Gerty v. Gerty
Mississippi Supreme Court
265 So. 3d 121 (2018)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
In 2013, Michael Gerty and Joesie Gerty jointly filed for divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences. The Gertys then put the proceeding on hold, executing a property-settlement agreement that gave Michael custody of their minor child. For nearly two years, during which Michael and the child lived separately from Joesie, Joesie engaged in an ongoing sexual relationship with another man. In 2015, Joesie withdrew her consent from the irreconcilable-differences complaint, and the parties filed separate divorce complaints, both on the ground of adultery. Joesie raised condonation as an affirmative defense to Michael’s adultery allegations, testifying that she had informed Michael of a 2013 summer fling with the other man. However, the record also showed that Joesie’s relationship with the other man had begun as early as 2011 and lasted until 2015. The chancery court granted a divorce and gave custody of the child to Joesie but refused to find adultery on the part of either spouse. More specifically, the court held that Joesie had failed to meet her burden of proof and that even though Michael’s burden of proof had been met, the defense of condonation applied. Michael and the state attorney general appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Randolph, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 781,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.