Sanghi v. Sanghi

42 Citing cases

  1. Pearson v. Browning

    106 So. 3d 845 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 12 times
    Finding "Rule 81(d) governs the need for additional summons on the defendant" in a contempt matter

    This Court uses a de novo standard when reviewing questions concerning jurisdiction. Sanghi v. Sanghi, 759 So.2d 1250, 1252 (¶ 7) (Miss.Ct.App.2000). “This Court is in the same position as the trial court, with all the facts set out in the pleadings or exhibits.”

  2. Pearson v. Browning

    NO. 2010-CA-02096-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Sep. 4, 2012)

    ¶6. This Court uses a de novo standard when reviewing questions concerning jurisdiction. Sanghi v. Sanghi, 759 So. 2d 1250, 1252 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). "This Court is in the same position as the trial court, with all the facts set out in the pleadings or exhibits."

  3. Clark v. Clark

    2009 CA 11 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010)

    However, "[w]hen reviewing questions concerning jurisdiction, this court employs a de novo review." Sanghi v. Sanghi 759 So.2d 1250, 1252 (¶ 7) (Miss. Ct.App. 2000). DISCUSSION

  4. Clark v. Clark

    43 So. 3d 496 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 18 times
    Explaining that property distribution, attorney's fees, and lump-sum and periodic alimony awards must be reversed when accompanying a void divorce

    However, " [w]hen reviewing questions concerning jurisdiction, this court employs a de novo review." Sanghi v. Sanghi, 759 So.2d 1250, 1252(¶ 7) (Miss.Ct.App.2000).          DISCUSSION

  5. Pritchard v. Pritchard

    282 So. 3d 809 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 4 times
    In Pritchard, 282 So.3d at 817 (¶31), we further noted that "a defendant is 'under no obligation to notice what is going on in a cause in court against him, unless the court has gotten jurisdiction of him in some manner recognized by law.'"

    But "[w]hen reviewing questions concerning jurisdiction, this Court employs a de novo review." Sanghi v. Sanghi , 759 So. 2d 1250, 1252 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). Sufficiency of process is a jurisdictional issue.

  6. Chasez v. Chasez

    2004 CA 679 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 11 times
    Holding Rule 81 applies to a contempt issue arising in domestic matter

    ¶ 9. Domestic relations cases, such as this one, remain subject to recurring motions even after all prior contested matters are resolved. Sanghi v. Sanghi, 759 So.2d 1250, 1253 (¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App. 2000). Although courts do maintain personal jurisdiction over parties in relation to these recurring motions, certain Rule 81 matters, because of their special nature, require special notice.

  7. Chasez v. Chasez

    2004 CA 679 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006)

    Domestic relations cases, such as this one, remain subject to recurring motions even after all prior contested matters are resolved. Sanghi v. Sanghi, 759 So.2d 1250, 1253 (¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App. 2000). Although courts do maintain personal jurisdiction over parties in relation to these recurring motions, certain Rule 81 matters, because of their special nature, require special notice.

  8. Reichert v. Reichert

    2001 CA 491 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 6 times
    In Reichert, we were consistent with Bray and followed the presumption of correctness set forth, but found that the record affirmatively contradicted the presumption.

    Here, the chancery court was correct in finding jurisdiction over Wallace in the contempt matter because a domestic relations case remains subject to recurring motions even after all prior contested matters are resolved. Sanghi v. Sanghi, 759 So.2d 1250, 1253 (¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App. 2000). Once a court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant at the time of divorce, the court is presumed to have continuing jurisdiction.

  9. Garrison v. Courtney

    304 So. 3d 1129 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 5 times
    Determining that "the fact that a Rule 81 summons was not re-issued" after the contempt motion was filed did "not change our determination that the chancery court did not abuse its discretion" in "rendering a decision" on contempt

    Under the circumstances of this case, we do not find that this is a significant factor. In Sanghi v. Sanghi , 759 So. 2d 1250, 1253 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000), this Court explained that the reason a Rule 81 summons is required is because "[a] domestic relations case remains subject to recurring motions even after all prior contested matters are resolved. A pleading to alert the other party that a new dispute has arisen is in the nature of awakening a dormant suit , distinguishable both from commencing new litigation and from just filing a motion in active litigation.

  10. Harrison v. Howard

    356 So. 3d 1232 (Miss. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 6 times

    "This Court uses a de novo standard when reviewing questions concerning jurisdiction." Pearson v. Browning, 106 So.3d 845, 847 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (quoting Sanghi v. Sanghi, 759 So.2d 1250, 1252 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000)). ¶23.