OF JUDGMENT: 07/23/2015
COUNTY CHANCERY COURT HON. H.J. DAVIDSON JR. JUDGE
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: TIMOTHY C. HUDSON
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: MARK ANDREW CLIETT
LEE, C.J., BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ.
Kim Marie Gwathney claims she was entitled to a divorce from
Gary Joe Gwathney based on cruel and inhuman treatment. But
the Clay County Chancery Court found that she did not present
sufficient evidence. Kim appeals. Because the chancellor did
not abuse his discretion, apply an erroneous legal standard,
or render a decision that was manifestly wrong, we affirm his
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Kim and Gary were married in February 2007. They were
forty-five and fifty-eight years old, respectively. In June
2012, Kim filed for divorce based on allegations of habitual
drunkenness and habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. Gary
contested Kim's claims. ¶3. At trial, Kim testified
that Gary started physically abusing her shortly after their
marriage. She said he assaulted her "at least fifteen
times, " but the results were typically concealed by her
clothes. According to Kim, Gary often locked her out of their
house, forcing her to sleep in her car or on a picnic table.
She estimated that Gary physically abused her between five
and ten times during the year before she left their home in
June 2012. Aside from generalizations, she presented more
specific evidence of two incidents: one in December 2008, and
another during the summer of 2011. The two incidents will be
addressed in greater detail below.
In July 2015, the chancellor entered his final judgment.
After discussing the evidence and his reasoning in great
detail, the chancellor held that Kim presented insufficient
evidence that she was entitled to a divorce. Kim appeals.
"In domestic-relation cases, our review is limited to
whether the chancery court's findings were manifestly
wrong or clearly erroneous, or the court applied the wrong
legal standard." Lomax v. Lomax, 172 So.3d
1258, 1260 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2015). If substantial
evidence in the record supports the chancellor's findings
of fact, we will not disturb his decision. Id.
Kim argues that the chancellor erred when he denied her
request for a divorce based on cruel and inhuman treatment.
Kim bore the burden ...