Opinion ID: 1107716
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the chancellor erred in awarding rhonda monthly periodic alimony in the amount of $2,500.

Text: ¶ 16. Based on the chancellor's judgment, James is required to pay Rhonda $10,000 per month as follows: (1) Lump Sum Alimony  $5,000 per month for the next 50 months (2) Child Support  $2,500 per month (3) Periodic Alimony  $2,500 per month. ¶ 17. As stated, supra, the chancellor determined that James was capable of making $12,000 a month after taxes, but he also determined that James's reasonable monthly expenses were $6,429. As for Rhonda, the chancellor determined that the necessary expenses for Rhonda and the children added up to $6,000, and that Rhonda currently earned $2,118.65 per month working part-time as a nurse. The chancellor concluded, however, that Rhonda was capable of working full-time, which would result in an increase in her monthly salary. ¶ 18. Thus, although recognizing that James had to spend $6,429 per month on his expenses, the chancellor ordered James to pay Rhonda $10,000 per month. This award would give Rhonda approximately $12,118.65 a month, although her monthly expenses totaled only $6,000, and would leave James with a negative balance of $4,429 per month. Such action by the chancellor leaves James destitute and in hopeless continuous contempt of court. Furthermore the award is not equitable and fair and is per se unreasonable. See Brooks v. Brooks, 652 So.2d 1113, 1124 (Miss.1995). ¶ 19. In Brooks, the husband was required to pay the wife more per month than he earned. On appeal, this Court stated: In order to achieve equitable and fair results incident to a divorce, awards of alimony and any division of property should be considered together by a chancellor. We have unequivocally stated that proposition, as follows: All property division, lump sum or periodic alimony payment, and mutual obligations for child support should be considered together. . . . . . . . In the final analysis, all awards should be considered together to determine that they are equitable and fair. 652 So.2d at 1124 (citing Ferguson, 639 So.2d at 929). (Emphasis in original). Additionally, a chancellor should consider the reasonable needs of the wife and the right of the husband to lead as normal a life as possible with a decent standard of living. Brooks, 652 So.2d at 1122 (citing Massey v. Massey, 475 So.2d 802, 803 (Miss.1985)). Thus, Rhonda's award of periodic alimony must also be reversed and remanded. Consistent with Armstrong, 618 So.2d at 1280-82, and its progeny, the chancellor should consider all payments of support and division of property together to arrive at an equitable and fair result, on this issue and all other issues.