evidence or manifestly error in Mississippi

2008A chancellor's decision to award alimony will not be reversed on appeal "unless it is found to be against the overwhelming weight of the evidence or manifestly in error." Id. (citing McNally v. McNally, 516 So.2d 499, 501 (Miss.1987)).

2004“The chancellor’s decision on alimony will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is found to be against the overwhelming weight of the evidence or manifestly in error.” Tilley v. Tilley, 610 So.2d 348, 351 (Miss.1992) (citing McNally v. McNally, 516 So.2d 499, 501 (Miss.1987)).

2024“We will not disturb the chancellor’s decision on alimony on appeal unless it is found to be against the overwhelming weight of the evidence or manifestly in error.” Id. (quoting Creekmore v. Creekmore, 651 So. 2d 513, 517 (Miss. 1995)). ¶37.

2023“We will not disturb the chancellor’s decision on alimony on appeal unless it is found to be against the overwhelming weight of the evidence or manifestly in error.” Creekmore, 651 So. 2d at 517 . ¶40.

2018Specifically in cases concerning alimony, the chancellor’s decision “will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is found to be against the overwhelming weight of the evidence or manifestly in error.” Tilley v. Tilley, 610 So. 2d 348, 351 (Miss. 1992).

2018Specifically in cases concerning alimony, the chancellor's decision "will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is found to be against the overwhelming weight of the evidence or manifestly in error." Tilley v. Tilley , 610 So.2d 348 , 351 (Miss. 1992).

2001We will not disturb the award on appeal unless it is found to be against the overwhelming weight of the evidence or manifestly in error." Parsons v. Parsons, 678 So.2d 701, 703 (Miss.1996) (citations omitted). ¶ 10.

2000Parsons, 678 So.2d at 703 . ¶ 26.

2025“We will not disturb the award on appeal unless it is found to be against the overwhelming weight of the evidence or manifestly in error.” Pearson v. Pearson, 761 So. 2d 157, 165 (¶25) (Miss. 2000). “[A]ny award of alimony must be based upon a determination of need for such award upon a finding of a deficit suffered by a party after completion of the equitable division of marital property.” Jackson v. Jackson, 114 So. 3d 768, 777 (¶22) (Miss.

2024The Court reasoned, “[T]he essential fact is that the income is gone,” and “there is no proof that the income was jettisoned in bad faith, that is to avoid the child support obligation.” Id. at 1330. 8 We note that this amount significantly exceeds the expenses that Leah listed for the children on her Rule 8.05 financial statements. 12 award on appeal unless it is found to be against the overwhelming weight of the evidence or manifestly in error.” Pearson v. Pearson, 761 So. 2d 157, 165 (¶25) (Miss. 2000). “[A]ny award of alimony must be based upon a determination of need for such award upon a

2009Our standard of review of the chancellor’s award of alimony is limited and “will not be altered on appeal unless it is found to be against the overwhelming weight of the evidence or manifestly in error.” Reid v. Reid, 998 So.2d 1032, 1036 (¶ 7) (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (citing Crowe v. Crowe, 641 So.2d 1100, 1102 (Miss.1994)).

2008In such cases[,] the award will not be altered on appeal unless it is found to be against the overwhelming weight of the evidence or manifestly in error." Crowe v. Crowe, 641 So.2d 1100, 1102 (Miss.1994) (citing Tilley v. Tilley, 610 So.2d 348, 351 (Miss. 1992)).

2025“We will not disturb the award on appeal unless it is found to be against the overwhelming weight of the evidence or manifestly in error.” Pearson v. Pearson, 761 So. 2d 157, 165 (¶25) (Miss. 2000). “[A]ny award of alimony must be based upon a determination of need for such award upon a finding of a deficit suffered by a party after completion of the equitable division of marital property.” Jackson v. Jackson, 114 So. 3d 768, 777 (¶22) (Miss.

2024The Court reasoned, “[T]he essential fact is that the income is gone,” and “there is no proof that the income was jettisoned in bad faith, that is to avoid the child support obligation.” Id. at 1330. 8 We note that this amount significantly exceeds the expenses that Leah listed for the children on her Rule 8.05 financial statements. 12 award on appeal unless it is found to be against the overwhelming weight of the evidence or manifestly in error.” Pearson v. Pearson, 761 So. 2d 157, 165 (¶25) (Miss. 2000). “[A]ny award of alimony must be based upon a determination of need for such award upon a

1998Ethridge v. Ethridge, 648 So.2d 1143, 1145-46 (Miss.1995); Crowe v. Crowe, 641 So.2d 1100, 1102 (Miss.1994); Tilley v. Tilley, 610 So.2d 348, 351 (Miss.1992).

1998Ethridge v. Ethridge, 648 So.2d 1143, 1145-46 (Miss.1995); Crowe v. Crowe, 641 So.2d 1100, 1102 (Miss.1994); Tilley v. Tilley, 610 So.2d 348, 351 (Miss.1992). "[T]he amount of an alimony award is a matter largely within the discretion of the chancery court because of its peculiar opportunity to sense the equities of the situation before it." Wood v. Wood, 495 So.2d 503, 506 (Miss.1986).

