Opinion ID: 1649659
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: whether the trial court committed reversible error by failing to sanction jason lee for tapping the phone of the marital domicile after belinda lee had been given exclusive use of the same.

Text: ¶ 37. Belinda alleged and Jason admitted to wiretapping the telephone at the couples marital domicile and recording conversations with his ex-wife as a party. Under Miss.Code Ann. § 41-29-535 (1993), a person who is a subscriber to a telephone operated by a communication common carrier and who intercepts a communication on a telephone to which he subscribes is allowed to tap that telephone. Furthermore, Wright v. Stanley, 700 So.2d 274 (Miss.1997) supports the notion that tapping and recording conversations on one's own phone is a legal undertaking. In the present case, there is no question that Jason is the subscriber (his name appeared on the bills) of the phone at the marital domicile. What makes the present situation troubling is that, at least for a portion of the time in question, Belinda had been awarded exclusive use and possession of the marital domicile. In fact, Jason was forced to tap the phone lines outside of the house because he had no right to enter the dwelling. While we feel the recording of private telephone conversations is reprehensible, there is nothing illegal about recording those conversations when the couple was sharing the abode. [I]t is permissible to record what one could just as easily hear by picking up an extension phone. Wright, 700 So.2d at 279. However, Jason's actions after Belinda was given exclusive use of the house may be actionable, as he was no longer permitted to pick up an extension phone.
¶ 38. Jason asserts that Belinda's brief in this matter shows contempt and disdain for the trial court and the chancellor in particular. As such, he feels Miss. R.App. P. 28(k) should be invoked; the rule provides, in pertinent part, that [a]ny brief containing language showing disrespect or contempt for the trial court will be stricken from the files, and the appropriate appellate court will take such further action as it may deem proper. While a reading of Belinda's brief does reveal a definite lack of confidence in the lower court, it does not reach the level of disrespect or contempt that would warrant an invocation of Miss. R.App. P. 28(k).