Opinion ID: 1740522
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the chancellor erred in his findings of adultery as the proper grounds for divorce.

Text: ¶ 11. Gary argues that the character of his sexual conduct with Edith Russell was misunderstood by the chancellor. He argues that since the sexual conduct occurred after the physical separation of the parties it should not be considered uncondoned adultery; and therefore, the chancellor should not have granted the divorce on the ground of adultery. ¶ 12. The final judgment of divorce grants Sharon the divorce on the ground of uncondoned adultery pursuant to Miss.Code. Ann. § 93-5-1. Sharon had the burden of proving adultery by clear and convincing evidence. Dillon v. Dillon, 498 So.2d 328, 330 (Miss.1986); Mitchell v. Mitchell, 767 So.2d 1037, 1040 (Miss.Ct. App.2000). She satisfied this burden when, on direct examination, Gary admitted to the adulterous conduct. The record shows no evidence or any attempt by Gary to rebut the admission or to explain the events of the adulterous conduct. `Adultery may be shown by evidence or admissions and either are sufficient to support a decree of divorce.' Holden v. Frasher-Holden, 680 So.2d 795, 799 (Miss.1996) (quoting Jordan v. Jordan, 510 So.2d 131, 132 (Miss.1987)). ¶ 13. Gary raised the issue of his adulterous conduct and attempted to explain the circumstances surrounding such conduct for the first time in his December 4, 2000, Memorandum In Support of Motion for New Trial, or in the Alternative, Motion to Reconsider. Not only did Gary admit to the adulterous conduct during trial, his attorney admitted the conduct was adulterous during the March 27, 2001, hearing on the motion. Gary then, and now, tries to argue that since the adulterous conduct did not cause the separation, then it is not sufficient evidence for a divorce based on uncondoned adultery. ¶ 14. The Legislature did not condition the granting of a divorce on the ground of adultery upon the adulterous conduct actually causing the legal separation of the parties. Miss.Code Ann. § 93-5-1. The statute explains that [i]t shall be no impediment to a divorce that the offended spouse did not leave the marital domicile or separate from the offending spouse on account of the conduct of the offending spouse. Id. § 93-5-4. The [l]aw does not require that ground for divorce, such as adultery, arise before separation. Talbert v. Talbert, 759 So.2d 1105, 1110, (Miss.1999). It has never been required that the adultery be causally related to the final separation of the parties to be a valid basis for granting a divorce. Id. ¶ 15. Gary's alleged sexual misconduct with Mrs. Russell may not have caused Sharon to file her complaint for divorce, but it is still uncondoned adultery. Gary's characterization of the adultery as a one night stand does not make the sexual misconduct any less adulterous. ¶ 16. The chancellor did not err in granting Sharon a divorce on the grounds of adultery pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 93-5-1.