1998Ethridge v. Ethridge, 648 So.2d 1143, 1145-46 (Miss.1995); Crowe v. Crowe, 641 So.2d 1100, 1102 (Miss.1994); Tilley v. Tilley, 610 So.2d 348, 351 (Miss.1992). "[T]he amount of an alimony award is a matter largely within the discretion of the chancery court because of its peculiar opportunity to sense the equities of the situation before it." Wood v. Wood, 495 So.2d 503, 506 (Miss.1986).

1995See also Gammage v. Gammage, 599 So.2d 569, 572 (Miss. 1992). "[T]he amount of an alimony award is a matter to a great extent within the discretion of the chancery court because of its peculiar opportunity to sense the equities of the situation before it." Holleman v. Holleman, 527 So.2d 90, 94 (Miss. 1988), citing Wood v. Wood, 495 So.2d 503 (Miss. 1986). *1123 "The chancery court's decision on alimony will not be disturbed on appeal unless it be found against the overwhelming weight of the evidence or manifestly in error." McNally v. McNally, 516 So.2d 499, 501 (Miss. 1987) (citing Harrell v

1995Co., Inc., 507 So.2d 1287, 1289 (Miss.1987); State Board of Psychological Examiners v. Coxe, 355 So.2d 669, 671 (Miss.1978)) In addition, this Court has held it will not disturb on appeal the chancellor’s ruling unless “it is found to be against the overwhelming weight of the evidence or manifestly in error.” McNally v. McNally, 516 So.2d 499, 501 (Miss.1987) (citing Harrell v. Harrell, 231 So.2d 793 (Miss.1970); Tinnin v. First United Bank of Miss., 570 So.2d 1193, 1194 (Miss.1990)).

1995Co., Inc., 507 So.2d 1287, 1289 (Miss. 1987); State Board of Psychological Examiners v. Coxe, 355 So.2d 669, 671 (Miss. 1978)) In addition, this Court has held it will not disturb on appeal the chancellor's ruling unless "it is found to be against the overwhelming weight of the evidence or manifestly in error." McNally v. McNally, 516 So.2d 499, 501 (Miss. 1987) (citing Harrell v. Harrell, 231 So.2d 793 (Miss. 1970); Tinnin v. First United Bank of Miss., 570 So.2d 1193, 1194 (Miss. 1990)).

1995Co., Inc., 507 So.2d 1287, 1289 (Miss.1987); State Board of Psychological Examiners v. Coxe, 355 So.2d 669, 671 (Miss.1978)) In addition, this Court has held it will not disturb on appeal the chancellor’s ruling unless “it is found to be against the overwhelming weight of the evidence or manifestly in error.” McNally v. McNally, 516 So.2d 499, 501 (Miss.1987) (citing Harrell v. Harrell, 231 So.2d 793 (Miss.1970); Tinnin v. First United Bank of Miss., 570 So.2d 1193, 1194 (Miss.1990)).

1995Co., Inc., 507 So.2d 1287, 1289 (Miss. 1987); State Board of Psychological Examiners v. Coxe, 355 So.2d 669, 671 (Miss. 1978)) In addition, this Court has held it will not disturb on appeal the chancellor's ruling unless "it is found to be against the overwhelming weight of the evidence or manifestly in error." McNally v. McNally, 516 So.2d 499, 501 (Miss. 1987) (citing Harrell v. Harrell, 231 So.2d 793 (Miss. 1970); Tinnin v. First United Bank of Miss., 570 So.2d 1193, 1194 (Miss. 1990)).

1995Co., Inc., 507 So.2d 1287, 1289 (Miss.1987); State Board of Psychological Examiners v. Coxe, 355 So.2d 669, 671 (Miss.1978)) In addition, this Court has held it will not disturb on appeal the chancellor’s ruling unless “it is found to be against the overwhelming weight of the evidence or manifestly in error.” McNally v. McNally, 516 So.2d 499, 501 (Miss.1987) (citing Harrell v. Harrell, 231 So.2d 793 (Miss.1970); Tinnin v. First United Bank of Miss., 570 So.2d 1193, 1194 (Miss.1990)).

1995Co., Inc., 507 So.2d 1287, 1289 (Miss. 1987); State Board of Psychological Examiners v. Coxe, 355 So.2d 669, 671 (Miss. 1978)) In addition, this Court has held it will not disturb on appeal the chancellor's ruling unless "it is found to be against the overwhelming weight of the evidence or manifestly in error." McNally v. McNally, 516 So.2d 499, 501 (Miss. 1987) (citing Harrell v. Harrell, 231 So.2d 793 (Miss. 1970); Tinnin v. First United Bank of Miss., 570 So.2d 1193, 1194 (Miss. 1990)).

2003"The chancellor's decision on alimony will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is found to be against the overwhelming weight of the evidence or manifestly in error." Tilley v. Tilley, 610 So.2d 348, 351 (Miss.1992) (citing McNally v. McNally, 516 So.2d 499, 501 (Miss.1987)) (citing Harrell v. Harrell, 231 So.2d 793 (Miss.1970)).

