Posts Tagged ‘Alimony’

ALIMONY IN MISSISSIPPI – AN OVERVIEW

Monday, November 18th, 2019

By Michael Louvier

The subject of Alimony has been often discussed on this site; however, it is always appropriate to review such an important topic.  With that in mind, please allow a few paragraphs to set forth the general guidelines of Alimony.

                The Mississippi Supreme Court set forth the guidelines for an award of alimony in Mississippi divorce cases in the case of Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So.2d 1278 (1993).  They are:

  1. The income and expenses of the parties;
  2. The health and earning capacities of the parties;
  3. The financial needs of each party;
  4. The obligations and income of each party;
  5. The length of the marriage;
  6. The presence (or absence) of minor children in the home, which may require that one or both of the parties either pay or personally provide child care;
  7. The age of the parties;
  8. The standard of living of the parties, both during the marriage and at the time of the support determination;
  9. The tax consequences of the spousal support order;
  10. Fault or misconduct of either party;
  11. Any wasteful dissipation of assets by either party, or;
  12. Any other factor deemed by the Court to be “just and equitable” in connection with the setting of spousal support.

This list of criteria, of course, can be found on a myriad of web sites and searches.  That said, I believe it is still useful to spell them out – to have them in plain writing before going forward with any analysis of the “Armstrong factors”.  As always, this medium does not lend itself to an “end all – be all” examination of this or any subject.  Rather, this is meant for you, the reader, to become a bit more educated on the subject matter while allowing me, the writer, to delve topic by topic into some of the real nuts and bolts of domestic relations practice.

I am personally very intrigued by a specific few of the above listed items, more so than the others and they are:  numbers 8, 10 and (almost “of course”) 12.  The use of the word “OR” between 11 and 12 instead of the word “AND” is also very interesting to me.  Let us explore.

I’ll start with number 12.  This provision is commonly referred to as a “catch all” by attorneys.  Whenever the Court uses the phrase “any other factors…”, this is an open invitation for the Chancellor to interpose his or her own beliefs about the case into the decision.  This is not necessarily a bad thing, as there may be something that is revealed in the case that screams for the award of, or the denial of alimony that does not quite fit into the other 11 specific factors.  And the Chancellor’s discretion should always be allowed, to some extent.  After all, the Chancellor is the finder of fact in the case – the Judge and the jury.  Some would argue; however, that this unilateral type of discretion inherently lends itself to grounds for appeal – whichever way the Chancellor decides.  As Voltaire so eloquently said:  “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”. 

A Chancellor should never use this last provision as the deciding factor, lest we believe that the possibility of corruption in this important decision be present, or even possible.  Far be it from me to suggest that a Chancellor would favor one side over the other for 11 factors and then choose to employ the catch-all to rule against that party…in fact my cursory research tells me that such a situation has not been reported in Mississippi Courts.  Good.  As it should be. 

Factor number 10 is interesting to me for the simple fact that marital misconduct can give rise to grounds for the divorce itself, without which there can be no claim for alimony in any form.  Therefore, a party found to be responsible for marital misconduct (drug abuse, an adulterous affair, habitual cruel treatment toward the spouse, etc) can be penalized twice: once in the granting of the divorce and again in the award for alimony.   

Factor number 8 is intriguing because we are all aware that financial difficulties leads to many, if not most divorces.  Therefore, if the standard of living that a spouse has become used to during the marriage is the main reason for the breakdown of the marriage; that is, a couple is living well beyond the means of the main bread winner and that causes or contributes to the demise of the marriage, should the bread winner be Ordered to continue to provide that lifestyle for the ex?           

                Finally, the use of the word or at the completion of the list of factors indicates that the Court can Order alimony based on only a few, or perhaps even only one, factor being present.  This is unlike a case where child custody is the issue and the Albright factors are used as a kind of “score card” for the Chancellor to make a decision.  As discussed above, the Chancellor can employ only one factor or maybe a few, to determine whether or not a divorce should be granted and whether or not an award for alimony is appropriate. 

Michael Louvier received a Bachelor of Arts (Political Science) from the University of New Orleans, 1988 and a Juris Doctorate from Mississippi College School of Law, 1994.  He has been married to Tammy Luquette Louvier for 29 years and they have 2 children:  Amy, 25 and Nicholas, 21.

Second and Third Marriages, an Uphill Battle

Friday, August 16th, 2019

It is relatively well-known that all time divorce rates (overall, not for a specific time period) generally hover around 40-45%.  National statistics indicate that 1st marriages have an all-time divorce rate of 42%, (and 49% in 2018). Second marriages have an overall divorce rate of 60%, and 3rd marriages’ rate of marital dissolution is a staggering 73% since the time this country began taking statistics in the mid 1920’s, and they are slowly creeping upward.  Why is it that subsequent marriages are so difficult, even more than the first? There are never simple answers, but there are several observations that may explain this trend.  

Behind every statistic is an underlying cause (or “root” cause as the older generation used to say), and usually the cause is multifaceted.  Not one single factor can be said to contribute to the phenomenon that first marriages are (believe it or not for those of you seeking divorce) more likely to succeed than a marriage after a divorce or multiple divorces.  The message I would like to convey to those of you seeking a divorce is best said by remembering the old saying “the grass is always greener on the other side”. 

My observation is simple….those who abruptly sever marital bonds are essentially more likely to fail for their inability to stand firm with the partner they chose in youth, therefore complicating their lives.  The complexity of any social interaction is a strong predictor of the likelihood of its failure. Simplicity is not always a bad thing, a concept that is often lost in an era when we seek the newest, most complex, difficult to engineer piece of smart device in our cars, homes, and lives.  We live in a society that prefers to throw the broken away and replace it rather than considering whether a fix is possible.

When I first began my legal career as an attorney in 2004, the head of my division told me on the first day, “Matthew, we follow the kiss method here, which means we keep it simple stupid”. Those words are not only important in litigation, they are tantamount to a lynchpin in marriage.  If you realize that life complexity will likely cause future dramatics, you have already made the first step to saving a broken marriage or making a good decision to re-marry. When people marry and have pre-existing legal obligations from a prior marriage such as child support, alimony, and visitation or custody issues in-tow, they have complicated their lives significantly with a remarriage.  Wiping the slate clean is seldom a possibility because our lives are complex, and so are our relationships.  

In sum, it appears to me that the more social issues one has to deal with, the more likelihood of divorce.  A system that has more moving parts has more parts that may break. Marriage is no different. I want to make very clear that there is always hope, but to any person considering a divorce, please know that it does not get easier the second time around.  If you do divorce and look to be remarried, consider all of the complexities you will both bring to your second or third marriage, lay them all out on the proverbial table with honesty, and have a simple, clear gameplan to deal with the challenges ahead.  It is very much an uphill battle, but it can be won. However, in the end, maybe simple really is better.

Matthew Poole is a Jackson, Mississippi Domestic Attorney and single father.  He was admitted to the Mississippi Bar in 2004.

A Day Late and Dollar Short: The Huge Custody Hurdle

Wednesday, April 24th, 2019

We spend much of our time talking about all of the factors that impact court custody decisions and there are certainly plenty. The Albright factors dominate much of the information we provide to prospective clients, as they should. They permeate every aspect of custody outcomes. If you look at the search bar on our site and place the word “custody” within it, it will become clear how permeating these factors are in custody law, and that they are the cornerstone of domestic litigation involving children. Is there one factor that rises above the terrain in terms of its power of influencing outcomes? My answer is…..yes.

The most important factor (aside from some extremely horrible parenting which rises to the level of abuse/neglect) is continuity of care. As an example, I have multiple times encountered a prospective client that may very well be a better parent than the alternative parent. We just received a call from a gentleman that appeared to deeply care for his 6 year old daughter and also to be a loving, concerned dad. He is responsible, has a great job and stable home. According to him, mom was not as good a parent as he. That may well be the truth. However, he waited, and waited, and waited……..6 YEARS to call an attorney and attempt taking custody from her. Big mistake. His window of opportunity has shrunk to the point of being nearly non-existent.

I must say bluntly that if you are truly the better parent, then you must act quickly and decisively. The most difficult argument for any attorney, which is entirely nonsensical (even somewhat comical) on its face, is to say to a judge, “Your Honor, my client will be demonstrated to be the better parent, although he/she left the children with the worse parent for half a decade”. Good luck selling that to any court in Mississippi. Keep in mind that the old saying “The law aids the vigilant” could not be more applicable than in child custody cases. There is a natural proclivity for any judge not to disrupt the usual routine unless an exceptional danger to the child exists.

Some may ask, “But what if I can prove that I am more capable as a parent, that I have a better home, school district, morals, etc.?”, and that is a fair question. It is a very good question and rightfully in play. If I may respond, my retort would be that the child needs stability also…….changing custody can and usually will be traumatic for them. Although a parent may well be “better”, they are unlikely to overcome the huge obstacle of not having been sufficiently “present”. Be careful about sitting on the sideline, being a day late and a buck short will be one tough hill to climb. Better parents frequently lose custody cases for this simple reason. It is most often a loss that could have been easily avoided.

In short, my simple advice is that if you are the better parent, demonstrate that fact by not leaving your child with the lesser parent. Actions truly speak louder than words, especially in Mississippi Chancery Courts.

Matthew Poole is a 2018 Top 10 rated Mississippi family attorney by the National Association of Family Lawyers, 2004 Finalist of the Steen, Reynolds, and Dalehite Trial Competition at the University of Mississippi, and 2001 Millsaps Second Century Scholar. He will speak to members of the Mississippi Bar on behalf of The National Business Institute on July 18, 2019 on divorce practice and procedure. The seminar is certified for 6 hours of legal continuing education credit.

Are Judge Ideologies Reflective of District?

Thursday, March 7th, 2019

The short answer is not just yes, but without question. Now, let’s speak to a couple of different issues that frequently come up during domestic and family related court cases. I will pick a few of the most common to best exemplify that no two chancellors are created equally. Some can rule totally ant-opposite each other on the exact same issues and facts. It can be a frustrating scenario for lawyer and client alike.

The Morality Clause

This issue comes up in virtually every case I have ever managed. The difference in results can be, well, astonishing. In some of the more left-leaning counties, chancellors are inclined to determine that there is no harm done to a child by having a non-married romantic partner stay the night or even cohabitate outright. No harm no foul, at least in their view. Try arguing that the sleep over with the new love is harmless in Rankin or Madison county and you will get laughed out of the room unless there is a VERY plausible reason. They almost do not exist.

Alimony awards

An award of alimony is more generous and easily obtained in liberal counties of Mississippi. Some of the old-school, conservative chancellors will award alimony, but the amounts tend to smaller. Be it periodic, lump-sum, reimbursement, or rehabilitative alimony, they are usually more conservative in their awards. Not surprising, right? I will say there is some variance in the awards of alimony vs. no alimony, but not as great as the variance in the bare amount of award. The variations, in my experience, can vary even as much as threefold depending on venue. The difference in even $2,000 a month makes a big difference in most people’s bottom line.

Attorneys fees

This one can be tricky, although there is always a best way to argue that you are entitled to attorneys fees. However, they are far from a guarantee. They are predominately based on ability to pay your lawyer vs. your opponent’s ability to pay theirs. This is where some significant discrepancy comes about in the courts method of interpretation. I have seen some conservative chancellors vanish a wife her lawyer fees request because, even though she made less than she spent, she recently bought a new car and took excessive vacations. This was the result even though husband made about five-fold her income. In a more liberal venue, the result would clearly have been different. A large award would be most likely the outcome.

