JANNA D. HARRIS, APPELLANT
WINSTON E. HARRIS, APPELLEE
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HINDS COUNTY CHANCERY COURT. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/06/2012. TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JACQUELINE ESTES MASK. TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: DENIED APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
JANNA D. HARRIS, APPELLANT, Pro se.
FOR APPELLEE: JOHN R. REEVES, JOHN JUSTIN KING.
BEFORE IRVING, P.J., ISHEE AND MAXWELL, JJ. LEE, C.J., IRVING, P.J., BARNES, ROBERTS, CARLTON, MAXWELL ANDFAIR, JJ., CONCUR. GRIFFIS, P.J., AND JAMES, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS
[¶1] This case stems from the divorce action between Janna Harris and Winston Harris that began in 1994. Following years of litigation, Janna filed a motion for relief from judgment on April 23, 2008, in the Hinds County Chancery Court, alleging that Winston had committed fraud on the court. She sought relief from two prior judgments, dating back to 2000 and 2007. The chancery court ultimately dismissed Janna's motion due to lack of service of process on Winston. Janna filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied. Aggrieved, Janna appeals.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
[¶2] Janna and Winston were married on June 4, 1984, in Houston, Texas. On November 3, 1994, Janna was granted a divorce on the ground of adultery and awarded periodic alimony. Janna was also awarded full custody of the couple's then seven-year-old son, Trevor.
[¶3] Following their divorce, numerous post-trial motions were filed by both Janna and Winston. The motions filed by Janna were efforts to procure awards due to her by Winston pursuant to the final divorce
judgment. Winston filed motions for modification of the final divorce judgment. Between 1995 and 2000, several orders and judgments were entered addressing these motions. In November 1999, the chancery court reduced Janna's alimony. The chancery court further reduced Winston's obligations to both Janna's alimony and child support in January 2000. Aggrieved, Winston appealed and Janna cross-appealed.
[¶4] On February 3, 2004, this Court reversed and remanded the judgment on two issues, finding: (1) there was strong evidence that Winston may have been in contempt of court; and (2) Janna should be awarded attorney's fees if Winston were found to be in contempt of court. In all other aspects, the judgment was affirmed. Following this Court's judgment, a special judge was appointed to the case at ...