Opinion ID: 1849974
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the trial court err in awarding lump sum alimony?

Text: This Court's standard of review is limited in domestic relations cases where the chancery court has decided upon terms of alimony. The chancellor's decision on alimony will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is found to be against the overwhelming weight of the evidence or manifestly in error. McNally v. McNally, 516 So.2d 499, 501 (Miss. 1987) (citing Harrell v. Harrell, 231 So.2d 793 (Miss. 1970)). Under the standard of review utilized to review a chancery court's findings of fact, particularly in the areas of divorce, alimony and child support, this Court will not overturn the court on appeal unless its findings were manifestly wrong. Smith v. Smith, 585 So.2d 750, 753 (Miss. 1991); Nichols v. Tedder, 547 So.2d 766, 781 (Miss. 1989); Devereaux v. Devereaux, 493 So.2d 1310, 1312 (Miss. 1986); Carr v. Carr, 480 So.2d 1120, 1122 (Miss. 1985). However, if the chancery court's findings were manifestly wrong or the court applied an erroneous legal standard this Court will not hesitate to reverse. Bowers Window and Door Co., Inc. v. Dearman, 549 So.2d 1309 (Miss. 1989); Culbreath v. Johnson, 427 So.2d 705, 707-08 (Miss. 1983); Johnson v. Hinds County, 524 So.2d 947, 956 (Miss. 1988). The amount of alimony awarded is a matter primarily within the discretion of the chancery court because of its peculiar opportunity to sense the equities of the situation before it. Holleman v. Holleman, 527 So.2d 90, 94 (Miss. 1988) (citing Wood v. Wood, 495 So.2d 503 (Miss. 1986)). In a proper case, the chancellor can award alimony payable in one lump sum or periodic alimony, payable monthly, or both, dependent upon the circumstances of the parties. Miller v. Miller, 173 Miss. 44, 159 So. 112 (1935); McCraney v. McCraney, 208 Miss. 105, 43 So.2d 872 (1950); J.W. Bunkley & W.E. Morse, Amis on Divorce and Separation in Mississippi (1957) § 6.06. This Court has long recognized the discretionary authority of the chancery court to award lump sum alimony. It [lump sum] is a settlement between the husband and the wife as to the interest of the latter in his property, and as to the extent of the husband's duty to contribute to her maintenance and support. The solution of the question of whether or not an allowance of a gross sum should be made must be determined by the facts of the particular case, having due regard to the best interest of the parties and the husband's financial ability to respond to an award in gross. Where the husband's estate is sufficient to enable him to respond to an award in gross, it will often be conducive to the welfare and happiness of both parties to end the relation of debtor and creditor between them by making such an award, and thereby relieve the wife of further dependence upon the continued solvency of the husband and his financial ability to pay a periodical stipend and his continued response to such forced contributions without future legal steps to enforce them. Miller v. Miller, 173 Miss. 44, 64, 159 So. 112, 119-120 (1935); cited with approval in Retzer v. Retzer, 578 So.2d 580, 591 (Miss. 1990). Retzer traces the flow of Mississippi case law in regard to lump sum alimony from the time period when it was purely discretionary with the chancery court [3] to cases in which spouses were entitled to lump sum alimony based on their contributions to the couple's assets. [4] Retzer, 578 So.2d at 591. As the law evolved, this Court came up with four factors to be considered in awarding lump sum alimony when the wife is granted a divorce: 1) Substantial contribution to accumulation of total wealth of the payor either by quitting a job to become a housewife, or be assisting in the spouse's business. Tutor v. Tutor, 494 So.2d 362 (Miss. 1986); Schilling v. Schilling, 452 So.2d 834 (Miss. 1984); 2) A long marriage. Jenkins v. Jenkins, 278 So.2d 446, 449 (Miss. 1973); Tutor and Schilling, supra. 3) Where recipient spouse has no separate income or the separate income is meager by comparison. Jenkins, Tutor and Schilling, supra. 4) Without the lump sum award the receiving spouse would lack any financial security. Abshire v. Abshire, 459 So.2d 802, 804 (Miss. 1984). Cheatham v. Cheatham, 537 So.2d 435, 438 (Miss. 1988); Retzer v. Retzer, 578 So.2d 580, 592 (Miss. 1990); Cleveland v. Cleveland, 600 So.2d 193, 197 (Miss. 1992). This Court went on to say the single most important factor is the disparity of the separate estates. Cheatham, 537 So.2d at 438. In the case before us, we see that Joyce Tilley meets the four factors set out above. She worked to help support the family, seemingly at the expense of her own education, and also stayed home to care for the children when the couple decided that was best. She worked on and off throughout the marriage for Richard's medical practice, certainly contributing to the general welfare of the family's financial status. The marriage was twenty-two years long  a period of time which undoubtedly qualifies as a long marriage. Joyce Tilley's monthly income is about $850, while her husband's is between $7,000 and $10,000. Obviously Joyce's salary is meager by comparison. The only financial security which Joyce Tilley has is her interest in the house and her IRA of $24,000. The interest in the house is about $70,000. But Joyce will receive no income or firm assets from that until the house is sold after the last child is emancipated, which should be in the year 2000. And ultimately, it is clear there is a large disparity between the two estates. Richard's estate is valued at more than $300,000, with interests in real estate and boats, while Joyce's estate is valued at around $100,000, with no separate significant interests from the homestead and her IRA. Given the foregoing, this Court finds it was not error for the chancellor to award Joyce Tilley lump sum alimony. She clearly deserves lump sum alimony under the factors to be considered. However, we note the amount is subject to reconsideration in light of this opinion.