1995Co., Inc., 507 So.2d 1287, 1289 (Miss.1987); State Board of Psychological Examiners v. Coxe, 355 So.2d 669, 671 (Miss.1978)) In addition, this Court has held it will not disturb on appeal the chancellor’s ruling unless “it is found to be against the overwhelming weight of the evidence or manifestly in error.” McNally v. McNally, 516 So.2d 499, 501 (Miss.1987) (citing Harrell v. Harrell, 231 So.2d 793 (Miss.1970); Tinnin v. First United Bank of Miss., 570 So.2d 1193, 1194 (Miss.1990)).

2023We will not disturb the award on appeal unless it is found to be against the overwhelming weight of the evidence or manifestly in error.” Id. at 1244 (¶9). ¶9.

2018Likewise, when the equitable division of the marital estate is at issue, the Court has determined that “the chancellor’s ruling on the division and distribution will be upheld if it is supported by substantial creditable evidence.” Mabus v. Mabus, 890 So. 2d 806, 824 (¶72) (Miss. 2003).

2018Likewise, when the equitable division of the marital estate is at issue, the Court has determined that "the chancellor's ruling on the division and distribution will be upheld if it is supported by substantial creditable evidence." Mabus v. Mabus , 890 So.2d 806 , 824 (¶ 72) (Miss. 2003).

2017Ronnie acknowledges that the issues of property division and alimony are “intertwined.” McKissack v. McKissack, 45 So. 3d 716, 723 (¶41) (Miss.

2014Cosentino v. Cosentino, 986 So.2d 1065, 1067 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App.2008).

2013In analyzing the parties’ need for alimony, the chancery court cited Lauro v. Lauro, 847 So.2d 843, 848 (¶ 13) (Miss.2003), for the proposition that alimony may be considered only after the marital estate has been equitably divided and a deficit exists for one of the parties.

2009Our standard of review of the chancellor’s award of alimony is limited and “will not be altered on appeal unless it is found to be against the overwhelming weight of the evidence or manifestly in error.” Reid v. Reid, 998 So.2d 1032, 1036 (¶ 7) (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (citing Crowe v. Crowe, 641 So.2d 1100, 1102 (Miss.1994)).

2009“The chancellor’s decision on alimony will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is found to be against the overwhelming weight of the evidence or manifestly in error.” Mosley v. Mosley, 784 So.2d 901, 909 (¶ 36) (Miss.2001) (citation omitted).

2009“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.’” Id. (citation omitted) “A chancellor can award alimony payable in one lump sum or periodic alimony, payable monthly, or both, dependent upon the circumstances of the parties.” Id.

1995Lump sum alimony "is a settlement between the husband and the wife as to the interest of the latter in his property, and as to the extent of the husband's duty to contribute to her maintenance and support." Retzer v. Retzer, 578 So.2d 580, 591 (Miss. 1990) quoting Miller v. Miller, 173 Miss. 44, 64 , 159 So. 112, 119-20 (1935)).

1995See also Gammage v. Gammage, 599 So.2d 569, 572 (Miss. 1992). "[T]he amount of an alimony award is a matter to a great extent within the discretion of the chancery court because of its peculiar opportunity to sense the equities of the situation before it." Holleman v. Holleman, 527 So.2d 90, 94 (Miss. 1988), citing Wood v. Wood, 495 So.2d 503 (Miss. 1986). *1123 "The chancery court's decision on alimony will not be disturbed on appeal unless it be found against the overwhelming weight of the evidence or manifestly in error." McNally v. McNally, 516 So.2d 499, 501 (Miss. 1987) (citing Harrell v

1995Lump sum alimony "is a settlement between the husband and the wife as to the interest of the latter in his property, and as to the extent of the husband's duty to contribute to her maintenance and support." Retzer v. Retzer, 578 So.2d 580, 591 (Miss. 1990) quoting Miller v. Miller, 173 Miss. 44, 64 , 159 So. 112, 119-20 (1935)).

1995Lump sum alimony "is a settlement between the husband and the wife as to the interest of the latter in his property, and as to the extent of the husband's duty to contribute to her maintenance and support." Retzer v. Retzer, 578 So.2d 580, 591 (Miss. 1990) quoting Miller v. Miller, 173 Miss. 44, 64 , 159 So. 112, 119-20 (1935)).

1995See also Gammage v. Gammage, 599 So.2d 569, 572 (Miss. 1992). "[T]he amount of an alimony award is a matter to a great extent within the discretion of the chancery court because of its peculiar opportunity to sense the equities of the situation before it." Holleman v. Holleman, 527 So.2d 90, 94 (Miss. 1988), citing Wood v. Wood, 495 So.2d 503 (Miss. 1986). *1123 "The chancery court's decision on alimony will not be disturbed on appeal unless it be found against the overwhelming weight of the evidence or manifestly in error." McNally v. McNally, 516 So.2d 499, 501 (Miss. 1987) (citing Harrell v