Rogillio v. Rogillio
57 So. 3d 1246
| Miss. | 2011Background
- David and Helen Rogillio married in 1997 and divorced in 2008; they have a minor son, Morgan.
- Helen is disabled with neurofibromatosis and has limited income; she stopped working in 1998.
- David earned about $83,372 annually; Helen’s gross annual Social Security disability income was about $9,324.
- The chancellor awarded David the home, two mortgages, most marital debts, and lump-sum alimony of $15,000 to Helen; no permanent periodic alimony.
- The chancellor classified and valued marital assets and debts, but the court later found errors in asset/debt accounting and failed to classify certain assets (notably Helen’s mobile home).
- Court of Appeals affirmed the rulings, but this Court reverses and remands for proper asset classification and consideration of alimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent periodic alimony was warranted. | Rogillio argues entitlement to permanent alimony due to Helen’s disability and poverty. | Rogillio contends no permanent alimony is required given the asset split and David’s income. | Remand to consider alimony; not decided here. |
| Whether the marital assets and debts were properly valued and classified. | Chancellor erred in asset/debt calculations, double-counted debt, and failed to value the mobile home. | Property division largely correct; minor valuation issues do not justify alimony reversal. | Chancellor abused discretion; remand for proper classification and valuation. |
| Whether lump-sum alimony adequately addresses the deficit after proper asset division. | Lump-sum should be increased to account for deficits and Helen’s needs. | Lump-sum was sufficient given Helen’s needs and David’s ability to pay. | Remand to recalibrate alimony in light of corrected asset values; not plainly affirmed. |
| Whether remand is appropriate to reassess alimony in light of corrected asset accounting. | Proper accounting may show ongoing need for alimony. | No further alimony required beyond lump-sum already awarded. | Remand for hearing consistent with corrected accounting. |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So.2d 1278 (Miss. 1993) (alimony factors; need and ability to pay)
- Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921 (Miss. 1994) (property division guidelines for equitable split)
- Hemsley v. Hemsley, 639 So.2d 909 (Miss. 1994) (alimony factors)
- Box v. Box, 622 So.2d 284 (Miss. 1993) (dependence on net income and expenses in alimony analysis)
- Seymour v. Seymour, 960 So.2d 513 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (alimony consideration after property division)
- Ericson v. Tullos, 876 So.2d 1038 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (highly dependent spouse and ability to pay alimony)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 650 So.2d 1281 (Miss. 1994) (alimony considerations when property division creates deficit)