## Facts

- A wife filed for separate maintenance in Mississippi chancery court and obtained a temporary support order of $100 per month (Mar. 18, 1943).
- The husband was later granted a divorce on his cross-bill for habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, but the court continued the wife’s support at the same amount (June 1, 1943).
- On the husband’s petition, the chancery court reduced support to $65 per month (June 3, 1944) and later ordered payments at that rate “until the further order of the court” (Feb. 17, 1945).
- The husband sought a further reduction (Aug. 14, 1945) but the matter was dismissed without prejudice (Feb. 13, 1946); no order terminated or suspended support.
- The wife testified that the husband made no payments after November 1945.
- Over subsequent years, the wife filed enforcement petitions seeking contempt findings and judgment for arrearages (including petitions in 1950, 1953, and 1956).
- The husband asserted changed circumstances, including disability after the divorce, retirement from federal employment, later work as a teacher at relatively modest wages, and a federal pension.
- The chancery court denied the husband’s dismissal request, heard evidence, and entered a money judgment for accumulated unpaid support; the husband appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether accrued, unpaid support ordered “until further order of the court” remained collectible when the obligor stopped paying without obtaining a modifying decree.
2. Whether the wife’s delayed enforcement efforts required dismissal or reduction of arrearages based on equitable defenses (including delay) or procedural history.
3. Whether the chancery court abused its discretion by enforcing the prior decrees and entering judgment for long-accumulated arrears despite the husband’s claimed changed circumstances.

## Decision

- The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the chancery court’s decree.
- The Court held that the existing support orders remained effective until modified by the court, and no order had terminated or suspended the obligation.
- The Court upheld the money judgment for arrearages and rejected dismissal based on the husband’s asserted defenses.
- The Court found no reversible error in the chancellor’s evaluation of the evidence concerning the parties’ circumstances and the husband’s ability to seek timely modification.

## Legal Principles

- A support decree that remains in force “until further order of the court” continues to impose an enforceable payment obligation unless and until the court enters a modifying order.
- An obligor may not unilaterally cease payment based on claimed hardship; the proper remedy is to petition the court for prospective modification.
- Past-due installments under an existing support decree are enforceable as accrued arrearages when no modification or suspension has been granted.
- Appellate review of alimony and enforcement determinations is deferential to the chancellor’s factual findings and discretionary judgments when supported by the record.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed enforcement of long-overdue alimony because the governing decrees continued in effect until changed by court order, and the husband’s unilateral nonpayment and asserted change in circumstances did not defeat the wife’s claim for accrued arrearages.


Rainwater v. Rainwater, 236 Miss. 412, 110 So. 2d 608 (Miss. 1959)