McKee v. McKee, No. 51437

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
Writing for the CourtROBERTSON; PATTERSON
Citation382 So.2d 287
PartiesMiles Curtiss McKEE v. Mary Griffin McKEE.
Decision Date09 January 1980
Docket NumberNo. 51437

Page 287

382 So.2d 287
Miles Curtiss McKEE
v.
Mary Griffin McKEE.
No. 51437.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Jan. 9, 1980.
As Corrected on Denial of Rehearing April 2, 1980.

Cox & Dunn, Vardaman S. Dunn, Jackson, for appellant.

Young, Scanlon & Sessums, James Leon Young, Jackson, for appellee.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

En banc.

ROBERTSON, Presiding Justice, for the Court:

The petition for rehearing is granted as to the increase in alimony, but denied as to

Page 288

the increase in the support of the two children of the marriage and the allowance of a $750 attorney's fee for appellee's attorney. The affirmance, without opinion, on September 12, 1979, of the Decree of the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County is withdrawn and set aside.

The Final Decree of Divorce of February 25, 1972, was an agreed decree as far as property settlement, alimony, and support of the two minor children of the marriage were concerned. Among other things, that decree recited:

"(A)nd the parties having announced to the Court that they have settled and compromised the property division and alimony questions in accordance with the terms hereinbelow set forth,

"5. Defendant shall pay to the complainant monthly alimony of $700.00 per month commencing March 1, 1972, through July 1, 1972. Thereafter defendant shall pay to complainant monthly alimony each month of $500.00 commencing August 1, 1972, until the death of one of the parties or remarriage of complainant."

Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of that decree cover the division of two automobiles (one to complainant, the other to the defendant), the awarding of all household goods, furnishings and equipment together with the home and lot at 209 South Brook Drive, to the complainant, the acquiring of a $100,000 twenty-year decreasing term life insurance policy by Curtiss McKee on his life with Mary Griffin McKee and the two children as beneficiaries, and the execution of a quitclaim deed by Mary Griffin McKee to Curtiss McKee conveying her undivided 1/2 interest in an Eastover lot for which Curtiss McKee would pay her $7,000 in cash.

It is apparent to this Court from the careful wording of this detailed and specific "Final Decree of Divorce," dated February 25, 1972, that Curtiss McKee and Mary Griffin McKee intended to settle once and for all, all property questions and all alimony questions existing between them. They were being divorced each from the other, and it was certainly desirable...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • Hathorn v. Lovorn, No. 81-451
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 15, 1982
    ...Cortez v. Brown, 408 So.2d 464 (1981) (en banc); Cash v. Illinois Central Gulf R. Co., 388 So.2d 871 (1980) (en banc); McKee v. McKee, 382 So.2d 287 (1980) (en banc); City of Jackson v. Capital Reporter Publishing Co., 373 So.2d 802 (1979) (en banc); Realty Title Guaranty Co. v. Howard, 355......
  • East v. East, No. 55514
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • August 13, 1986
    ...or the death of the husband. Taylor v. Taylor, 392 So.2d 1145 (Miss.1981); Stone v. Stone, 385 So.2d 610 (Miss.1980); McKee v. McKee, 382 So.2d 287 (Miss.1980); Hughes v. Hughes, 221 Miss. 264, 72 So.2d 677 (1954). On the other hand we have historically recognized that alimony awarded in a ......
  • Anderson v. Anderson, No. 94-CA-00870-SCT
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • April 10, 1997
    ...careful consideration is to be given to the intent of the parties at the time of the entering of the divorce decree. McKee v. McKee, 382 So.2d 287, 288 (Miss.1980). Susan argues to this Court that the agreement between the two parties provided for alimony to be paid by John Anderson unto Su......
  • Dixon v. Dixon, NO. 2016–CA–00997–COA
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Mississippi
    • February 6, 2018
    ...change in circumstances since the date of the prior judgment. See McEwen v. McEwen , 631 So.2d 821, 823 (Miss. 1994) ; McKee v. McKee , 382 So.2d 287, 288 (Miss. 1980). In addition, the change in circumstances must be one that was not reasonably foreseeable at the time of the original judgm......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • Hathorn v. Lovorn, No. 81-451
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 15, 1982
    ...Cortez v. Brown, 408 So.2d 464 (1981) (en banc); Cash v. Illinois Central Gulf R. Co., 388 So.2d 871 (1980) (en banc); McKee v. McKee, 382 So.2d 287 (1980) (en banc); City of Jackson v. Capital Reporter Publishing Co., 373 So.2d 802 (1979) (en banc); Realty Title Guaranty Co. v. Howard, 355......
  • East v. East, No. 55514
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • August 13, 1986
    ...or the death of the husband. Taylor v. Taylor, 392 So.2d 1145 (Miss.1981); Stone v. Stone, 385 So.2d 610 (Miss.1980); McKee v. McKee, 382 So.2d 287 (Miss.1980); Hughes v. Hughes, 221 Miss. 264, 72 So.2d 677 (1954). On the other hand we have historically recognized that alimony awarded in a ......
  • Anderson v. Anderson, No. 94-CA-00870-SCT
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • April 10, 1997
    ...careful consideration is to be given to the intent of the parties at the time of the entering of the divorce decree. McKee v. McKee, 382 So.2d 287, 288 (Miss.1980). Susan argues to this Court that the agreement between the two parties provided for alimony to be paid by John Anderson unto Su......
  • Dixon v. Dixon, NO. 2016–CA–00997–COA
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Mississippi
    • February 6, 2018
    ...change in circumstances since the date of the prior judgment. See McEwen v. McEwen , 631 So.2d 821, 823 (Miss. 1994) ; McKee v. McKee , 382 So.2d 287, 288 (Miss. 1980). In addition, the change in circumstances must be one that was not reasonably foreseeable at the time of the original judgm......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT