2 6 2
. ¶52. T he Perkins C our tthen addr es s ed t he app el l ee’s m ai n cont ent i on thateac h of the pr ocedur al s hor t comi ngs i n the mat t erw er e t echni cal f l aw s and s houl d be cons i der ed h a rm le s s e rr o r, c la im in g th a t th e a p p e lla n t h a d fa ile d to s h o w p re ju d ic e . I d. at 12 6 2 -63
. In

### 26

s o d o in g , Perkins acknow l edged thi s Court ’ s vol i t i on, i n s om e i ns t ance s , t o a f f i r m a l ow er
c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t g ra n tin g a d iv o rc e b a se d o n irre c o n c ila b le d iffe re n c e s d e sp ite fa ilu re to fo llo w c e rt a in p ro c e d u ra l s a fe g u a rd s . I d. a t 1 2 6 2 -6 4 . H o w e v e r, th e C o u rt th e n e x p re ss ly in d ic a te d th is is n o t a p p ro p ri a te w h e n a p a rt y ’s s u b s ta n tiv e r ig h ts a re a t i s s u e . Id
. at1264. N o ta b ly , Perkins al s o s t at ed that“[ h] ad ei therparty pl ed i rr econc i l abl e di ff erences as an al t ernat i ve, thi s cas e w oul d be i n l i ne w i th [R ounsavil le v. R ounsavil

le, 732 So. 2d 909 (M is s . 1 9 9 9 )], a n d th e p a rt ie s c o u ld h a v e a g re e d to a p ro p e rt y s e ttle m e n t o n th e d a y o f t ri a l.” I d. a t 1 2 6 4
. R o u n sa v ille uphel d a tr i al court ’ s deci s i on t o gr anta di vor ce ba s ed on i rr econc i l abl e di f

f er ence s w her e, atthe ti m e o f the gr ant i ng of

the di vor ce, the part i es had notent er ed i nt o a pr operty s ett l ement , norha d the tr i al c our ta dj udi cat ed the pr es ent ed i s s ues
a s re q u ir e d u n d e r t h e s ta tu te . R ounsavil le, 732 So. 2d at911 ( not i ng that , al though thi s w as
err or , i tw as harm l es s err ors i nce the appe l l antdemonstr at ed no pr ej udi ce w hi ch w oul d m ake th e e rr o r r e v e rs ib le ). ¶ 5 3
. W e fin d th a t th e fa c ts h e re d iffe r f ro m th o se w h ich d e te rm in e d th e o u tco m e in b o th Ma ss in g ill and Perkins , as the r ecor d i n thi s cas e cl ear l y s how s m utual cons ent . Sandr a and H enry f ul l y compl i ed w i th the pr ocedur al r equi r ement s s etf or th i n s ubs ect i on ( 3)
. B ot h,
a lo n g w ith the ir atto rn e y s, sig n e d the w ritten co n se n t ag re e m e n t; th e ag re e m e n t e x p re ss ly
s t at ed thatbot h part i es vol unt ar i l y co nsent ed t o perm i tthe courtt o deci de the i s s ues upon
w h ich th e y c o u ld n o t ag re e ; itsp e c ifica lly se t fo rth th o se is s u e s ; a n d b o th e x p re ss ly acknow l edged thei runder s t andi ng thatthe dec i si on of the courtw oul d be a bi ndi ng and law fu l ju d g m e n t. T h e a g re e m e n t w a s th e n re a d in to th e re c o rd in o p e n c o u rt. T h is

### 27

di s t i ngui s hes thi s c as e f r om both Ma ss in g ill and Perkins . U n li k e w h at co n ce rne d the C o u rt i n thos e tw o cas es , ourappel l ant ’ s s ubs t ant i ve r i ght s ar e noti n ques t i on. ¶5 4
. It is w e ll u n d erstoo d that d ivo rce in M issi ssipp i is g o v ern ed b y statu te, an d that it s p ro v is io n s m u s t b e s tr ic tly c o m p lie d w ith
. P erkin s, 787 So. 2d at1264. T he pl ai n l anguage of s ubs ect i on ( 5) m andat es thata cont es tordeni al be w i thdr aw n or ca ncel ed, by l eave and
o rde r of the co u rt , b y the p arty w h o fi led th e c o n testo r de n ial
. T h is i s a p roc ed u ral safeg u ard
w h ic h h a s e x is te d w ith in th e fr a m e w o rk o f S e c tio n 9 3 -5 -2 s in c e its p ro m u lg a tio n . See e
. g. A lexa n der v. A lexa n der, 4 9 3 S o . 2 d 9 7 8 , 9 7 9 (M is s . 1 9 8 6 ) ( d is c u s s in g M is s . C o d e A n n . § 93- 5- 2 ( Supp. 1985) )
. H ow ever , the exc ept i on c l aus e, w hi ch w as added i n 1990 w hen the
s t atut e was a mend e d t o pr ov i de f or“ tr i a l b y mutua l c on s e nt , ” c l e a r l y i nd i c a t es t hat
s ubs ect i on ( 5) s houl d be r ead i n conj unct i on w i th s ubs ect i on ( 3)
. O nce the par t i es ful l y and pr oper l y acce ded t o t he pr ocedur al str i ctur es of s ubs ect i on ( 3) , the s af eguar ds pr ovi ded by
s u b s e c tio n (5 ) w e re n o lo n g e r n e c e s s a ry . ¶55. T he tr i al court ’ s deci s i on denyi ng Sandr a’ s m ot i on t o s etasi de the f i nal j udgm ent decr eei ng an i r r econc i l abl e- di f f er ence s di vor ce i s af

f i r m ed. CO NC L US I ON ¶5 6
. F o r th e fo re g o ing reaso n s, th is C o u rtaffi rm s th e jud g m en t o f th e R a n k in C o u n ty C h a n c e ry C o u rt . ¶ 5 7
. AF F I RM ED . W AL L E R, C. J . , CA RL S ON AND GRAV E S , P . J J . , DI CK I NS ON , RA ND OL P H, LA M AR, KI TC HENS AND CHAN DL ER , J J . , CONCUR.