Susan Harris v. Thomas L. Harris, 241 So. 3d 622

Thomas and Susan Harris divorced in 2011; Thomas agreed to pay Susan $2,755/month periodic alimony under a Property Settlement Agreement that terminated only on Susan's remarriage or death.
After the divorce, Susan became eligible for Social Security and began receiving $1,035/month in benefits based on Thomas's earnings record.
Thomas moved to reduce his alimony obligation, arguing Susan's Social Security benefits based on his record should offset his alimony payments.
The chancery court granted Thomas's Rule 12(b)(6) motion and reduced alimony to $1,720/month; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding no material-change showing was required.
The Mississippi Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether derivative Social Security benefits automatically reduce alimony and whether a material-change supported the reduction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Susan)	Defendant's Argument (Thomas)	Held
Whether Social Security benefits received by the dependent spouse based on the payor's earnings automatically reduce alimony	Automatic reduction is improper; modification requires a material/unforeseen change in circumstances	No material-change required because combined payments (alimony + SS) equal original amount; credit simply prevents double recovery	No. Court overruled Spalding to the extent it created an automatic offset; SS benefits derived from the other spouse's record do not automatically reduce alimony.
Whether a material change in circumstances warranted the downward modification	Reduction not automatic; trial court must analyze whether an unforeseen material change occurred under established alimony-modification standards	Thomas argued the effective income available to Susan made reduction appropriate	Trial court erred by not applying Armstrong factors and assessing foreseeability; case remanded for full Armstrong analysis to determine whether a reduction is warranted.

Spalding v. Spalding, 691 So. 2d 435 (Miss. 1997) (previously held derivative Social Security benefits could be credited against alimony)
Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So. 2d 1278 (Miss. 1993) (set factors and framework for modifying periodic alimony)
Mooneyham v. Mooneyham, 420 So. 2d 1072 (Miss. 1982) (credited Social Security disability benefits to child-support obligations)
Frazier v. Frazier, 455 So. 2d 883 (Ala. Civ. App. 1984) (Alabama decision crediting derivative SS benefits against alimony)
Bell v. Bell, 356 S.E.2d 869 (Ga. 1987) (refused automatic offset for dependent spouse's SS benefits derived from former spouse's record)
Rogillio v. Rogillio, 57 So. 3d 1246 (Miss. 2011) (describing purpose of permanent periodic alimony as substitute for marital support)