Opinion ID: 1584367
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The trial court erred in setting the amount of alimony of a 10-year marriage at $300.00 from the Appellant's retirement earnings.

Text: This Court's standard of review is limited in domestic relations cases where the chancery court has decided upon terms of alimony. In such cases the award will not be altered on appeal unless it is found to be against the overwhelming weight of the evidence or manifestly in error. Tilley v. Tilley, 610 So.2d 348 (Miss. 1992); McNally v. McNally, 516 So.2d 499, 501 (Miss. 1987); Harrell v. Harrell, 231 So.2d 793 (Miss. 1970). This Court considers several factors in evaluating an award of periodic alimony. These factors include: (1) the health and earning capacity of the husband, (2) the health and earning capacity of the wife, (3) the reasonable needs of the wife, (4) the husband's necessary living expenses, and (5) other factors such as estimated amount of income taxes, the use of the family home or automobile, and the payment of insurance. Monroe v. Monroe, 612 So.2d 353 (Miss. 1992); Boykin v. Boykin, 565 So.2d 1109, 1111 (Miss. 1990); McNally v. McNally, 516 So.2d 499, 501 (Miss. 1987); Skinner v. Skinner, 509 So.2d 867, 868 (Miss. 1987); Brabham v. Brabham, 226 Miss. 165, 84 So.2d 147 (1955). Both parties are entitled to a decent standard of living, whenever possible. Monroe, 612 So.2d at 357; Gray v. Gray, 562 So.2d 79, 83 (Miss. 1990). At the time of trial, Jack Crowe was retired and in his late sixties. Shirley Crowe was in her late fifties and permanently disabled. Neither party had extensive earning capacity, although Jack apparently continued to realize some additional revenue from his junk business. Shirley testified that her monthly expenses were about $1111.71 and her monthly income was $525.00. Jack testified to monthly income of $1413.00 and expenses of approximately $1121.00. The award of $300.00 per month is not at odds with the reasonable needs demonstrated by the parties. As for other factors, there are none that support the conclusion that the chancellor erred in awarding the periodic alimony. Income taxes are minimal. Both parties were awarded exclusive use of an unencumbered home [1] and at least one automobile. Jack was ordered to pay taxes and insurance on all three jointly owned parcels for a period of two years. Viewing this award in light of the facts discussed above and the relevant considerations established by prior cases, the chancellor committed no manifest error in determining the amount of periodic alimony. Accordingly, this assignment of error is without merit.