decent standard in Mississippi

2020This Court held in Ewing v. Ewing, 203 So. 3d 707, 715-16 (¶29) (Miss 14 Ct. App. 2016): In determining the amount of support payable to the wife, a chancellor must consider ‘not only reasonable needs of [the] wife but also [the] right of [the] husband to lead as normal a life as reasonably possible with a decent standard of living.’ Davis, 832 So. 2d at 497 (¶19) (quoting Massey v. Massey, 475 So. 2d 802, 803 (Miss. 1985)).

2016“In determining the amount of support payable to the wife, a chancellor must consider ‘not only reasonable needs of [the] wife but also [the] right of [the] husband to lead as normal a life as reasonably possible with a decent standard of living.’ ” Davis, 832 So.2d at 497 (¶ 19) (quoting Massey v. Massey, 475 So.2d 802, 803 (Miss. 1985)).

2022Of course, though, “[t]he chancellor should consider the reasonable needs of the wife and the right of the husband to lead as normal a life as possible with a decent standard of living.” Gray v. Gray, 562 So. 2d 79, 83 (Miss. 1990).

2020In Gray v. Gray, 562 So. 2d 79, 83 (Miss. 1990), the Supreme Court stated that the “chancellor should consider the reasonable needs of the wife and the right of the husband to lead as normal a life as possible with a decent standard of living.” (Emphasis added).

2002In determining the amount of support payable to the wife, a chancellor must consider "not only reasonable needs of wife but also right of husband to lead as normal a life as reasonably possible with a decent standard of living." Massey v. Massey, 475 So.2d 802, 803 (Miss.1985); Hopton v. Hopton, 342 So.2d 1298, 1300 (Miss.1977) (quoting Nichols v. Nichols, 254 So.2d 726, 727 (Miss.1971)). ¶ 20.

2000In determining the amount of support payable to the wife, a chancellor must consider “not only reasonable needs of wife but also right of husband to lead as normal a life as reasonably possible with a decent standard of living.” Massey v. Massey, 475 So.2d 802, 803 (Miss. 1985); Hopton v. Hopton, 342 So.2d 1298, 1300 (Miss. 1977) (quoting Nichols v. Nichols, 254 So.2d 726, 727 (Miss. 1971)). ¶20.

2006Further, we must look at the burden placed on the paying spouse, as well as his or her right "to lead as normal a life as possible with a decent standard of living." Brendel v. Brendel, 566 So.2d 1269, 1272 (Miss.1990). ¶ 18.

1998Further, we must look at the burden placed on ... the paying spouse, as well as his right "to lead as normal a life as possible with a decent standard of living." Brendel v. Brendel, 566 So.2d 1269, 1272 (Miss.1990); Massey v. Massey, 475 So.2d 802, 803 (Miss.1985). *1102 Chapel v. Chapel, 700 So.2d 593, 598, ¶ 25 (Miss.1997).

2015In determining the amount of support payable to the wife, a chancellor must consider “not only reasonable needs of wife but also right of husband to lead as normal a life as reasonably possible with a decent standard of living.” Massey v. Massey, 475 So.2d 802, 803 (Miss.1985) (citing Hopton v. Hopton, 342 So.2d 1298, 1300 (Miss.1977)).

2015In determining the amount of support payable to the wife, a chancellor must consider “not only reasonable needs of wife but also right of husband to lead as normal a life as reasonably possible with a decent standard of living.” Massey v. Massey, 475 So. 2d 802, 803 (Miss. 1985) (citing Hopton v. Hopton, 342 So. 2d 1298, 1300 (Miss. 1977)).

1995In determining the amount of alimony, if any, "[t]he chancellor should consider the reasonable needs of the wife and the husband's right to lead a normal life with a decent standard of living." Brennan v. Brennan, 638 So. 2d 1320, 1324 (Miss. 1994); McEachern v. McEachern, 605 So. 2d 809, 813 (Miss. 1992).

