Before Sullivan, P.j., Banks And Roberts, JJ.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Roberts, Justice, For The Court.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/29/97
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. WILLIAM L. GRIFFIN, JR.
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: SUNFLOWER COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS
¶1. The parties in this case were divorced on November 20, 1989, by a final judgment of divorce of the Chancery Court of Sunflower County, Mississippi. In the judgment of divorce, the Appellant, Wayne Wright (hereinafter "Wayne"), was ordered to pay alimony in the amount of $750 per month for thirty-six (36) months and $500 per month thereafter to the Appellee, Mary Wright (hereinafter "Mary"). Further, Wayne was ordered to provide and maintain for Mary, health insurance with medical coverage only.
¶2. At a temporary hearing in the Chancery Court of Sunflower County in January 1997, Wayne was ordered to pay Mary the sum of $500 per month for alimony commencing February 1, 1997. Wayne made the February payment, but made no further alimony payments. Wayne alleged that his failure to make the payments was due to his loss of employment.
¶3. The parties appeared before the Chancery Court again in July 1997, upon Wayne's motion for modification of the alimony payment and upon Mary's motion for contempt. Evidence was heard regarding the $3,150 in past due alimony owed by Wayne to Mary. Additionally, the court considered whether this alimony arrearage should be offset by amounts paid to Mary for securing health insurance, and whether Wayne should have to pay Mary's legal fees.
¶4. In a final order, entered October 2, 1997, the court found that Wayne was justified in refusing to remain employed. Further the court found that the loss of employment justified a reduction in alimony payments. However, the chancellor ordered Wayne to pay all past due alimony amounts by October 1, 1997. Finally, the court ordered Wayne to pay Mary $750 for partial reimbursement of attorney's fees. Taking exception to the chancellor's ruling, Wayne asserts the following points of error on appeal:
I. THE CHANCELLOR'S REFUSAL TO TERMINATE WAYNE'S ALIMONY OBLIGATION WAS IN ERROR AS WAYNE NO LONGER HAD THE MEANS TO FULFILL IT.
II. THE CHANCELLOR ERRED IN REFUSING TO REDUCE THE ALIMONY ARREARAGE BY THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF HEALTH INSURANCE.
III. THE CHANCELLOR'S AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES TO MARY WAS IN ERROR AS SHE PROVIDED NO SPECIFIC EVIDENCE REGARDING HER INABILITY TO PAY.
¶5. There is nothing in the record to indicate error on the part of chancellor below. Conversely, the findings of the court below were well-reasoned and based on substantial evidence. As a result, this Court holds that these claims are ...