Austin v. Austin
| Decision Date | 24 January 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 07-59551,07-59551 |
| Parties | Betty H. AUSTIN v. William D. AUSTIN. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Rabun Jones, Howard Dyer, III, Dyer Dyer Dyer & Jones, Greenville, for appellant.
Willard L. McIlwain, Greenville, for appellee.
Before ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., and SULLIVAN and PITTMAN, JJ.
Mrs. Betty Austin (Betty) has appealed from a judgment of the Chancery Court of Washington County, Mississippi, terminating alimony in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00) per month granted to her in the decree divorcing her and Dr. William Austin (William). She has assigned three errors in the trial below.
Betty Austin and William Austin had four children as a result of their marriage, i.e., Katherine, Joseph, Gregory and Mary Elizabeth. They were divorced February 18, 1975, and custody of the children was awarded to Betty. William was ordered to pay $500.00 per month alimony to Betty Austin and two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) per month in support of each child. Subsequently, the child support was modified and increased to the sum of two hundred seventy-five dollars ($275.00) per month per child. William quit paying child support as the children reached eighteen (18) years of age without a decree terminating the obligation.
Betty was awarded exclusive possession of the marital residence, until she remarried, or moved. William maintained the residence for her, paid all taxes, insurance, and provided for necessary repairs on the residence. Those expenses were $1,000 per year insurance, $400.00 per month mortgage payments, and $500.00 per year in taxes.
William remarried two years after the divorce. He adopted his second wife's two children, Theresa and Dennette. At the time of trial, Theresa was attending Baylor University and Dennette was enrolled in a private school in Greenville. Their educational expenses were provided by William at an annual cost of $13,375.00 for Theresa and $2,000 for Dennette.
William also assumed all the educational expenses for his three children who were attending college. The annual costs were approximated as follows: $18,000 for Joseph, a fulltime medical student; $12,829 for Gregory, a full-time veterinary medicine student; and $9,577 for Mary Elizabeth, a full-time student at Mississippi State University. Betty did not contribute to the educational expenses of her children, but did provide clothing, food, etc.
William and Betty both testified that the children stayed with them on weekends, summer break and holidays. Katherine was the only child not in school. She was employed by William in his office and her living arrangements alternated between William and Betty. William purchased six automobiles for his children, which he maintains, and for which he pays all the insurance.
William is an ear, nose and throat physician, associated with Gamble Brothers and Archer Clinic in Greenville, Mississippi. In 1986 and 1987 his gross income was $155,000 and $169,000, respectively. The majority of the increase in 1987 was due to the temporary absence of another specialist, according to William.
The chancellor found that William had a projected deficit in 1988 of $38,000 per year. This was based primarily on the testimony that William had projected monthly living expenses of $7,203.00, along with the projected educational expenses for the five children of $56,681.00 per year.
Betty was employed as a part-time nurse in 1976 with Delta Medical Center. In 1984 she began to work full time, earning $20,727.00 annually. She netted $1,114.00 per month at the time of trial. Her monthly expenses were projected at $1,883.89; thus, her projected monthly deficit was $769.89. Betty's total savings were $1,723.71.
Betty has health problems. She takes medication for high blood pressure and for a high cholesterol count. The high cholesterol is due to a hereditary liver dysfunction. She also has degenerative arthritis.
The three assigned errors will be consolidated to present the single question of whether or not the facts of the case constitute a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bryant v. Bryant
...court-approved or otherwise, deprive the court of authority to hear a plea for modification of periodic alimony. SeeAustin v. Austin , 557 So. 2d 509, 510 (Miss. 1990) ; East v. East , 493 So. 2d 927, 931 (Miss. 1986).Provisions for the custody and support of minor children are different. C......
-
James v. James, 97-CA-00242 COA
...but it should also be noted that Ms. James's net income remains significantly lower than Mr. James's net income. In Austin v. Austin, 557 So.2d 509, 510 (Miss.1990), the supreme court opined that the trial court was manifestly in error when the chancellor modified alimony because the recipi......
-
Austin v. Austin, No. 1999-CA-01070-COA.
...obligation. The first attempt was successful in the chancery court, only to be reversed and rendered by the supreme court. Austin v. Austin, 557 So.2d 509 (Miss.1990). ¶ 19. The Mississippi Supreme Court has established the following criteria to be considered by a chancellor in initially ca......
-
Bryant v. Bryant
... ... of authority to hear a plea for modification of periodic ... alimony. See Austin v. Austin , 557 So.2d 509, 510 ... (Miss. 1990); East v. East , 493 So.2d 927, 931 ... (Miss. 1986) ... Provisions for the ... ...