Riley v. Riley


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2002-CA-00049-COA
Linked Case(s): 2002-CA-00049-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-11-2003
Opinion Author: Affirmed
Holding: Irving, J.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Alimony - Attorney’s fees
Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Thomas, Myers and Chandler and Griffis, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Lee, J.
Dissent Joined By : Bridges, J.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 12-20-2001
Appealed from: Lauderdale County Chancery Court
Judge: Sarah P. Springer
Disposition: DIVORCE GRANTED ON GROUND OF IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES.
Case Number: 99-1291-S

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: William F. Riley




LAWRENCE PRIMEAUX



 

Appellee: Susan D. Riley ROBERT D. JONES ROBERT JAMES BRESNAHAN  

Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Alimony - Attorney’s fees

Summary of the Facts: William Riley and Susan Riley were granted a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. The parties agreed to have the chancellor resolve the issues of alimony, COBRA health insurance coverage and attorney’s fees. The chancellor ordered William to pay $1000 per month as permanent alimony, to pay Susan’s COBRA insurance coverage for eighteen months at the rate of $306 per month, during which period he was permitted to reduce alimony payments to $850 per month, and to pay $2,000 toward Susan’s attorney’s fees. William appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Alimony William argues that the judgment on alimony was unfair and inequitable, because it deprived him of his right to live as normal a life as possible with a reasonable standard of living. Alimony should be reasonable in amount, commensurate with the wife’s accustomed standard of living, minus her own resources, and considering the ability of the husband to pay. William’s net disposable income was $4,001.64, and his total living expenses were $3,932.42. The chancellor took into consideration Susan’s need for financial security and her lack of job skills, experience, and her health, as well as the prior agreement of the parties. The award was not an abuse of discretion. Issue 2: Attorney’s fees William argues that the award of attorney’s fees was error, because the chancellor did not find that Susan was unable to pay her attorney’s fees. The party seeking attorney’s fees has the burden of proving inability to pay. Here, the chancellor properly found that Susan was unemployed with no prospect of employment and that the property division amounts received by Susan needed to be preserved for her future security.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court