Opinion ID: 1784137
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alimony in Arrears

Text: On cross-appeal, Charlotte contends that: (1) the chancellor erred in not awarding alimony in arrears; (2) the chancellor erred in not increasing child support; and (3) the chancellor erred in denying Charlotte attorney's fees. The chancellor found that the letter written on May 22, 1988, evidenced an intent to waive the alimony, barring Charlotte's claim for recovery of unpaid alimony. Periodic alimony becomes fixed and vested on the date in which the payment is due and unpaid. Lewis v. Lewis, 586 So.2d 740 (Miss. 1991); Bowe v. Bowe, 557 So.2d 793, 795 (Miss. 1990); Rubisoff v. Rubisoff, 242 Miss. 225, 235, 133 So.2d 534, 537 (1961). More importantly, a court cannot give relief from civil liability for any payments that have already accrued. Id. Rainwater v. Rainwater, 236 Miss. 412, 420-421, 110 So.2d 608, 611 (1959). Where a chancery court has set alimony payments, the parties cannot amend on their own without court approval. Bell v. Bell, 572 So.2d 841, 845 (Miss. 1990); East v. East, 493 So.2d 927, 931 (Miss. 1986); Taylor v. Taylor, 392 So.2d 1145 (Miss. 1981). We held in Sullivan v. Pouncey, 469 So.2d 1233, 1234 (Miss. 1985), that a separate contract entered into between parties which is not incorporated into the final divorce decree is void. It would be tantamount to defrauding the court for parties to present to the court a property settlement agreement incorporated into the final decree, while actually intending to abide by a contradictory, private contract. This is clearly against public policy. Id. [1] Although the letter from Charlotte to Donnie was subsequent to entry of the decree, the rule of Sullivan is still applicable. The letter would act as an instrument to deprive the court of its exclusive power to modify the decree to meet a change in circumstances and conditions of the parties as prescribed by statute. Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-23 (Supp. 1990). In order for Charlotte to relieve Donnie of alimony payments, it would be necessary for her to file a motion to modify with the chancery court. The chancellor erred in denying Charlotte unpaid and overdue alimony. Charlotte is entitled to alimony in arrears in the amount of $4,568.74.