 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Martinez v. Martinez12/9/2003
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 12/09/2003
. Deana Martinez's suit for personal injuries was dismissed because of a contract which the court found had relinquished the claim on which the suit was based. Ms. Martinez alleges that this was a misreading of the agreement. We find no error and affirm.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
. Deana and Ricardo Martinez were divorced on February 9, 200l, in Madison County, Mississippi, on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. A property settlement agreement was incorporated into the final judgment. This agreement addressed several subjects. What concerns us are the following two paragraphs:
XIII.
Wife hereby agrees to drop any charges of any nature filed by her against Husband, whether criminal or civil, and Husband hereby agrees that he will not file any charges, whatsoever, against wife.
XV.
Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, each party releases the other party from all claims or demands through the date of the execution of this Agreement . . . .
. Prior to seeking the divorce, Ms. Martinez had filed a criminal affidavit in the Madison County Justice Court against Mr. Martinez alleging that he assaulted her on September 1, 2000. This agreement required her to drop the charges. Ms. Martinez did that.
. A few months later, Ms. Martinez filed this civil suit against her former husband in the Madison County Circuit Court. She sought damages for the same September 1, 2000 assault that had been the basis of the earlier justice court affidavit. Mr. Martinez filed an answer and counterclaim in which he denied the alleged assault and requested that the court grant sanctions for a frivolous lawsuit. A transfer to chancery court was also requested.
. The circuit court found that jurisdiction was proper in that court. After a hearing, the court found that the property settlement agreement created an unambiguous contractual obligation. The court further concluded that the agreement's reference to criminal and civil charges by the parties also incorporated personal injury claims. Finally, the court held that this suit violated paragraph XV of the agreement which released all claims through February 9, 2001. The case was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The defendant was awarded the attorney's fees incurred in defending the suit.
DISCUSSION
. Ms. Martinez argues that she has not violated the agreement entered at the time of the divorce. She emphasizes that paragraph XIII of that agreement only required that she "drop any charges of any nature filed by her against Husband, whether criminal or civil," while her husband was required not to "file any charges, whatsoever, against Wife." We agree that "drop" suggests the abandoning of pending matters, with the implicit requirement not then to refile those charges.
. Of equal importance is paragraph XV, which states that "except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, each party releases the other party from all claims or demands through the date of the execution of this Agreement . . . ." It is this paragraph that the trial judge found to prevent the suit.
. We consider the issues raised on appeal.
Jurisdiction
. Ms. Martinez argues that the claim that she has now brought for personal injuries was never within the jurisdiction of the chancery court to resolve at the time of divorce. She relies on a precedent that held that "a claim for personal injury arising out of an assault and battery properly belongs in the ci
Page 1 2 3 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|