Jackson Jambalaya

This bit of lawyer porn is for the shysters hanging out in the bars of Amerigo, Char, and Koestler Prime right now. Enjoy.  

A Greene County woman found justice at the Mississippi Court of Appeals after her husband managed to obtain a divorce and favorable property settlement without her knowledge. You read that correctly.  A man submitted a petition for divorce while someone forged her signature on all documents submitted to the Court.  Did we mention she was never served?  Nevertheless, the Chancellor granted the divorce and ignored the wife when she claimed fraud.  

This particular tale of woe begins Dianne and Kenneth Merritt got married in 2017.  Marriage is meant to be forever but such was not to be for the Merritt's.  

Kenneth sued for divorce on January 10, 2022 on the grounds of habitual cruelty and in the alternative, irreconcilable differences in Greene County Chancery Court. A summons was issued for Diane on February 2 but (pay attention) there was no return filed with the clerk that showed process was served upon the wife.  The case was assigned to Greene County Chancellor D. Neil Harris

The fun soon began: 

A “Motion Withdrawing Fault Grounds” was prepared and filed by Kenneth’s attorney, William L. Peebles, on March 23, 2022. A “Waiver of Financial Statements and Disclosure,” prepared by Peebles, was filed on April 11, 2022, which, by Diane’s notarized signature, she purported to join. On April 13, 2022, a “Property Settlement Agreement” (PSA), also prepared by Peebles, was filed. Kenneth had signed the PSA before a notary public on March 21; however, the PSA purports to show that Diane signed the document before a different notary public on April 11, 2022.

The Chancellor dismissed the the fault grounds and entered an order of divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences in July.  Peebles (Kenneth's attorney) drafted both orders.  The Chancellor ordered a deputy to accompany Kenneth to his former home to obtain items awarded in the divorce.  

There is just one problem.  Diane never signed anything.  She asked the Chancery Court to set aside the divorce in October, claiming she did not sign any of the documents submitted to the Court.  Dianne accused Kenneth of fraud and misconduct.  The motion stated Diane did not consent to a divorce or property settlement agreement and her signatures were forged.  Kenneth, of course, denied all allegations.  

Diane testified at an August 23 hearing she "had no knowledge" her husband filed for divorce.  She learned of the divorce by word of mouth after the divorce was entered.   She claimed she was never served with process and repeated her alleged signatures were forgeries.  

More evidence of forgery appeared in court: 

¶7. Heather Smith was called as Diane’s next witness. By Smith’s signature and notary seal, she purportedly attested Diane’s signature on the questioned documents. Smith testified that she was a paralegal for attorney Elizabeth Porter in Hattiesburg. Smith told the court that she only notarized signatures in cases handled by Porter. She was shown the questioned documents and testified that she did not sign or notarize those documents. Smith told the court that her firm had not represented Diane in any matter and that she had never met Diane prior to being questioned about her notary seal and signature on the questioned document. Smith pointed out that while the seal appeared to be her seal, it was extremely small. The signature appeared to be her signature, but Smith testified that she did not sign or notarize any of the documents. She testified that in the spring of 2022, her office had a domestic case in Forrest County with Peebles on the other side. She testified that the notary seal on the disputed document is about one-fourth the size of her actual notary seal. She also noted that the angle of the seal and her signature are exactly the same on all three documents. Smith was not cross-examined by Kenneth’s attorney, and Diane’s counsel announced that he had no further witnesses.

Smith also testified a notary block was stolen from her office.  Kenneth denied signing his wife's name to anything.  Diane was arrested for meth possession although the charges were dropped. The Court ordered a drug test on the spot, which she passed. Naturally Kenneth claimed his wife could not remember anything when she was on meth, implying she did not remember signing the documents because of a drug problem. 

A hearing was held in September 2024.  Chancellor D. Neil Harris, Jr. denied the motion to set aside and entered a final judgment of divorce, holding no fraud took place.  

The Court of Appeals said although Diane bore the burden of proving fraud, she more than met that burden.   The Court noted Smith testified she did not sign or notarize the documents in question.  She said her seal was copied and used to perpetuate a fraud.  The finger pointed at Kenneth's attorney, William Peebles.  This is the crucial point of the case as an irreconcilable differences divorce can not be granted without both spouses' signatures. 

The Court pointed out 

Peebles, on behalf of Kenneth, represented to the chancellor that Diane had agreed to and consented to the questioned documents. As to whether any particular person forged the documents, Kenneth stated the documents were filed, at a minimum, without knowing whether those representations were true. As noted above, that is fraud under the law.

Once the fraud was perpetrated, Kenneth obtained a divorce and favorable division of property without his wife's knowledge.  Kenneth did not challenge his wife's forgery claims in court.  The Court did not think too kindly of the accusations of drug use, stating there was no evidence Diane was on drugs and forgot she signed anything . 

Kenneth also did not file an appellant brief.  His lawyer asked three times for more time to file a brief but one was never filed.  It is almost as if he knew he was caught in the act.  

The Court of Appeals ruled for Dianne Merrit as it slammed the Chancellor: 

¶28. We find that Diane proved by clear and convincing evidence that the divorce in this matter was procured by fraud and misrepresentations by Kenneth or his agents, Peebles, and his office. Therefore, we find that the chancellor abused his discretion by denying Diane the requested relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1). In fact, pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), the chancellor had the inherent authority to set aside the judgment in this case based on a fraud upon the court.

Diane did not have "prove who forged the documents" but only had to show the signatures were forged.   The Court reversed and remanded the case back to Greene County Chancery Court. 

The decision was unanimous.