Opinion ID: 1895530
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the chancellor committed manifest error in awarding alimony.

Text: Doug contends that the chancellor erred in awarding Lee Ann alimony. Doug argues that Lee Ann is not entitled to any alimony because she has a separate estate of at least $5,500.00 in cash and her gross monthly income is $1,100.00. Doug also points out that he had to pay off the balance due on the marital home, pay attorney's fees and pay off the $2,000.00 balance due on Lee Ann's credit card. In determining alimony, the chancellor must consider the factors set out in Brabham. In light of the analysis of the Brabham factors as discussed above, the award of alimony was appropriate. Lee Ann only nets $896.00 per month and her monthly expenses total $2,843.00. She needs alimony just to provide for necessities such as rent and food. The chancellor awarded Lee Ann $600.00 per month in the form of periodic transitional alimony, for 30 months or 2 1/2 years. What the chancellor referred to in part as periodic alimony, was in actuality a lump sum form of payment  payable in fixed periodic installments. When the judgment is worded so that we cannot tell whether the award is periodic or lump sum, we will consider that the award is for periodic. Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So.2d 1278, 1281 (Miss. 1993). However, this does not preclude this Court from determining that the award is in the form of lump sum alimony. This Court looks to the substance of the provision and not the label. Armstrong, 618 So.2d at 1281, citing Maxcy [v. Estate of Maxcy, 485 So.2d 1077, 1078 (Miss. 1986)]. Based on the duration of this marriage, the age of the parties and the current financial positions of each, the award appears to be a very practical and desirable approach to this question. Finally, the amount of alimony awarded was not excessive and certainly could not in any way suggest manifest error. Thus, the chancellor did not err in awarding alimony.