Michelle Long v. Leslie Long
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 02/26/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter o f Decisions, Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2080169 M i c h e l l e Long v. L e s l i e Long Appeal from Geneva C i r c u i t Court (DR-05-175) MOORE, J u d g e . M i c h e l l e Long of t h e Geneva ("the former outstanding ("the f o r m e r w i f e " ) Circuit Court husband") indebtedness appeals from a judgment declining to require Leslie t o p a y h e r t h e amount Long of the o n t h e p a r t i e s ' f o r m e r m a r i t a l home 2080169 that We existed at the time that home was d e s t r o y e d b y a fire. affirm. Facts On judgment October of incorporated parties. 20, the and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y 2005, Geneva the parties Circuit a s e t t l e m e n t agreement That were Court; divorced that entered into agreement p r o v i d e d , i n p e r t i n e n t by a judgment between t h e part: " 1 1 . T h e m a r i t a l home . . . s h o u l d b e a w a r d e d t o the [former wife] subject to the mortgage [ i n d e b t e d n e s s ] , c o v e r i n g same a n d [ t h e f o r m e r w i f e ] and [ t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ] s h o u l d be o r d e r e d t o p a y such [ i n d e b t e d n e s s ] as f o l l o w s : "A. [ T h e f o r m e r w i f e ] s h a l l p a y t h e mortgage [indebtedness] to the Citizens B a n k [ ] , P.O. B o x 1 9 0 , G e n e v a , A l a b a m a i n the amount o f $ 1 5 0 . 9 8 p e r month, c o v e r i n g same a n d [ t h e f o r m e r w i f e ] s h a l l p a y s u c h [indebtedness] i n t h e manner that i t becomes due a n d p a y a b l e and save [ t h e former husband] harmless. 1 "B. [ T h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ] s h a l l p a y t h e mortgage [ i n d e b t e d n e s s ] t o GMAC M o r t g a g e , P.O. B o x 7 8 0 , W a t e r l o o , I A 5 0 7 0 4 i n t h e a m o u n t o f $ 3 3 2 . 6 9 p e r m o n t h , c o v e r i n g same and [ t h e former husband] s h a l l pay such [indebtedness] i n t h e manner that i t becomes due a n d p a y a b l e and save [ t h e former wife] harmless." The f o r m e r w i f e t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l t h a t h e r f a t h e r h a d o b t a i n e d a m o r t g a g e f r o m C i t i z e n s B a n k s e c u r e d b y h i s own house and had l o a n e d t h e proceeds from t h a t mortgage t o h e r and t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d f o r them t o p u r c h a s e t h e i r house. 1 2 2080169 Pursuant t o t h ed i v o r c e judgment, the monthly As part m o r t g a g e p a y m e n t s t o GMAC M o r t g a g e , of the obligation testified home d u e t o e x c e s s i v e c l a i m s . that apply According that, the former wife that insurance t o cover husband, i f she wanted a d d i t i o n a l obtain On covering the maintains that October both contents 9, 2 0 0 7 , the former Mutual Insurance informed the former wife the mortgage escrow former wife -- that instructed her obtained insurance o f $60,000 -- and o f $30 , 0 0 0 Her t h e premium would that 3 -- insurance be p a i d account maintained by t h e former admitted The home a s w e l l . wife coverage Company. i t herself. husband home - - c o v e r a g e o f t h e home wife insurance t o cover thecontents the former the marital t h e home. he i n f o r m e d t h e f o r m e r insurance t o cover the m a r i t a l Baldwin The husband the t o the former former wife covering about f o rlenders-placed him o f t h e m a r i t a l home, s h e w o u l d h a v e t o o b t a i n to the p a r t i e s ' The f o r m e r contacted also a n d t h a t he t h e n t e l e p h o n e d GMAC t o r e q u e s t cancellation GMAC Not long a f t e r husband t h e homeowner's i n s u r e r c a n c e l e d t h e p o l i c y the m a r i t a l made L L C ("GMAC"). t o GMAC, t h e f o r m e r m a i n t a i n e d i n s u r a n c e on t h e home. divorce, t h e former husband from agent from husband. she had n o t r e q u e s t e d t h e 2080169 permission that to o f t h e former husband the divorce judgment pay the costs testified to t o use h i s escrow d i dnot require of such use t h e funds insurance. i n h i s escrow t h