Patrick Douglas Ashburn v. Christine Dale Ashburn
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2006-CA-00554-COA
PATRICK DOUGLAS ASHBURN
APPELLANT
v.
CHRISTINE DALE ASHBURN
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
APPELLEE
10/19/2005
HON. MELVIN MCCLURE, JR.
DESOTO COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
KAY FARESE TURNER
RACHAEL EMILY PUTNAM
CHRISTINE DALE ASHBURN (PRO SE)
CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS
CHANCELLOR ENTERED ORDER
DISMISSING DIVORCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
AND AWARDED MR. ASHBURN SOLE
LEGAL AND PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF THE
MINOR CHILD.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND
REMANDED IN PART - 11/27/2007
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE MYERS, P.J., BARNES AND ROBERTS, JJ.
BARNES, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
This case comes on appeal from the order of the DeSoto County Chancery Court dismissing
Patrick Ashburn’s complaint for divorce and ordering Mr. Ashburn to pay all remaining guardian ad
litem fees. Because Mrs. Ashburn has not filed a brief and we cannot say with confidence that the
chancellor committed no error, we reverse the judgment of the chancery court and remand for
proceedings not inconsistent with this ruling.
SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2.
On March 26, 2002, Patrick Ashburn filed a complaint for divorce in the DeSoto County
Chancery Court. Mr. Ashburn alleged in his complaint that he and Christine Dale Ashburn were
legally married on July 27, 1989, and cohabited together as husband and wife until approximately
March 2, 2002. At such time, according to Mr. Ashburn’s complaint, the parties physically
terminated their marital relationship. The complaint further alleged that one minor child by the name
of Patrick Douglas Ashburn, Jr. (“P.J.”) was born as a result of the marriage. Mr. Ashburn alleged
that he was entitled to a divorce from Mrs. Ashburn based on the grounds of habitual cruel and
inhuman treatment and habitual and excessive use of opium, morphine or other like drug, both
pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated Section 93-5-1 (Rev. 2004). Mr. Ashburn sought an absolute
divorce; custody of and support for the couple’s minor child, both temporary and permanent; and an
equitable division of all marital property.
¶3.
Following the filing of the complaint for divorce and the perfection of service upon Mrs.
Ashburn, Mr. Ashburn filed a motion for default judgment based on Mrs. Ashburn’s failure to file
an answer to the complaint. On May 9, 2002, Mrs. Ashburn filed an answer, wherein she generally
denied that Mr. Ashburn was entitled to a divorce but did not raise any affirmative defenses. On July
15, 2002, the chancery court entered a temporary order nunc pro tunc to May 20, 2002, whereby the
parties were given joint legal custody of the minor child with physical custody to be equally divided
in one-week intervals in the parties’ marital home. The order also prohibited the use of alcohol or
drugs in the presence of the child and ordered that no temporary child support would be paid by either
party.
¶4.
On September 20, 2004, Mr. Ashburn filed a Rule 35 motion for physical and mental
2
examination of Mrs. Ashburn, a motion for appointment of guardian ad litem, a motion to modify
temporary order and grant plaintiff temporary sole physical and legal custody of the parties’ minor
child, and a motion for exclusive use of the marital residence. On the same date, Mr. Ashburn also
filed a petition for citation of criminal and civil contempt, wherein he alleged that Mrs. Ashburn had
violated the court’s order by continuing to abuse drugs and prescription narcotics. On October 22,
2004, the parties entered into a consent order whereby a guardian ad litem was appointed. On
September 1, 2005, Mr. Ashburn filed an emergency petition seeking a temporary restraining order;
designation as sole physical and legal custodial parent of the minor child; and enforcement of the
guardian ad litem’s recommendations.
¶5.
On October 4-6, 2005, the trial was held in this matter. The evidence adduced at the trial was
as follows:
¶6.
Patrick Ashburn and Christine Dale Ashburn were married on July 27, 1989, and had their
only child on April 4, 1991. Mrs. Ashburn had one child from a previous relationship, Emily
Augustine, whom Mr. Ashburn raised from infancy. Mr. Ashburn testified that throughout the course
of the marriage, Mrs. Ashburn’s drug use continually got worse. He stated that she was taking illegal
drugs and prescription drugs. According to Mr. Ashburn, Mrs. Ashburn would go from one doctor
to another trying to obtain Oxycontin and other drugs, and she would then take such drugs in excess
of the recommended dosage. Mr. Ashburn testified that, in early 2002, Mrs. Ashburn was abusing
drugs and that, at one point, she went with a friend to a birthday party and did not return for six
weeks. Mr. Ashburn stated that, after he filed for divorce in March of 2002, Mrs. Ashburn entered
rehab for approximately six weeks.
¶7.
Mr. Ashburn testified that he and Mrs. Ashburn eventually moved back in together in their
3
marital home in August of 2002 and that during this time he was doing all that he could to try to
rehabilitate the marriage. He stated that he did so for the best interest of the children. He further
testified that, although he and Mrs. Ashburn were sleeping in the same bed at times1, the two were
not having sexual relations other than one time in 2003. He also testified that, since 2000, Mrs.
Ashburn had been in rehab at least three times, but that none of these stints in rehab resulted in Mrs.
Ashburn’s conquering her drug addiction. According to Mr. Ashburn, following the time he moved
back into the marital home, Mrs. Ashburn was self-medicating with her prescription drugs and taking
such drugs in excess of the amount prescribed by her doctor. He further stated that this was occurring
in the latter part of 2003, after the time he last had sexual relations with Mrs. Ashburn. He stated that
Mrs. Ashburn continued to increase her drug dosages and that she started getting three month’s worth
of pills in a month through his insurance from work.2 Mr. Ashburn testified that the last time Mrs.
Ashburn was in rehab was in February of 2004 due to her excessive use of prescription drugs. He
stated that Mrs. Ashburn overdosed in the presence of P.J. and Emily sometime around January of
2004.
¶8.
Mr. Ashburn testified that Mrs. Ashburn promised him after he filed for divorce that she
would stop using drugs but that she had not lived up to her promise. He stated that Mrs. Ashburn
entered a manic state in March 2005, during which time she was yelling at one time and sitting on
the couch and drooling at another time. Mr. Ashburn further stated that, at this time, Mrs. Ashburn
1
Mr. Ashburn testified that the two rarely slept in the same bed, and one of them either slept
on the couch or made a pallet.
2
Mr. Ashburn stated that he took the pills, other than one day’s worth of medication, and
locked them up in a box, but that large numbers of pills would go missing. He stated that Mrs.
Ashburn blamed it on her daughter, Emily.
4
was extremely over-medicated and in his opinion she was in a drug-induced state. He testified that
he moved out of the couple’s marital home again in June of 2005. Mr. Ashburn testified that Mrs.
Ashburn had forged his name on checks written to a pharmacy and that she was facing forgery
charges. According to Mr. Ashburn, Mrs. Ashburn worked periodically during the marriage, and
when she was working at a catfish restaurant, the owners of the restaurant and Mrs. Ashburn were
doing drugs. He also stated that Mrs. Ashburn worked part-time at a day care where her mother also
worked.
¶9.
Denean Francis, a family friend of Mr. and Mrs. Ashburn who admitted to using drugs herself
in the past, testified that she saw Mrs. Ashburn snort Oxycontin through her nose in approximately
1994 or 1995, and that she believed she had observed Mrs. Ashburn under the influence of drugs
between the years of 2001 and 2005. Ms. Francis testified that she believed she had witnessed Mrs.
Ashburn under the influence of drugs on the day prior to Ms. Francis’s testimony. She also testified
that, on December 18, 2003, Mrs. Ashburn stole a written prescription for Lortab from her home and
had it filled at the pharmacy.3 According to Ms. Francis, Mrs. Ashburn told her that she stole the
prescription so that she could commit suicide. Ms. Francis also admitted to smoking marijuana
recreationally and to smoking marijuana as recently as the night before her testimony, but she stated
that, on the night before, she smoked the marijuana for medical reasons.4
¶10.
Lieutenant Bobbie Jones, an employee of the Olive Branch Police Department trained in
3
Ms. Francis testified that she called Mr. Ashburn that night and informed him of the
incident. The guardian ad litem appointed in this matter, Debra Brannan, testified that Mrs. Ashburn
was arrested in January of 2004 for theft based on this incident.
4
She also admitted to doing acid and powder cocaine in the past, but stated that she had not
used drugs in the past four or five years except on the night before her testimony for medical
reasons.
5
narcotics investigation and a friend of Mr. Ashburn, testified that, two or three years prior to the trial,
he had been called to the Ashburns’ home due to a domestic disturbance, specifically Mrs. Ashburn’s
claim that Mr. Ashburn had physically intimidated her. Lt. Jones testified that, when he arrived at
the home, Mrs. Ashburn’s pupils were “blown” and her speech was extremely slurred. He stated that,
in his professional opinion, Mrs. Ashburn was under the influence of a central nervous system
depressant. He stated that, at the time, he attributed most of her condition to the medication that she
was on due to her medical condition. Lt. Jones further testified that he had visited Mrs. Ashburn’s
home approximately twenty times in the past twelve months and that he observed Mrs. Ashburn
under the influence of drugs fifteen out of these twenty times.
¶11.
Mrs. Ashburn’s mother, Christine Isbell, testified that from August of 2002 until July of 2005,
Mr. and Mrs. Ashburn and the children were living together as a family. Ms. Isbell further testified
Mrs. Ashburn suffers from bipolar disorder and rheumatoid arthritis and that she was aware that her
daughter had a drug abuse problem to an extent, but only specifically recalled one incident when Mrs.
Ashburn was prescribed Oxycontin, was unable to take the drug correctly, and then checked herself
into rehab; and another incident in which she overdosed and was admitted to the ICU.
¶12.
