Case Title: Sharplin v. Sharplin

Citation: 465 So. 2d 1072

Docket Number: 

State: mississippi

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Date: 1985-03-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
465 So. 2d 1072 (1985) Pamela Lee SHARPLIN v. James Michael SHARPLIN. No. 55430. Supreme Court of Mississippi. March 13, 1985. T. Frank Collins, Jackson, for appellant. E. Michael Marks, Jackson, for appellee. Before PATTERSON, C.J., and HAWKINS and PRATHER, JJ. HAWKINS, Justice, for the Court. Pamela Lee Sharplin appeals from a decree of the Chancery Court of Rankin County holding that her remarriage terminated her husband's obligation to continue monthly alimony. She argues the alimony award was a "lump sum" award and therefore her husband's obligation did not terminate upon her remarriage. We agree with the chancellor and affirm. During the year 1982 Mrs. Sharplin separated from her husband James Michael Sharplin. She was represented by an attorney *1073 who prepared an "Agreement Respecting Child Custody and Property," which was signed by both parties October 7, 1982. Mr. Sharplin had no attorney representing him. This agreement stated the following concerning alimony to Mrs. Sharplin: On December 14, 1982, the chancellor rendered a final decree of divorce, which stated: Following the divorce Mrs. Sharplin remarried on December 31, 1983. Her husband filed a petition to relieve him of alimony payments, which he had stopped, and Mrs. Sharplin filed a motion to cite him for contempt. The chancellor heard both the petition and the motion and found that Mr. Sharplin's obligation to pay Mrs. Sharplin alimony terminated upon her remarriage. In Wray v. Wray, 394 So. 2d 1341 (Miss. 1981), we examined a property settlement agreement incorporated into a divorce decree which stated the following: This case is controlled by Wray, in which we stated: Very often alimony awards are ambiguous, and it was our view in Wray that if parties wish to have the alimony payments be considered "lump sum" or "gross" alimony as opposed to periodic alimony, terminable upon the death or remarriage of the wife, they should remove the ambiguity by clear, unequivocal language. Otherwise, we will interpret the alimony as periodic. We regret Mrs. Sharplin's attorney had not had the opportunity to read Wray before drafting the property settlement and decree in this case. AFFIRMED. PATTERSON, C.J., WALKER and ROY NOBLE LEE, P.JJ., DAN M. LEE, PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.