e former wife replacing Shortly fire the insurance much Mutual filed Circuit Court, depositing the obtained home an i n t e r p l e a d e r t h e mortgage remainder t h e $90,000 and i t s action of the proceeds i n insurance filed that t h e p a y m e n t t o GMAC s h o u l d under against the divorce contents. proceeds t o GMAC, which home, a n d d i s t r i b u t e d t h e former husband n o t have The f o r m e r alleging r e l i e v e d him of h i s judgment. t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e Geneva C i r c u i t Court ("the 4 a action, the t o t h e former w i f e . wife obligations covering i n the Baldwin As a r e s u l t o f t h a t on t h e m a r i t a l a cross-claim he was the insurance, d i s t r i b u t e d $21,734.43 o f t h e proceeds satisfied that the a s he h a d r e q u e s t e d . the clerk of the court. clerk t o purchase i n s t e a d b e l i e v i n g t h a t GMAC of the marital Baldwin with account authorization had procured insurance a f t e r t h e former wife destroyed husband further testified t h e m a r i t a l home a n d i t s c o n t e n t s , was husband t h e former wife The f o r m e r h u s b a n d unaware t h a t the former The f o r m e r insurance. t h a t he h a d n o t g i v e n account and The trial case was court") to 2080169 resolve that parties' At former issue as w e l l trial, t h e former wife husband had l i s t e d the value August the value initiated 2005. of to the The f o r m e r the testified that she and t h e of the marital home a s former husband, however, marital home when was $22,900. proceeding that the tax-assessed value testified the case that parties The former o f t h e m a r i t a l home $22,900 i n 2005 a n d 2006 a n d t h a t , i n 2007, t h a t v a l u e h a d increased the relating they had f i l e d i n t h e i r bankruptcy the bankruptcy wife t e s t i f i e d was issues divorce. $ 2 4 , 7 2 3 . 8 5 on a r e p o r t in as other t o $27,900. The t r i a l court ultimately ruled that former husband had s a t i s f i e d h i s o b l i g a t i o n s t o t h e former wife under the divorce judgment. The f o r m e r wife appealed. 2 Analysis On a p p e a l , erred t h e former i n f a i l i n g to require $ 2 1 , 7 3 4 . 4 3 t h a t was p a i d wife argues that the t r i a l court t h e former husband t o pay h e rt h e t o GMAC. The f o r m e r w i f e cites five The judgment d i d n o t f u l l y r e s o l v e a l l t h e i s s u e s between the p a r t i e s , so t h i s c o u r t remanded t h e case f o r a f i n a l a d j u d i c a t i o n , w h i c h t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d on December 22, 2009. 2 5 2080169 cases i n support discuss In the of r e v e r s i n g the t r i a l them each judgment. We i n turn. Johns v. Johns, parties' court's divorce 473 S o . 2 d 517 judgment ( A l a . C i v . App. 1985), provided: "'That a l l r i g h t , t i t l e and i n t e r e s t i n and to a l l h o u s e h o l d f u r n i t u r e , a p p l i a n c e s and effects owned b y t h e p a r t i e s a n d 1982 Cutlass stationwagon or any other automobile t h e p a r t i e s may trade said v e h i c l e f o r , i s hereby d i v e s t e d out of the [ h u s b a n d ] a n d v e s t e d i n t h e [ w i f e ] . [The husband] i s ordered a n d d i r e c t e d t o be responsible f o r and pay a l l o u t s t a n d i n g mortgages and i n d e b t e d n e s s against said personal property '" 473 So. 2d a t 518. A f t e r the divorce the Cutlass station w a g o n was d e s t r o y e d the husband. I d . A few days l a t e r , t h a t he was p u r c h a s i n g t o see i f she l i k e d the Volkswagen; his Buick Opel the Opel; she "borrowed" to it. the husband Id. it. Id. automobile The f o r m e r w i f e Id. the t r i a l The w i f e the Volkswagen from The h u s b a n d r e q u e s t e d court ordered 6 d r i v e n by the wife and t o l d approved of i t but then delivered d i d not accept t h e husband and the t r i a l r e l i e v e him o f t h e payments f o r t h e Volkswagen. a hearing, entered, the husband t o l d purchased f o r her to use. was while being a Volkswagen Rabbit her never returned judgment Id. court After the husband to pay the w i f e 2080169 the value ordered it of Cutlass the wife ordered wife the to to return i n the keep at the the court alternative, Volkswagen affirmed, i t was destroyed and the Volkswagen to the husband o r , the husband and indebtedness associated therewith. this time the could husband Id. allow would The h u s b a n d pay the the appealed; reasoning: "'Judgments a r e t o be construed like other written instruments, and, i f there is any u n c e r t a i n t y , t h e c o u r t must c o n s t r u e them so as t o e x p r e s s t h e i n t e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s . ' A l l e n v. A l l e n , 386 S o . 