Mrs. Ashburn, testified that, after Mr. Ashburn filed the complaint for divorce in March of
2002, he left their residence for the months of June and July of 2002 and then moved back in August
of 2002. She stated that initially the two shared the house week to week, with each leaving the house
for the week when the other had custody. According to Mrs. Ashburn, she and Mr. Ashburn had
sexual relations after Mr. Ashburn filed for divorce but prior to the time he moved out in June of
2002. She also testified that from August 2002, the time when Mr. Ashburn moved back into the
marital residence, to the end of July 2005 when he moved out, the two lived together as man and wife
6
and had sexual relations two or three times a week.
¶13.
Mrs. Ashburn testified that she was hospitalized for fourteen days in 1998 for an addiction
to morphine which had been prescribed by her doctor for rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. However,
Mrs. Ashburn stated that she did not abuse the morphine; rather, she was just unable to handle it.
Mrs. Ashburn testified that her physician put her on Oxycontin in 2000, but that she did not abuse
the drug and that she had no inpatient hospital treatment in 2000. According to Mrs. Ashburn, she
admitted herself to the hospital in 2002 for an addiction to Oxycontin because she had started to
abuse the drug. She later testified that the last time she had a problem with Oxycontin was late 2001.
Mrs. Ashburn testified that she relapsed again in November of 2003 and that she overdosed in
February of 2004 on Lortab while trying to commit suicide and was again admitted to the hospital,
initially to the ICU in Germantown, Tennessee, and then to Lakeside, at which time she was put on
Lithium for bipolar disease.
¶14.
Mrs. Ashburn testified that she does not pass out at home in front of the children, but that
when she was on morphine she did like to stretch out on the couch and fall asleep. She also testified
that, in 2004, her children called Mr. Ashburn and told him that they thought their mother was dying,
at which time she made the aforesaid stay in ICU. Mrs. Ashburn testified that she was currently
taking the prescription medications Effexor, Lithium, Neurontin, and Klonopin. She further testified
that she smoked marijuana in 2001 and that she tested positive for marijuana and hydrocodone in
January and May of 2001. She denied, however, that these positive drug test results were the reason
her treating physician at the time, Dr. Charlotte Flumere, refused to treat her anymore.5 She also
5
Mrs. Ashburn stated that the reason Dr. Flumere stopped treating her was because she
brought in another doctor to take over her treatment and because Dr. Flumere wanted her to see a
therapist on an outpatient basis, but she refused to do so. A letter from Dr. Flumere to Mrs. Ashburn
7
testified that she did methamphetamines and cocaine at the end of 2001. With regard to the
aforementioned forgery charges, she stated that she had permission to sign Mr. Ashburn’s checks.
¶15.
Mrs. Ashburn admitted to stealing Ms. Francis’s prescription at the end of 2003 and stated
that she did so for the purpose of gathering pills, but denied that it was because of her drug habit. She
denied that she had at any time engaged in obtaining drugs from numerous physicians, none of whom
had any knowledge of the others’ treatment. She also denied that she had been addicted to morphinetype mind-altering drugs for a period of time of more than five years, admitting rather to selfmedicating with pain pills since approximately the end of 2000. She testified that the self-medicating
ended in 2002, when she went to rehab, but that she relapsed at the end of 2003 for about three
months until February of 2004. She then testified that it would be fair to say that she self-medicated
from 1999 to 2004, and that the last time she had any pain pills was February 2004. Mrs. Ashburn
testified that, in March of 2005, she went manic for approximately three days which caused her
doctor to raise her Lithium dosage for a period of time. In May of 2005, the guardian ad litem
recommended that Mr. Ashburn and the minor child move out of the marital residence on account
of the condition of the house being unfit for the child.
¶16.
At the beginning of the trial, Mrs. Ashburn moved ore tenus to dismiss the case based on the
fact that she did not want a divorce and based on her claim that the parties reconciled after Mr.
Ashburn filed the complaint for divorce and proceeded to live together for three years with Mr.
was admitted into evidence at trial for identification purposes only, wherein Dr. Flumere stated that
she would no longer be able to prescribe psychotropic drugs (specifically Effexor, Elavil, and
Klonopin) to Mrs. Ashburn in light of the fact that Mrs. Ashburn had tested positive for cannabis,
amphetamines/methamphetamines, hydrocodone, and hydromorphone.
8
Ashburn having full knowledge of Mrs. Ashburn’s drug use. Alternatively, Mrs. Ashburn moved in
limine to restrict all testimony to only what occurred after August 2005 when Mr. Ashburn moved
out of the marital home. The court denied the motion in limine and took the motion to dismiss under
advisement until the conclusion of Mr. Ashburn’s case. At the close of her case, Mrs. Ashburn
reiterated her motion to dismiss and moved for a directed verdict based on condonation. The court
denied the motion for directed verdict.
¶17.
At the completion of the presentation of evidence, the court denied Mr. Ashburn’s complaint
for divorce without prejudice. The court first found that there was no evidence indicating that Mr.
Ashburn had been the subject of cruel and inhuman treatment. With regard to Mr. Ashburn’s other
ground for divorce, habitual drug use, the court found that there was ample evidence that Mrs.
