Rogillio v. Rogillio, 101 So. 3d 150

David filed for divorce in 2007 on grounds including habitual cruel and inhuman treatment and irreconcilable differences.
The couple consented to irreconcilable differences and an Agreed Order Withdrawal of Contested Allegations; David had primary custody of their son.
Final Judgment (2008) awarded Helen lump-sum alimony of $15,000; Helen appealed claiming entitlement to periodic alimony.
This Court remanded in 2011 to properly classify and evaluate assets; remand led to a revised award: $18,204 lump-sum alimony, $1,500 monthly periodic alimony, and $4,369.50 in attorney fees to Helen.
David, pro se, appealed the periodic alimony and attorney-fee award; Helen did not file a response.
On remand, assets and debts were recalculated, with the chancellor finding an equal or near-equal division of some assets and a deficit for Helen.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether periodic alimony was appropriate	David contends he cannot pay periodic alimony given income and expenses.	Rogillio argues Helen needs ongoing support due to income disparity and her inability to support herself.	Chancellor's periodic alimony award affirmed; discretion exercised appropriately.
Whether attorney-fee award on remand was proper	David argues fees should be denied or limited due to his financial position.	Helen argues fees are appropriate where disparity exists and she cannot fully pay.	Attorney-fee award affirmed; court found financial disparity and inability to bear all fees.
Whether asset division and its relation to alimony supported alimony	David challenges the sufficiency of the assets distribution to justify alimony.	Helen relies on the equitable deficit after distribution to justify alimony.	Chancellor properly analyzed Armstrong factors; alimony supported by deficit and asset division.

Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921 (Miss. 1994) (guide for equitable division and alimony factors)
Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So.2d 1278 (Miss. 1993) (Armstrong factors for alimony and equitable distribution)
Hemsley v. Hemsley, 639 So.2d 909 (Miss. 1994) (periodic alimony analysis standards)
Cheatham v. Cheatham, 537 So.2d 435 (Miss. 1988) (factors for lump-sum alimony)
Parsons v. Parsons, 678 So.2d 701 (Miss. 1996) (length of marriage as a factor in alimony)
McKee v. McKee, 418 So.2d 764 (Miss. 1982) (attorney-fees consideration and discretion)
Lauro v. Lauro, 847 So.2d 843 (Miss. 2003) (deficit approach to alimony when asset division leaves one party deficient)
Powers v. Powers, 568 So.2d 255 (Miss. 1990) (chancellor’s discretion in alimony awards)
Sanderson v. Sanderson, 824 So.2d 623 (Miss. 2002) (standard of review for alimony determinations)
Dethlefs v. Beau Maison Dev. Corp., 458 So.2d 714 (Miss. 1984) (briefs and conferral in appellate review)
Selman v. Selman, 722 So.2d 547 (Miss. 1998) (failure to file brief not automatic reversal)
Muhammad v. Muhammad, 622 So.2d 1239 (Miss. 1993) (considerations when affirming on minimal record)
Hammett v. Woods, 602 So.2d 825 (Miss. 1992) (affects on attorney-fee awards with disparity)
Martin v. Martin, 566 So.2d 704 (Miss. 1990) (attorney-fee standards and discretion)
Creekmore v. Creekmore, 651 So.2d 513 (Miss. 1995) (attorney-fee considerations in divorce)