Standard vs. Liberal Visitation

There are some chancellors, most of them older and somewhat old-fashioned (not that being so is a bad thing), who are strictly inclined to only award standard, every other weekend type visitation to the non-custodial parent (n.c.p.) Usually being the dad, but not always, the n.c.p. gets a very short end of the custody stick. Conversely, some of the younger and progressive counties elect judges who are willing to award either liberal visits for the n.c.p. or even outright joint custody.

In sum, lawyers will never be able to pull out the proverbial crystal ball and tell you precisely what to expect. Ask them what ideology your chancellor brings to the courthouse. It makes so much difference even in what may appear a simple case.

Matthew Poole is a 2018 Top 10 rated Mississippi domestic attorney by the National Association of Family Lawyers, 2004 Finalist of the Copeland Cook Taylor and Bush Trial Competition, and 2001 Millsaps Second Century Scholar. He will be speaking to members of the Mississippi Bar in July, 2019 on divorce practice and procedure.

The “Other Factor” That Can Sink Your Custody Claim: Alienating Child Affection

Monday, August 20th, 2018

I was recently in trial in the northern part of our great state and had a unique case wherein I had the good fortune of securing custody of a four-year-old little boy for my client, the father. The case was one of the most difficult I have ever handled in 14 years- both legally and emotionally. It was a roller-coaster of facts and subjectivity of the law, to say the least. The opposing attorney was highly competent; a seasoned prosecutor from Lee County- one of the best I have ever faced.

My client was guilty of some degree of minor violence; domestic abuse which was relatively easy to prove, and yet he obtained custody of his son. How can this happen, you may ask, and rightfully so. It seems the long odds stacked against my client were impossible to overcome. This case lasted 23 months in total. The victory was by a razor-thin margin. I was on hanging on every word from the court and counsel opposite until the very end.

Any custody attorney will harp on the factors a court will consider in determining the best interests in a child’s physical placement. Mom no longer has a clear and plain advantage, due in large part to the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. The “tender years” doctrine has been significantly eroded, to the point that only breastfeeding an infant child confers some advantage to mom. Dad now starts on equal footing in a custody battle for all practical purposes. As a single father with sole legal and physical custody of my son, I have reaped the benefit of the recent change in law.

Beginning January 10, 2018 our office began a series of articles outlining all of the Albright factors- the defined matters for a court to consider in a custody dispute. We did not write only one article on the only non-specific Albright factor which is the most subjective; the one that is most easily described as a “catch-all”. Up for grabs and potentially up-ending any custody case are “other relevant factors”. What could these possibly be?

In all of the custody experience I have, never did I imagine that I could win a custody case based on these mysterious and elusive “other factors” when my client lost more than half of the specified Albright issues. Not in a million years did I believe that some undefined, highly subjective issue would win the day. And then, exactly that occured. I am still somewhat surprised by the result– pleasantly surprised, that is. The ugly head of parental alienation was the “other factor” that swayed the balance to my client’s victory.

Parental alienation of a child has always been regarded as paramount to a Mississippi court- even more so lately. That said, I have increasingly witnessed first-hand that if the alienating parent’s behavior is severe, courts will likely deem it to be tantamount to child abuse, negating what would be an award of physical custody to the opposing parent. To be frank, a decade ago this “other factor” would have been considered as just another Albright issue. Today, it can upend an entire case. That is music to my ears. Times have certainly changed.

Alienation comes in many shapes and forms. Most often it is in the nature of passive-aggressive parental alienation; making it difficult to get a hold of a child by phone, making subtle comments about the other parent’s morals and character, or even stoking a child’s concern about whether their other parent cares about them. Other times parental alienation takes on an overtly aggressive form.

The case that prompted me to write this article involved mom, who had a bi-racial son, instructing him to call his father and his family a “bunch of n___ers”. And it was all caught on tape. It didn’t happen only once, this four-year-old little guy, half African American, had made the infamous N-word a part of his vocabulary, all thanks to mom. It was horrible to hear on tape, heartbreaking at the very least.