Ashburn had a drug problem, but that everything prior to the last separation in June of 2005 was
condoned by Mr. Ashburn through his continuing to cohabit with Mrs. Ashburn and have sexual
relations with her. Specifically, the court stated the following:
In this case there was testimony if you believe the husband’s testimony of only [one]
time of sex since he went back, but one time is one time. Her testimony was that it
was two or three times a week. As in anything I’m the trier of the fact [sic] and I
would believe that the truth is probably somewhere in between those two figures,
more than he says and less than she says, though I cannot and would not try to put
an exact number on that. But even one time if I took his testimony would be
sufficient to condone the acts until he finally separated from her in June of 2005.
The only testimony of any drug use after June of [2005] is the testimony of Lt.
Bobby Jones, who said that he saw her under the influence two years ago, but he
thought it was because of prescribed meds. And he saw her 15 times in the last year,
but in my mind he didn’t distinguish whether that was under prescribed meds or
whether it was under the type of drugs set forth in the case of Lawson v. Lawson [821
So. 2d 142 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002)].
¶18.
Accordingly, the chancellor dismissed Mr. Ashburn’s complaint for divorce based on
condonation. The chancellor then assessed all of the remaining guardian ad litem fees to Mr.
9
Ashburn, with such fees to be paid on a monthly basis, and awarded sole physical and legal custody
of the minor child to Mr. Ashburn. On October 21, 2005, Mr. Ashburn filed a motion to alter or
amend the chancellor’s ruling, which the chancellor denied.
¶19.
Aggrieved, Mr. Ashburn appeals arguing that the chancellor erred in allowing Mrs. Ashburn
to make an ore tenus motion to dismiss Mr. Ashburn’s complaint for divorce based on condonation
at the inception of the trial without providing Mr. Ashburn with at least ten days notice of such
motion. Mr. Ashburn further contends that the chancellor erred in dismissing his complaint for
divorce based on the affirmative defense of condonation when Mrs. Ashburn did not plead
condonation. Additionally, Mr. Ashburn appeals the chancellor’s finding that he condoned Mrs.
Ashburn’s habitual drug use through his continuation of sexual relations with Mrs. Ashburn.
Finally, Mr. Ashburn appeals the chancellor’s assessment of all of the remaining guardian ad litem
fees to him. We agree that the chancellor erred in denying Mr. Ashburn a divorce. We disagree that
the chancellor erred in assessing all of the remaining guardian ad litem fees to Mr. Ashburn. Thus,
we affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶20.
“In domestic relations cases the scope of review is limited by the substantial
evidence/manifest error rule.” Jundoosing v. Jundoosing, 826 So. 2d 85, 88 (¶10) (Miss. 2002)
(citing Magee v. Magee, 661 So. 2d 1117, 1122 (Miss. 1995)). “This Court may reverse a
chancellor’s findings of fact only when there is no ‘substantial credible evidence in the record’ to
justify his finding.” Id. (quoting Henderson v. Henderson, 757 So. 2d 285, 289 (¶19) (Miss. 2000)).
“‘Our review in domestic relations is limited under the familiar rule that this Court will not disturb
a chancellor’s findings unless manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, or if the chancellor applied an
10
erroneous legal standard.’” Id. (quoting Johnson v. Johnson, 650 So. 2d 1281, 1285 (Miss. 1994)).
¶21.
In the case sub judice, Mrs. Ashburn did not file a brief in response to Mr. Ashburn’s appeal.
The “‘[f]ailure to file a brief is tantamount to confession of error and will be accepted as such unless
the reviewing court can say with confidence, after considering the record and brief of [the] appealing
party, that there was no error.’” Sanders v. Estate of Chamblee, 819 So. 2d 1275, 1277 (¶5) (Miss.
2002) (quoting Dethlefs v. Beau Maison Dev. Corp., 458 So. 2d 714, 717 (Miss. 1984)). “‘Where
the appellant’s brief makes out an apparent case of error . . . , we do not regard it as our obligation
to look to the record to find a way to avoid the force of the appellants’ argument.’” Id.
DISCUSSION
I. Did the chancellor err in dismissing Mr. Ashburn’s complaint for divorce based on
the affirmative defense of condonation when Mrs. Ashburn did not plead such defense?
¶22.
Mr. Ashburn argues that the chancellor erred in dismissing his complaint for divorce based
on the defense of condonation when Mrs. Ashburn did not plead condonation in her answer. Mr.
Ashburn contends that, in a divorce action, condonation is an affirmative defense that must be
specifically pled by the party asserting it or else the defense is waived.6
¶23.
Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c), which governs affirmative defenses, states as
follows:
In pleading to a preceding pleading, a party shall set forth affirmatively accord and
6
Although Mrs. Ashburn’s counsel never specifically referred to the term condonation in
arguing the motion to dismiss, the motion was based on the contention that Mr. and Mrs. Ashburn
resumed cohabiting as man and wife, mentally and physically, for three years after Mr. Ashburn
filed for divorce. Moreover, at the conclusion of her case, Mrs. Ashburn asked the court to revisit
the motion to dismiss, and then moved for a directed verdict based on the contention that Mr.