1995In other words, in determining the amount of alimony, if any, "[t]he chancellor should consider the reasonable needs of the wife and the husband's right to lead a normal life with a decent standard of living." McEachern v. McEachern, 605 So.2d 809, 813 (Miss. 1992).

2020Wood v. Wood, 495 So. 2d 503, 506 (Miss. 1986). “[T]he chancellor should consider the reasonable needs of the wife and the right of the husband to lead as normal a life as possible with a decent standard of living.” Tilley v. Tilley, 610 So. 2d 348, 354 (Miss. 1992). ¶42.

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).

2001In other words, in determining the amount of alimony, if any, "[t]he chancellor should consider the reasonable needs of the wife and the husband's right to lead a normal life with a decent standard of living." Brennan, 638 So.2d at 1324 (citations omitted). ¶ 11.

1995In determining the amount of alimony, if any, "[t]he chancellor should consider the reasonable needs of the wife and the husband's right to lead a normal life with a decent standard of living." Brennan v. Brennan, 638 So. 2d 1320, 1324 (Miss. 1994); McEachern v. McEachern, 605 So. 2d 809, 813 (Miss. 1992).

1995We are mindful, however, that "[w]hether to award alimony, and the amount to be awarded, are largely within the discretion of the chancellor." Smith v. Smith, 614 So. 2d 394, 397 (Miss. 1993), quoting Cherry v. Cherry, 593 So. 2d 13, 19 (Miss. 1991); Gammage v. Gammage, 599 So. 2d 569, 572 (Miss. 1992); Wood v. Wood, 495 So .2d 503, 504 (Miss. 1986).

1995We are ever mindful of the rule that "[w]hether to award alimony, and the amount to be awarded, are largely within the discretion of the chancellor." Smith v. Smith, supra, 614 So.2d 394, 397 (Miss. 1993) (quoting Cherry v. Cherry, supra, 593 So.2d 13, 19 (Miss. 1991)); Gammage v. Gammage, supra, 599 So.2d at 572 (Miss. 1992); Wood v. Wood, supra, 495 So.2d at 504 (Miss. 1986).

1995We are mindful, however, that "[w]hether to award alimony, and the amount to be awarded, are largely within the discretion of the chancellor." Smith v. Smith, 614 So. 2d 394, 397 (Miss. 1993), quoting Cherry v. Cherry, 593 So. 2d 13, 19 (Miss. 1991); Gammage v. Gammage, 599 So. 2d 569, 572 (Miss. 1992); Wood v. Wood, 495 So .2d 503, 504 (Miss. 1986).

1995We are ever mindful of the rule that "[w]hether to award alimony, and the amount to be awarded, are largely within the discretion of the chancellor." Smith v. Smith, supra, 614 So.2d 394, 397 (Miss. 1993) (quoting Cherry v. Cherry, supra, 593 So.2d 13, 19 (Miss. 1991)); Gammage v. Gammage, supra, 599 So.2d at 572 (Miss. 1992); Wood v. Wood, supra, 495 So.2d at 504 (Miss. 1986).

1995We are mindful, however, that "[w]hether to award alimony, and the amount to be awarded, are largely within the discretion of the chancellor." Smith v. Smith, 614 So. 2d 394, 397 (Miss. 1993), quoting Cherry v. Cherry, 593 So. 2d 13, 19 (Miss. 1991); Gammage v. Gammage, 599 So. 2d 569, 572 (Miss. 1992); Wood v. Wood, 495 So .2d 503, 504 (Miss. 1986).

1995We are ever mindful of the rule that "[w]hether to award alimony, and the amount to be awarded, are largely within the discretion of the chancellor." Smith v. Smith, supra, 614 So.2d 394, 397 (Miss. 1993) (quoting Cherry v. Cherry, supra, 593 So.2d 13, 19 (Miss. 1991)); Gammage v. Gammage, supra, 599 So.2d at 572 (Miss. 1992); Wood v. Wood, supra, 495 So.2d at 504 (Miss. 1986).

