Reffalt v. Reffalt
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-01013-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-01013-COA ; 2010-CT-01013-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-13-2011 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Modification of alimony - Property settlement agreement - Course of parties’ performance Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Myers and Carlton, JJ. Dissenting Author : Russell, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-12-2009 Appealed from: Hancock County Chancery Court Judge: Sanford R. Steckler Disposition: ALIMONY SET AT $1,594.64 PER MONTH PURSUANT TO PROPERTY-SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Case Number: C2301-23,242(3) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Stephen D. Reffalt, Jr. |
M. CHANNING POWELL |
|
|
| Appellee: | Gloria F. Reffalt | JIMMY D. MCGUIRE | ||
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 - Property settlement agreement - Course of parties’ performance |
| Summary of the Facts: | In 1993, Stephen and Gloria Reffalt were granted an irreconcilable-differences divorce. Their property-settlement agreement provided that Stephen would pay approximately $1,600 per month in alimony, an amount stated to be one-half of his monthly retirement income. In December 2008, Stephen filed a petition to modify the alimony payments. According to Stephen, his retirement income had been reduced since the divorce. Stephen contended that the property-settlement agreement required monthly alimony be reduced proportionally – to about $1,150 per month. The chancellor found the property-settlement agreement ambiguous, but he concluded that Stephen’s course of performance – having paid $1,600 per month for almost fifteen years – evidenced the parties’ mutual understanding that the higher amount was owed. Stephen appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The threshold issue is whether the property-settlement agreement is ambiguous. The agreement does not explicitly provide provide for a reduction in the amount of alimony owed when the Martin Marietta retirement plan begins paying less. The agreement states that Stephen will “remit to Gloria one-half of [his monthly retirement income],” which it states is “approximately” $1,594.63. This language suggests that the alimony award is subject to automatic modification. Thus, the amount of the award is ambiguous. As the property-settlement agreement is ambiguous, the chancellor properly considered parol and other evidence. Gloria testified that they had understood Stephen would pay a fixed amount of roughly $1,600 per month, indefinitely; Stephen disagreed. The best evidence of the parties’ understanding was their course of conduct: Stephen had paid Gloria the $1,600 per month since they divorced seventeen years before, including approximately fifteen years after he began receiving less than $3,200 per month from the private retirement plan. The course of the parties’ performance is substantial evidence supporting the chancellor’s finding of their intent. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
