Roberson v. Roberson
Docket Number: | 2005-CA-01402-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CA-01402-COA |
|
Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-20-2007 Opinion Author: LEE, P.J. Holding: Affirmed; MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: 10/17/2006 - DENIED; AFFIRMED - 02/20/2007 |
|
Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Alimony - On-the-record review Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): CARLTON, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-29-2005 Appealed from: Kemper County Chancery Court Judge: Edward C. Prisock Disposition: FINAL JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE ENTERED. MARITAL ASSETS DIVIDED AND ALIMONY AWARDED. Case Number: 2001-0077 |
|
Note: | MODIFIED OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING; The original opinion is withdrawn and this opinion is substituted therefor. |
Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
Appellant: | THOMAS L. ROBERSON |
HENRY PALMER |
||
Appellee: | JERRY DARLENE ROBERSON | WILLIAM B. JACOB JOSEPH A. KIERONSKI DANIEL P. SELF |
|
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 - On-the-record review |
Summary of the Facts: | The motion for rehearing is denied, and this opinion is substituted for the original opinion. Thomas and Jerry Roberson filed their joint consent for divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences. The chancellor ordered that Jerry was the exclusive owner of an 8.6 acre vacant parcel in Noxubee County; ordered that Thomas was the exclusive owner of all other marital property, to include the couple’s house; ordered Thomas to pay Jerry $27,200, which represented her share of the marital property in regards to the chancellor’s equitable division; and awarded Jerry periodic alimony in the amount of $375 per month. Thomas appeals. |
Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Thomas argues that the court erred in failing to make an on-the-record review of the Armstrong factors before awarding alimony. A lack of an on-the-record consideration of the Armstrong factors by a chancellor in making his determination of the appropriateness of an alimony award will only be reversed if, after a review of all facts and application of the Armstrong factors, it appears that the chancellor’s failure to make findings of fact and corresponding conclusions of law constitutes manifest error. Once the chancellor in this case valued all marital property, he arrived at a total value of $69,900. This left a deficit for Jerry which was resolved by a judgment in the amount of $27,200 for Jerry. Considering the length of the marriage, the disparity in earning capacities of the parties, Jerry’s age, and her work experience and prospects, as well as the fact that, as a result of the divorce, she has no home of her own and will be forced to live within, and at the mercy of, her parent’s generosity, the chancellor neither abused his discretion nor committed error in awarding Jerry monthly alimony without an on the record consideration of the Armstrong factors. Thomas also argues that the court erred in awarding Jerry alimony although Thomas only had unemployment compensation of $840 a month. The $375 per month award is not excessive and will assist Jerry in maintaining the standard of living she was accustomed to during the parties’ long marriage. Also, the fact that Thomas was unemployed at the time of the trial is of no consequence. The record indicates that Thomas never had any problem finding employment, and was able to move from job to job with relative ease. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court