## Facts

- Catherine Lynne Peters and Michael Peters married in 1977 and accumulated and managed multiple rental properties during the marriage, with Catherine leaving outside employment to manage the properties.
- Catherine alleged a long-term pattern of physical and verbal abuse by Michael, including pushing, shoving, slapping, and persistent verbal assaults.
- The chancellor found the abusive conduct began in the mid-1980s, continued until separation, caused emotional distress, and contributed to the breakdown of the marriage.
- Although Michael disputed Catherine’s allegations, the parties’ children provided corroborating testimony supporting Catherine’s account.
- Catherine amended her pleadings to challenge conveyances of real property from Michael to his brother, Steven D. Peters, alleging the transfers were fraudulent and related to a loan transaction.
- After trial, the chancellor granted Catherine a divorce for habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, awarded her custody of the minor children, set child support, equitably divided marital assets, set aside the conveyances to Steven as fraudulent, and awarded Steven a money judgment against Michael for the loan amount.
- Michael appealed, challenging the divorce ground, the child-support award, and the equitable distribution.

## Issues

1. Whether the chancellor manifestly erred in granting a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment.
2. Whether the chancellor erred or abused discretion in the child-support award, including compliance with statutory guidelines and required findings.
3. Whether the chancellor erred in equitably dividing marital assets, including treatment of rental properties and setting aside conveyances to a third party as fraudulent.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment in all respects.
- The court held the chancellor did not manifestly err in finding habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, emphasizing deference to credibility determinations and corroboration by the children.
- The court held the child-support award was supported by the record and within the chancellor’s discretion.
- The court held the equitable distribution, including setting aside fraudulent conveyances while awarding the transferee a money judgment for the underlying loan, was not error.

## Legal Principles

- Habitual cruel and inhuman treatment may be shown by a course of conduct that endangers a spouse’s life, limb, or health, or makes the marriage unsafe or intolerable; a single precipitating incident is not required.
- Chancery factual findings, particularly credibility determinations, are reviewed with substantial deference and will not be disturbed absent manifest error or abuse of discretion.
- Child-support awards are largely discretionary but must conform to statutory guidance; when support is set in circumstances involving income exceeding the statutory guideline threshold, written findings are required to justify the award.
- Equitable distribution decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion; chancery courts may set aside fraudulent conveyances affecting marital assets while crafting equitable relief that recognizes legitimate third-party claims.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a fault-based divorce for habitual cruel and inhuman treatment based on a long-standing pattern of abuse corroborated by the parties’ children, and it upheld the chancellor’s child-support determination and equitable distribution, including avoidance of fraudulent transfers paired with a money judgment to protect the lender’s loan interest.


Peters v. Peters, 906 So. 2d 64 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004)