Rogillio v. Rogillio


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2008-CA-01838-COA
Linked Case(s): 2008-CA-01838-COA ; 2008-CT-01838-SCT ; 2008-CT-01838-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 02-23-2010
Opinion Author: Carlton, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Lump sum alimony - Attorney's fees
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Griffis, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Irving, J., without separate written opinion.
Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Barnes, J., without separate written opinion.
Concurs in Result Only: King, C.J., without separate written opinion.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 10-03-2008
Appealed from: WARREN COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
Judge: Marie Wilson
Disposition: JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE GRANTED
Case Number: 2007-107 GN

Note: This judgment was later reversed and remanded by the Supreme Court on 3/03/2011. See the SCT opinion at: http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO66820.pdf

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: HELEN L. ROGILLIO




MARK W. PREWITT



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: DAVID M. ROGILLIO R. LOUIS FIELD  

    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 - Lump sum alimony - Attorney's fees

    Summary of the Facts: Helen Rogillio and David Rogillio were granted an irreconcilable differences divorce. Helen and David agreed that David would have primary custody of their minor child and that David and the child would reside in the marital home. The chancellor awarded David $436 per month in child support in the form of a social security check the child received as a result of Helen’s disability. David received the sole use, possession and ownership of the marital home, and any equity in the home. David was further assigned responsibility for the first and second mortgages on the marital home. David received ownership of a Thrift Savings Plan, his PERS retirement account, and the checking and savings accounts. The chancellor ordered David to pay Helen $2,038.61 in marital assets, $4,807 for the debt on her credit cards, and lump-sum alimony in the amount of $15,000. Helen appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Lump sum alimony Helen argues that after the property division, a gross disparity between her needs and her resources requires that she receive permanent periodic alimony from David. If there are sufficient marital assets which, when equitably divided and considered with each spouse's nonmarital assets, will adequately provide for both parties, no more need be done. If the situation is such that an equitable division of marital property, considered with each party's nonmarital assets, leaves a deficit for one party, then alimony based on the value of nonmarital assets should be considered. When awarding lump-sum alimony, the chancellor should consider substantial contribution to the accumulation of total wealth of the paying spouse either by quitting a job to become a housewife, or by assisting in the paying spouse's business; length of the marriage; separate income of the recipient spouse as compared to that of the paying spouse; and financial security of the recipient spouse absent the lump-sum payment. Here, the chancellor’s findings reflect that the alimony awarded eliminated Helen’s equitable deficit. Helen argues that the chancellor’s analysis actually showed that the majority of the factors favored an award of permanent periodic alimony, and the chancellor erred in deciding upon an award of lump-sum alimony. The record shows that Helen only worked a couple of years during the marriage, and she did not substantially contribute to David’s accumulation of wealth. Also, Helen receives a monthly disability payment. Thus, the chancellor did not abuse her discretion in awarding Helen lump-sum alimony. Issue 2: Attorney’s fees Helen’s request for appellate attorney’s fees is procedurally barred because she has failed to cite any relevant authority to support her argument.


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