Wayne Wright and Mary Wright were divorced on November 20, 1989, with Wayne ordered to pay alimony of $750 monthly for 36 months and $500 thereafter, along with providing health insurance for Mary. In January 1997, Wayne was ordered to pay $500 monthly alimony starting February 1, but he only made the February payment, citing job loss as the reason for non-payment. In July 1997, the Chancery Court heard Wayne's request to modify alimony and Mary's contempt motion, addressing Wayne's $3,150 in overdue alimony and whether it should be reduced by amounts paid for health insurance. The court ruled in October 1997 that while Wayne's job loss justified reduced payments, he was still required to pay the overdue amount by October 1, 1997, and to reimburse Mary $750 for attorney's fees. Wayne appealed, claiming the court erred by not terminating his alimony obligation, refusing to reduce the arrearage by health insurance costs, and awarding attorney's fees without evidence of Mary's financial need. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the lower court’s decision, finding no errors and that the chancellor's conclusions were substantiated by evidence.
Wayne earned approximately $62,000 annually until 1996, when he resigned rather than accept a demotion to a $35,000 position. From January to June 1997, he received severance payments totaling $15,000 and began receiving Social Security benefits of $965 monthly starting in September 1997. He also had an IRA valued at about $40,000. Wayne sought to eliminate a $3,150 alimony arrearage, citing an additional $150 monthly payment for Mary's health insurance, and contested the responsibility for her legal fees.
The court mandated Wayne to pay the $3,150 owed in alimony, reduced his monthly obligation from $500 to $300, and required him to cover half of Mary's legal fees amounting to $750, which Wayne appealed.
The appellate court reiterated the standard of review for a chancellor's findings, maintaining that such decisions should not be disturbed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion or error in law. Wayne raised three issues on appeal: (I) the chancellor's refusal to terminate his alimony obligation despite his changed financial circumstances; (II) denial of a reduction in the alimony arrearage for health insurance payments; and (III) the award of attorney's fees to Mary without evidence of her financial inability to pay.
The court, referencing factors from Armstrong v. Armstrong regarding alimony considerations, concluded that the chancellor's decisions were supported by substantial evidence and reasonable. Therefore, Wayne's assignments of error were rejected, and the chancellor's judgment was affirmed.
