879 So.2d 457 (2004) Winston HARRIS, Appellant
v.
Janna D. HARRIS, Appellee. Nos. 2000-CA-00762-COA, 2001-CA-01024-COA, 2001-CA-01457-COA. Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
February 3, 2004. Rehearing Denied May 18, 2004. Certiorari Denied August 5, 2004. *458 John R. Reeves, attorneys for appellant.
James A. Becker, Susan Latham Steffey, Jackson, attorneys for appellee.
Before McMILLIN, C.J., BRIDGES and THOMAS, JJ.
BRIDGES, J., for the court.
¶ 1. This appeal was consolidated with two other appeals involving the same parties; however, this Court's ruling in this appeal renders all other consolidated appeals moot. The only issues that will be addressed are those contained in the immediate appeal.[1] The first appeal is from a final judgment entered March 28, 2000[2], and the other two appeals are from a May 1, 2001 judgment of the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County styled "Judgment - Modifying Former *459 Judgments and Finding Defendant [appellant Janna Harris] in Willful Contempt of Court,"[3] and from a directly related judgment of that same court entered July 25, 2001.[4]
¶ 2. In this appeal, the Court will address not only Winston's four issues but also Janna's four issues stated in her brief/cross-appeal and in so doing the Court will combine certain issues from both appeals for the sake of practicality and clarity. These issues are stated verbatim.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES IN WINSTON'S APPEAL I. WHETHER THE CHANCELLOR ERRED IN NOT ORDERING JANNA TO REFUND WITH INTEREST $50,000 WINSTON HAD PAID HER PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER FOR HER DIVORCE ATTORNEY'S FEES BUT WHICH SHE FAILED TO PAY TO HER DIVORCE ATTORNEYS?
II. WHETHER THE CHANCELLOR ERRED IN NOT HOLDING JANNA IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COURT?
III. WHETHER THE CHANCELLOR ERRED IN NOT TERMINATING WINSTON'S ALIMONY OBLIGATION TO JANNA?
IV. WHETHER THE CHANCELLOR ERRED IN NOT ORDERING THE ALIMONY REDUCTION RETROACTIVE TO APRIL 13, 1998, THE DATE THE MOTION TO MODIFY WAS FILED?
JANNA'S CROSS-APPEAL ISSUES
I. THE ISSUE OF JANNA'S PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS TO HER FORMER ATTORNEYS, WILLIAM WRIGHT AND ROBERT KING IS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THIS COURT.
II. THE CHANCELLOR CORRECTLY REFUSED TO HOLD JANNA IN CIVIL OR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COURT REGARDING HER PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY'S FEE.
III. THE CHANCELLOR ERRED IN REDUCING JANNA'S ALIMONY FROM $4,000 PER MONTH TO $1,600 PER MONTH AND REDUCING CHILD SUPPORT FROM $2,020 PER MONTH TO $1,450 PER MONTH AS WINSTON FAILED TO PROVE A MATERIAL CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTING ANY REDUCTION, MUCH LESS SUCH A DRASTIC ONE.
IV. THE COURT ERRED IN REDUCING JANNA'S ALIMONY AND TREVOR'S CHILD SUPPORT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, AND COMPOUNDED THAT ERROR BY MAKING THE REDUCTION RETROACTIVE.
V. THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE HEARD WINSTON'S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION AS WINSTON WAS IN SUBSTANTIAL ARREARS IN ALIMONY AND CHILD SUPPORT WHEN HE FILED HIS PETITION FOR MODIFICATION AND ON THE DATE OF THE HEARING ON MODIFICATION. FOR THESE SAME REASONS, THE COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING WINSTON IN CONTEMPT OF COURT.
VI. JANNA SHOULD BE AWARDED ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS *460