Opinion ID: 1114416
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Glenda Ellis

Text: Glenda was called adversely and testified that she had a sexual relationship with Smith. She further testified on direct that she was unemployed because the company she worked for closed and that she has attempted to obtain employment but one problem was that employers was concerned about upsetting Bernard Ellis. Glenda stated that she had not received child support from Bernard because their son, Lydle Ellis, was emancipated but she had supported Lydle when he needed money. She testified that she receives unemployment of $660 with expenses of $1,111.40, which included house payment, food, clothing, transportation, medical and dental, utilities, laundry, telephone bill, and life insurance. [1] She testified beginning in November of 1991 that Smith began leaving her house around 11:00 p.m. and they were no longer having a sexual relationship. She testified that Smith was terminated from his job and that he does not receive any mail at her home or keep any clothes or other miscellaneous items there. She stated that Smith has not made any type of payment for her which includes house payments, utility bills, and does not look to him for support. She testified on cross that she has about $2,400 in her checking account, 180 shares of Deposit Guaranty, 100 shares of MicroTech, and a $10,000 silver savings. She testified that she received $60,000 as part of the property settlement. She used the $60,000 in the following manner: $10,000 to pay her car off, $10,000 on her house, $20,000 in a certificate of deposit. [2] The Chancellor found that Glenda sought many of the attributes of a marriage without the loss of her ex-husband's duty of continued support as alimony. The Chancellor further found that Glenda had chosen to forego her marriage vows to sanction her sexual relationship. The Chancellor held that Bernard's obligation to support Glenda did not include supporting her relationship with Smith. Specifically, the Chancellor held that public policy prevented this obligation. The public policy grounds delineated by the chancellor include favoring marriage and abstinence from sex outside of marriage. The Chancellor held that Glenda has $10,000 in savings and draws unemployment benefits of $660.00 per month, with living expenses of approximately $1100.00 per month. In sum, the Chancellor held that under the totality of the circumstances, which include Bernard's reduced income (due to his partial retirement for health reasons) and Glenda's misconduct, the alimony must be reduced to $375.00 per month for six months and thereafter terminated due to Glenda's misconduct. Glenda appealed, citing the following errors: I. CLAIMANT'S PROOF WAS INSUFFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW TO JUSTIFY THE CHANCELLOR IN TERMINATING THE ALIMONY PAYMENTS. II. MRS. ELLIS CLEARLY SHOWED BY HER PROOF THAT ANY RELATIONSHIP WITH ANOTHER MAN HAD BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY TERMINATED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE PETITION, WHICH UNDER CURRENT LAW WOULD JUSTIFY THE CHANCELLOR IN NOT TERMINATING THE ALIMONY. THE CHANCELLOR ERRED IN TERMINATING THE ALIMONY. III. THAT TO TERMINATE THE ALIMONY IN THIS FASHION BASED UPON AN ALLEGATION OF MISCONDUCT IS AN UNNECESSARY AND UNACCEPTABLE RESTRICTION ON ANY PARTY TO EXERCISE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. THE CHANCELLOR ERRED IN TERMINATING THE ALIMONY. IV. MRS. ELLIS DEMONSTRATED BY HER EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL ECONOMIC NEED ON HER PART, HAVING JUST LOST HER JOB, AND THE TERMINATION OF THE ALIMONY PAYMENTS WAS CONTRARY TO ESTABLISHED LAW IN THIS STATE AND OTHERS AND WAS GROSSLY UNFAIR AND INEQUITABLE. THE ECONOMIC NECESSITY ON THE PART OF MRS. ELLIS CLEARLY AND SUBSTANTIALLY OUTWEIGHED THE PROOF OF MISCONDUCT JUSTIFYING THE TERMINATION OF ALIMONY. THE CHANCELLOR ERRED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF EQUITIES WHEN HE TERMINATED THE ALIMONY. V. THE CHANCELLOR ERRED BY NOT RESPECTING THE PRIOR ORDER AND AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES WHEREIN IT WAS AGREED AND SO ORDERED THAT THE ALIMONY PROVISIONS SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED WITHOUT CONSENT AND AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES.