Rogillio v. Rogillio


<- Return to Search Results


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

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-03-2011
Opinion Author: Pierce, J.
Holding: Reversed and remanded.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Permanent periodic alimony - Division of marital assets
Judge(s) Concurring: Carlson, P.J., Dickinson, P.J., Randolph, Kitchens and Chandler, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): King, J.
Dissenting Author : Waller, C.J. With Separate Written Opinion
Dissent Joined By : Lamar, J.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS
Writ of Certiorari: yes
Appealed from Court of Appeals

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 10-03-2008
Appealed from: Warren County Chancery Court
Judge: Marie Wilson
Disposition: The chancellor entered an order granting an irreconcilable-differences divorce on October 3, 2008.
Case Number: 2007-107 GN

Note: The Supreme Court judgment reverses and remands a previous judgment by the Court of Appeals. See the original COA opinoin at http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO61408.pdf

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Helen L. Rogillio




MARK W. PREWITT



 

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 - Permanent periodic alimony - Division of marital assets

Summary of the Facts: David and Helen 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. Helen agreed to move into a mobile home that she had owned prior to the marriage, though the chancellor at one point noted that the mobile home had become marital property. Helen was to receive exclusive ownership of the property and sole responsibility for the mortgage on it. Further, 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 sole ownership of the home and sole responsibility for the two mortgages on it. David was given responsibility for almost all the marital debt, as well as all ownership interest in a savings plan and his retirement account. The chancellor ordered David to pay Helen $2,038.61 labeled as “marital assets,” $4,807 labeled as credit-card debt, and lump sum alimony in the amount of $15,000 to give her a “fresh start.” Helen appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Helen argues that the chancellor committed error in not granting her permanent periodic alimony. The trial court thoroughly examined the guidelines set forth in Ferguson v. Ferguson to equitably divide David and Helen’s marital estate. There were some clear errors, however, in the chancellor’s accounting of marital assets. For example, in calculating the marital property, the chancellor used the full mortgage liability on the marital home to determine marital debt, but used only the equity in the home to determine marital assets. Also, by subtracting the amount loaned from David’s retirement savings from the marital assets and then including that full amount in calculating marital debt, the chancellor appears to have counted that debt twice. Finally, the chancellor failed to assess the value of the mobile home – likely the most valuable asset Helen owned after the divorce – and did not clearly classify it as marital or separate property. The couple had $299,895.42 in marital assets and $227,490.96 in marital debt. Splitting it would have left David and Helen with $36,202.59 each. However, based on the chancellor’s distribution (before alimony), David received $258,895.42 in assets and $192,480.39 in debt for a net of $66,415.03. Assuming that a ten-year-old mobile home has retained its purchase-price value of $41,000, Helen leaves the marriage with net marital assets of $5,989.43. The chancellor awarded $15,000 in lump-sum alimony. But even after this measure, the difference in assets is still staggering. David would still exit the marriage with $51,415.03 of the net marital assets, while Helen would have $20,989.43. The purpose of permanent periodic alimony is to be a substitute for the marital-support obligation. A financially independent spouse may be required to support the financially dependent spouse in the manner in which the dependent spouse was supported during the marriage, subject to a material change in circumstances. Lump-sum alimony is a means of adjusting financial inequities that remain after property division. The chancellor’s findings of fact are clear that Helen is unlikely to be able to support herself financially. Her income level, as determined by the chancellor, fell below the 2008 federal poverty threshold for a single person. Considering the actual net estate (including lump-sum alimony) of the parties, accounting for the chancellor’s apparent errors in calculation, and considering Helen’s extremely low income level, the chancellor abused her discretion. The alimony and asset distribution does cover the necessary repairs to the mobile home, delinquent rent at the trailer park, and credit-card debt, but leaves only $2,050.61 to spare. Considering, further, the great disparity in income between David and Helen, the significant decrease in comfort and station she will experience as a result of the divorce, and her disability, this award and distribution of assets is not adequate. The case is remanded so that the chancellor may properly classify and evaluate all assets of both parties and then consider the need for alimony consistent with this and prior opinions.


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