Do increased costs following a divorce justify modifying alimony payments in Mississippi?
Unforeseen and unanticipated increased expenses could justify modifying periodic alimony payments in Mississippi
Continuing on with my discussion about modification of periodic alimony, a change in health condition and increased medical costs of the recipient spouse due to a kidney transplant justified an increase in alimony payments. In Makamson v. Makamson, the Mississippi Court of Appeals approved a chancellor’s decision to increase the alimony payments 12 years after the divorce due to the medical costs associated with a kidney transplant of the recipient spouse. The costs associated with her transplant were not something anticipated at the time of the divorce although she was diagnosed with the kidney problem 5 years before the divorce. As the court noted, the test for modification is a substantial change in circumstances which:
“must have been some change which resulted from ‘after-arising circumstances of the parties not reasonably anticipated at the time of the agreement’ and furthermore the change must ‘be one that could not have been anticipated by the parties at the time of the original decree.”
In Makamsom, the Court said that the parties did not anticipate the medical costs or the severity of the medical condition. Coupled with the ex-husband’s almost four-fold increase in income, the $1,000 a month increase in alimony payments was not an abuse of discretion by the lower court.
In contrast, the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed a case in which a chancellor increased alimony payments from $400 a month to $4,000 a month based on the ex-wife’s deteriorating health. Profilet v. Profilet In Profilet, the ex-wife alleged that the ex-husband’s income had dramatically increased and her health had deteriorated since the divorce, necessitating more income for her in order to live. The ex-husband argued, and the Court agreed, that the wife had her health condition before the divorce and that future health problems were foreseeable at the time of the divorce—thus, there was no substantial change in circumstances that was not foreseeable at the time of the divorce. The Court also reversed the case because the trial court made its increase in alimony based on the ex-husband’s gross income as opposed to net income and only considered his assets without also considering his liabilities in calculating the amount of increase.
The key in modification of periodic alimony is that there has been a substantial change in circumstances due to after-arising circumstances not reasonably anticipated at the time of divorce and could not have been anticipated by the parties at the time of the original decree.
