Patrick Francis Heiter v. Lindalyn Heiter, 192 So. 3d 992

Patrick and Lindalyn divorced in 2001; Patrick was ordered to pay $650/month alimony.
At the time of divorce Lindalyn had diminished mental capacity and later was placed under a guardianship for her estate.
Patrick petitioned in 2011 to terminate or reduce alimony, alleging Lindalyn cohabited with a man (Curtis) and received SSI benefits.
Evidence showed Lindalyn has cognitive impairments, cannot manage finances or hold employment, and relies on retirement assets plus the $650 alimony; Curtis and Lindalyn provided mutual, partial financial support while Curtis was on disability.
The chancery court found Patrick proved cohabitation and mutual support but concluded Lindalyn’s financial needs were not sufficiently reduced because she must cohabit to survive; it denied modification and awarded Lindalyn unpaid attorney’s fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether alimony may be terminated or reduced based on cohabitation/mutual support	Heiter: Lindalyn cohabits with a man who provides support, creating a material change warranting termination/reduction	Lindalyn: She and Curtis do not change her need for alimony; she must cohabit due to incapacity and still needs support	Chancery and Supreme Court: Cohabitation + mutual support proven, but Patrick failed to show Lindalyn’s financial needs were altered enough to modify alimony; denial affirmed
Whether proof of cohabitation raises a presumption of material change and shifts burden	Heiter: Presumption applies and shifts the burden to Lindalyn to disprove altered needs	Lindalyn: Presumption may exist but she can show unique facts (incapacity) that preserve need for alimony	Court: Adopts Scharwath rule — cohabitation creates a presumption and shifts burden; here Lindalyn produced evidence showing her needs remain and rebutted reduction
Whether awarding unpaid attorney’s fees to Lindalyn was an abuse of discretion	Heiter: Award was improper or excessive	Lindalyn: She lacks monthly income and would have to withdraw retirement funds (with penalties) to pay fees	Court: Chancellor did not abuse discretion; fee award upheld because Lindalyn lacks present ability to pay without harming assets

Powell v. Campbell, 912 So. 2d 978 (Miss. 2005) (standards for reviewing chancery findings)
Hotboxxx, LLC v. City of Gulfport, 154 So. 3d 21 (Miss. 2015) (abuse-of-discretion review)
McDonald v. McDonald, 683 So. 2d 929 (Miss. 1996) (alimony modification requires substantial change)
Rubisoff v. Rubisoff, 133 So. 2d 534 (Miss. 1961) (chancery court may revoke future alimony for post-divorce misconduct)
McRae v. McRae, 381 So. 2d 1052 (Miss. 1980) (misconduct evaluated case-by-case)
McHann v. McHann, 383 So. 2d 823 (Miss. 1980) (forfeiture of support for post-divorce adultery under certain facts)
Hammonds v. Hammonds, 641 So. 2d 1211 (Miss. 1994) (focus on financial effect of cohabitation; two-prong test)
Ellis v. Ellis, 651 So. 2d 1068 (Miss. 1995) (remand to determine cohabitation, support, and changed needs)
Scharwath v. Scharwath, 702 So. 2d 1210 (Miss. 1997) (adopts Florida rule: cohabitation creates presumption of material change)
Brooks v. Brooks, 652 So. 2d 1113 (Miss. 1995) (chancellor’s discretion on attorney’s fees in divorce matters)