2 d 1176 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 9 8 0 ) . I t i s c l e a r from the r e c o r d that the p a r t i e s intended that [the husband] would p r o v i d e [the wife] with the 1982 Cutlass or another car without indebtedness to her. T h e r e f o r e , the t r i a l c o u r t ' s order f o r [the husband] to pay f o r a s u b s t i t u t e automobile, i n l i e u of the a u t o m o b i l e he w r e c k e d , was n o t a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f a property d i v i s i o n but to enforce compliance with the e x p r e s s i n t e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s i n t h e i r agreement and the judgment of the c o u r t . " 473 So. 2d a t 519. In M a r s h a l l v. M a r s h a l l , 582 So. 2d 571 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 1 ) , t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t a w a r d e d t h e w i f e an a u t o m o b i l e ordered that the husband automobile. subsequently automobile insurance t o pay 582 involved was totally company the indebtedness So. in 2d an at settled 572. automobile destroyed. t h e damage 7 associated The accident, Id. claim "A third for wife and and with was the party's $14,828.33"; 2080169 the lienholder received trial the debt $ 1 3 , 5 1 9 . 8 8 , and court entered the wife pay to the The husband approval on the amount a of the w i f e judgment appealed. trial that On court's with received the automobile $1,308.45. Id. The to pay r e q u i r i n g the m o n e y he l i e n h o l d e r had the associated would debt not appeal, husband have been required been d i s c h a r g e d . this court to Id. quoted with reasoning: "In the i n s t a n t case, i t i s c l e a r t h a t the original i n t e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s was t h a t t h e ... W i f e w o u l d have the Lincoln automobile free of any indebtedness, a n d t h a t t h e ... H u s b a n d w o u l d p a y t h e i n d e b t e d n e s s s e c u r e d by s a i d a u t o m o b i l e i n m o n t h l y installments i n accordance with the contract of debt O b v i o u s l y , the c l e a r i n t e n t of the p a r t i e s a t t h e t i m e o f t h e a g r e e m e n t was t h a t t h e ... W i f e w o u l d be t h e o w n e r o f t h e a u t o m o b i l e a n d , as a p a r t of the p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t , r e c e i v e d t h a t asset at the f a i r market v a l u e t h e r e o f at the time of the d i v o r c e without the indebtedness being deducted from s a i d v a l u e . The ... H u s b a n d a s s u m e d a l i a b i l i t y and a g r e e d t o p a y t h e same i n f u l l The C o u r t c a n n o t f i n d any i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s ' a g r e e m e n t by w h i c h i t c a n be s a i d t h a t t h e i n t e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s w o u l d be t h a t i f an a c c i d e n t occurred under the p r e s e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a n d t h e i n d e b t e d n e s s was p a i d by a t h i r d p a r t y , ... the ... Husband s h o u l d be r e l i e v e d i n f u l l o f h i s d e b t and ... t h e ... Wife would l o s e v i r t u a l l y the e n t i r e v a l u e of the asset she received." 582 So. 2d at 572-73. determined t h a t the husband t o pay Based trial the w i f e on court the had that not a m o u n t he 8 reasoning, this court erred in requiring would have been the required 2080169 t o pay at had the 2002), Ravenel the been d i s c h a r g e d . 