The Better Chancery Practice Blog

By: Professor Deborah H. Bell

Three types of alimony (periodic, lump sum, and rehabilitative) are well-established  in Mississippi. A fourth type – reimbursement alimony – was recently recognized by the court of appeals for the first time since its adoption by the supreme court in 1999. The decision opens the door for broader application of reimbursement alimony.

The Mississippi Supreme Court, in Guy v. Guy, 736 So. 2d 1042 (Miss. 1999), held that one who supports their spouse through school may be entitled to “reimbursement alimony” if their spouse seeks divorce shortly after graduating and before the plaintiff receives the anticipated financial benefit of the training. In Guy, a husband spent $35,000 to put his wife through nursing school during their three-year marriage. She filed for divorce one month after graduation. The supreme court agreed with other state courts that “the contributing spouse should be entitled to some form of compensation for the financial efforts and support provided to the student spouse in the expectation that the marital unit would prosper in the future as a direct result of the couple’s previous sacrifices.” Id. at 1044. The supreme court held that the husband was entitled to lump sum reimbursement alimony based on his actual contributions to his wife’s degree.

There were no reported cases addressing reimbursement alimony for the next twenty-four years. In 2023, the court of appeals addressed the issue in Whittington v. Whittington, 373 So. 3d 1060 (Miss. Ct. App. 2023) in an opinion written by Judge Wilson and joined by Judges Barnes, Carlton, Greenlee, and Emfinger. Judge McDonald dissented without a separate opinion. A dissent authored by Judge McCarty was joined by Judges McDonald, Lawrence, and Smith. Judge Westbook joined in part. The dissent found the facts in Whittington significantly different from those in Guy.

The court of appeals affirmed a chancellor’s order that a wife of ten years repay her husband for $125,879 in separate property funds that he used to pay off her student loans. Two years after the couple married, the wife decided to pursue a two-year master’s degree in nursing. Her post-degree earnings were three times that of her husband’s. The couple subsequently agreed to pay off her student loans with an annuity he received because of an injury. Four years later, she sought a divorce and custody of their two children. The chancellor divided their marital assets of $248,000 equally and ordered the wife to repay her husband for the funds used to pay her student loans. She appealed.

The court of appeals affirmed, citing Guy.  The court rejected the wife’s argument that Guy was factually distinguishable on two counts: 

First, in Guy, the wife filed for divorce less than a month after obtaining her degree, whereas Lacey filed for divorce about six-and-a-half years after she obtained her degree and about four-and-a-half years after Ben paid off her student loans. . . .  Second, Lacey points out that the Guys were only married for about three years and had no children, whereas Lacey and Ben were married for about ten years and have two children.  

Id at 164.

The majority noted that the husband most surely expected that the marriage would endure for longer and that the financial benefits would continue for more than four years. “[I]t was not Ben’s “expectation” that Lacey would file for divorce only four years after he had paid off her student loans totaling $125,879.89.” Id. at 1065.

Professor’s notes:

Based on the facts in Guy, reimbursement alimony appeared to be a limited doctrine. Whittington opens the door for reimbursement alimony claims in cases in which the decision to divorce comes years after the plaintiff’s support. Attorneys should add this to the list of possible claims for financial recovery. Reimbursement alimony extends beyond support for tuition and books – the  court in Guy stated that a supporting spouse may be reimbursed for direct expenditures toward education such as tuition and books as well as the costs of housing, food, clothing, and other living expenses.

In Guy and Whittington, the courts characterized reimbursement alimony as lump sum alimony. Presumably, reimbursement alimony has the characteristics of lump sum alimony – it should vest at the time of the order, be nonmodifiable, and should not terminate upon the death of either party or the recipient’s remarriage.

It is worth noting that the court was evenly split in Whittington.

Tagged: alimony, divorce, Domestic Relations, Reimbursement Alimony