Daniel C. Vaughn v. Terri W. Vaughn
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2009-CA-00915-COA
DANIEL C. VAUGHN
APPELLANT
v.
TERRI W. VAUGHN
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:
APPELLEE
04/15/2009
HON. KENNETH M. BURNS
CLAY COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
ELIZABETH FOX AUSBERN
CARRIE A. JOURDAN
CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS
JUDGMENT ENTERED GRANTING
DIVORCE, DIVIDING PROPERTY, AND
AWARDING CUSTODY TO MOTHER
AFFIRMED - 03/22/2011
EN BANC.
MAXWELL, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
The Clay County Chancery Court granted a divorce to Terri W. and Daniel C. “Craig”
Vaughn and awarded custody of their one minor child to Terri. On appeal, Craig primarily
argues the chancellor erred in denying his motion to compel discovery. Because Craig’s
motion to compel was untimely and his due-process arguments misplaced, we find no error
in the chancellor’s denial of the motion. We also find no error in the chancellor’s division
of the marital home. Therefore, we affirm.
FACTS
¶2.
On September 9, 2008, Terri filed for divorce. After the divorce trial had been
continued twice at Craig’s request, Craig filed a motion to compel discovery on March 20,
2009. The chancellor denied the motion finding in part that it was untimely. After
conducting a hearing, the chancellor entered a final judgment dividing the parties’ property,
awarding custody of their minor child to Terri, and ordering Craig to pay child support. On
appeal, Craig alleges the chancellor erred by (1) denying his motion to compel discovery and
(2) improperly dividing the equity in the marital home.
DISCUSSION
I.
¶3.
Motion to Compel
Craig first argues that by denying his motion to compel, the chancellor deprived him
“of his right to enjoy advance notice of Ter[r]i’s contentions[.]” The discovery issue
concerns Terri’s refusal to answer interrogatory requests that she identify all proof in support
of her position on each applicable Albright factor.1
A.
¶4.
Timeliness
On January 30, 2009, Craig propounded interrogatories and requests for admission
to Terri. That same day Craig requested a continuance, which the chancellor granted. He
rescheduled the trial from February 3, 2009, to March 16, 2009.
¶5.
Terri responded to the requests for admission within thirty days but waited forty-two
days to respond to the interrogatories. Terri objected to answering questions concerning the
1
The only Albright factor not included in the interrogatories was the preference of the
child. This factor was not applicable since the parties’ minor child was under twelve years
old.
2
Albright factors, claiming they called for a legal conclusion. On March 16, the day of the
hearing, Craig moved for another continuance. The chancellor again granted the continuance
and rescheduled the matter to be heard one week later on March 23, 2009. On March 18,
2009, Craig served his motion to compel, noticing the motion hearing for March 23, the same
date as the rescheduled trial. He did not file his motion to compel until March 20.
¶6.
On March 23, the chancellor denied the motion and proceeded to hear the divorce
case. The chancellor advised Craig that “if it develops in the trial that you’re prejudiced by
the lack of discovery, then we’ll leave the case open for you to develop it, okay? I want
everybody to have a fair shot today.”
(1)
¶7.
The Chancellor’s Discretion and Discovery
“Our trial judges are afforded considerable discretion in managing the pre-trial
discovery process in their courts[.]” City of Jackson v. Presley, 942 So. 2d 777, 781 (¶7)
(Miss. 2006). And they are given wide latitude in fashioning remedies for discovery
violations. Marshall v. Burger King, 2 So. 3d 702, 706 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008). We will
not reverse the trial judge’s grant or denial of a motion to compel absent an abuse of
discretion. See Edmonds v. Williamson, 13 So. 3d 1283, 1292 (¶28) (Miss. 2009).
(2)
¶8.
