Tag Archives: divorce

TikTok, Alienation is on the Clock = $1.75 Million Dollar Judgment

In what can only occur in our modern, social media-driven times, a North Carolina woman is found liable for breaking up a marriage and ordered to pay $1.75 million dollars to the wronged spouse. And her own TikTok videos were exhibits!!

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/celebrity/articles/tiktok-star-accused-stealing-woman-232505117.html

Alienation of Affection allows the wronged spouse in a marriage to sue the “significant other” of the guilty spouse for the breakdown of the marriage.  There are only 6 states in the country that still recognize AOA, but North Carolina and Mississippi are amongst them, and as recently as the 1990’s our Courts have refused to abolish this tort, reaffirming its place in the Mississippi legal system.

So what is AOA?

The elements are;

1) Wrongful Conduct (ie: adultery, though not required),

2) loss of affections, and

3) a causal connection.  

All 3 must be present for a viable claim.  There is a 3-year statute of limitations in which to bring the claim, beginning when the loss of affection is finally accomplished.

One of the issues that made this case especially egregious is that a tiktok video indicated that Brenay Kennard bought a pregnancy test after saying “I am getting down and dirty in the sheets.” At trial Kennard denied being sexually active at that time.

Another video featured Kennard saying, “I make her very uncomfortable.” Kennard admitted “her” referred to Akira Montague (the wife), but said “uncomfortable” could mean many things. She again denied being sexually active with Timothy Montague while he and Akira were together.

The jury did not buy it.

*As an aside, North Carolina has AOA and a separate tort called “criminal conversation” which only requires proof of sex with a married person for the “significant other” to be liable for damages.  It does not require loss of affections or a causal connection or even a real relationship.

Thirteen years ago I typed these prophetic words, “So what is the take away here?  Just because you are not married does not mean you have no culpability in an affair.  You will  be a necessary witness in the divorce case and stand a chance of getting sued yourself for AOA.  And if you go to North Carolina, you better behave.

$1.75 million dollars later and the above words are still true today!!

Matthew Thompson is a family law attorney in Mississippi and reminds you Alienation of Affection is alive and well and can make you pay!!

Look out WebMD here comes ChatGPT!

For years Doctors have enjoyed the saying “I’m sure your WebMD is just as good as my actual M.D….

Self-diagnosing running rampant…

Well now ChatGPT has made everyone a lawyer.

Need a brief in response to a summary judgment motion?

In mere seconds a fully typed, cited and “winning” brief is at your fingertips.

Only, there’s just one problem…

It’s fake! The cites are fake. The rulings are made up and the cases and courts may not even exist.

Recently BigLaw and small firms have been swept up in AI legal malfeasance. It’s making the rounds and the news.

A federal judge has even been the target of an inquiry when a ghost ruling appeared with fictitious parties, fake facts and bad law! The order vanished and was replaced with a corrected one.

So be careful out there. We can no longer believe the news, the internet or our own eyes.

Matthew Thompson is a family law attorney that cites Westlaw and text books, such as Mississippi Divorce, Alimony and Child Custody, with forms.

Is Winning Your Appeal a Win?

“I’ll take this all the way to the Supreme Court!”

A fair amount of family law cases are appealed in Mississippi. All are appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court, most are assigned to the Mississippi Court of Appeals (COA). This means the COA will decide your appeal.

An appeal, typically, does not result in an outright win. Most appeals are denied, as the chancery courts in Mississippi have a tremendous amount of discretion. There must be a showing of abuse of discretion and/or manifest error for an appeal to be successful. But, even then it may only be a paper victory.

An appellate win usually results in a remand. Meaning sent back to the same Judge for a new hearing on the issue(s) that the lower Court got wrong, and it’s usually with instruction on what and how to try the matter.

This often results in delay, more court and frequently no actual change in the outcome. The other tough thing in family law appeals is that time marches on.

The appeal of a custody matter could look vastly different two-years later and the Court, while “correcting” the past error, cannot ignore the now-current circumstances.

Be carefully with appealing your case. Talk to your attorney about potential outcomes and whether or not it will change the result.

Matthew Thompson is a Mississippi appeals attorney and has participated in over 30 appeals.

