Butler v. Hinson, 52058
| Citation | 386 So.2d 716 |
| Decision Date | 06 August 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 52058,52058 |
| Parties | Mitzi Jo Burkley BUTLER v. Jeffery Lynn HINSON. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
Zuccaro, Riley, Pintard & Brown, Edwin E. Kerstine, Natchez, for appellant.
Jeffery Lynn Hinson, pro se.
Before PATTERSON, C. J., and BROOM and LEE, JJ.
LEE, Justice, for the Court.
On February 5, 1979, the Chancery Court of Adams County, Honorable Frank W. Walden presiding, entered a decree divorcing Mitzi Jo Burkley Hinson (Butler) from Jeffery Lynn Hinson, adjudicating a property settlement between them, and granting alimony in the sum of forty-four hundred dollars ($4,400), payable in monthly installments of one hundred dollars ($100.00) for forty-four (44) consecutive months. Thereafter, on May 3, 1979, Mrs. Butler filed a petition charging that Hinson was in arrears for the payments due from March through May, 1979, and seeking to reduce those amounts to judgment. She also sought attorney's fees.
When the petition was heard, the chancellor discovered that appellant had married again. He entered judgment for the amount due from the date of the decree until the time of her remarriage, and awarded one hundred dollars ($100.00) attorney's fees. However, he modified the original divorce decree, and terminated the alimony as of the date of remarriage.
Mrs. Butler appeals from the decree and the sole question presented is whether or not the lower court erred in terminating the alimony payments.
That part of the final divorce decree, which pertains to alimony, follows:
(Emphasis added)
It is significant that the decree recited appellee was to pay unto appellant alimony in the lump sum of $4,400, payable in 44 consecutive months beginning March 1, 1979. The chancellor stated at the petition hearing that he did not intend for the alimony to be lump sum alimony and that, therefore, he had the authority to modify the decree and to terminate the alimony upon appellant's remarriage.
Bunkley and Morse, Amis on Divorce and Separation in Mississippi, § 6.07, at 186 (1957), sets out the following general statement of the law:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
East v. East
...awarded in a lump sum, or in gross constitutes a fixed liability of the husband and his estate and cannot be modified. Butler v. Hinson, 386 So.2d 716 (Miss.1980); Wray v. Wray, supra; Schaffer v. Schaffer, 209 Miss. 220, 46 So.2d 443 (1950); Robinson v. Robinson, 112 Miss. 224, 72 So. 923 ......
-
Austin v. Austin, No. 1999-CA-01070-COA.
...683 So.2d at 931 (citing Wray v. Wray, 394 So.2d 1341 (Miss.1981)). See also Bowe v. Bowe, 557 So.2d 793, 794 (Miss.1990); Butler v. Hinson, 386 So.2d 716 (Miss.1980). "The fact that payments of lump sum alimony are often paid in installments may give said payments a superficial similarity ......
-
In re Estate of Hodges, No. 2001-CA-00030-SCT.
...held that such alimony constitutes a fixed liability of the husband and his estate and is not subject to modification. Butler v. Hinson, 386 So.2d 716 (Miss. 1980). The rule of law providing for the modification of a periodic alimony award arises from the nature of alimony itself, which is ......
-
Louk v. Louk
...of [a party] and [their] estate and cannot be modified." East, 493 So.2d at 931; Wray v. Wray, 394 So.2d 1341 (Miss.1981); Butler v. Hinson, 386 So.2d 716 (Miss.1980); Schaffer v. Schaffer, 209 Miss. 220, 46 So.2d 443 (1950); Robinson v. Robinson, 112 Miss. 224, 72 So. 923 (1916); Guess v. ......