Stephanie Leigh Kittrell v. Stan Edward Kittrell
201 So. 3d 1118
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Stan and Stephanie Kittrell divorced in December 2005 after 14 years of marriage; they have one son, Dylan (b. Sept. 17, 1993).
- Their property-settlement agreement required Stan to deposit his monthly PERS retirement check into Stephanie’s account, designating $250 as child support and the remainder as alimony until the child turned twenty-one or Stephanie remarried; thirteenth-check split also specified.
- In March 2009 the chancery court modified custody (Stan awarded primary physical custody), terminated the $250 child-support payments, but left alimony in place and entered a judgment against Stan for past-due alimony/child support and attorney’s fees.
- Stan later filed to terminate alimony (June 2009), alleging Stephanie cohabited and supported a drug habit; Stephanie admitted methamphetamine use (2005–2011) and that she lived with boyfriend Ethan Ewell from 2005–Oct. 2009; Ewell was later incarcerated.
- In May 2013 the chancery court classified the alimony as periodic and terminated it based on a finding of a de facto marriage; Stephanie appealed, arguing the award was lump-sum (nonmodifiable) and, alternatively, that there was no de facto marriage or supporting cohabitation evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kittrell) | Defendant's Argument (Stan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the alimony provision is lump-sum (nonmodifiable) or periodic (modifiable) | The agreement created lump-sum alimony not subject to modification | The agreement created periodic alimony payable monthly and thus modifiable | Court: Provision did not fit traditional forms; will be enforced as written — treated as term-limited obligation tied to child’s age (effectively nonmodifiable until Dylan turned 21) |
| Whether alimony termination was proper based on de facto marriage or cohabitation | No de facto marriage or financial mutual-support evidence; Stephanie did not remarry | Stan: Stephanie’s cohabitation with Ewell and related conduct supported termination for de facto marriage/cohabitation | Court: Reversed — insufficient evidence of de facto marriage and no evidence that cohabitation produced mutual financial support altering needs; termination improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So. 2d 1278 (Miss. 1993) (distinguishes lump-sum alimony as final, generally nonmodifiable absent fraud)
- Elliott v. Rogers, 775 So. 2d 1285 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) (consensual support agreements need not mirror traditional court-imposed alimony forms)
- Lowrey v. Simmons, 186 So. 3d 907 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (judicial approach to interpreting ambiguous alimony provisions in settlement agreements)
- Hughes v. Hughes, 186 So. 3d 394 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (describes two methods to prove de facto marriage and standards for termination)
- Heiter v. Heiter ex rel. Sheffield, 192 So. 3d 992 (Miss. 2016) (cohabitation creates a presumption of changed circumstances but paying spouse must show mutual support altering financial needs)