Lister v. Lister
Court of Appeals of Mississippi
981 So. 2d 340 (2008)
- Written by Denise McGimsey, JD
Facts
Judy Lister (plaintiff) married Orville Lister (defendant) in 1982. Mr. Lister established a small business in which Mrs. Lister served as the secretary, office manager, and bookkeeper. In 1999, Mr. Lister hired Sheila Walters as the receptionist. Mrs. Walters was married to Joseph Walters at the time. Mrs. Lister began to suspect an affair between Mr. Lister and Mrs. Walters based upon the time they spent together, unexplained simultaneous absences by both of them, and the fact that Mr. Lister loaned Mrs. Walters money. Mrs. Lister fired Mrs. Walters. Mr. Lister then fired Mrs. Lister and rehired Mrs. Walters. He gave her Mrs. Lister’s office and cell phone and allowed her to drive company vehicles. Mrs. Lister moved out of the couple’s home and filed for divorce on the grounds of adultery. Mrs. Walters moved into a mobile home next door to Mr. Lister. He gave her money to pay for a divorce from her husband. They also took long trips together. Mr. Walters stated that after his wife moved out of their home, he saw her staying at Mr. Lister’s house for five days in a row. In the Listers’ divorce trial, it was revealed that Mr. Lister failed to fully disclose his assets. He and Mrs. Walters denied committing adultery. The trial court granted Mrs. Lister’s divorce on the grounds of adultery. Mr. Lister appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Chandler, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 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.