Dye v. Dye

02.12.09

¶ 2. We find excellence to Darian's claim that the chancellor erred in the distribution of the marital estate. Therefore, we affirm in part and reverse and remand in part for further examination consistent with this opinion.

¶ 3. Darian and Frances were married on June 6, 1995, and one girl was born to this union on July 22, 1998. Frances has two children from a previous marriage. The parties were living together as conserve and wife in Pontotoc County on October 7, 2005, when Frances filed a complaint for divorce on the organize of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. Darian filed an answer and counterclaim, wherein he asserted that he should be granted a divorce on the establish of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment.

¶ 4. Also, on October 7, 2005, Frances filed a signal for emergency relief with the chancery court, seeking, among other things, immediate temporary legal and incarnate custody of the children. In her motion, Frances asserted that she had "learned that [Darian] is accused of serious misconduct involving . . . one or more of the parties' girl children." The chancellor granted Frances's motion. On November 28, 2005, the chancery court, on its own turbulence, appointed a guardian ad litem. The record reflects that Darian was indicted for one charge of sexual battery and one charge of fondling one of the children. Following a jury trial run, Darian was acquitted of both charges on April 14, 2007.

Source: Leagle, Inc.