Pritchard v. Pritchard
2012 Miss. App. LEXIS 648
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Richard and CJ divorced in 1998; alimony set at $3,000–$3,350 monthly, to reduce to $2,000 after 2015; alimony payable until death or CJ remarriage.
- Richard filed to modify alimony on Nov 2, 2010, alleging CJ and Bruce had a de facto marriage.
- CJ sought contempt on Apr 26, 2011 for Richard’s failure to maintain life insurance and pay alimony since Dec 2010.
- CJ testified she cohabited with Bruce for four years (2007–2011) across multiple locations and managed finances together.
- Chancellor held there was insufficient evidence of mutual support to rebut the cohabitation presumption; Richard was found not to owe alimony under a de facto remarriage; final judgment reversed and rendered in Richard’s favor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cohabitation created a presumption of mutual support. | Richard argues CJ rebutted the presumption. | CJ contends the presumption shifts burden to CJ to show no mutual support. | CJ did not rebut the presumption; presumption applied. |
| Whether the chancellor erred in finding no de facto marriage evidence. | Richard contends the financial arrangement evidenced de facto marriage. | CJ contends arrangements did not constitute de facto marriage. | Evidence insufficient to support no de facto marriage; error to uphold chancellor’s finding. |
| Whether Richard’s suspension of alimony was proper given de facto remarriage. | Richard argues he no longer owes alimony under de facto remarriage. | CJ argues alimony continued. | De facto remarriage found; Richard no longer owes alimony. |
| Whether CJ was entitled to contempt or life-insurance relief based on findings. | Richard claims no ongoing obligation due to change in status. | CJ seeks contempt and insurance compliance. | Judgment reversed; no ongoing alimony or life-insurance obligation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scharwath v. Scharwath, 702 So.2d 1210 (Miss. 1997) (cohabitation presumption of mutual support)
- Pope v. Pope, 803 So.2d 499 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (extent of cohabitation factors and deference on appeal)
- Tillman v. Tillman, 809 So.2d 767 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (short-term cohabitation may not trigger presumption)
- Alexis v. Tarver, 879 So.2d 1078 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (de facto marriage considerations and equity)
- Burns v. Burns, 962 So.2d 618 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (live-in benefits and modification standards)
- Martin v. Martin, 751 So.2d 1132 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (de facto marriage considerations and equity)