The focus of this article is not necessarily parental alienation, it is a forewarning to parents who engage in extreme behaviors to the psychological and emotional detriment of their child. Be it excessive shaming of a child, prolonged absence, or just plain verbal cruelty, beware of the “other factors”–they can flat sink what would have otherwise been a custody victory. Chancery courts have broad discretion in child custody matters, and anything you say-to your child or anyone involved-can and will be held against you.

My last piece of advice is relatively simple. Mother Theresa once said, “Not all of us can do great things. But we can do small things with great heart”. I couldn’t have said it better. When navigating the treacherous waters of child-custody litigation, do not forget that children need love, happiness, and innocence of adult issues as much as they need food and water. It is easy to lose sight of this fact when angry at an ex-lover. Keep sight of what matters most: protecting your child from turmoil and shielding them from despair.

If you are involved in a child custody case that requires a robust knowledge base and formidable experience, I will gladly attempt to point you in the right direction. Be forewarned- simple answers to complex issues, particularly those involving child custody, are elusive and require a high level of competency. If you need just that, contact us anytime.

Matthew Poole is a single parent of an eight year-old boy, Lucas. He is well-acclimated to the various challenges that face single parents, both professionally and personally. His practice has been focused on child custody matters for 14 years as a parental advocate.

Best Quick Tips in a Contested Divorce

Wednesday, June 27th, 2018

If you are going through a fault-based divorce, you already realize that it can be a cumbersome and frustrating process. In 14 years of practice, it never has ceased to amaze me that potential divorcees so often greatly underestimate the burden, stress level, and emotional turmoil that divorce causes, particularly when child custody is a hotly contested item. Gone are the days of simplicity in domestic separation. In our modern world, husbands are by far more likely to seek custody of children and raise fault grounds against their wives. Also, it is fundamental to understand the importance of shifting family dynamics. Now it is not uncommon to have a stay-at-home husband and a professional wife who has supplanted the traditional husband’s role. I have compiled a short list of simple advice that can save you time, legal fees, and stress that accompanies each and every contested divorce (particularly those that impact the innocent lives involved–your children).

Make sure you keep up with your witness’s phone numbers and addresses. Also, if you are aware of any social media accounts (Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Google Plus, etc.) or website information pertaining to your spouse, obtain as much information as possible. If you expect your lawyer to locate these for you, be prepared to see additional legal fees.

DO NOT throw away any bank, credit card, tax, investment, or retirement account information. It is easy to hide and can vastly increase the cost and burden of divorce.

If you are in a violent relationship, seek to record any conversations/events that will prove this to the court. Also, make sure you back them up in at least one other device.

Consider hiring a private investigator. Their hourly rates are often cheaper by far than even the least expensive attorney. If you need to access a good one, call me.

Don’t let your emotions get the better of you. Fear, anger, disappointment, and grief are usually present to one extent or another in any divorce.

Don’t assume that you are not entitled to some form of alimony, be it lump-sum, reimbursement, periodic, or rehabilitative. Speak to an experienced attorney as to whether you have a valid claim.

Don’t discuss in any negative way your frustrations with your children; it will most likely bite you. Kids are innocent and have no place involved, no matter how tempting it may be.

Please contact us if you would like to discuss any custody, asset distribution, or alimony-related matter and rest assured we will turn over every stone, leaving none unturned, to your advantage. I have 14 years of experience of focused practice in domestic relations law and can help you determine the best path forward and through these stressful situations.

Matthew Poole is a Jackson, Mississippi domestic relations attorney with 14 years of focused experience in family law with an emphasis on litigation and case assessment.

 

Finances In A Divorce

Monday, May 7th, 2018

A person’s financial situation has more influence over day-to-day life than almost any other aspect. Finances influence our ability to enjoy certain luxuries that life brings. Money is also a very private subject. Almost universally, it is considered rude to inquire about someone’s finances in a social setting, and also viewed as arrogant to brag about money. Therefore, when a prospective client comes to our office seeking to initiate or defend a domestic lawsuit, they are often surprised at the level of financial disclosure that comes with that proceeding.

Finances indicate more than personal wealth. They are a good indicator of a person’s ability to hold down a job, ably manage their finances, and to provide security for their families. Directing your finances in a sensible way shows the court a certain level of maturity. Money is hard to earn, and easy to spend. In domestic litigation, especially when children are involved, courts take into consideration how the litigants have been able to soundly oversee their earnings.

A parent’s finances are a factor in child custody cases, and the financial situation of the parents is even included among the Albright factors that chancellors use in making a child custody determination. You can view an earlier post on our website about that factor as well as the other Albright factors through our website’s blog search function. This does not mean that chancellors will simply look at which parent makes the most money and award custody to that parent. It is but one factor to show that the person seeking custody is able to provide for the child as they need and deserve.

Income also plays a large part in the awarding of alimony or separate maintenance. If one spouse in a divorce makes much more money and the other party needs some financial assistance, courts will take that into consideration when deciding whether or not to avoid alimony.

One of the most important documents in domestic litigation is the 8.05 Financial Declaration, named for the Uniform Chancery Rule that requires certain financial disclosures to be made. This document lists a person’s income, assets, and liabilities. Having an ex-spouse be able to see that information can make clients uncomfortable, but they are important declarations to make in these cases. Chancery courts, which handle domestic matters, are courts of equity. This means that chancery courts attempt to resolve disputes in a way that is fair to both litigants and that avoids unjustly enriching one party over the other. These rules regarding financial disclosures can be a friend to those who follow them, and a foe to those who don’t.

Our office understands the uneasiness that comes with giving out financial information, but we also have the experience to know that following these rules can only help the court look favorably upon a party. For a person involved in domestic litigation, being able to show the capability to control their finances will go a long way in achieving whatever goal that person wishes to reach. If you or someone you know has a question about the financial reporting involved in a lawsuit, call the Law Office of Matthew S. Poole. We will be happy to lend our knowledge to give you a response that is the truth, and to help you navigate any domestic legal issue you may have.

Matthew Poole is a Jackson, Mississippi domestic attorney who specializes in family litigation. He was admitted to practice in 2004.

Alimony as Punishment?

Wednesday, March 28th, 2018

Probably the most common misconception about alimony is that it is a punishment for the person who has been ordered to pay it. Some believe that if their spouse has cheated on them, or has engaged in any type of misconduct, that they are entitled to alimony simply based on fault. This is simply not true. Basing alimony wholly on whether the other party is at fault would basically make alimony an award for punitive damages, which is a totally different beast altogether. Although fault is a factor when considering alimony, the main hurdle in any alimony dispute is need.

Punitive damages are damages that exceed simple compensation and are awarded to punish a defendant. Punitive damages do not take into account the need or income of the person being awarded those damages, but rather serve as a warning or discouraging measure to make sure that other people do not engage in similar behavior. For example, punitive damages are commonly used in torts cases where a court punishes a company for a misdeed in order to stop it from doing the misdeed again and to dissuade other parties from doing the same. Punitive damages are responsible for the TV commercials and billboards that speak of large awards won for clients.

The purpose of alimony is to offer support for a spouse who is financially-dependent on the other. Even though fault is a factor that a court will look at, a court will focus primarily on the need of the spouse seeking alimony. In other words, alimony can be awarded to a spouse if that spouse is in need of support because they are not equipped to maintain the level of lifestyle that they have grown accustomed to while being married. For example, if a wife never had a job while married and now is getting a divorce, a court may award her with alimony so that she may begin to get back on her feet since the main income earner in her household is no longer present.

