In a recent appeal case, Alan and Natasha are asserting multiple issues, which can be consolidated into two major categories: (1) whether the chancery court erred in denying Alan’s request for separate maintenance; and (2) whether the chancery court properly denied Natasha’s grounds for a divorce.
What Does Alan Want?
The first issue at hand is Alan’s request for separate maintenance. Alan argues that the denial of his claim for separate maintenance was in error, asserting that the chancery court improperly shifted the burden to him as the petitioner to determine why Natasha left the marriage and that the chancery court applied the wrong legal standard. However, this court has explained that separate maintenance is a court-created equitable relief based upon the marriage relationship, and it is a judicial command to the husband to resume cohabitation with his wife, or in default thereof, to provide suitable maintenance of her until such time as they may be reconciled to each other. The court also stated that whether the party requesting separate maintenance has engaged in significant conduct that negatively impacted the enjoyment of the marriage contract is a question of fact to be resolved by the chancellor.
Requirements for Separate Maintenance
Alan argues that the proper analysis of separate maintenance consists of a three-part separate-maintenance test with “three tiers” that must be analyzed and fail before a separate-maintenance claim can be denied. However, this argument is incorrect as this Court repeatedly has stated there are two requirements that give a jurisdictional basis and power to grant separate maintenance claims: “(1) a separation without fault on the part of the [petitioner spouse], and [(2)] the [offending spouse’s] willful abandonment of [petitioner spouse] with refusal to provide support to [him or] her.”
Defenses to Separate Maintenance
One defense to separate maintenance is “misconduct on [petitioning spouse’s] part which materially contributes to the separation, so that it may be said that the fault of the [petitioner] is equal to or greater than that of the [offending spouse].” However, the petitioner need not be completely blameless, only that they cannot materially contribute to the separation in amounts equal to or greater than that of the spouse they are suing for separate maintenance.
The Chancery Court’s Decision
After hearing the testimony of both parties, the chancery court declined to award separate maintenance to Alan because the court found the weight of the evidence supported that Alan’s behavior was a material cause of the separation. The court also noted that the May 2018 separation was prior to the June 2018 discovery by Alan of Natasha’s flirtatious affair, and the affair was the only reason Alan gave for the separation. The chancery court thus determined that the weight of the evidence supported Natasha’s contentions that Alan’s conduct was the cause of the separation. This determination is supported by substantial evidence, and we affirm the chancery court’s denial of Alan’s request for separate maintenance.
So what does all this legal mumbo jumbo mean? It just means you can’t win this issue if you’ve done something wrong. This case started out in Chancery Court and was appealed to the Mississippi Court of Appeals because Alan did not like the fact that he lost before the Chancery Court Judge. It also means that Alan lost because he was wrong. You can’t win this issue if YOU are the cause of the separation. In other words, you have to be a good spouse. If you aren’t a good spouse, then you are going to lose. It’s that simple.
