Rogillio v. Rogillio


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2011-CA-00791-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2011-CA-00791-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 09-27-2012
Opinion Author: Chandler, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Equitable distribution - Lump sum alimony - Periodic alimony - Attorney's fees
Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson, P.J., Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens, Pierce and King, JJ.
Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Dickinson, P.J.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 05-02-2011
Appealed from: Warren County Chancery Court
Judge: Marie Wilson
Disposition: Awarded the Appelle $15,000.00 in lump-sum alimony.
Case Number: 2007-107 GN

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: David M. Rogillio




LEE TURNER



 

Appellee: Helen L. Rogillio PRO SE  

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 - Equitable distribution - Lump sum alimony - Periodic alimony - Attorney's fees

Summary of the Facts: David Rogillio filed for divorce from his wife, Helen Rogillio, on the grounds of habitual cruel and inhumane treatment, or, in the alternative, irreconcilable differences. He later filed an Amended Complaint for Divorce listing habitual drug use and adultery as additional grounds for divorce. The parties eventually consented to a divorce based on irreconcilable differences and entered an Agreed Order Allowing Withdrawal of Contested Allegations. The court entered a Final Judgment of Divorce, dividing the marital assets and awarding lump-sum alimony of $15,000 to Helen. Helen appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Helen appealed to the Supreme Court which reversed and remanded for the chancellor to properly classify and evaluate all assets of both parties. On remand, the chancellor ordered David to pay Helen lump-sum alimony of $18,204, periodic-payment alimony in the amount of $1,500 per month, and $4,369.50 for her attorney fees. David appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: David argues he is not in a financial position to pay periodic-payment alimony and that the record reflects his inability to pay alimony and his monthly recurring expenses. When dividing the marital estate, the chancellor thoroughly examined the Ferguson factors. The record shows that David earns ten times as much income as Helen and that he has a stable earning capacity. As noted by the chancellor, it is very unlikely Helen will obtain employment in the future because of a disease she has. The court found that David received a total of $214,197.71 in marital assets and $159,791.47 in marital debt, with a net of $54,406.24. Helen suffered a substantial deficit, receiving $85,697.71 in marital assets and $67,699.47 in marital debt, for a net of $17,998.24. After considering the Armstrong factors, the court awarded Helen $18, 204 in lump-sum alimony. The chancellor also awarded Helen $1,500 per month in periodic-payment alimony as the proper way to provide Helen with the same support she had in the marriage. The chancellor conducted a thorough and proper analysis in light of the circumstances. Although David would prefer to have more disposable income, the court noted that he earns nearly $84,000 a year. And David makes nearly ten times as much as Helen in a given year. David also argues that the chancellor erred in awarding Helen attorney fees on remand. Where the record shows an inability to pay and a disparity in the relative financial positions of the parties, there is no error in awarding attorney fees. The record must show the requesting spouse’s inability to pay his or her own attorney fees. Here, there was no abuse of discretion in the chancellor’s finding that there was a financial disparity between the two parties and that Helen was unable to pay all her attorney fees.


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