## Facts

- Donald Anderson (husband) sued Merlene Anderson (wife) for divorce in Mississippi Chancery Court on the fault ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, or alternatively on irreconcilable differences.
- Donald alleged Merlene physically and verbally abused him and his two sons from a prior marriage, threatened him, attempted to damage his reputation as a church pastor, and repeatedly accused him of adultery.
- The sons testified in support of Donald’s claims about Merlene’s conduct toward them and toward Donald.
- The chancery court appointed a guardian ad litem, who did not find sufficient evidence of child abuse.
- Merlene introduced circumstantial evidence (including hotel-related evidence and emails) that she contended supported her suspicions that Donald had been unfaithful.
- The chancery court found Merlene’s adultery accusations were unfounded and granted Donald a fault-based divorce for habitual cruel and inhuman treatment.
- The chancellor also awarded Donald legal and physical custody of the minor child (Joshua), ordered Merlene to pay monthly child support, and required each party to pay his or her own attorney’s fees.
- Merlene appealed, arguing (1) the evidence did not meet Mississippi’s legal standard for habitual cruel and inhuman treatment and (2) the claim was barred by condonation.

## Issues

1. Was the evidence legally sufficient to support a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment under Mississippi law?
2. If the evidence was sufficient, did condonation bar the fault ground?

## Decision

- The Mississippi Court of Appeals held the proof was insufficient to establish habitual cruel and inhuman treatment under Mississippi’s strict standard.
- The court reversed and rendered the judgment granting Donald a divorce on that fault ground.
- Because the divorce was reversed for lack of proof, the court did not need to affirm the chancellor’s ruling on condonation to dispose of the appeal.
- Costs of the appeal were assessed to Donald (the appellee).

## Legal Principles

- Divorce in Mississippi is statutory; a chancellor may not grant a fault-based divorce unless the evidence satisfies the statutory elements for the asserted ground.
- “Habitual cruel and inhuman treatment” requires proof of conduct that makes continued cohabitation unsafe or intolerable in the sense recognized by Mississippi precedent—commonly framed as conduct endangering life, limb, or health, or causing a showing of adverse impact on the complaining spouse’s physical or mental health.
- Evidence that a marriage is unhappy, troubled, or likely beyond repair does not by itself establish habitual cruel and inhuman treatment; the complaining spouse must prove the type and degree of cruelty required by the statute as interpreted by Mississippi cases.
- Appellate review of domestic-relations findings is generally limited to whether substantial evidence supports the chancellor’s findings and whether the chancellor was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, or applied an incorrect legal standard.
- Whether proven conduct rises to the legal level of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment is treated as a legal determination reviewed without deference, even when underlying factual disputes are reviewed under the chancery standard.

## Conclusion

Anderson v. Anderson held that although the record showed serious marital conflict and allegations of abusive conduct, Donald did not present evidence meeting Mississippi’s demanding requirements for habitual cruel and inhuman treatment—particularly proof that Merlene’s conduct impaired his health or made cohabitation impossible except at risk to life, limb, or health—so the Court of Appeals reversed and rendered the fault-based divorce judgment.


Anderson v. Anderson, 54 So. 3d 850 (2010)