accustomed standard in Mississippi

2018As in all alimony-modification cases, "[a]limony, if allowed, should be reasonable in amount, commensurate with the wife's accustomed standard of living, minus her own resources, and considering the ability of the husband to pay." Gray v. Gray , 562 So.2d 79 , 83 (Miss. 1990). "[A]limony awards in excess [of] a spouse's ability to pay are ' per se unreasonable.' " Sheffield v. Sheffield , 55 So.3d 1142 , 1145 (¶ 9) (Miss.

2016She contends that “[a]limony, if allowed, should be reasonable in amount, commensurate with the wife’s accustomed standard of living, minus her own resources, and considering the ability of the husband to pay.” Gray v. Gray, 562 So.2d 79, 83 (¶ 4) (Miss.1990).

2017We advance the standard that “[a]limony, if allowed, should be reasonable in amount, commensurate with the wife’s accustomed standard of living, minus her own resources, and considering the ability of the husband to pay.” Creekmore, 651 So. 2d at 517 .

2017We advance the standard that “[a]limony, if allowed, should be reasonable in amount, commensurate with the wife’s accustomed standard of living, minus her own resources, and- considering the ability of the husband to pay.” Creekmore, 651 So.2d at 517 .

1998If a chancellor awards alimony, the amount should be "reasonable" and "commensurate with the wife's accustomed standard of living, minus her own resources, and considering the ability of the husband to pay." Gray, 562 So.2d at 82 ; Wood v. Wood, 495 So.2d 503, 506 (Miss.1986).

1990Wood, 495 So.2d at 506 ("We have a long line of cases ... recognizing that, where the parties have been married for a number of years, where the wife is in need of financial support, the chancery court, being sensitive to the equities of the case before it, has authority to direct payment of alimony even though wrongful conduct on the part of the wife was found sufficient to grant the divorce to the husband.") (citing numerous cases); Rainer v. Rainer, *607 393 So.2d 475, 478 (Miss. 1981) (The chancellor's determination must be reasonable and commensurate with the wife's accustomed standard of

1990Wood, 495 So.2d at 506 ("We have a long line of cases ... recognizing that, where the parties have been married for a number of years, where the wife is in need of financial support, the chancery court, being sensitive to the equities of the case before it, has authority to direct payment of alimony even though wrongful conduct on the part of the wife was found sufficient to grant the divorce to the husband.") (citing numerous cases); Rainer v. Rainer, *607 393 So.2d 475, 478 (Miss. 1981) (The chancellor's determination must be reasonable and commensurate with the wife's accustomed standard of

1990Wood, 495 So.2d at 506 ; Rainer v. Rainer, 393 So.2d 475, 478 (Miss. 1981).

2018Peterson v. Peterson, 129 So. 3d 255, 257 (¶¶7-8) (Miss.

2018Peterson v. Peterson , 129 So.3d 255 , 257 (¶¶ 7-8) (Miss.

2001Brendel v. Brendel, 566 So.2d 1269, 1272-73 (Miss. 1990).

2001Brendel v. Brendel, 566 So.2d 1269 , 1272-73 (Miss. 1990).

2018Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Yelverton v. Yelverton , 961 So.2d 19 , 28 (¶ 18) (Miss. 2007) ). ¶ 11.

2011The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that alimony awards in excess a spouse’s ability to pay are “per se unreasonable.” Yelverton v. Yelverton, 961 So.2d 19, 28 (1118) (Miss.2007) (citing Brooks v. Brooks, 652 So.2d 1113, 1122 (Miss.1995)). ¶ 10.

2005In deciding whether to make an award of alimony, the chancellor should consider that both husband and wife “are entitled to maintain a ‘decent standard of. living,’ whenever possible.” Monroe, 612 So.2d at 357 (quoting Gray, 562 So.2d at 83 ).

1993This Court said in Gray v. Gray, 562 So.2d 79, 83 (Miss. 1990), that the amount of alimony "should be reasonable ... commensurate with the wife's accustomed standard of living, minus her own resources, and considering the ability of *588 the husband to pay." Both parties should be allowed "to maintain a `decent standard of living.'" Monroe v. Monroe, 612 So.2d 353, 357 (Miss. 1992).

2017“The amount of alimony awarded is a matter primarily within the discretion of the chancery court because of its peculiar opportunity to sense the equities of the situation before it.” Tilley v. Tilley, 610 So. 2d 348, 351 (Miss. 1992).

2017“The amount of alimony awarded is a matter primarily within the discretion of the chancery court because of its. peculiar opportunity to sense the equi ties of the situation before it.” Tilley v. Tilley, 610 So.2d 348, 351 (Miss. 1992).

2013“The amount of an alimony award is largely within the discretion of the chancellor^]” Magee v. Magee, 754 So.2d 1275, 1279 (¶ 7) (Miss.Ct.App.1999).

2011The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that alimony awards in excess a spouse’s ability to pay are “per se unreasonable.” Yelverton v. Yelverton, 961 So.2d 19, 28 (1118) (Miss.2007) (citing Brooks v. Brooks, 652 So.2d 1113, 1122 (Miss.1995)). ¶ 10.

2011The chancellor’s discretion notwithstanding, alimony “should be reasonable in amount, commensurate with the wife’s accustomed standard of living, minus her own resources, and considering the ability of the husband to pay.” Holley v. Holley, 969 So.2d 842, 844 (¶ 11) (Miss.2007) (quoting Creekmore v. Creekmore, 651 So.2d 513, 517 (Miss.1995)).

2009A chancellor’s award of alimony “should be reasonable in amount, commensurate with the wife’s accustomed standard of living, minus her own resources[,] and considering the ability of the husband to pay.” Barnett v. Barnett, 908 So.2d 833, 843 (¶ 24) (Miss.Ct.App.2005).

2005Johnson v. Johnson, 650 So.2d 1281, 1287 (Miss.1994). “[A]limony, if allowed, should be reasonable in amount commensurate with the wife’s accustomed standard of living, minus her own resources, and considering the ability of the husband to pay.” Gray v. Gray, 562 So.2d 79, 83 (Miss.1990).

2003The factors for considering periodic alimony were established in Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So.2d 1278, 1280-81 (Miss.1993).