Roberson v. Roberson


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-CA-01402-COA
Linked Case(s): 2005-CA-01402-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 10-03-2006
Opinion Author: Lee, P.J.
Holding: The judgment of the Chancery Court of Kemper County is affirmed.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - On-the-record analysis of Armstrong factors - Alimony
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Myers, P.J., Southwick, Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ.
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: This is a modified opinion that was substituted on a motion for rehearing on 2/20/2007.

  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 - On-the-record analysis of Armstrong factors - Alimony

Summary of the Facts: Jerry Roberson filed a complaint for divorce from Thomas Roberson on the grounds of irreconcilable differences, habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, adultery, and desertion. Both parties later filed a joint consent for divorce on the sole ground of irreconcilable differences. The parties agreed to a division of the majority of their assets and stipulated that Thomas would receive most of the marital property, and placed before the court certain remaining issues, to include alimony, whether Jerry would have an equitable interest in their house, and what the specific equitable division of their property would be. 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 their 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 failed to make an on-the-record analysis of the Armstrong factors before awarding periodic alimony. 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. 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 when his only income was unemployment compensation of $840 a month. Alimony should be reasonable in amount commiserate with the payee’s accustomed standard of living minus the payee’s own resources, and considering the ability of the payor to pay. 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, in this instance, 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. Additionally, Thomas, through his attorney, accepted the award of alimony, and actually requested that the court increase his monthly obligation.


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