Opinion ID: 1817613
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: did the chancellor err in failing to grant separate maintenance?

Text: The prerequisites for separate maintenance are (1) separation without fault on the wife's part, and (2) willful abandonment of her by her husband with refusal to support her. See Bunkley and Morse, Amis Divorce and Separation in Mississippi § 7.01. Mr. Kergosien admitted that he left his wife and refused to return, while she stated that she was willing to accept him back. After the separation, Mrs. Kergosien needed money so badly that she made up fictitious jewelry receipts and wrote checks on her husband's business account. Mr. Kergosien, since the separation, had put $200 in Mrs. Kergosien's account. The chancellor was manifestly wrong in granting the divorce and for that reason was reversed. We are left with the record on the issue of support and separate maintenance. Separate maintenance may be awarded when the facts do not justify the granting of a divorce. Cox v. Cox, 279 So.2d 612 (Miss. 1973). Therefore, this is a case where the granting of separate maintenance would have been appropriate. Separate maintenance generally will not be awarded to a spouse whose conduct was a material factor in the separation at least equal to that of the other spouse. Chaffin v. Chaffin, 437 So.2d 384, 386 (Miss. 1983). The appellee urges that Cox, supra, Burnett v. Burnett, 271 So.2d 90 (Miss. 1972), and Rodgers v. Rodgers, 349 So.2d 540 (Miss. 1977), represent authority for the chancellor's refusal to allow Mrs. Kergosien separate maintenance. We disagree. In Cox, the headnote does make the bold assertion that the wife is not entitled to separate support and maintenance where her conduct materially contributed to the separation. On its facts, there can be no doubt that Mrs. Cox materially contributed to the separation. She berated her husband in language most foul. She belittled his manhood. She threatened his livelihood. Further, Mrs. Cox put Mr. Cox out of the house. Under such circumstances, she was not entitled to live apart and be supported by her husband. Cox, supra, at 614. No such facts exist in this case. In Burnett v. Burnett, supra , Mrs. Burnett did not get separate maintenance and support because she did not ask for it! She was, however, awarded support money for her minor child. This authority offers cold comfort to Mr. Kergosien, as his wife pursued her remedy of support money and separate maintenance. Rodgers v. Rodgers, supra , is distinct from Kergosien on several points. In Rodgers, there was no prayer for support money and separate maintenance. There was no allegation that the separation was without fault on the wife's part. Furthermore, Mrs. Rodgers, far from being blameless, actually stabbed Mr. Rodgers some several minutes after an altercation between them. She also maintained a male companion over the objection of her husband. Her blame was equal to or greater than the blame of her husband for the separation. No such lurid facts highlight the record in the Kergosien case. Mrs. Rodgers affirmatively stated that she could no longer live with Mr. Rodgers as his wife. At the polar extremity of this testimony is the testimony of Mrs. Kergosien that she could live with Mr. Kergosien, wanted to live with Mr. Kergosien, did not want him to leave their home, and would welcome him back to the marriage that she had never wanted him to abandon in the first place. Under these facts, we hold that the chancellor was in error when he denied support money and separate maintenance to the appellant. We reverse the chancellor on his refusal to grant support money and separate maintenance and we render judgment for the appellant here on that issue. As will be seen, we remand to the trial court the issue of the amount of support money, both for the children and the appellant.