2020This Court held in Ewing v. Ewing, 203 So. 3d 707, 715-16 (¶29) (Miss 14 Ct. App. 2016): In determining the amount of support payable to the wife, a chancellor must consider ‘not only reasonable needs of [the] wife but also [the] right of [the] husband to lead as normal a life as reasonably possible with a decent standard of living.’ Davis, 832 So. 2d at 497 (¶19) (quoting Massey v. Massey, 475 So. 2d 802, 803 (Miss. 1985)).

2017The chancellor should have considered Ronnie’s “other financial obligations and his ability to maintain a decent standard of living.” Ewing v. Ewing, 203 So. 3d 707, 716 (¶30) (Miss.

1997Gambrell v. Gambrell, 650 So.2d 517, 522 (Miss. 1995).

1995Gambrell v. Gambrell, 650 So. 2d 517, 522 (Miss. 1995).

1994The general rule is that `the wife is entitled to a reasonable allowance of alimony, commensurate with her accustomed standard of living and the ability of the husband to pay * * *.' Hibner v. Hibner, 217 Miss. 611, 617 ; 64 So.2d 756, 758 (1953).

1994The general rule is that `the wife is entitled to a reasonable allowance of alimony, commensurate with her accustomed standard of living and the ability of the husband to pay * * *.' Hibner v. Hibner, 217 Miss. 611, 617 ; 64 So.2d 756, 758 (1953).

1992This Court has reaffirmed that the "chancellor should consider the reasonable needs of the wife and the right of the husband to lead as normal a life as possible with a decent standard of living." Gray v. Gray, 562 So.2d 79, 83 (Miss. 1990), cited in Cleveland v. Cleveland, 600 So.2d 193, 197 (Miss. 1992).

1992This Court has reaffirmed that the “chancellor should consider the reasonable needs of the wife and the right of the husband to lead as normal a life as possible with a decent standard of living.” Gray v. Gray, 562 So.2d 79, 83 (Miss.1990), cited in Cleveland v. Cleveland, 600 So.2d 193, 197 (Miss.1992).

1985In Nichols v. Nichols, 254 So.2d 726, 727 (Miss. 1971), this Court stated that the chancellor must consider not only the reasonable needs of the wife, but also the right of the husband "to lead as normal a life as reasonably possible with a decent standard of living." The right of a husband, denied a petition for divorce and ordered to pay separate maintenance, to lead a normal life with a reasonable standard of living was again considered by this Court in McKay v. McKay, 312 So.2d 12 (Miss. 1975).

1985This Court held in McKay, supra : After making the payments required by the Court, appellant does not have left sufficient funds to maintain a decent standard of living and is entitled to a reduction in the amount that he is required to contribute towards the support of his wife.

2007Additionally, a "chancellor should consider the reasonable needs of the wife and the right of the husband to lead as normal a life as possible with a decent standard of living." Brooks, 652 So.2d at 1122 (citing Massey v. Massey, 475 So.2d 802, 803 (Miss.1985)).

2004Additionally, a “chancellor should consider the reasonable needs of the wife and the right of the husband to lead as normal a life as possible with a decent standard of living.” Brooks, 652 So. 2d at 1222 (citing Massey v. Massey, 475 So. 2d 802, 803 (Miss. 1985)).

1999“Once it is determined ... that the amount awarded is a sufficient benefit to the wife, there remains the duty of testing the extent of the correlative burden upon the husband.” Aldridge v. Aldridge, 200 Miss. 874 , 27 So.2d 884, 885 (1946).

1999“Once it is determined ... that the amount awarded is a sufficient benefit to the wife, there remains the duty of testing the extent of the correlative burden upon the husband.” Aldridge v. Aldridge, 200 Miss. 874 , 27 So.2d 884, 885 (1946).