Reasonable Notice
Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) provides that “[a] party, upon reasonable
notice to other parties and all persons affected thereby, may apply for an order compelling
discovery[.]” Considering the issue of “reasonable notice,” the Mississippi Supreme Court
in Boutwell v. Boutwell, 829 So. 2d 1216 (Miss. 2002), found no abuse of discretion in the
chancellor’s denial of a motion to compel discovery. In Boutwell, the wife refused to answer
3
deposition questions concerning an extramarital affair and whether she had allegedly
permitted minors to consume alcohol in the marital residence. Id. at 1222 (¶28). Trial was
set to begin on March 5, 2001, and the wife filed her motion to compel just four days earlier
on March 1, 2001. Id. at 1223 (¶31). The Boutwell court found this notice, which amounted
to less than two business days, was unreasonable. Id. The court also noted that the
chancellor, due to the wife’s evasiveness during the deposition, allowed the husband’s
attorney more “leeway” in questioning witnesses. Id. at (¶32).
¶9.
Here, the chancellor, at Craig’s request, pushed back the divorce hearing for almost
a month and a half. The chancellor then granted Craig another continuance. The record
indicates that two days later, on March 18, Craig mailed a copy of the motion to Terri’s
counsel. But the motion was not filed with the court until March 20. This was less than three
days before the rescheduled March 23 hearing, and less than one business day prior to the
hearing. In reviewing this issue, we turn to Boutwell, where the supreme court found that
filing a motion to compel two business days prior to the hearing was insufficient notice. We
also note that not only did Craig file his motion less than one business day prior to the March
23 hearing, he also waited until after the court had rescheduled the hearing. For these
reasons, we find no error in the chancellor’s denial of Craig’s motion to compel for lack of
reasonable notice.
¶10.
Though Craig is correct that Terri served her interrogatory responses outside the
thirty-day deadline,2 her tardiness alone did not mandate that the chancellor grant Craig’s
2
Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(3) requires interrogatory answers and
objections to generally be served within thirty days. As noted previously, Terri waited forty4
motion to compel. Nor does it automatically require reversal. Our inquiry instead focuses
on whether the chancellor abused his discretion in denying the motion to compel, and if so,
whether Craig was prejudiced. See, e.g., Tatum v. Barrentine, 797 So. 2d 223, 228 (¶¶19-20)
(Miss. 2001).
¶11.
Considering Craig’s case, the chancellor explained at the outset of the hearing that if
the lack of discovery prejudiced Craig, the chancellor would give him an opportunity to
develop the issue. Yet our review does not show that Craig ever alerted the chancellor to any
resulting prejudice from Terri’s failure to tailor her expected proof to Albright, in factor-byfactor format. And Craig has not explained how he was in any way surprised by the
witnesses or documentary evidence presented by Terri.
¶12.
Because of the notice issue and Craig’s failure to show resulting prejudice, we find
no abuse of discretion in the chancellor’s denial of Craig’s motion to compel.
B.
Due Process
(1)
¶13.
Procedural
Craig also argues the chancellor’s denial of his motion to compel infringed upon his
due-process rights. His argument merges the concepts of procedural and substantive due
process, both of which we will address. First, “[t]he guarantee of procedural due process
includes the right to a fair and impartial trial.” Stuart v. Stuart, 956 So. 2d 295, 300 (¶23)
(Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (citing Brown ex rel. Webb v. Blackwood, 697 So. 2d 763, 769 (Miss.
1997)). “A due process violation occurs where a party is not allowed a full and complete
hearing before being deprived of life, liberty or property.” Id. (citing Childers v. Childers,
two days to serve her responses.
5
717 So. 2d 1279, 1281 (¶8) (Miss. 1998)). Though Mississippi has not squarely addressed
this precise issue, several courts have held the Due Process Clause does not confer a
constitutional right to discovery. Batagiannis v. W. Lafayette Cmty. Sch. Corp., 454 F.3d
738, 742 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470 (1973)) (noting a civil
litigant’s “complaints about a lack of pre-hearing discovery assume that there is such an
entitlement, which there isn’t. There is no constitutional right to discovery even in criminal
prosecutions.”); see also Council of City of New Orleans v. All Taxpayers, 841 So. 2d 72, 76
(La. Ct. App. 2003).
To support his due-process argument, Craig cites a workers’
compensation case where this court mentioned that “ the failure to abide by recognized
discovery rules impacts whether a decision is seen as arbitrary and capricious, and [a]
violation of due process.” Bermond v. Casino Magic, 874 So. 2d 480, 484-85 (¶11) (Miss.
Ct. App. 2004) (emphasis added). But see Molden v. Miss. State Dep’t of Health, 730 So.
2d 29, 40-41 (¶¶26-28) (Miss. 1998) (administrative appeal where our supreme court appears
to reject a similar argument that a due-process analysis could apply to the denial of a motion
to compel discovery).
¶14.
Drawing from traditional due-process notions, we are not persuaded that the denial
of his motion to compel discovery, in itself, amounts to a due-process violation. And even
if the broad pronouncement in Bermond applies here, we see no negative impact to Craig’s
case, especially given his failure to point to any unfair surprise. Because Craig had a fair
hearing and full opportunity to present evidence in support of his claim to custody, we find
no procedural due-process violation.
(2)
Substantive
6
¶15.
Second, Craig suggests his substantive due-process rights were somehow violated by
the chancellor denying his motion to compel. He cites the principle enunciated by the United
States Supreme Court in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66 (2000) that “the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make
decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.” The Troxel Court
considered the issue of grandparent visitation and found unconstitutional, as applied, a
Washington law authorizing broad third-party visitation, which the Court found infringed on
the fundamental constitutional right of a mother to make child-rearing decisions. Id. at 7275. But numerous courts, including the Mississippi Supreme Court, have found Troxel does
not apply to custody disputes between natural parents. See Mabus v. Mabus, 847 So. 2d 815,
819 (¶16) (Miss. 2003); see also Enrique M. v. Angelina V., 94 Cal. Rptr. 3d 883, 888 (Cal.
Ct. App. 2009); McDermott v. Dougherty, 869 A.2d 751, 808 (Md. 2005); In re R.A., 891
A.2d 564, 576 (N.H. 2005); In re Parentage of L.B., 122 P.3d 161, 178 (Wash. 2005); Arnold
v. Arnold, 679 N.W.2d 296, 299 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004).
¶16.
We are confronted here with two natural parents asserting the same fundamental
constitutional right to custody. Thus, we find Troxel inapplicable. Further, the chancellor’s
discovery ruling did not infringe on Craig’s parental control or child-rearing decisions; he
simply denied Craig’s request to compel discovery.
For these reasons, we find no
substantive due-process violations.
II.
¶17.
Marital Home
To address Craig’s property-division argument, we turn to our familiar manifest-error
standard of review.
We will not disturb a chancellor’s factual findings unless the
7
chancellor’s decision was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, or the chancellor applied an
improper legal standard. Wallace v. Wallace, 12 So. 3d 572, 575 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App.
2009). We will not substitute our judgment for the chancellor’s, even if we disagree with his
or her findings of fact and would arrive at a different conclusion. Coggin v. Coggin, 837 So.
2d 772, 774 (¶3) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003). When reviewing a chancellor’s interpretation and
application of the law, our standard of review is de novo. Tucker v. Prisock, 791 So. 2d 190,
192 (¶10) (Miss. 2001).
¶18.
Terri’s grandmother sold the marital home to Terri and Craig for approximately
$70,000. From the proceeds of the sale, Terri’s grandmother loaned approximately $35,000
to the parties. Much of the loan was in the form of checks to the parties’ creditors. The
grandmother then transferred the amount left over, $4,820.25, directly to Terri. Based upon
a 2009 appraisal, the chancellor valued the home at $105,000. From that value, the
chancellor subtracted the debt owed on the home to determine the equity in the home, which
the chancellor split evenly between the parties. As a result, Craig was awarded $667.78 in
the marital home’s equity.
