to return home. Martha testified that Mary acted “jittery, nervous or whatever if she was around us for a certain period of time.” Martha testified that Mary’s demeanor changed after her separation from Ronald. Martha testified that the night Mary left the marital home, she was “nervous and upset,” but her demeanor changed “after the separation, after a few weeks, few months, or whatever.” Further, Martha testified regarding Mary’s condition prior to the separation from Ronald, stating: “At one point, she was always going to the doctor, something was always wrong it seemed like. It seems like after the separation, it seemed like things, physically, she just changed.” Martha could not, through first-hand knowledge, explain the cause of Mary’s ailments. See Chamblee, 687 So.2d at 860 (<HOLDING>). ¶ 18. Though Mary claimed she sought medical
holding that wifes claims of abuse were uncorroborated when neighbor saw bruises on wifes arm but possessed no knowledge of their origin holding that wifes tort claims should have been presented in conjunction with the divorce action to lay at rest all their legal differences in one proceeding and avoid the prolongation and fractionalization of litigation holding that knowledge possessed by officials of the united states may be highly relevant such knowledge may show that the defendant did not submit its claim in deliberate ignorance or reckless disregard of the truth holding that the plaintiffs causes of action were preempted because their claims were premised on the existence of an erisa plan holding that the knowledge requisite to knowing violation of a statute is factual knowledge as distinguished from knowledge of the law