835 So. the t r u c k was the insurance husband a at So. insurance judgment 1070. indebtedness company p a i d equal on After destroyed. requested sum denied Ravenel, indebtedness 835 toward 2d v. divorce outstanding this not 582 So. 2d 573. In him indebtedness the to company. the husband's court 2d required a truck the Id. owed on wife the that court to 835 So. and at pay j u d g m e n t was entered, and So. that 2d the at the husband's 1072. wife was paid The The to pay by his trial appealed. On court reasoned: appeal, "[T]he plain language of the divorce judgment i n d i c a t e s t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e n v i s i o n e d t h a t the [ h u s b a n d ] w o u l d r e c e i v e t h e 1992 Mazda t r u c k f r e e and clear of a l l encumbering debt as of the September 1994 date of the divorce judgment. Moreover, the judgment directed the [wife] to ' a s s u m e ' a n d 'pay f o r ' t h e d e b t on t h e t r u c k a n d t o 'indemnify' and 'hold [the husband] h a r m l e s s ' f o r t h e d e b t . H o w e v e r , i t was o n l y t h r o u g h t h e e f f o r t s of the [husband] in securing and maintaining i n s u r a n c e c o v e r a g e and m a k i n g a c l a i m f o r t h e l o s s of the vehicle upon i t s total loss that the i n d e b t e d n e s s a l l o c a t e d t o t h e [ w i f e ] was discharged. As b e t w e e n t h e two p a r t i e s b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n 9 the husband. 1071. he to to the require indebtedness request, wife App. ceased making payments 835 the 2d the truck, debt. trial (Ala. Civ. awarded divorce The 10 69 2080169 t h i s case, t h e d i v o r c e judgment c l e a r l y r e q u i r e s t h e [ w i f e ] , n o t t h e [ h u s b a n d ] , t o d i s c h a r g e t h e d e b t on t h e M a z d a t r u c k . We, t h e r e f o r e , r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t d e n y i n g t h e [ h u s b a n d ' s ] r e q u e s t t h a t t h e [ w i f e ] be required t o p a y h i m an amount equal to the indebtedness on t h e t r u c k a s o f t h e d a t e t h e d e b t was d i s c h a r g e d b y t h e [ h u s b a n d ' s ] i n s u r e r . " 835 So. 2d a t 1072-73 In (footnote omitted). C o x v . C o x , 880 S o . 2 d 4 6 1 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ) , t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t a w a r d e d t h e w i f e t h e m a r i t a l home a n d o r d e r e d the husband later, 880 t o pay the indebtedness the wife sold the former So. 2d a t 462. U s i n g thereon. m a r i t a l home 880 m a r i t a l home So. 2d a t 462-63. seeking an o r d e r the o u t s t a n d i n g time The w i f e indebtedness the wife's obligation longer ... 2 d a t 4 63. court o n t h e f o r m e r m a r i t a l home a t t h e determining the wife The w i f e $56,028.74. t o p a y t h e amount o f to pay the indebtedness e x i s t e d because on t h e p e t i t i o n e d the t r i a l 880 S o . 2 d a t 4 6 2 . petition, the wife indebtedness the remaining r e q u i r i n g the husband s h e s o l d t h e home. denied So. and r e t a i n e d years f o r $100,000. the proceeds from that s a l e , p a i d $38,260.19 t o s a t i s f y t h e o u t s t a n d i n g former Several 10 "that on On court t h e husband's the property had s o l d the p r o p e r t y . " appealed. reasoned: The t r i a l appeal, this no 880 court 2080169 "The d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t i n t h i s c a s e s t a t e s t h a t t h e w i f e ' i s a w a r d e d t h e home o f t h e p a r t i e s ' a n d that t h e husband i s 'to pay the outstanding indebtedness thereon.' The p l a i n language of the j u d g m e n t g i v e s t h e w i f e t h e o w n e r s h i p o f t h e home, n o t m e r e l y t h e e q u i t y i n t h e home a s t h e t r i a l c o u r t ruled. The p l a i n language o f t h e judgment also p l a c e s on t h e h u s b a n d t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r p a y i n g t h e i n d e b t e d n e s s owed o n t h e p r o p e r t y ; i t d o e s n o t s t a t e , as t h e t r i a l c o u r t a t t e m p t s t o c o n s t r u e i t , t h a t he i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p a y i n g t h a t i n d e b t e d n e s s o n l y as l o n g as t h e w i f e does n o t s e l l t h e p r o p e r t y . The trial court reads into the language of the judgment something t h a t i s n o t t h e r e , i . e . , t h a t t h