Opinion ID: 1787426
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the trial court err in failing to award permanent alimony to appellant and in awarding temporary alimony for a period of two (2) years?

Text: Mrs. Bond was thirty-four (34) years old at the time of the trial. She married appellee January 5, 1961, and, as stated, they have two children, Vivian Evelyn Bond, age 14, and Thomas Sheppard Bond, age 10 (at time of trial). Prior to their separation in April, 1976, they lived together continually as husband and wife and, from the time of their marriage when Bond was a student at Mississippi State College until their first child was born, Mrs. Bond worked and helped with the family income. After the first child was born, she devoted all her time to the children and family. The Bonds lived in a comfortable home comprising about four thousand (4,000) square feet, centrally heated and air-conditioned with three (3) large bedrooms, a den and outside patio. The home is located in the country and they have lived in it since the daughter was two and one-half (2 1/2) years old. Although the proof is not specific, the record indicates that appellee is a substantial landowner. He is engaged in two or more businesses, and has a gross income of fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500) to in excess of two thousand dollars ($2,000) per month. Mrs. Bond has no income, and, according to the record, she is qualified to earn income only as a beautician, in which profession she has not engaged since the birth of her daughter. She does not have property or funds with which to support herself. Temporary alimony is not awarded on a final decree. The chancellor may have considered the twenty-four (24) monthly payments of six hundred fifty dollars ($650.00) each [aggregating fifteen thousand six hundred dollars ($15,600)] as lump-sum alimony payable in installments, but the decree does not so indicate. In Gatlin v. Gatlin, 248 Miss. 868, 161 So.2d 782 (1964), this Court held that the chancellor erred in failing to retain jurisdiction to permit reconsideration of the alimony question where custody of minor children was granted to the husband, a person of substantial means, and who was required to pay only two hundred dollars ($200) per month alimony for a period of eighteen (18) months. There, the Court cited Winkler v. Winkler, 104 Miss. 1, 61 So. 1 (1913), which set forth: [I]t may not be just, if her husband is comparatively rich or capable of earning money, and she is poor or weak, that she should be turned out into the world without any means of livelihood but her own exertions. 104 Miss. at 6, 61 So. at 2. The case is reversed and remanded to the trial court for determination of the parties' present financial status and for determination of permanent alimony at the expiration of the 24-month period. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED. PATTERSON, C.J., INZER and SMITH, P. JJ., and ROBERTSON, SUGG, WALKER and BOWLING, JJ., concur. BROOM, J., took no part.