Oster v. Oster
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-01174-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CA-01174-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-27-2004 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Reversed and remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Modification of alimony Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-19-2002 Appealed from: Lincoln County Chancery Court Judge: Ed Patten Disposition: DIVORCE AWARDED TO APPELLEE AND APPELLANT ORDERED TO PAY PERMANENT PERIODIC ALIMONY IN THE AMOUNT OF $500 PER MONTH Case Number: 2000-626 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Jamie Oster |
RENEE M. PORTER |
||
| Appellee: | Jan Oster | RALPH L. PEEPLES |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Modification of alimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jamie Oster and Jan Oster were divorced, and the court ordered Jamie to pay rehabilitative alimony for a period of six months at the end of which time, the court would review Jamie's financial situation. After the review hearing, the chancellor held that the alimony would continue, but it would be changed to permanent periodic alimony at $500 per month. Jamie appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Jamie argues that the chancellor erred in ordering him to pay periodic alimony to his former spouse. The review in this case was commenced by a motion filed by Jan to initiate a review in compliance with the provision contained in the judgment of divorce. The review provision was contained in the judgment of divorce ordering Jamie to pay rehabilitative alimony, and the consequences flowing from the finality of that judgment are binding on both Jamie and Jan. Since the chancellor had ordered rehabilitative alimony initially and that judgment had become final, any review six months later would necessarily be a review of what had been ordered. Therefore, the chancellor erred in converting the rehabilitative alimony into permanent periodic alimony. To change the alimony from rehabilitative to permanent periodic, a motion for modification needed to have been filed. The case is reversed and remanded for the chancellor to make a determination as to whether there is a need to extend the time period in which Jamie should make rehabilitative alimony payments to Jan, and if so, for how long. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
