Eula Price v. James Price
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2008-CA-01802-COA
EULA PRICE A/K/A BABY EULA JONES BELL
PRICE
APPELLANT
v.
JAMES PRICE
APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
09/22/2008
HON. PERCY L. LYNCHARD, JR.
DESOTO COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
DAVID L. WALKER
JAMES PRICE (PRO SE)
CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS
HUSBAND AWARDED DIVORCE ON
GROUND OF CRUEL AND INHUMAN
TREATMENT
AFFIRMED – 11/10/2009
BEFORE MYERS, P.J., ISHEE AND MAXWELL, JJ.
ISHEE, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
The Chancery Court of DeSoto County entered an order granting James Price a
divorce from his wife, “Baby” Eula Price (Eula). Aggrieved by the chancellor’s order, Eula
appeals. She asserts that the chancellor erred in granting the divorce on the ground of
habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2.
James and Eula were married on May 30, 2004, in DeSoto County, Mississippi. After
staying together for approximately two years, they separated on or about July 1, 2006. They
have no children together. Eula filed for divorce on July 3, 2006, and James filed his
counterclaim four days later. Prior to trial, Eula withdrew her complaint but continued to
defend against the relief sought by James.
¶3.
During their marriage, the police were called on at least three different occasions with
regard to Eula and her behavior. In November 2005, Eula, who has been diagnosed with
bipolar disorder, began throwing and breaking dishes inside of her and James’s home; one
was thrown with enough force to puncture a hole in the sink. In June 2006, the Price family
decided to go to Dollywood on a family vacation. Shortly after the vacation had begun, Eula
and James started arguing over money. She eventually attacked him, kicking him in the
buttocks and repeatedly punching him in the back. She also tried to bite off his finger. Later
that night, the argument escalated to the point that the police were called to the hotel room
where the family was staying. There is nothing in the record to indicate that James ever laid
a violent hand on Eula.
¶4.
Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, Eula also had been indicted by a DeSoto
County grand jury for the charge of false pretenses for taking out credit-card applications in
James’s name. She had already pleaded guilty to this charge, and at the time of trial in this
case, she was awaiting sentencing.
¶5.
Eula’s destructive behavior continued up to the point where she actually left the home.
After packing her belongings, Eula discharged a fire extinguisher inside the home, ruining
most of James’s personal belongings. Eula was a habitual marijuana smoker, and although
James knew of her habit before marriage, the couple argued over her constantly smoking
2
marijuana.
¶6.
Joshua Price, James’s son from his first marriage testified at trial. He corroborated
his father’s testimony, with regard to the Dollywood incident and the plate-throwing
incident.
He also testified as to the condition of the home the day that Eula left.
Furthermore, he testified that when he was fifteen years old, Eula became so frustrated with
him that she poured hot coffee down the front of his body.
¶7.
At the conclusion of the trial, the chancellor entered an order granting James’s request
for a divorce based on cruel and inhuman treatment. The chancellor found that the incidents
collectively showed a pattern of conduct that constituted cruel and inhuman treatment.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶8.
The scope of review in a domestic relations case is limited by the substantial
evidence/manifest error rule. Mizell v. Mizell, 708 So. 2d 55, 59 (¶12) (Miss. 1998). We will
not disturb a chancellor's findings unless manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, or an
erroneous legal standard was applied. Id. at 59 (¶13). However, we will conduct a de novo
review for questions of law. Russell v. Performance Toyota, Inc., 826 So. 2d 719, 721 (¶5)
(Miss. 2002). The chancellor's determination of whether a spouse's conduct rose to the level
of cruel and inhuman treatment is a determination of law. Potts v. Potts, 700 So. 2d 321, 322
(¶10) (Miss. 1997); Reed v. Reed, 839 So. 2d 565, 569 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003). Such a
finding is reversible if the chancellor employed an erroneous legal standard. Potts, 700 So.
2d at 322 (¶10). In reviewing a divorce decree, this Court must view the facts in the light
most favorable to the appellee. Boutwell v. Boutwell, 829 So. 2d 1216, 1220 (¶13) (Miss.
2002).
3
ISSUE AND ANALYSIS
Whether it was error to grant James a divorce.
¶9.
The causes for divorce are provided for by Mississippi Code Annotated section 93-5-1
(Supp. 2008), which states, in part, that a divorce decree may be based on habitual cruel and
inhuman treatment. In order for a divorce to be granted properly on the ground of habitual
cruel and inhuman treatment, the following must be proven by a preponderance of the
evidence:
Conduct that either (1) endangers life, limb, or health, or creates a reasonable
apprehension of such danger, rendering the relationship unsafe for the party
seeking relief, or (2) is so unnatural and infamous as to make the marriage
revolting to the non-offending spouse and render it impossible for that spouse
to discharge the duties of marriage, thus destroying the basis for its
continuance.
Peters v. Peters, 906 So. 2d 64, 68 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (quoting Richard v. Richard,
711 So. 2d 884, 889 (¶22) (Miss. 1998)). “The conduct must consist of ‘something more than
unkindness or rudeness or mere incompatibility or want of affection.’” Horn v. Horn, 909
So. 2d 1151, 1155 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (quoting Daigle v. Daigle, 626 So. 2d 140, 144
(Miss. 1993)).
¶10.
Although cruel and inhuman treatment usually must be shown to have been
systematic and continuous, a single incident may provide grounds for divorce. Rakestraw
v. Rakestraw, 717 So. 2d 1284, 1287 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 1998). There must be a causal
connection between the treatment and the separation. Daigle, 626 So. 2d at 144.
¶11.
Here, there is evidence showing that, within the two-year marriage, James has been
the subject of numerous physical and verbal assaults by Eula, including the Dollywood
4
incident and the plate-throwing incident. Further, James has dealt with the destruction of
his property, both during the marriage and after the separation. Additionally, Eula had
pleaded guilty to a charge of false pretenses for taking out credit cards in her husband’s
name. Finally, James testified that, although many of the couple’s problems involved his
children, the main reason for asking for a divorce was predicated on the violence within the
marriage.
¶12.
To corroborate his testimony, James put his son, Joshua, on the stand. Joshua, who
was nineteen years old at the time of trial, testified that he witnessed, first-hand, the physical
abuse of his father by Eula during their family vacation to Dollywood. He also corroborated
his father’s testimony with regard to the kitchen-sink incident and the fire-extinguisher
incident. Furthermore, Eula, in her testimony, admitted that all of these incidents occurred.
¶13.
The chancellor found that the defendant had shown by the preponderance of the
evidence that the defendant was entitled to a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and
unusual treatment. This finding was supported by the numerous physical and verbal assaults
toward James, including the Dollywood and kitchen-sink incidents. This was also supported
by Eula’s destruction of the marital property and James’s personal property both before and
after the separation. The chancellor also noted that Eula’s felony conviction and guilty plea
to false pretenses was so infamous that it made James perceive the marriage as revolting, thus
discharging him from the duties of marriage.
¶14.
In the past, the supreme court has upheld a chancellor’s findings of habitual cruel and
inhuman treatment for similar circumstances. In Ethridge v. Ethridge, 483 So. 2d 370, 371
(1986), the supreme court found that the facts supported the finding that the former husband
5
used physical violence on the former wife, as well as insults, abuse, and other conduct that
would impair her health and physical well-being.
¶15.
Accordingly, we agree with the chancellor’s findings and find that James has met his
burden of proving his ground for a divorce of cruel and inhuman treatment by a
preponderance of the evidence. We find no abuse of discretion with the chancellor’s
findings; therefore, this issue is without merit.
¶16. THE JUDGMENT OF THE DESOTO COUNTY CHANCERY COURT IS
AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE
APPELLANT.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES,
ROBERTS, CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR.
6
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.