Coldplay is a cold play – Uh Oh …

These photos are still shots of a video taken at a recent Coldplay concert. A couple, caught up in a moment, got caught in the moment…allegedly.

Lead singer, Chris Martin is heard saying  “Either they’re having an affair or they’re just very shy…Holy sh-t. I hope we didn’t do something bad,”

As the internet is known to do, online comments are all atwitter!

Cost of a concert: Hotel $200, tickets $600, food/drinks $150, divorce attorney $50,000. Getting exposed by Coldplay having an affair with your co-worker: priceless,” wrote Instagram user Trustfundterry.

One X user claimed that Byron’s wife had dropped her married name from her Facebook profile, and didn’t restrict people from making comments. Source. https://nypost.com/2025/07/17/us-news/couple-caught-on-kiss-cam-at-coldplay-concert-dodges-out-of-sight-as-chris-martin-wonders-if-theyre-having-an-affair/

This video and story has gone viral for all of the wrong reasons!

Matthew Thompson is a Mississippi divorce attorney and advises 1) do not have an affair and 2) if you are going to anyway, be discreet.

Dueling in Mississippi, Illegal since the 1800s…

MS Code § 97-39-1 (2024)

It seems we pine for yesteryear when men were gentlemen. Well, guess what? They weren’t!!

Disputes were resolved with a fight to the death. Political rhetoric was uglier then than now and physical altercations were certainly more prevalent then than now between candidates.

Mississippi law provided then (and now),

“Every person who shall challenge another to a duel…or who shall accept any such challenge…or who shall be present at the time of any duel with deadly weapons, either as second, aid, or surgeon, …or give assistance to such duel, shall, on conviction thereof, be fined in a sum not less than $300.00 nor exceeding $1,000.00…, or be imprisoned not less than 6-months in the county jail, or both.”

Codes, Hutchinson’s 1848, ch. 64, art. 9(1); 1857, ch. 64, art. 51; 1871, § 2531; 1880, § 2745; 1892, § 1036; 1906, § 1114; Hemingway’s 1917, § 840; 1930, § 865; 1942, § 2091.

The good ‘ol’ days weren’t that good and hopefully we can learn from the past and not repeat mistakes (and worse…)

Also, a duel is no way to settle divorce matters!

Matthew Thompson is a family law and child welfare attorney in Mississippi, a student of history and continues to learn from the past.

True Joint Custody Bill Proposed…UPDATE, it’s DEAD

Mississippi Courts have not historically favored Joint Custody. A new Bill would require a presumption of Joint Custody is best for a child, that would have to be overcome if a parent doesn’t agree…

Senate Bill 2484 seeks to amend the current custody statute 93-5-24, as follows: “

(2) * * * (a) (i) There shall be a rebuttable presumption that joint custody and equally shared parenting time is in the best interest of the child. If the court does not grant joint custody and/or equally shared parenting time, the court shall construct a parenting time schedule which maximizes the time each parent has with the child and ensures the best interest of the child is met.
(ii) The presumption created in subparagraph (i) of this paragraph shall be rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence. A court that does not award joint custody with equally shared parenting time shall document the reasons for deviating from the presumption.
(b) Upon petition of both parents, the court may grant
legal and/or physical custody to one (1) parent.”

This is an interesting Bill and in theory how Custody determinations should begin anyway. However, it goes further than current law in creating a rebuttable presumption and then requiring documenting the reasons for deviating from the presumption if the court does not grant joint physical custody and/or equally shared parenting time.

Read more about the current law and Physical Custody here.

Read more about Legal Custody here.

Matthew Thompson is a child custody lawyer and believes mom and dad coparenting and working together is what’s best for the child. A set schedule based on the child, with flexibility when warranted is what is best…

Child Testimony, the Court and YOU

A child testifying is an often discussed issue between parents and attorneys in child custody cases.

When parents are getting a divorce the child usually knows more than their parents think. The child most likely witnessed fights, bad conduct and sometimes even dangerous conduct.

