Alexis v. Tarver
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-01644-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-03-2004 Opinion Author: Southwick, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Clean hands doctrine - Rehabilitative alimony Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges, P.J., Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-24-2003 Appealed from: Walthall County Chancery Court Judge: W. Hollis McGehee, II Disposition: PARTIES DIVORCED, REHABILITATIVE ALIMONY DENIED TO FORMER WIFE. Case Number: 2002-0162 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Alyison Ann (Tarver) Alexis |
ALFRED L. FELDER |
||
| Appellee: | Floyd Lee Tarver | (PRO SE) |
|
|
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: | Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Clean hands doctrine - Rehabilitative alimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | Floyd Tarver and Alyison Tarver were granted a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. At the time of the divorce, Alexis was living with her boyfriend. The final decree of divorce included a provision that Alexis could receive $500 per month for thirty months in rehabilitative alimony but in order to receive that support, she had to withdraw herself from her current living arrangement with her boyfriend. When Alexis filed a notice with the court electing to receive the rehabilitative alimony, Floyd filed an objection claiming that she had not met the conditions placed on her in order to receive the alimony and that she continued to live with her boyfriend. The chancellor found that Alexis' boyfriend was supporting her and therefore she was not entitled to have her former husband also provide support. Alexis appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Clean hands doctrine Alexis argues that Tarver is precluded from objecting to the rehabilitative alimony he was to pay because he does not come to court with clean hands, since he was living with a woman at the time of the divorce and was supporting the majority of this woman's financial needs. The sole relevance of Alexis' relationship with someone else was whether she was receiving support from her new boyfriend and not her former husband’s similar conduct. Issue 2: Rehabilitative alimony The primary purpose of rehabilitative alimony is to give the former spouse the opportunity to enter the work force. Cohabitation with the new partner's providing support has been found to be a sufficient change in circumstances to terminate the receipt of alimony payments. When the chancellor was not presented with the usual circumstances, he was justified in adopting somewhat unusual but practical and reasonable means to address them. Alexis argues that she is no longer cohabiting with her boyfriend. It is Alexis' responsibility to establish that she and her boyfriend were not mutually supportive of each other. The fact that Alexis moved from a larger house to a smaller trailer located on the same property was not enough to demonstrate that she had in fact established a separate residence. What she admitted in the hearing supports this contention. Alexis could allow her rent to lapse and suffer no adverse consequences. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
