Charles D. Easterling v. Lajuana Easterling, 245 So. 3d 548

Charles and Lajuana Easterling divorced in 2013 after 37 years; the property-settlement required Charles to pay $2,500/month periodic alimony and to continue paying the mortgage while Lajuana kept the marital home.
Charles worked offshore for Ensco at the time of divorce; he was terminated in 2015 and testified he had no regular income and was seeking work in the oil industry.
Charles filed for modification of alimony in August 2015; the court temporarily reduced payments to $600/month pending final resolution.
At trial the chancellor found Charles’s job loss was an unforeseen, material change in circumstances and, after applying Armstrong factors, permanently reduced alimony to $1,500/month.
Charles moved to reconsider seeking elimination of alimony; the chancellor denied the motion. Charles appealed, arguing total termination or a larger reduction was required given his financial situation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Easterling)	Defendant's Argument (L. Easterling)	Held
Whether involuntary job loss is an unforeseeable, material change justifying modification of alimony	Job loss was beyond his control and eliminates ability to pay; merits termination or greater reduction	Job loss was unforeseen but does not eliminate spouse’s need or justify termination	Job loss was an unforeseeable, material change permitting modification but not termination
Proper standard and deference on review of alimony modification	Chancellor should eliminate alimony given destitution risk	Chancellor’s exercise of discretion should be upheld absent manifest error	Appellate court defers to chancellor; no manifest error or abuse of discretion found
Application of Armstrong factors to set new alimony amount	$1,500 remains unaffordable; argues greater reduction required	Wife’s financial needs unchanged and dependent on alimony; husband still has assets	Chancellor appropriately applied Armstrong factors and reduced award to $1,500/month
Use of post-divorce remarriage, expenses, and new family obligations to reduce alimony	Husband’s remarriage and new household expenses justify reducing support	Post-divorce obligations and new family do not supplant prior alimony obligations	Remarriage and new personal bills cannot be used to reduce alimony; prior obligation has priority

Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So. 2d 1278 (Miss. 1993) (standard for modifying periodic alimony and abuse-of-discretion review)
Holcombe v. Holcombe, 813 So. 2d 700 (Miss. 2002) (requirement of unforeseeable, material change before modification)
Peterson v. Peterson, 129 So. 3d 255 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (procedural guidance on modification analysis)
Hubbard v. Hubbard, 656 So. 2d 124 (Miss. 1995) (chancellor’s authority to alter periodic alimony)
Gray v. Gray, 562 So. 2d 79 (Miss. 1990) (alimony should be reasonable and reflect ability to pay and recipient’s standard of living)
Varner v. Varner, 666 So. 2d 493 (Miss. 1995) (mere allegation of subsisting on borrowed funds insufficient to prove inability to pay)
Weathersby v. Weathersby, 693 So. 2d 1348 (Miss. 1997) (courts enforce approved settlement terms and view attempts to modify them skeptically)
Sheffield v. Sheffield, 55 So. 3d 1142 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (alimony awards exceeding ability to pay are per se unreasonable)
Hardin v. Grantham, 201 So. 3d 511 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (personal post-divorce bills cannot be used to reduce support)
De Marco v. De Marco, 24 So. 2d 358 (Miss. 1946) (priority of divorced spouse’s claim on husband’s earnings over second wife)
James v. James, 724 So. 2d 1098 (Miss. Ct. App. 1998) (first spouse’s alimony claim takes precedence over obligations to new spouse’s children)