Ashburn had not proven his case for a divorce due to his condonation or ratification. Thus, although
Mrs. Ashburn’s counsel did not specifically mention condonation as it pertained to the motion to
dismiss, it seems clear that such was the true basis of the motion.
11
satisfaction, arbitration and award, assumption of risk, contributory negligence,
discharge in bankruptcy, duress, estoppel, failure of consideration, fraud, illegality,
injury by fellow servant, latches, license, payment, release, res judicata, statute of
frauds, statute of limitations, waiver, and any other matter constituting an avoidance
or affirmative defense.
M.R.C.P. 8(c) (emphasis added). “Affirmative defenses that are neither pled nor tried by consent
are deemed waived.” Goode v. Village of Woodgreen Homeowners, 662 So. 2d 1064, 1077 (Miss.
1995). It is undisputed in this case that Mrs. Ashburn did not plead condonation in her answer; nor
did she amend her answer to plead condonation. Thus, argues Mr. Ashburn, because condonation
is an affirmative defense, Mrs. Ashburn waived her right to rely on such defense.
¶24.
Although Mr. Ashburn cites no Mississippi case law specifically stating that condonation
is an affirmative defense, nor is this Court aware of any such authority, a review of other
jurisprudence reveals that it is generally accepted that condonation is an affirmative defense that
must be specifically pled. See, e.g., Hancock v. Hancock, 131 N.W.2d 757, 759 (Iowa 1964)
(“[c]ondonation is an affirmative defense which must be pleaded”); Sabia v. Sabia, 84 A.2d 559, 561
(N.J. App. Div. 1951) (“[c]ondonation is an affirmative defense and must be pleaded, with the
burden resting on the defendant”). Moreover, condonation falls squarely within the definition of an
affirmative defense. The Mississippi Supreme Court has defined an affirmative defense as one that
“assumes the plaintiff proves everything he alleges and asserts, even so, the defendant wins.” Hertz
Commercial Leasing Div. v. Morrison, 567 So. 2d 832, 835 (Miss. 1990). “Conversely, if, in order
to succeed in the litigation, the defendant depends upon the plaintiff failing to prove all of part of
his claim, the matter is not an avoidance or an affirmative defense.” Id. In the case sub judice, even
if Mr. Ashburn proves that Mrs. Ashburn habitually and excessively used drugs during their
marriage, Mrs. Ashburn might still avoid a grant of divorce if she was able to prove that Mr.
12
Ashburn condoned such drug use.7 Thus, condonation is an affirmative defense that must be
specifically pled or else it is waived.8 ¶25. While the activity upon which Mr. Ashburn’s
condonation defense is based occurred after Mrs. Ashburn filed her answer, Mississippi Rule of
Civil Procedure 15 instructs courts to be liberal in allowing amendments to pleadings. In re Estate
of Smith v. Smith, 722 So. 2d 606, 610 (¶8) (Miss. 1998) (citing M.R.C.P. 15(a)). Despite being
aware prior to the trial in this matter of the facts giving rise to the alleged condonation, Mrs.
Ashburn at no time sought to amend her answer to plead the defense of condonation; nor is there any
reason to believe that the chancellor would not have allowed such an amendment. Accordingly,
Mrs. Ashburn waived the right to rely on the affirmative defense of condonation.
¶26.
We acknowledge that one could argue that, although Mrs. Ashburn did not plead the
affirmative defense of condonation, the defense was tried by Mr. Ashburn’s consent. The
Mississippi Supreme Court has held that “if evidence is offered by a party which is outside the scope
of the pleadings and the other party fails to object, the opponent will be considered to have impliedly
consented to the issue and the pleading will be amended accordingly,” Lahmann v. Hallmon, 722
So. 2d 614, 619 (¶16) (Miss. 1998) (citing Queen v. Queen, 551 So. 2d 197, 202 (Miss. 1989)).
“The failure to formally amend to conform with the evidence ‘does not affect the result of the trial
of these issues.’” Id. (quoting M.R.C.P. 15(b)).
7
A grant of divorce on the ground of habitual and excessive drug use requires the
complainant to “establish that the spouse’s use of drugs (1) was habitual and frequent; (2) was
excessive and uncontrollable; (3) and was of morphine, opium or drugs with the similar effect as
morphine or opium.” Lawson v. Lawson, 821 So. 2d 142, 145 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (citing
Ladner v. Ladner, 436 So. 2d 1366, 1375 (Miss. 1983)).
8
See also Parker v. Parker, 519 So. 2d 1232, 1234 (Miss. 1988) (stating that the divorce
defense of recrimination is an affirmative defense).
13
¶27.
