Byars v. Byars
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-00085-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CA-00085-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-18-2003 Opinion Author: Lee, J. Holding: Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Termination of alimony Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King, P.J., Bridges, Thomas, Myers and Chandler, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Griffis, J. Dissenting Author : Irving, J. Dissent Joined By : Southwick, P.J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-19-2001 Appealed from: Calhoun County Chancery Court Judge: Glenn Alderson Disposition: FORMER HUSBAND'S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF DIVORCE DECREE GRANTED AND HIS OBLIGATION TO PAY ALIMONY TERMINATED. Case Number: 91-322 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Gloria Vance Byars |
A. E. (GENE) HARLOW |
||
| Appellee: | William S. Byars, Jr. | PAUL M. MOORE |
|
|
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: | Termination of alimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | Gloria Byars and William Byars, Jr. were granted a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. The court awarded Gloria lump sum alimony. William later filed a petition for modification. The court granted the petition and terminated William's obligation to pay alimony to Gloria. Gloria appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Gloria argues that the court erred in terminating her alimony payments, because her current relationship is not the type of relationship described in the separation agreement that would cease alimony payments. Where the payor spouse seeks termination of alimony payments on the grounds that the recipient ex-spouse is engaged in a sexual relationship with another or cohabiting with another, the only issue is whether the ex-spouse receives financial support from the partner/cohabitant and not the moral aspects of such relationship. Gloria's lifestyle did not provide her boyfriend with the benefits of marriage without ceremonial endorsement. She testified that she had never lived with her boyfriend, that they had two separate lives, that she had no plans to marry or move to be near him, that he does not help her maintain her home or pay bills, that they do not own any assets together, and that they have never commingled any of their finances. Therefore, the court abused its discretion in determining that Gloria's sexual relationship amounted to a marriage. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