¶19.
Craig claims the chancellor “miscalculated” his share of the equity in the marital
home. He asks that we remand for the chancellor to correct the alleged mathematical error.
As evidence of this supposed miscalculation, Craig contends the chancellor: (1) overvalued
the debt owed to Terri’s grandmother, which the chancellor found to be $35,000; and (2)
failed to consider that his parents bought a new air conditioner for the home. After
examining the chancellor’s overall Ferguson analysis, we find no reversible error.
¶20.
In ordering an equitable distribution of property, chancellors must apply the Ferguson
8
factors, which include:
(1) contribution to the accumulation of property, (2) dissipation of assets, (3)
the market or emotional value of assets subject to distribution, (4) the value of
assets not subject to distribution, (5) the tax and economic consequences of the
distribution, (6) the extent to which property division may eliminate the need
for alimony, (7) the financial security needs of the parties, and (8) any other
factor that in equity should be considered.
Hults v. Hults, 11 So. 3d 1273, 1281 (¶36) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (citing Ferguson v.
Ferguson, 639 So. 2d 921, 928-29 (Miss. 1994)). Chancellors should also consider each
party’s marital fault. Singley v. Singley, 846 So. 2d 1004, 1013-14 (¶26) (Miss. 2002). There
is a presumption that “the contributions and efforts of the marital partners, whether
economic, domestic or otherwise are of equal value.” Hemsley v. Hemsley, 639 So. 2d 909,
915 (Miss. 1994).
¶21.
In reviewing a chancellor’s findings, we do not conduct a Ferguson analysis anew.
Goellner v. Goellner, 11 So. 3d 1251, 1264 (¶45) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). Rather, we examine
the chancellor’s judgment as well as the record to ensure that the chancellor applied the
correct legal standard and did not commit an abuse of discretion. Id. at 1266 (¶52).
¶22.
The chancellor made findings of fact and conclusions of law on each Ferguson factor.
He found important that Terri and Craig contributed equally to the accumulation of marital
property, with Craig being the primary wage earner and Terri contributing most domestic and
child-rearing duties. The chancellor also noted that neither party had contributed stability
or harmony to the marriage, with Terri having an extramarital affair and Craig exhibiting
excessive drinking habits. With these considerations in mind, the chancellor divided the
marital estate approximately 50/50.
9
¶23.
Additionally, the chancellor divided the equity in the marital home exactly evenly
between Craig and Terri. In so doing, the chancellor evenly split the debt owed to Terri’s
grandmother. We note the chancellor abided by Craig’s wishes in ordering these divisions:
[By Craig’s Attorney]:
What do you want the Court to do about
your equity in the house?
....
[Craig]:
Split it 50/50, or we can split the debt that
we paid [Terri’s grandmother] 50/50 and
then split it 50/50, you know.
The record supports, and Craig himself even testified, that the debt owed to Terri’s
grandmother on the home was approximately $35,000. Craig explained that he had no
problem with the chancellor splitting the equity remaining after accounting for the $35,000
debt to Terri’s grandmother, which is exactly what the chancellor did.
¶24.
We find the chancellor’s overall equitable division—which included Craig’s
recommendation for division of the equity in the marital home—reasonable based on the
equitable considerations involved in this case. We further point out that the chancellor
actually awarded Craig over $3,000 more than Terri in marital assets, so Craig actually
received slightly more than a 50/50 share.
¶25.
Accordingly, we affirm the chancellor’s judgment.
¶26. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CHANCERY COURT OF CLAY COUNTY IS
AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE
APPELLANT.
LEE, C.J., GRIFFIS, P.J., MYERS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND
CARLTON, JJ., CONCUR. IRVING, P.J., CONCURS IN PART AND IN THE
RESULT WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.
10
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.