When Mrs. Ashburn moved to dismiss the complaint for divorce based on the fact that she
and Mr. Ashburn had lived together as man and wife for a period of three years after the complaint
was filed, Mr. Ashburn objected to such motion, but not on the grounds that condonation is an
affirmative defense, or at least as much was not articulated.9 Rather, he objected on the grounds
that no motion to dismiss had previously been filed or was pending before the court and that he had
no notice of such motion. Moreover, Mr. Ashburn went on to argue, at least to an extent, the merits
of the defense, stating that, although the two parties lived together in the marital home, they were
not living as man and wife as they only had sex one time, and that the defense of condonation does
not apply to a continuing course of conduct such as habitual and excessive use of drugs. We also
acknowledge the authority supporting the principle that, although condonation is an affirmative
defense that should be specifically pled, even if such is not pled, a court has the discretion to refuse
a grant of divorce if the evidence demonstrates condonation. See Polk v. Polk, 228 Cal. App. 2d
763, 778 (Cal. Ct. App. 1964); Crews v. Crews, 178 So. 139, 141 (Fla. 1938); 24 Am. Jur. 2d
Divorce and Separation § 271 (2007).10
9
After the chancellor issued his ruling in open court, Mr. Ashburn raised the issue that Mrs.
Ashburn never pled the defense of condonation. Mr. Ashburn’s counsel indicated that she objected
on such ground at the beginning of the trial; however, Mr. Ashburn’s counsel never stated that her
objection was based on the contention that condonation was an affirmative defense. Regardless, the
chancellor stated that both parties were free to pursue whatever remedies they chose based on the
rules of civil procedure. Mr. Ashburn raised this issue again in his motion to alter or amend the
chancellor’s ruling. The chancellor denied such motion without explanation.
10
We note that this Court has held that “a defendant’s pretrial motion that seeks a ruling on
an affirmative defense which has not been included in the pleadings . . . should be evaluated under
the same rule as would apply if that defense was raised at trial. Under Rule 15(b), the evidence and
the defense should be accepted unless the objecting party can ‘satisfy the court that the admission
of such evidence [in support of the affirmative defense] would prejudice the maintaining of the
action or defense.’” Rankin v. Clements, 905 So. 2d 710, 715 (¶18) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004)
(overruled on other grounds). However, in Rankin, we specifically noted that the pretrial motion
14
¶28.
However, Mrs. Ashburn did not file a brief raising any of these issues. This failure is
equivalent to admission of error, and we are to accept such admission unless we are confident that
the chancellor committed no error. Sanders, 819 So. 2d at 1277 (quoting Dethlefs, 459 So. 2d at
717). In the case sub judice, we cannot say with complete confidence that the chancellor did not err
in dismissing Mr. Ashburn’s complaint for divorce based on condonation. Therefore, we find that
the chancellor erred in dismissing Mr. Ashburn’s complaint for divorce based on the affirmative
defense of condonation when Mrs. Ashburn did not plead such defense. In any event, as will be
discussed below, regardless of whether the affirmative defense of condonation was available to Mrs.
Ashburn, we find that the chancellor erred in concluding that Mr. Ashburn condoned Mrs. Ashburn’s
habitual drug use.11
II. Did the chancellor err in finding that Mr. Ashburn condoned Mrs. Ashburn’s
habitual and excessive drug use?
¶29.
Mr. Ashburn argues that the chancellor erred in denying his complaint for divorce based
at issue was not made on the “eve of a scheduled trial.” Id. at 713 (¶10). Such is not the case here
in that Mrs. Ashburn’s motion to dismiss was made at the commencement of the trial in this matter.
Having been apprised of a possible defense to his complaint for divorce on the day the trial started,
it can hardly be disputed that Mr. Ashburn was at least somewhat prejudiced by the chancellor’s
entertaining the condonation defense.
11
Mr. Ashburn also argues that Mrs. Ashburn’s motion to dismiss at the commencement of
the trial was a Rule 12(b)(6) motion that became a motion for summary judgment due to Mrs.
Ashburn never having raised the affirmative defense of condonation. Thus, argues Mr. Ashburn,
pursuant to Rule 56 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, he should have been given at least
ten days notice before the time that the motion was heard by the court. Rule 56(c) states that a
motion for summary judgment “shall be served at least ten days before the time fixed for the
hearing.” M.R.C.P. 56(c). However, Mrs. Ashburn’s motion cannot be characterized as a Rule
12(b)(6) motion or a summary judgment motion because trial itself was held on the issues presented
in the motion. Therefore, Mr. Ashburn’s reliance on Rule 56 is misplaced. Regardless, Mr.
Ashburn’s true complaint is that the chancellor denied the complaint for divorce based on the
affirmative defense of condonation when such defense was not pled by Mrs. Ashburn, and we have
already determined that such constituted reversible error under the circumstances of this case.
15
on the finding that he condoned Mrs. Ashburn’s habitual drug use by continuing to cohabit and have
sexual relations with her after he filed for divorce. The chancellor found that although there was
ample evidence of habitual drug use on the part of Mrs. Ashburn prior to June of 2005, Mr.
Ashburn’s resumption of sexual relations with Mrs. Ashburn condoned any such drug use, and that
there was no evidence of habitual drug use after June of 2005. In so holding, the chancellor relied
primarily on Cheatham v. Cheatham, 537 So. 2d 435, 442 (Miss. 1988), in which the court stated
that “mere cohabitation without resumption of sexual relations might support a finding of
uncondoned adultery.” The chancellor interpreted this statement as indicating that cohabitation with
a resumption of sexual relations constitutes condonation.
