Ocean Springs Divorce Lawyer | Husband Is A Drunk

Is your husband a drunk?  If you need an Ocean Springs Divorce lawyer to help you with him being a drunk read on.

In Edward Speights v. Kimberly Speights, that was one of the issues for the Chancery Court to decide.

But, you can’t just say your husband or spouse is a drunk.

You have to prove what lawyers call “habitual drunkenness.”

In English, that means you have to show he gets drunk a lot.

Here is the legal mumbo jumbo definition:

Habitual drunkenness is a fault-based ground for divorce provided by Mississippi Code Annotated section 93-5-1.  Similar to the ground of excessive drug use, to receive a divorce, the “plaintiff should prove that the defendant was habitually, or frequently, drunk, that the drinking adversely affected the marriage, and that the habit continued at the time of the  divorce trial.

The chancery court or trial court will assess the credibility of witnesses.

Ocean Springs Divorce Lawyer | Husband Is A Drunk – He Doesn’t Show Up To Trial

Even if your husband does not show up for the trial, you still have to prove he is a habitual drunk.

Trey, in his wisdom, decided not to show up for trial.  That certainly did not help him.

Although Trey argued on appeal that the chancellor failed to make specific findings of fact or conclusions of law regarding the grant of divorce based on habitual drunkenness, there was no error found on appeal. Trey failed to make any motion or complaint before the chancery court raising this issue. A divorce judgment entered when a party fails to appear is a special kind of
default judgment.  In order to obtain relief from such a judgment,
absent parties must raise any requests or objections in a post-trial motion under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 52, 59, or 60.

Trey could have filed a motion to make or amend findings of fact under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 52 and Mississippi Rule of Chancery Court 4.01, but he failed to do so.  Further, Trey did not file a Rule 59
motion for a new trial or to alter or amend the judgment, or a Rule 60 motion for relief from judgment under the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure.  The record is void of any attempt by Trey before, during, or after the judgment of divorce to request findings of fact regarding
the grounds for divorce.  As a result, the Appeals Court could not find the chancery court erred in failing to make such findings when Trey did not request them.

Although the chancellor made no specific findings of fact, there was sufficient evidence provided at the trial in the form of testimony from Kimberly and Trey’s parents to prove habitual drunkenness.  Kimberly testified that during the last year of their marriage, while they were living in Boca Raton, Florida, Trey was drinking “a lot.”  She also related times when Trey discontinued drinking and had severe alcohol withdrawal symptoms, such as seizures and tremors.  During one drinking-related incident in March 2015, Trey threw Kimberly against a wall and threatened to kill her and the dog, but she ran to the neighbors’ home and spent the night.  During another incident, Trey had a wreck and was charged with “enhanced DUI.”  After the wreck he could not find his vehicle and did not even know the county in which the incident occurred.

After using Kimberly’s truck to find his vehicle, Trey came home drunk, carrying a bottle of vodka behind his arms. During this period, Kimberly described him as “out of control.” She and a friend tried to “get him some
help.” They took him to a physician who told Trey “he needed to go to rehab”; however, Trey continued to drink. Kimberly left him when he became verbally and physically abusive.

Kimberly testified that Trey’s parents and uncle attempted an intervention in Florida, but “it did not go well.” Another time, Kimberly and her best friend arranged for Trey to attend a rehabilitation and detoxification facility. Trey agreed to go, but then he refused to stay. He called a taxi-cab and stopped by a liquor store on the way home. Trey agreed to return but again did not stay. He came home drunk, telling Kimberly he bought a car on her credit card. He never returned to rehab, and his parents brought him home to Mississippi from Florida.

Kimberly also moved back to Mississippi. She testified Trey continued to drink and take prescription narcotics. After he threatened to kill her, Kimberly obtained a protective order against him; however, Trey violated the order and was arrested. She described him during this time as “erratic and scary.” Kimberly was able to testify that Trey was still drinking at the time of trial because recently he had been calling her friends in the early
morning hours leaving incomprehensible messages.

Trey’s father, Edward Speights Jr. (Edward Jr.), testified that Trey had been suffering from an “alcohol addiction” for the past two years, and was currently suffering from it. Trey lived in a camp house next to their home.

Edward Jr. corroborated Kimberly’s testimony about the family’s intervention attempts. Edward Jr. confirmed Trey was “incapable of
functioning.” He did not know if Trey would ever again be agreeable to any sort of alcoholaddiction treatment. Trey’s mother testified that she agreed with everything Edward Jr. stated.

This testimony was sufficient evidence to grant Kimberly a divorce on the ground of habitual drunkenness. It showed Trey’s alcohol consumption was frequent, negatively impacted the marriage, and continued until the time of trial. Furthermore, the chancellor, as the trier of fact, was in the best position to determine the credibility of the witnesses.

Ocean Springs Divorce Lawyer | Husband Is A Drunk – The Moral

The moral of the story?

Don’t get drunk all the time.  Don’t threaten to kill your wife.  Show up at trial.  Stop drinking.