Tag Archives: testimony

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!!

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.

What Does it Look Like when you are Not Ready for Divorce?

I have written several times on sometimes just not being ready. I have seen multiple instances of person just not being ready…

What are the signs of Not Being Ready?

Things are moving TOO Fast.

The divorce process is actually fairly slow in Mississippi. It is typically at least 60 days with the average cases taking closer to 90 days, if uncontested. If contested, the case could take 6-18 months. A few take even longer!

Things are TOO Emotional.

Of course divorce is highly emotional. In some respects you may never “get over it.” However, the best results require that you treat the financial aspects as a business transaction. If you are so focused on the emotion, getting even or some other aspect, you’ll regret it later.

It makes NO Sense.

If you are in a brain fog and cannot explain in plain terms what the lawyer has explained to you, you may not be ready. I don’t expect you to know every legal term of art, but there are some very important concepts you need to understand.

It’s TOO Hard.

Getting to simple agreements is a Herculean effort. When commonsense has left the station.

These are just a few indicators of Not being ready. Be on the lookout for these signs in your spouse and/or yourself. Recognizing these issues will allow for them to be better handled.

Matthew Thompson is a Divorce and Custody lawyer in Mississippi and warns you that negotiating a divorce when you are not ready may result in regret.

Child Testimony 101 & Updates

Whether a child should testify is a decision that hopefully you as a parent will never face. The Mississippi Supreme Court, in a 1990 Opinion, held “We reiterate that parents in a divorce proceeding should 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.”- Jethrow vs. Jethrow, 571 So.2d 270 (Miss. 1990). 

For testimony purposes a child witness of “tender years” is 12 and under and testifying is subject to the discretion of the Judge.

However, a recent Court of Appeals case requires ALL children be interviewed by the Judge in every custody case if a parent calls the child as a witness. It is now mandatory regardless of the age of the child, regardless of who has custody, and regardless even when the other parent objects believing same will result in harm, emotional or otherwise, due to the very young age of the child and even over the objection of the Guardian Ad Litem appointed for the child.  Daly v. Raines, No. 2022-CA-00600-COA

This is a scary proposition for most parents and something to consider when you are litigating. In divorce/custody/family law litigation your children will now be forced to participate if either parent so decides.

Be careful who you have a child with…

Matthew Thompson is a child custody and divorce lawyer in Mississippi and believes that only in exigent circumstance should child custody even be considered . However, the “law” doesn’t always allow for common sense to prevail…

5 Rules for Testifying.

I recently presented and attended several CLEs. It’s a great way to learn new things and be exposed to differing points of view.

Today’s gem comes from Jon Powell. Jon’s a great attorney in Rankin County. Here’s Jon’s 5 Rules for Testifying.

  1. Listen to the question.
  2. Think about your answer.
  3. Answer only the question asked.
  4. Stop talking once answered.
  5. Tell the Truth.

Great advice!!

Matthew Thompson is a family law attorney that always appreciates great advice!

(601)850-8000

http://www.BowTieLawyer.ms

Don’t Write on Exhibits/Photographs

Q:  Is this a true and accurate copy?

A: No. I don’t know whose writing this is…I don’t know what those circles mean…

Attorney: Objection. It’s obviously not a true copy, as the original does not have writing and circles on it.

Court: Sustained.

download.jpg

Court rules can be tediously picky. If something isn’t phrased the right way, authenticated sufficiently, or previously produced, if requested, you may not be able to use it. This is true even if it is something important, reliable and tangible to the issues before the Court. This is just one reason why Court is so frustrating.

I had a case where the witness highlighted certain portions of an email. When the time came to testify about the email, the other party pretended to not recognize it, nor remember it.  He wasn’t sure if he used that email address at that time. He certainly knew he didn’t highlight it and wasn’t sure he had seen it before. It was a dance of avoiding the obvious.

Ultimately, the email came in when the sponsoring party testified and I believe the other party lost credibility in feigning ignorance, however it was a good lesson on the rules/tricks of Court.

Matthew Thompson is  a Family Law attorney in Mississippi and encourages you to practice, with your attorney, your testimony and how to authenticate an exhibit and get it into evidence.

img_6390

Careful of Your Online Footprint…

What goes on the internet stays on the internet!

Flim Flam – Steve Robertson

I recently read the book Flim Flam. One theme that stuck out was that your activities through electronic devices leaves a footprint that can be traced back to you.

This is a good lesson for persons maneuvering a family law matter. Your digital footprint will lead back to you.

Hillary Clinton and Tom Brady know this and you should too.

Just like in real life, your mother told you (or divorce attorney) not to go places you don’t need to go. Well, don’t go there electronically either.

Matthew Thompson is a family law attorney in Mississippi cautioning you that your digital footprint may lead straight back to you.

(601)850-8000

http://www.BowTieLawyer.ms

Do Not Answer a Question with “Sure.”

Testifying in Court can be hard. It causes stress, anxiety, and it is seldom a great experience. However, some responses should be eliminated from your vocabulary.

download.png

(adjective) surer, surest.

1.  free from doubt as to the reliability, character, action, etc., of something:

to be sure of one’s data.

2.  confident, as of something expected:

sure of success.

3.  convinced, fully persuaded, or positive:

to be sure of a person’s guilt.
(Slang definitions & phrases for sure)
Yes; certainlySure, I’ll support you (1842+)
While a slang use for sure could mean yes, it does not sound like it in Court.
NOT GOOD
Q: Mr. Witness, don’t you agree that telling your child that the other parent is a deceitful, hateful train-wreck is inappropriate.
A: Sure.
It sounds dismissive. It could be treated as a “whatever” response. You do not want to create an impression with the Court that you do not take the matter seriously.
BETTER 
Q: Mr. Witness, don’t you agree that telling your child that the other parent is a deceitful, hateful train-wreck is inappropriate.
A: Yes, I did. It was wrong. I regret it. I will not discuss grown up things with the child again. I’m sorry for that.
This response is not dismissive. It answers the question. It demonstrates remorse and that the conduct will not repeat itself.
BEST*
Q: Mr. Witness, don’t you agree that telling your child that the other parent is a deceitful, hateful train-wreck is inappropriate.
A: Yes, I agree that would be inappropriate, but I never did that, nor would I.
This response is the best. It answers the question directly and advises the Court you did not do the conduct being complained of. (This response is only possible if it is the truth.*)
Of course you can say the word sure and use it in other responses, but it should likely not be a one-word response.
Matthew Thompson is a Family Law attorney in Mississippi and is sure that you should not answer a question with “sure” most of the time.
img_6390