¶30.
Mr. Ashburn testified that, during the time he was living in the marital home, he and Mrs.
Ashburn only had sex one time in 2003 while Mrs. Ashburn testified that the two had sex two to
three times a week. The chancellor did not make a specific finding as to how many times Mr. and
Mrs. Ashburn had sexual intercourse between the time Mr. Ashburn moved back into the marital
home and the time he moved out. Rather, the chancellor merely stated that he believed the truth to
be somewhere in the middle of the two figures given by Mr. and Mrs. Ashburn, but that he could
not and would not try to determine the exact number. Importantly, however, the chancellor then
stated that, even if he accepted Mr. Ashburn’s testimony that the two only had sex one time, such
would be sufficient to condone Mrs. Ashburn’s drug use until the two separated again in June of
2005. Given this statement, and without the benefit of a factual finding by the chancellor as to how
many times Mr. and Mrs. Ashburn had sex during the cohabitation, this Court must assume that the
chancellor’s holding that Mr. Ashburn condoned Mrs. Ashburn’s habitual drug use was based solely
on the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Ashburn had sex one time in 2003. Based on such holding, we find
16
that the chancellor manifestly erred.
¶31.
The defense of condonation is summarized as follows:
Condonation is the forgiveness of a marital wrong on the part of the wronged party.
Condonation may be express or implied. The mere resumption of residence does not
constitute a condonation of past marital sins and does not act as a bar to a divorce
being granted. Condonation, even if a true condonation exists, is conditioned on the
offending spouse’s continued good behavior. If the offending party does not mend
his or her ways and resumes the prior course of conduct, there is a revival of the
grounds for divorce. In practical effect, condonation places the offending spouse on
a form of temporary probation. Any subsequent conduct within a reasonable time
after resumption of cohabitation which evidences an intent not to perform the
conditions of the condonation in good faith, may be sufficient to avoid the defense
of condonation, even though the conduct so complained of in and of itself may not
be grounds for divorce. An entire course of conduct rule applies. A party’s conduct
both before and after the alleged condonation can be joined together to establish the
cause for divorce.
Cherry v. Cherry, 593 So. 2d 13, 17-18 (1991) (citations omitted); see also Deborah H. Bell, Bell
on Mississippi Family Law, § 4.03(6)(d) (2005) (citing Wood v. Wood, 495 So. 2d 503, 505 (Miss.
1986)) (“[c]ondonation is conditional, based upon the future good behavior of the guilty spouse; [i]f
the conduct recurs, the innocent spouse may obtain a divorce based in part upon conduct prior to
condonation”); Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-4 (Rev. 2004) (“It shall be no impediment to a divorce that
the offended spouse did not leave the marital domicile or separate from the offending spouse on
account of the conduct of the offending spouse.”) “The doctrine of condonation applies to what is
generally denominated ‘non-continuing causes of divorce,’ consisting of a single act, or a series of
acts of misconduct, which might be forgiven as a result of affectionate treatment; but the doctrine
is not applicable to causes of divorce of a continuing character.” Manning v. Manning, 160 Miss.
318, 320, 133 So. 673, 674 (1931). Just as habitual cruel and inhuman treatment has been held to
be a continuing offense, Id. at 320, 133 So. at 674, so too is habitual and excessive drug use.
¶32.
In the case sub judice, the chancellor found that one act of sexual intercourse between Mr.
17
and Mrs. Ashburn in 2003 was sufficient to condone any habitual drug use on the part of Mrs.
Ashburn up until the time Mr. Ashburn finally moved out of the marital home in June of 2005.
However, in so finding, the chancellor failed to accord appropriate significance to the evidence of
Mrs. Ashburn’s drug use after the time of the sexual intercourse but before Mr. Ashburn moved out
of the marital home. Specifically, it is undisputed that Mrs. Ashburn was admitted to the hospital
in February of 2004 after overdosing on the prescription drug Lortab. As was noted above, a cause
of action for divorce may be revived if, after the condonation, the offending spouse exhibits an intent
not to abide by the conditions of the condonation. Cherry, 593 So. 2d at 17-18. Thus, even
assuming that one act of sexual intercourse between Mr. and Mrs. Ashburn in 2003 condoned Mrs.
Ashburn’s habitual drug use prior to this time, such condonation was conditioned on Mrs. Ashburn
ceasing to abuse drugs and it can hardly be disputed that Mrs. Ashburn’s overdosing on a
prescription drug in 2004 evidenced an intent not to abide by such condition. Accordingly, Mr.
Ashburn’s ground for divorce was revived when Mrs. Ashburn continued to abuse drugs after the
condonation.
¶33.
Although one act of drug use in 2004 might be insufficient on its own to constitute grounds
for divorce, “[a]n entire course of conduct rule applies” and “conduct both before and after the . .
. condonation can be joined together to establish the cause for divorce.” Cherry, 593 So. 2d at 18.
