Brian Korelitz v. Ruth'e Korelitz
2015-CA-01758-COA
| Miss. Ct. App. | May 9, 2017Background
- Brian and Ruth’e Korelitz divorced in 2006 and executed a written property-settlement agreement containing an alimony provision.
- The draft labeled the provision “Periodic Alimony,” but the word “periodic” was struck through in every instance and initialed by both parties; a handwritten clause also stated the payments were “non-modifiable,” initialed by both.
- The agreement set fixed payment amounts in three consecutive 36‑month tiers, then a reduced payment until September 1, 2019 or Brian’s retirement; payments were deductible to Brian and includable as Ruth’e’s income.
- Brian agreed to maintain life and disability insurance to secure the alimony payments.
- In 2014 Brian sought termination of alimony (alleging Ruth’e’s de facto marriage/cohabitation) or, alternatively, modification based on a substantial income reduction; he reduced payments unilaterally.
- The chancery court classified the award as lump-sum (nonmodifiable) and denied Brian’s relief; Brian appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the alimony is periodic (modifiable) or lump-sum (nonmodifiable) | Brian: language ambiguous; should be construed as periodic and modifiable | Ruth’e: parties struck “periodic” repeatedly and added a nonmodifiable handwritten clause — intent was lump-sum | Court: lump-sum; parties’ edits and payment structure show clear intent — affirmed |
| Whether alleged cohabitation/de facto marriage terminates or modifies alimony | Brian: Ruth’e’s cohabitation/de facto marriage should terminate/modify payments | Ruth’e: irrelevant if award is lump-sum and nonmodifiable | Court: irrelevant — lump-sum vested right; chancellor did not err |
| Whether Brian’s income decrease permits modification | Brian: substantial reduction in income warrants modification | Ruth’e: not applicable to lump-sum, nonmodifiable obligation | Court: income change irrelevant to lump-sum award; denial affirmed |
| Whether chancery misapplied legal standard or abused discretion | Brian: chancellor misconstrued agreement and applied wrong presumption | Ruth’e: chancellor properly examined substance and parties’ intent | Court: no abuse of discretion; factual findings supported; legal standards applied correctly |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilburn v. Wilburn, 991 So. 2d 1185 (Miss. 2008) (appellate review standard for chancery findings)
- Chroniger v. Chroniger, 914 So. 2d 311 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (determine alimony type by substance, not labels)
- Creekmore v. Creekmore, 651 So. 2d 513 (Miss. 1995) (same principle: examine substance of award)
- West v. West, 891 So. 2d 203 (Miss. 2004) (periodic alimony characteristics and termination events)
- Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So. 2d 1278 (Miss. 1993) (lump-sum alimony is final and generally nonmodifiable)
- McDonald v. McDonald, 683 So. 2d 929 (Miss. 1996) (lump-sum characterized as vested property transfer)
- Wray v. Wray, 394 So. 2d 1341 (Miss. 1981) (presumption favoring periodic alimony absent clear lump-sum language)
- In re Dissolution of Marriage of Wood, 35 So. 3d 507 (Miss. 2010) (ambiguities in agreements construed against drafter)
- Cherry v. Anthony, Gibbs, Sage, 501 So. 2d 416 (Miss. 1987) (disagreement over meaning does not alone create ambiguity)