Opinion ID: 2535531
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: holding of the court of appeals

Text: ¶ 16. The Court of Appeals held that the chancellor should not have conducted a hearing on the matter, because it lacked jurisdiction. This Court previously has heard a case involving a petition to revoke divorce which was filed by only one spouse after the death of the other spouse. Wells v. Roberson, 209 So.2d 919 (Miss.1968). However, the Court of Appeals correctly found that those facts were distinguishable from the present matter. The court further noted that no cases directly on point could be found. Carlisle v. Allen, 40 So.3d 1265, ¶ 15 (Miss.Ct.App.2009). Therefore, this is an issue of first impression in Mississippi. ¶ 17. The Court of Appeals found that the most analogous cases are those in which a married couple files for divorce and one of the parties dies before a valid divorce decree is entered. In such cases, this Court has held, upon the death of one of the parties to a purely divorce action, before the entry of a final decree ... the action may not be continued and no final decree of divorce may be entered thereafter, since ... there is then no status of marriage upon which the final decree of divorce may operate. Pittman v. Pittman, 375 So.2d 415, 416 (Miss.1979) (quoting 104 A.L.R. 654). The Court of Appeals also noted that this Court recently has said, The law regarding the death of one of the parties in a divorce action, as set out in Pittman, is still valid. Barton v. Barton, 790 So.2d 169, 173 (Miss.2001). ¶ 18. Relying on what were considered to be analogous cases, the Court of Appeals held that substitution of another party in Charles's place is not proper. Carlisle, 40 So.3d 1265, 1270, ¶ 17. Reasoning that the purpose of revoking a divorce is to reunite two formerly married parties as a married couple, the Court of Appeals held that no purpose would be served in revoking the divorce because there is no status of marriage upon which... [to] operate. Id. ¶ 19. The Court of Appeals agreed with the chancery court that Janet had put on sufficient evidence of her reconciliation with Charles prior to his untimely death. Id. at 1270, ¶ 18. However, the court found the trial court lacked the power to reinstate the marriage because of Charles's death. Id. at 1270, ¶ 18. The Court of Appeals held that the chancellor erred in conducting an evidentiary hearing on the matter and reinstated the final judgment of divorce. The judgment of the chancery court was reversed and rendered. Janet then filed a petition for writ of certiorari, which this Court granted.