The Mississippi Supreme Court recently revisited the intersection of family law and probate.[1] The decision offers a reminder that alimony obligations, while enforceable during a recipient’s life, remain subject to statutes of limitation and proper crediting principles that can determine whether an estate owes anything at all. The case at hand offers an interesting twist of two divorced spouses’ estates at odds over the terms of their divorce where beneficiaries generally overlapped, save for one.
Background
Edwin Lea Brent (“Lea”) and Ann Brent (“Ann”) divorced in 1983 under a property settlement agreement (“PSA”) requiring Lea to pay $5,600 per month in permanent periodic alimony until Ann’s death or remarriage. He was also required to maintain a $500,000 life-insurance policy to secure those payments. Ann never remarried and died in 2015; Lea later died in 2021.
After Lea’s death, Ann’s estate filed a probate claim seeking more than $350,000 in alleged unpaid alimony dating back to 2002. The Washington County Chancery Court found that older arrears were barred by Mississippi’s seven-year statute of limitations but awarded $139,104 for July 2014 – November 2015, adding 8% interest and denying credit for partial payments and a later insurance payment.
Lea’s estate appealed, arguing that the chancery court misapplied the statute of limitations and wrongly refused credits.
As a practical matter, Lea and Ann had five children together. Lea remarried and had another child in a separate marriage. Therefore, the claim effectively was neutral to all beneficiaries of both estates save for the child from the second marriage.[2]
Issues
The Supreme Court addressed four core questions:
- Whether Ann’s estate had standing to bring the claim;
- Whether the chancery court properly applied the statute of limitations;
- Whether credits must be given for payments and life-insurance proceeds; and
- Whether interest was properly calculated.
Standing and Vested Payments
The Court first confirmed that Ann’s estate had standing to pursue unpaid periodic alimony that became due during her lifetime. Each installment vests when due and becomes a debt even though periodic alimony ends at death or remarriage.[3]
By contrast, the ruling under Maxcy v. Estate of Maxcy, 485 So. 2d 1077 (Miss. 1986), barred only recovery of lump-sum payments not yet due. This case involved periodic payments, not lump sum. Thus, Ann’s estate had a valid basis to assert her vested rights under Miss. Code Ann. §§ 91-7-149 and 91-7-165.
The Seven-Year Statute of Limitations
Under Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-43, any action to enforce a judgment must be brought within seven years. That limit confined recovery to July 2014 – November 2015.
The chancery court acknowledged this yet used earlier arrears to deny credits. The Supreme Court called that an abuse of discretion:
“Unpaid alimony from 2002-2013 has no bearing on the time period that falls within the statute of limitations and is the subject of the present claim.”
Once time-barred, those older amounts could not influence recovery for later years.
Credits and Offsets
Between July 2014 and November 2015, Lea paid Ann $3,000 per month, totaling $51,000. The chancery court disregarded these payments entirely; the Supreme Court reversed, finding that ignoring them effectively produced an unjust double recovery.
The Court also addressed Lea’s 2019 payment of $75,143.28 from the cash value of his life-insurance policy. Although the chancery court viewed it as a gift, the Supreme Court held that because the policy had been required to secure alimony, the proceeds functioned as payment toward the debt. Even if voluntary, a payment from that source to Ann’s estate could only be seen as satisfying his obligation.
After applying $51,000 in partial payments and the $75,143 insurance credit (plus interest), the Court concluded that Lea’s estate owed nothing further as the credits exceeded the unpaid amount by roughly $19,000. The chancery court’s $139,104 award was therefore reversed and judgment rendered for Lea’s estate.
Interest on Arrearages
The Court affirmed that interest may accrue on unpaid alimony under Miss. Code Ann. § 75-17-1 at the legal rate of 8%, though it corrected the chancery court’s calculation since the principal balance was overstated.
Practical Implications
This decision offers clear guidance for estate and family-law practitioners:
- Limitations apply strictly. Alimony arrears older than seven years are unrecoverable, regardless of ongoing shortfalls.
- Credits must be recognized. Partial or alternate payments, including those from insurance, reduce any claim.
- Life-insurance proceeds can satisfy arrears. Where a policy secures alimony, payments from that policy may serve as lawful satisfaction.
- Documentation matters. Executors should preserve payment and tax records to avoid duplication or windfalls.
The Court also observed the unusual dynamic in which several of Ann’s children, as heirs of both estates, effectively sought to shift value from their half-sister’s share of Lea’s estate back to themselves which was a factor that reinforced the importance of equitable treatment and proper crediting.
Takeaway
This case is a helpful reminder for practitioners that each unpaid alimony installment is a vested debt, but like any debt, it is limited by statute and subject to offset. By enforcing those principles, the Mississippi Supreme Court prevented double recovery and reinforced fairness in inter-estate disputes.
The ruling encourages careful attention to both timing and documentation, because in probate, as in divorce, clarity on what is paid and when often determines who truly owes what.
[1] In re Estate of Brent, No. 2023-CA-00423-SCT (Miss. Sup. Ct. June 5, 2025)
[2] Based on the Opinion, it appears that the respective children shared equally in their respective parents’ estates.
[3] See Lewis v. Lewis, 586 So. 2d 740 (Miss. 1991) and Rubisoff v. Rubisoff, 133 So. 2d 534 (Miss. 1961).
