Opinion ID: 1822440
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Duration

Text: Henry also contends that an award of periodic alimony which terminates only upon death or remarriage of the wife is excessive. The brief, however, is devoid of any substantiation or, more specifically, authoritative support. See MISS.SUP.CT. Rules 28(a) & (a)(6) (The brief of the appellant ... shall contain the contentions ... with respect to the issues presented, and the reasons for those contentions, with citations to authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on.); Read v. Southern Pine Elec. Power Ass'n, 515 So.2d 916 (Miss. 1987) (case in which this Court declined to address issue presented by party who failed to cite authoritative support); Devereaux v. Devereaux, 493 So.2d 1310 (Miss. 1986) (same); Nelson v. Clanton, 263 So.2d 787 (Miss. 1972) (same). This notwithstanding, examination of applicable law leads this Court to conclude that Henry's contention is without merit. The general rule dictates that periodic alimony terminates upon death or remarriage. Skinner, 509 So.2d at 869 (citing Wray v. Wray, 394 So.2d 1341, 1344 (Miss. 1981)). This rule is subject to change on an ad hoc basis. Skinner, 509 So.2d at 869 (citing East v. East, 493 So.2d 927 (Miss. 1986)). Thus, Henry's only remedy would have been to show that the chancellor should have deviated from the general rule in his case; no showing was made. See Tutor, 494 So.2d at 363 (As to the assignment that a time limit should be fixed to the periodic monthly alimony payments, ... [n]o law is cited to support this contention and we have found no law to support it[; therefore t]here is no merit to this assignment.); Clark v. Clark, 293 So.2d 447, 450 (Miss. 1974) (We hasten to add that short of death or remarriage, the ... duration of an alimony award ... is entirely within the sound discretion of the chancellor.). In sum, an abuse of discretion is not evident. The chancellor's determination regarding duration of periodic payments is affirmed.