Opinion ID: 1114554
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the court erred in the amount of lump sum alimony awarded.

Text: This Court will interfere with the award of alimony only where the chancellor's decision is unjust or grossly inadequate so as to evidence an abuse of discretion. McNally v. McNally, 516 So.2d 499 (Miss. 1987). The amount of alimony to be awarded is a matter primarily committed to the discretion of the chancery court because of the chancellor's opportunity to evaluate the equities of the particular situation. Tilley v. Tilley, 610 So.2d 348 (Miss. 1992); Holleman v. Holleman, 527 So.2d 90 (Miss. 1988). Teresa testified that she was only requesting alimony until she got on her feet. In addition, answers to questions by Eddie's attorney indicated that Teresa was only seeking alimony for the two-year period it would take her to complete her education and enter the teaching profession; her concern was for financial security for the following twenty-four months while she was completing her education. Neither Teresa nor her attorney requested permanent alimony, only lump sum alimony or transitional alimony. The chancellor's expressions of the terms and effect of the alimony awards are crystal clear, leaving no doubt that he intended to make separate and distinct awards of lump-sum alimony and an award of periodic alimony for a limited duration. The FINAL JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE states, inter alia, as follows: Defendant [Eddie] is ordered to pay to Plaintiff [Teresa] as lump sum alimony the sum of $12,000.00 cash on or before February 15, 1992. Defendant [Eddie] is ordered to pay to Plaintiff [Teresa] as periodic alimony $500.00 per month beginning on March 15, 1992, with a like payment due on the 15th day of each month thereafter for 24 months or until Defendant dies or Plaintiff dies or until Plaintiff remarries whichever occurs first. The majority's argument that [g]iven Eddie's addictions, the prospects of a long life seem slim. It would be in Teresa's and Gentry Shannon's best interests that Edward help secure their financial future now, while he is clearly able to do so, via an adequate award of lump sum alimony. is speculative, at best, and this Court's duty is to consider the facts as they exist in the record. The chancellor awarded Teresa $500.00 per month in child support, $12,000.00 in lump-sum alimony, and $500.00 per month in periodic transitional alimony, payable for a fixed period of twenty-four months (or $12,000.00), but which would terminate sooner upon either the death of Teresa or Eddie, or upon re-marriage by Teresa. Thus, averaged over the two-year period which Teresa testified it would take her to get back on her feet, the total monetary support granted to Teresa is $1,500.00 per month. Therefore, the majority's contention that her gross monthly income of $1,340.00 will not suffice to cover even these minimal estimated expenses. As a result, Teresa will have to invade the remaining $12,000.00 amount of lump sum alimony awarded just to make ends meet, ignores the purpose and intent of the chancellor's award; i.e., to be used to support Teresa while she gets on her feet. It is not this Court's decision, but Teresa's, as to whether or not she should invade the $12,000.00 lump sum alimony award. The chancellor's total award of $1,500.00 per month is sufficient for the purpose intended (an extra $12,000.00 in monetary support to enable Teresa to attend college), and, when combined with her ability to work part time and earn at least $340.00 per month, the chancellor's awards evidence no abuse of his discretion. The substance of the transitional alimony which the chancellor awarded is unmistakable. It is a hybrid, possessing traditional characteristics of both periodic alimony and lump-sum alimony. The transitional alimony granted by the chancellor is similar to permanent periodic alimony in that a fixed amount was ordered to be paid at regular intervals, and it is terminable upon re-marriage of the payee spouse or death of either the payor or payee spouse. But, that feature of the award which requires that the alimony payments be made only until attainment of accumulated total payments of $12,000.00, a sum certain, is normally thought of as an attribute of lump-sum alimony that is payable over a specified time period. In the recent case of Hemsley v. Hemsley, 639 So.2d 909 (Miss. 1994), we affirmed the chancellor's award of periodic alimony which did not possess the characteristic of a fixed dollar amount of payments that would continue unchanged until termination of the periodic alimony, a feature which this Court had previously stated was a necessary characteristic of periodic alimony. In affirming the lower court in Hemsley, this Court stated that: The chancellor ordered that Bitsy's alimony be reduced by her share of the retirement benefits once Mike started to receive his benefits. The chancellor stated the following: ... Therefore, the periodic alimony will self-adjust by reducing the amount in proportion to the amount received when the plaintiff commences to receive those benefits or when the defendant retires and no longer has a regular employment income. Hemsley v. Hemsley, 639 So.2d 909, 915 (Miss. 1994). A chancellor's awards of alimony need not possess all the characteristics of either periodic or lump-sum alimony. Hemsley, at 915. Hybrid forms of alimony are not only permitted to be devised by the chancellor, but are, on occasion, most appropriate in situations where the income of the parties is reasonably expected to change subsequent to the transition from life as a married person. In Hubbard v. Hubbard, 92-CA-01031-SCT, (not yet reported) the lower court, relying on the factors of Brabham v. Brabham, 226 Miss. 165, 176, 84 So.2d 147, 153 (1955), stated: [P]laintiff is awarded alimony in the amount of $600 per month for a period of thirty-six (36) months. This sum is sufficient, together with plaintiff's other income, to sustain her and give her a chance to recover her health and to save her business, and if the business fails, to help her until she can re-enter the work force. Hubbard, slip op. at 7. (emphasis in original) As stated in Hubbard, rehabilitative periodic alimony, synonymous with `periodic transitional alimony' in Dufour, is a separate and equitable tool for chancellors to use in their discretion and this method, applied to the case sub judice, is both practical and reasonable. Hubbard, slip op. at 11. The transitional alimony, awarded in addition to lump-sum alimony, was both prudent and practical in providing for Teresa during the twenty-four months for attending college. The utilization of transitional alimony assured Teresa of sufficient monthly income during the time that she was getting on her feet. In addition, the award also insured that Teresa could seek modification of the amount of monthly alimony, during that two-year period, if she were unable to consummate her future plans. By contrast, if the chancellor's award were deemed lump-sum alimony, it would not be modifiable, regardless of any hardships which might befall Teresa. The chancellor did not abuse his discretion in awarding Teresa transitional alimony. The award is a very practical method to provide for Teresa while she gets on her feet, yet maintains the flexibility to be adjusted upwards if Teresa's plans are not fulfilled, as both she and the chancellor contemplated. B.