Opinion ID: 1801571
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: did the chancery court err in failing to grant rita a divorce from craig on the grounds of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment?

Text: At the close of Rita's case, Craig's attorney moved the court to dismiss her complaint insofar as it sought a fault-based divorce. The chancellor said that the Plaintiff has not met her burden in proving the grounds; chiefly by lack of sufficient corroboration. At the end of Craig's case, Rita's attorney moved to dismiss his complaint on the grounds of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment for failure to meet the burden of proof. Craig's attorney confessed the motion and the motion was sustained by the chancellor. In the judgment entered in this case, the lower court found that neither the Complaint or Counter Claim establishes grounds for divorce and divorce is hereby denied on behalf of the parties. In the recent case of Rawson v. Buta, 609 So.2d 426 (Miss. 1992), this Court restated the basis for divorce on the grounds of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment: A chancellor may grant a divorce on the grounds of habitual, cruel and inhuman treatment. Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-1 (1972). Mississippi rules require that [i]n all uncontested divorce cases, except irreconcilable differences, the testimony of the Plaintiff must be substantially corroborated. Miss.Unif. Chan.Ct.R. 8.03 (1990). According to Mississippi case law, the plaintiff must prove this ground for divorce by a preponderance of the credible evidence. Cooper v. Cooper, 518 So.2d 664, 666 (Miss. 1988). The chancellor, as the trier of fact, evaluates the sufficiency of the proof based on the credibility of witnesses and the weight of their testimony. Rainey v. Rainey, 205 So.2d 514, 515 (Miss. 1967). Evidence sufficient to establish habitual, cruel and inhuman treatment should prove conduct that: either endanger[s] life, limb or health, or create[s] a reasonable apprehension of such danger, rendering the relationship unsafe for the party seeking relief or, in the alternative, be so unnatural and infamous as to make the marriage revolting to the offending spouse and render it impossible for that spouse to discharge the duties of the marriage, thus destroying the basis for its continuance. S. Hand, Mississippi Divorce, Alimony and Child Custody § 4-12 (2d ed. Supp. 1991) (citations).... Although cruel and inhuman treatment usually must be shown to have been systematic and continuous, see Robinson v. Robinson, 554 So.2d 300, 303 (Miss. 1989), a single incident may provide grounds for divorce. Ellzey v. Ellzey, 253 So.2d 249, 250 (Miss. 1971) (citing Bunkley & Morse, Amis Divorce and Separation in Mississippi § 3:14(3) (1957). A causal connection between the treatment and separation must exist. Fournet v. Fournet, 481 So.2d 326, 328 (Miss. 1985). The party alleging cruel and inhuman treatment must typically corroborate the testimony. Chambers v. Chambers, 213 Miss. 71, 56 So.2d 33 (1952). Only where in its nature or owing to the isolation of the parties, no corroborating proof is reasonably possible, should a divorce be granted on the uncorroborated testimony of the plaintiff. Anderson v. Anderson, 190 Miss. 508, 200 So. 726, 727 (1941); Chambers v. Chambers, 213 Miss. 71, 56 So.2d 33 (1952). 609 So.2d at 431. While habitual cruel and inhuman treatment may be established by a preponderance of the credible evidence, the charge means something more than unkindness or rudeness or mere incompatibility or want of affection. Wires v. Wires, 297 So.2d 900, 902 (Miss. 1974). In the present case, the Court found a lack of sufficient corroborating evidence. Rita relied on her own testimony as to acts of physical and mental abuse, and Craig claimed he hit her only in self defense and denied other of her allegations. Rita was unable to provide any witness who could corroborate her version of the case. The credibility of Rita's testimony as to other secondary matters was placed in serious doubt when multiple witnesses refuted her testimony. Her credibility as a witness was further damaged by her admission that Craig had not threatened to take their child out of the court's jurisdiction as she had alleged in support of her motion for temporary custody. There was also testimony that she gave false information on student loan applications. The chancellor was in the best position to judge the credibility of the witnesses. The chancellor's finding of a lack of substantial corroboration of a sufficient factual basis for divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment is supported by the record. This Court will defer to his determination under the previously cited cases. This assignment of error is without merit.