In Mississippi law, the leading authority is Jethrow vs. Jethrow, 571 So.2d 270 (Miss. 1990). This case lays the groundwork that the Court should use when assessing child testimony. The basic premise is, as follows;

  • A child witnesses of tender years*, 12 and under for testimony purposes, testifying is subject to the discretion of the Judge. (*this tender years is different than the “tender years” doctrine favoring a mother when a child is very young, under 2-3).
  • Before allowing such testimony the Judge “should satisfy himself that the child has the ability to perceive and remember events, to understand and answer questions intelligently, and to comprehend and accept the importance of truthfulness.”

Before excluding the testimony of a child witness of tender years in a divorce proceeding, the chancellor at a minimum should follow the procedure required by Crownover v. Crownover, 33 Ill.App.3rd 327, 337 N.E.2d 56 (1975):

  • The first hurdle is whether the child is competent to testify.
  • The Judge should confer in camera (meaning in the Judge’s chambers/office) with the child and determine whether or not the child’s testimony should be heard
  • The Judge has considerable discretion in conducting proceedings of this type, meaning it’s a judgment call.
  • The court should not, however, reject outright proposed testimony of a child in custody proceedings, where the omission of such crucial testimony might be harmful to the child’s best interests.
  • The trial court should take great pains to have an in camera conference with the child to determine the competency of the child,
  • and determine the competency of any evidence which the child might present.
  • The court should determine whether the best interests of the child would be served by permitting her to testify, or
  • Whether the child should be sheltered from testifying and being subjected to a vigorous cross-examination.
  • The Judge should report the essential material matters developed at the in camera conference on the record.
  • The Court should state the reasons for allowing or disallowing the testimony of the child, and
  • The Court should note the factual information which the court developed from the conference with the child which would be considered by the court in its ultimate determinations in the case.

Generally, the testimony of a child called as a witness in a divorce case should not be excluded for reasons other than competency, or evidentiary defects, or for the protection of the child. (24 Am.Jur.2d, Divorce and Separation, A 415). There should not be a summary refusal to inquire as to the competency of the child to testify and also of the competency of the proposed testimony of such child in a change of custody proceeding.

imgres.jpg

“We reiterate that parents in a divorce proceeding should if at all possible refrain from calling any of the children of their marriage, of tender years at least, as witnesses, and counsel should advise their clients against doing so except in the most exigent cases. The reason and wisdom behind this precaution need no amplification. We also hold, however, as we must that no parent can be precluded from having a child of the marriage in a divorce proceeding testify simply because of that fact.” Jethrow v. Jethrow, 571 So.2d 270, 274 (Miss. 1990)(emphasis added).

A child testifying should be avoided, however if it cannot be avoided the above process will likely be used by the Court to determine if and how the child will testify.

Matthew Thompson is a Child Custody Litigation Attorney in Mississippi.

Two Family Law BILLS Died in Committee

Mississippi legislation kicked around 2 significant ideas for changes in Family Law. Both failed to become law in the State.

This “was the year” for Irretrievable Breakdown, Mississippi’s answer to No Fault Divorce.

In MS, you do NOT have a right to a divorce. You either have to have fault grounds that you can prove to the satisfaction of the Chancellor or have an agreement with your spouse to ALL issues. 48 other states have a No Fault Divorce process. MS does not.

Thirteenth. Upon application of either party, the court may
grant a divorce when the court finds there has been an
irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and that further attempts
at reconciliation are impractical or futile and not in the best
interests of the parties or family.

Secondly, a Joint Custody bill was proposed. There were several iterations of this legislation, but the gist of it was that the Court was to assume that Joint Physical Custody was in the best interest of the child when parents could not agree (and, even if they could) and if the Court found Joint Physical Custody was not in the best interest of the child it had to state why. (There were some issues with the proposed legislation as it was drafted, but this Bill found some traction and was discussed and bandied about for weeks…ultimately to no avail).

(2) * * * (a) There shall be a presumption, rebuttable by a
preponderance of evidence, that joint custody and equally shared
parenting time is in the best interest of the child. If the court
does not grant joint custody and/or equally shared parenting time,
the court shall construct a parenting time schedule which
maximizes the time each parent has with the child and ensuring the
best interest of the child is met.
(b) Upon petition of both parents, the court may grant
legal and/or physical custody to one parent.

Both bills failed and there are limited changes to MS Family Law. A blog for another day.

Matthew Thompson is a Family Law Attorney in MS and is in favor of some common sense changes in Mississippi Law.