Opinion ID: 1151624
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the chancellor erred in setting periodic alimony at such a low amount.

Text: This Court's standard of review of the terms of alimony in domestic relations matters is limited. The chancellor's decision on alimony will not be disturbed 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, 351 (Miss. 1992); McNally v. McNally, 516 So.2d 499, 501 (Miss. 1987). Further, [i]n the case of a claimed inadequacy or outright denial of alimony, we will interfere only where the decision is seen oppressive, unjust or grossly inadequate so as to evidence an abuse of discretion. McNally, 516 So.2d at 501, citing Martin v. Martin, 271 So.2d 391 (Miss. 1972). However, this Court will not hesitate to reverse if we determine that the chancery court's findings were manifestly wrong or an erroneous legal standard was applied. Tilley, 610 So.2d at 351; Bowers Window and Door Co., Inc. v. Dearman, 549 So.2d 1309 (Miss. 1989); Culbreath v. Johnson, 427 So.2d 705, 707-708 (Miss. 1983). This Court considers nine areas when reviewing an award or denial of periodic alimony: (1) the health of the husband and his earning capacity; (2) the health of the wife and her earning capacity; (3) the entire sources of income of both parties; (4) the reasonable needs of the wife; (5) the reasonable needs of the child; (6) the necessary living expenses of the husband; (7) the estimated amount of income taxes the respective parties must pay on their incomes; (8) the fact the wife has free use of the home, furnishings and automobile; and (9) such other facts and circumstances bearing on the subject that might be shown by the evidence. Brabham v. Brabham, 226 Miss. 165, 176, 84 So.2d 147, 152 (1955). Under the Final Judgment of Divorce, Gene was to pay Nancy $2,400 per month periodic alimony for 108 months after which the periodic alimony would be decreased to $900 per month until her death or remarriage. Nancy was awarded the full use, title and possession of the marital house with her being responsible for the outstanding mortgage. She was also awarded the 1986 Lincoln Towncar. Gene was also required to obtain the highest health care coverage available for Nancy and pay the premiums. Looking at the nine factors: (1) Gene is in good health other than a treatable high blood pressure condition. His annual earnings have exceeded $150,000 every year since 1987 and have been as high as $325,000. (2) Nancy has an arthritis condition that has already required surgery and which prevents her from engaging in certain activities. Her earning capacity, due to her age, health and lack of experience, is limited. She presently earns less than $100 per week as a sales clerk. (3) In addition to his business income, Gene also receives $17,288 in rental income from his Corinth property. Interest income from his various accounts was $7,563, according to his last tax return. Nancy has no additional sources of income. (4) Nancy presented a monthly proposed budget of $4,039 including her responsibility for the house payment. The budget items are consistent with the lifestyle she has led and which Gene continues to lead. The awarded amount is less favorable than that under the separate maintenance due to the tax implications of receiving the house payment as alimony rather than its being paid by Gene. (5) The needs of the child are not in issue. Under the prior agreement of the parties, Gene assumed full financial responsibility for the unemancipated child. (6) While Gene's personal expenses are high, there is no indication that these can be called necessary. His expenses include over $300 per month for his Colorado condo and $325 per month for two country clubs. He has lived very well during the period of separation. He will be paying essentially the same under the divorce as he was under separate maintenance. The monthly increase is offset by not having to pay the house payment. (7) Nancy submitted in her proof that she would need an annual pre-tax income of $60,000 to meet her $4,000 monthly needs. Nancy offered testimony that Gene could provide her with the entire $60,000 at an after-tax cost of only $42,000. Under the existing award, Nancy would possibly have less than $2,000 per month after taxes. After making her house payment she would have less than what she received under separate maintenance or less to pay all her expenses than her son Chris receives as pocket change with all his basic expenses paid. (8) In the present case, Nancy does not have free use of the home. She will be fully responsible for monthly payments of over $1,400 on a $100,000 mortgage. She testified to numerous repairs on the home which were needed but had not been done. The car she was given is a 1986 Lincoln with over 100,000 miles which needed maintenance. (9) No other facts and circumstances as shown by the record need to be considered. As the Court said in Gray v. Gray, 562 So.2d 79, 83 (Miss. 1990), the chancellor should consider the reasonable needs of the wife and the right of the husband to lead as normal a life as possible with a decent standard of living. Accord Monroe v. Monroe, 612 So.2d 353, 357 (Miss. 1992) Also, the only general rule being, that the wife is entitled to support corresponding to her rank and condition in life, and the estate of her husband. Jenkins v. Jenkins, 278 So.2d 446, 449-50 (Miss. 1973), quoting Armstrong v. Armstrong, 32 Miss. 279 (1856). Considering this, the judgment of the court cannot be justified. In Monroe v. Monroe, 612 So.2d 353 (Miss. 1992), this Court told the chancellor that it shocked the Court's conscience that the chancellor ignored the wife's condition and failed to award periodic alimony. Although alimony was granted in the present case, we are again shocked and again find that the chancellor severely abused his discretion in the matter of granting periodic alimony. Our guidelines require that the husband be allowed a decent standard of living. Gene's standard of living certainly surpasses that criteria. These guidelines require a delicate balancing in equity by the chancellor. In this case, the balancing is lopsided in favor of the offending spouse, Gene Box. In sharp contrast, the support of Nancy was not equitable and just since it was inadequate to maintain her in accordance with her station and condition in life and in harmony with her husband's estate. The proof was clear that Nancy Box's reasonable needs will certainly not be met by the combination of the award made to her and her own earning capacity. Her budget is in keeping with the rule of this Court that she is entitled to lead a life corresponding to the life she led during the marriage. There are items which are not strict necessities but which correspond to the lifestyle she led and which her husband has been leading. The chancellor's award was clearly inadequate under the circumstances and the chancellor should reweigh all the factors and grant a much higher amount under the circumstances. We are compelled to remand this case to the chancellor for determination of an amount of alimony which will adequately maintain Nancy Box in accordance with her lifestyle during the marriage.