Ronnie Ali v. Amy Kaye Townsend Ali
2015-CA-01246-COA
| Miss. Ct. App. | Jun 13, 2017Background
- Ronnie Ali and Amy Ali, married 2003, have a child; separation followed and Amy filed for divorce.
- Trial was bifurcated due to complex finances involving urgent care clinics owned by the couple.
- On March 7, 2013 Amy obtained a divorce on habitual cruelty grounds; remaining issues tried in 2014.
- Chancellor issued a 26-page decision awarding Amy custody, child support, and alimony; property division largely allocated after a lengthy equitable-distribution process.
- On appeal, Ronnie challenges visitation, alimony, attorney’s fees, and life-insurance requirements; the court affirms some issues and remands others.
- Appellate court affirms in part and remands for visitation clarity and insurance adjustments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Visitation order clarity | Visitation not expressly ordered for permanent terms. | Any omission was an oversight; remand to clarify. | Remand to chancery court to clarify visitation order. |
| Alimony amount | Deficit after division; Amy’s earning potential and Ronnie's expenses show award is excessive. | Chancellor acted within discretion; alimony appropriate given conduct and needs. | Affirmed alimony award. |
| Attorney's fees | Amy could pay her own fees; award based on misconduct is improper. | Award justified by Ronnie's misconduct, not Amy's ability to pay. | Affirmed attorney’s-fees award. |
| Child support | Guideline application misapplied; amount too high or not reasonably calculated. | Court properly considered needs, income, and standard of living; guideline not blindly applied. | Affirmed child-support amount; guidelines properly applied; no abuse of discretion. |
| Life insurance as security for alimony | Policy amount ($1.5M to beneficiary, $2M total) is excessive. | Court has authority to require insurance to protect alimony; amount justified by potential arrears. | Remanded to adjust insurance amount; excessive as framed; determine appropriate award. |
Key Cases Cited
- Yelverton v. Yelverton, 961 So.2d 19 (Miss. 2007) (standard of review for domestic-relations factual findings)
- Carambat v. Carambat, 72 So.3d 505 (Miss. 2011) (manifest error and standard of review; deference to chancellor findings)
- Joel v. Joel, 43 So.3d 424 (Miss. 2010) (deference to chancellor on factual issues when supported by substantial evidence)
- Pearson v. Pearson, 761 So.2d 157 (Miss. 2000) (broad discretion in alimony; marital-financial interrelation guidance)
- Layton v. Layton, 181 So.3d 275 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (defining relevant horizons for mid-term alimony considerations)
- Rogillio v. Rogillio, 57 So.3d 1246 (Miss. 2011) (earning capacity and need for support in determining alimony)
- Moulds v. Bradley, 791 So.2d 220 (Miss. 2001) (consideration of child needs and parental standard of living)
- Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So.2d 1278 (Miss. 1993) (life-insurance to cover alimony obligations surviving death)
- Pogue v. Beezley, 716 So.2d 1123 (Miss. Ct. App. 1998) (limits on required life-insurance to protect alimony)
- In re Hodges, 807 So.2d 442 (Miss. 2002) (alimony survivability and insurance considerations)