Opinion ID: 1793429
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the lower court err in awarding lump sum separate maintenance?

Text: As previously stated, the lower court in its judgment of April 28, 1986, ordered Mr. Williams to pay $10,000 as lump sum separate maintenance to Mrs. Williams. Appellant argues that in doing so the lower court provided support to Mrs. Williams which is not authorized by law, and thereby committed manifest error. In reviewing the lower court's award of $10,000 as lump sum separate maintenance it should first be remembered that separate maintenance is simply a judicial command to the husband to resume cohabitation with his wife or to provide suitable maintenance for her. Thompson v. Thompson, 527 So.2d 617 (Miss. 1988). The amount of separate maintenance should be a sum sufficient to provide as nearly as possible the same support and maintenance as the wife would have received if the parties had continued normal cohabitation. Id., see also Amis, Divorce and Separation in Mississippi, § 193 (1st ed. 1935). However, separate maintenance cannot confer on the wife any greater rights than she would have had if cohabitation had continued. Thompson, supra ; Amis, supra. Further, the wife's entitlement to a monetary amount for support does not extend to a division of marital assets. Thompson, supra . The lower court's award of lump sum separate maintenance can be closely analogized to an award of lump sum alimony. Where lump sum alimony is awarded, the party receiving such obtains a vested right to the amount of the judgment which may not subsequently be modified or terminated by court order. East v. East, 493 So.2d 927 (Miss. 1986). While this is totally appropriate where a marriage is being terminated by divorce, it runs contrary to the basic purpose of separate maintenance, which is to order the husband to re-enter the marital relationship or pay support to the wife. Presumably, if lump sum separate maintenance were allowed, the husband would continue to owe his wife this vested amount even if he resumed the marital relationship. As this scenario runs completely contrary to the above policies concerning separate maintenance, the lower court erred in awarding the $10,000 sum to Mrs. Williams.