Alimony | Can You Get Alimony If You Are Married Less Than 10 Years?
The short answer is “yes.”
You can get alimony if you are married less than 10 years.
The long answer is that it is much more complicated than that.
But, this boils down to something that I always say on this blog.
When the Judge tells you to do something, unless it is immoral or illegal, just do it.
When you don’t, you better be prepared to suffer the consequences.
The Mississippi Court of Appeals decided this issue in Ronnie Ali v. Amy Ali.
Alimony | The Legal Mumbo Jumbo
So let me give you some of the legal mumbo jumbo and facts first from the case:
Ronnie told the Court that the periodic alimony award, $5,500 per month, is not appropriate in this case because “there was absolutely no disparity in Amy’s financial position as compared to Ronnie’s horrific financial position” after the equitable division.
While he does not directly challenge the division, he nevertheless urges that, in mathematical terms, Amy received more value in the property division (approximately $390,000) than the net value of the marital estate (approximately $280,000), and significantly more than his net deficit after property division, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses (which he puts at $417,000).
Ronnie also points to Amy’s income of $6,000 per month as a nurse practitioner prior to the marriage, as well as income she could expect as owner of an urgent care clinic awarded to her in equitable division. Ronnie submits that Amy is capable of supporting herself.
The Court said, the trial judge “has broad discretion in deciding whether to award alimony and in what amount. Appellate courts will not disturb the award on appeal unless it is found to be against the overwhelming weight of the evidence or manifestly in error.
This is a hint of what is about to happen to Ronnie.
It would seem as if he had a good point.
The Court said, “In the equitable division, Amy’s award mostly consisted of the marital home (approximately $187,000 in equity), household furnishings, three vehicles ($27,000), about $18,000 in checking and savings accounts, a $28,000 IRA, and one of the urgent care clinics owned by the parties ($111,000).”
Ronnie received the other functioning urgent care clinic, another one that was apparently defunct, about $62,000 in gold coins and savings accounts, his personal corporation ($32,000), and other personal assets – for a grand total of $266,000.
Ronnie’s claims of a large net deficit in total awards are premised on his comparing his distribution of the marital assets with the marital debt ($376,500, of which $358,000 was delinquent taxes and penalties the chancellor attributed to Ronnie’s misconduct) and litigation expenses, including his and the half of Amy’s attorney’s fees he was ordered to pay.
The marital estate was disproportionately small compared to Ronnie’s income.
His adjusted gross income on his Uniform Chancery Court Rule 8.05 financial statement was $41,463.00 per month after deducting federal and state income taxes of $19,668.76 per month (32.17%).
At trial, Ronnie boasted he could earn $900,000 per year when he needed the money.
Amy, on the other hand, had worked little since the marriage, dividing her time between caring for the child and managing the parties’ urgent care clinics.
The clinics were not particularly valuable or profitable, despite the energy and money the parties had invested in them.
The chancellor noted that he would have preferred to award Amy both of the remaining clinics, but Ronnie had entangled one with another business owned by his family.
Alimony | The Bottom Line In English
Alimony | The Bottom Line In English
But to me, here’s the real key:
“The chancellor also found that Ronnie had systematically violated “court orders regarding child and spousal support, payment of the mortgage, taxes, and insurance associated with the marital home as well as the transition of clinic management to [Amy] . . . [and] the use of clinic funds without [Amy’s] approval or court order,” which had resulted in Amy’s filing a plethora of contempt pleadings.”
So what does that tell us?
It tells us the trial judge was frustrated with Ronnie not listening to what the Judge said to do.
Judges have a lot of power.
If you don’t want to listen to the divorce Judge, then you better be prepared to suffer the consequences.
However, it isn’t just because the trial judge was upset with Ronnie.
It is also the law.
The law says, “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.” Rogillio v. Rogillio, 57 So. 3d 1246, 1250 (Miss. 2011).
In other words, you can’t leave your spouse without any money.
You’ve got to take care of them since you were the bread-winner during the marriage.
On top of this, the trial judge’s Order allowed Ronnie to deduct his alimony from his taxes.
So, a monthly alimony payment of $5,500 will actually cost Ronnie only about $3,538.
Where Ronnie did get the trial judge upset though was not listening.
This is why Ronnie had to pay half of Amy’s attorney’s fees.
Her attorney fees were $144,500.
Ronnie had to pay half of that for his misconduct in not listening to the Judge.
I’ve said it many times, just LISTEN TO THE JUDGE, whatever you do.
Otherwise, you could find yourself like this:
Don’t forget, for more information about alimony, get my FREE Book, Top 5 Mistakes That Can Destroy Your Mississippi Divorce Case by click on Ocean Springs Divorce Lawyer!