Opinion ID: 2535531
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ruling in the chancery court

Text: ¶ 12. Carlisle filed a motion to quash the application to revoke the divorce. The chancery court subsequently entered an order quashing the application on June 11, 2007. The trial court reasoned that no hearing or other evidence of the reconciliation was presented prior to the death of Charles E. Allen, III, and found that the motion therefore should be quashed. However, the order specified that the chancery court would entertain a motion to reconsider this finding should the co-applicant timely file such a request and show sufficient facts evidencing a satisfactory reconciliation of the parties. ¶ 13. Janet filed a motion for reconsideration eleven days later, on June 22, 2007. Carlisle subsequently filed a motion to strike Janet's motion for reconsideration, arguing that it was untimely and that Janet had failed in the motion to show sufficient facts evidencing a reconciliation. The chancery court held a hearing on the matter, in which both Janet and Charles's estate presented testimony regarding the couple's reconciliation, as described above. The chancellor entered his order on October 24, 2007, finding jurisdiction proper and granting the revocation of divorce. ¶ 14. The chancery court also found evidence of intent to revive the marriage in that Charles and Janet had jointly filed the petition. Further evidence which supported an intention to revive the marriage noted by the chancellor included: Charles and Janet often had stayed with one another, went out together, talked frequently, and had opened a joint bank account in their names. The chancellor dismissed the claim that the petition to revoke the divorce was an attempt by Charles to acquire title to the marital home. ¶ 15. Carlisle timely appealed on behalf of Charles's estate, raising several issues. Those issues can be fairly summarized as follows: I. Whether the chancery court had jurisdiction after the death of Charles. II. Whether the chancellor erred in finding that Janet had produced sufficient evidence to revoke the divorce. III. Whether the chancellor erred in failing to strike Janet's motion to reconsider as untimely and for failure to set forth significant facts, and subsequently holding a hearing on the matter. IV. Whether the chancellor erred in not dismissing the action to set aside the divorce because Janet did not file a revivor after Charles's death.