There are four types of alimony:  (1) Periodic Alimony, the more traditional type, with no set termination date and allocated month to month based on need;  (2) Lump Sum Alimony, awarded as a fixed sum that can be paid all at once or in installments;  (3) Rehabilitative alimony, developed to assist a spouse when reentering the workforce after their marriage; and  (4) Reimbursement Alimony, awarded to a spouse who supported the other spouse through undergraduate, graduate, or professional school. A court may award just one type of alimony or a combination of the types.

While alimony and punitive damages may seem the same, they serve two totally different purposes. Punitive damages are a punishment payment made out to the other party, and while people who are ordered to pay alimony may see it as a punishment, alimony is actually just based on the need of the other party. There are two totally different criteria when awarding both punitive damages and alimony. Courts in Mississippi will in fact look at fault when awarding alimony, but only after an intense need-based analysis by the chancellor to determine how much and what type should and will be awarded. Confusing these two are very common among people who come into our office, and we are well equipped to answer any questions that may arise when dealing with these issues. Contact our office if you or anyone you know have any questions about alimony, awarding alimony, or any other questions please do not hesitate to ask.

Alimony: The Million Dollar Divorce Question

Wednesday, February 8th, 2017

Alimony has been discussed at length in jurisprudence of the courts ever since the time it was recognized as a legitimate cause of action, far before any living attorney practiced law. Alimony often has been considered to be a punitive measure taken against a cheating partner. While fault is a factor in alimony (see Armstrong v. Armstrong – the most cited case that outlines the basic factors for the court’s consideration of alimony), fault is only one factor that the court will consider. It is important to note that even in an irreconcilable differences divorce that a chancellor may award alimony if there were issues reserved for determination by the court and not agreed to by the parties.

The findings of fault have taken on elevated importance in recent alimony cases heard in the chancery courts of Mississippi. Not long ago the court of appeals considered a case where they reduced the monthly alimony payments of a husband from $4,000 dollars to $2,500 dollars because of the wife’s alcohol abuse. Although the husband’s role in the deterioration of the marriage was significant and something that was to an extent stipulated to by both parties, the court determined that a substantial reduction of the wife’s (a homemaker) need for alimony was in order. Ultimately, the court determined that the factor of fault aligning with her alcohol abuse warranted a considerable reduction in the husband’s monthly alimony obligation. Also, it is important that any party to a divorce recognize that the presence of children is a major factor to be considered by the courts in the awarding of alimony. In another recent case, although the parties had separate estates that were roughly equal, the court made a determination that the presence of autistic children warranted an award of alimony due to the discrepancy in income. Essentially, the husband made an argument that the court erred in allowing such a sizable alimony award because it consisted of “post-emancipation child support.” However, the court rejected this argument and rightfully so.

It is also interesting to note that under certain circumstances, an unemployed husband can be required to pay alimony. For instance, in one recent court of appeals case the court upheld an award of a chancellor wherein the husband, now unemployed, had demonstrated previous earning capacities far in excess of that of his wife. One of the main reasons the court upheld this award was because of his acknowledgement of several relationships during the marriage and his dissipation of assets on trips and gifts for his girlfriend. It is crucial to understand that alimony is not intended to make the parties financially equal, and there are instances in which a denial of alimony will be affirmed by the court as well. It is important to keep in mind that earning capacity and ability to earn a sufficient living is a huge consideration for any court in an award of alimony. The chancellor in another recent and noteworthy court of appeals case determined that even though the wife had no income, she was a registered dietician and was able to renew her certification and training and thus had sufficient earning capacity. The court rejected her argument that the chancellor should have found that her husband had dissipated assets by paying $30,000 dollars to settle a separate lawsuit. The court viewed this as disposition of assets which were in fact marital.

If you need assistance in any alimony, permanent alimony, lump sum alimony, or any other issue dealing with modification of alimony, please feel free to call us. We’re best equipped to assist you and point you in the right direction as far as your legal rights are concerned. Law Office of Matthew Poole. 601.573.7429.