2020Wood v. Wood, 495 So. 2d 503, 506 (Miss. 1986). “[T]he chancellor should consider the reasonable needs of the wife and the right of the husband to lead as normal a life as possible with a decent standard of living.” Tilley v. Tilley, 610 So. 2d 348, 354 (Miss. 1992). ¶42.

2017“In determining the amount of support payable to the wife, .a chancellor must consider ‘not only reasonable needs of wife but also [the] right of husband to lead as normal a life as reasonably possible with a decent standard of living.’” Layton v. Layton, 181 So.3d 275, 293 (¶ 63) (Miss.

2016“In determining the amount of support payable to the wife, a chancellor must consider ‘not only reasonable needs of [the] wife but also [the] right of [the] husband to lead as normal a life as reasonably possible with a decent standard of living.’ ” Davis, 832 So.2d at 497 (¶ 19) (quoting Massey v. Massey, 475 So.2d 802, 803 (Miss. 1985)).

2015See Peterson v. Peterson, 129 So.3d 255, 260 (¶ 26) (Miss.Ct.App.2013) (reversing and remanding for a chancellor to consider a spouse’s ability to pay alimony while maintaining as normal a life as possible with a decent standard of living because alimony awards in excess of a spouse’s ability to pay are per se unreasonable); see also Bullock v. Bullock, 699 So.2d 1205, 1212 (¶31) (Miss.1997) (“The liabilities as well as the assets of the parties must be taken into consideration when the chancellor effects an equitable distribution of marital [property] and any other relief that may be appropri

2015Ct. App. 2013) (reversing and remanding for a chancellor to consider a spouse’s ability to pay alimony while maintaining as normal a life as possible with a decent standard of living because alimony awards in excess of a spouse’s ability to pay are per se unreasonable); see also Bullock v. Bullock, 699 So. 2d 1205, 1212 (¶31) (Miss. 1997) ("The liabilities as well as the assets of the parties must be taken into consideration when the chancellor effects an equitable distribution of marital [property] and any other relief that may be appropriate such as alimony[.]").

2015See Peterson v. Peterson, 129 So.3d 255, 260 (¶ 26) (Miss.Ct.App.2013) (reversing and remanding for a chancellor to consider a spouse’s ability to pay alimony while maintaining as normal a life as possible with a decent standard of living because alimony awards in excess of a spouse’s ability to pay are per se unreasonable); see also Bullock v. Bullock, 699 So.2d 1205, 1212 (¶31) (Miss.1997) (“The liabilities as well as the assets of the parties must be taken into consideration when the chancellor effects an equitable distribution of marital [property] and any other relief that may be appropri

2014JAMES, J„ CONCURS IN PART WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. . "[T]he court must consider [the paying spouse's] right to lead as normal a life as possible with a decent standard of living.” Crenshaw, 767 So.2d at 276 (¶ 18).

2013Because “alimony awards in excess [of] a spouse’s ability to pay are ‘per se unreasonable,’ ” Sheffield, 55 So.3d at 1145 (¶ 9), we remand for the chancellor to consider Richard’s ability to pay this amount, or any amount of alimony, while maintaining as normal a life as possible with a decent standard of living.

2013See Daigle v. Daigle, 626 So.2d 140, 145 (Miss.1993) (providing the six factors courts must consider in determining the amount of separate maintenance awarded). ¶ 13.

2000Further, "[a]limony is not a bounty to which [the wife] became entitled to receive indefinitely simply by reason of the fact that at one time she had been married to [the husband]." Beacham v. Beacham, 383 So.2d 146, 148 (Miss.1980).

2000See Williams v. Williams, 528 So.2d 296, 297 (Miss.1988).

1998Further, we must look at the burden placed on ... the paying spouse, as well as his right "to lead as normal a life as possible with a decent standard of living." Brendel v. Brendel, 566 So.2d 1269, 1272 (Miss.1990); Massey v. Massey, 475 So.2d 802, 803 (Miss.1985). *1102 Chapel v. Chapel, 700 So.2d 593, 598, ¶ 25 (Miss.1997).