The chancellor found that there was ample evidence of habitual drug use on the part of Mrs.
Ashburn prior to June of 2005, at least up until her overdose in 2004, and this finding is clearly
supported by substantial evidence in the record. The chancellor erred, however, in failing to find
that Mrs. Ashburn’s 2004 drug use voided the 2003 condonation and revived Mr. Ashburn’s habitual
drug use ground for divorce. When Mrs. Ashburn’s drug use prior to the time of the condonation
18
in 2003 is combined with her 2004 drug use, it is clear that Mr. Ashburn was entitled to a grant of
divorce on the grounds of habitual drug use.12 Accordingly, we reverse the chancellor’s ruling
dismissing Mr. Ashburn’s complaint for divorce and remand for an entry of divorce not inconsistent
with this ruling.
III. Did the chancellor err in assessing all remaining guardian ad litem fees to Mr.
Ashburn?
¶34.
Mr. Ashburn contends that the chancellor erred in assessing all of the remaining guardian
ad litem fees to Mr. Ashburn when the parties had agreed that such fees would be divided equally
amongst them and based on the fact that the guardian ad litem would not have been necessary were
it not for Mrs. Ashburn’s drug use and propensity for committing criminal acts. “‘Chancery courts
have large discretion in apportioning costs. Nevertheless, the exercise of such discretion is not final,
but is reviewable on appeal, and if it appear [sic] that the decree apportioning the costs works a
12
As was previously mentioned, a grant of divorce on the ground of habitual and excessive
drug use requires the complainant to “establish that the spouse’s use of drugs (1) was habitual and
frequent; (2) was excessive and uncontrollable; (3) and was of morphine, opium or drugs with the
similar effect as morphine or opium.” See supra n. 7. Abuse of prescription drugs has been held to
constitute habitual and excessive drug use. Lawson, 821 So. 2d at 145 (finding habitual and
excessive drug use on the part of wife who obtained, and abused, prescription drugs through overprescription by doctors and by getting prescriptions from multiple doctors who were unaware of
each other).
It is worth noting that the chancellor discussed Lt. Jones’s testimony that he had visited Mrs.
Ashburn’s home approximately twenty times in the past twelve months and that out of those twenty
times he observed Mrs. Ashburn under the influence of drugs fifteen times; however, the chancellor
found that Lt. Jones did not distinguish as to whether Mrs. Ashburn was under the influence of
prescribed medications or the type of drugs noted in Lawson. Admittedly, Lt. Jones was not clear
as to whether he believed Mrs. Ashburn to have been abusing drugs during those fifteen times.
However, the chancellor’s statement is somewhat peculiar because Lawson involved a situation in
which the wife abused drugs such as Lortab and Hydrocodone which were prescribed to her by a
physician. Thus, the prescription drugs involved in the case sub judice are either identical or
substantially equivalent to those in Lawson.
19
manifest injustice on any of the parties, the decree will be reversed.’” In re: K.M.J. v. W.A., 758 So.
2d 402, 403 (¶6) (Miss. 2000) (quoting Canton v. Ross, 157 Miss. 788, 796, 128 So. 560, 562-63
(1930)).
¶35.
Although the chancellor did not provide his reasoning for assessing the remaining guardian
ad litem fees to Mr. Ashburn, we find no error in the chancellor’s ruling in this regard. First, Mr.
Ashburn cites to no portion of the record indicating that the parties agreed to divide all guardian ad
litem fees equally.13 In fact, the consent order by which the parties agreed to the appointment of the
guardian ad litem specifically states that, other than an initial $1,000 that was to be deposited with
the guardian ad litem no later than October 12, 2004, the responsibility for such fees was reserved
for determination by the court. Second, despite his contention that a guardian ad litem would not
have been necessary were it not for Mrs. Ashburn’s conduct, the fact remains that Mr. Ashburn was
the one who requested the appointment of the guardian ad litem. Finally, “[t]he chancery court is
charged to give adequate consideration to the ‘financial abilities’ of the parties to pay any assessed
fees, and then how should the same be apportioned, if any.” Id. at 404 (citing Bumgarner v.
Bumgarner, 475 So. 2d 455, 456 (Miss. 1985). Mr. Ashburn was employed at the time of the
chancellor’s ruling while Mrs. Ashburn was unemployed and admitted to having no net monthly
income. Thus, Mr. Ashburn was in the best position to pay the guardian ad litem fees. Based on
these considerations, we find that requiring Mr. Ashburn to pay the remaining guardian ad litem fees
did not work a “manifest injustice” on Mr. Ashburn. Accordingly, we affirm the chancellor’s
assessment of the remaining guardian ad litem fees to Mr. Ashburn.
13
Presumably, Mr. Ashburn is referring to his motion for the appointment of a guardian ad
litem, in which he sought an order appointing a guardian ad litem with all costs to be divided equally
between the parties.
20
¶36. THE JUDGMENT OF THE DESOTO COUNTY CHANCERY COURT IS AFFIRMED
IN PART AND REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL
ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLEE.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, ISHEE,
ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ., CONCUR.
21
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.