e o b l i g a t i o n of the husband t o pay the indebtedness w o u l d b e e x t i n g u i s h e d i f a n d when t h e w i f e s o l d t h e property." "... Just as t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of insurance proceeds i n Johns, M a r s h a l l , and Ravenel d i d n o t relieve the l a t t e r party of the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r paying that indebtedness, the a v a i l a b i l i t y of proceeds from the sale of the property i n the present case does n o t r e l i e v e t h e husband o f t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r paying t h e indebtedness imposed upon h i m i n t h e p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e judgment. 880 So. 2d a t 465. In Jackson v. Jackson, 913 S o . 2 d 10 93 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004), t h e d i v o r c e judgment awarded t h e w i f e p o s s e s s i o n parties' provided the former marital home during lifetime that the property would remain j o i n t l y husband would pay the f i r s t and second f o r m e r m a r i t a l home a n d w o u l d m a i n t a i n 913 her So. 2d a t 1094. Shortly but i t owned a n d t h a t mortgages insurance on t h e o n t h e home. t h e r e a f t e r , the former 11 ofthe marital 2080169 home was destroyed insurance policy contents wife "equitably The trial issued filed t h e terms court entitled that after requesting a judgment t o t h e $15,000 t o any p a r t to awarded $23,666.01 "that [in] insurance o f t h e $30,000" the dwelling. was Id. to o f t h e $30,000 relying wife So. i n insurance of the dwelling. on M a r s h a l l , and, thus, supra, reversed had e r r e d the court, remaining outstanding The w i f e appealed, i n not awarding her proceeds and Cox, s u p r a , related This agreed t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l 12 that proceeds trial 913 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 9 5 . 2d a t 1097. Id. s h e was n o t t h e amount satisfy the t r i a l court The to t h e ... proceeds i n insurance $6,333.99, paid as determining o f t h e house b u t t h a t the husband so court judgment." arguing destruction fire- divorce on t h e f o r m e r m a r i t a l home. one-half a Id. proceeds indebtedness that from that the t r i a l [insurance] of the p a r t i e s ' to the contents pertained instead, the entered w i f e was e n t i t l e d pertained and t h e proceeds to the parties j o i n t l y . a petition distribute effectuate fire -- $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 o n t h e d w e l l i n g a n d $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 on t h e -- w e r e The by to the court, with the court. 913 2080169 The common theme i n each of the foregoing cases i s that t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t r e q u i r e d one f o r m e r s p o u s e t o p r o v i d e t h e other former that property, cases, certain free from the property indebtedness the spouse debtor property, any i n d e b t e d n e s s . had been on t h e p r o p e r t y spouse of or at least destroyed debt. been of the awarded divorce to him or h e r , thus judgment unencumbered a s s e t . the present fulfilled. the mortgage case Specifically, indebtedness indebtedness was of those and t h e relieving nondebtor spouse, of the property that that the intention spouse the divorce the former by and, discharged, husband paying with an even had was discharged f o r the after mortgage home. the received sufficient of the former m a r i t a l judgment t h e premium the wife i n an amount more t h a n the value sold in full, thwarting provide the intent insurance, for to of Unlike the cases p r e v i o u s l y discussed, i n homeowners' proceeds or The however, had r e c e i v e d l e s s than t h e v a l u e had In each had been p a i d that a share of 3 insurance t o compensate h e r T h u s , we conclude T h e f o r m e r w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e m a r i t a l home was v a l u e d a t $ 2 7 , 9 0 0 a n d was i n s u r e d f o r $ 6 0 , 0 0 0 . Thus, a f t e r the $ 2 1 , 7 3 4 . 4 3 was p a i d t o GMAC t o r e t i r e t h e mortgage i n d e b t e d n e s s , t h e f o r m e r w i f e r e c e i v e d an amount e q u a l i n g more t h a n t h e v a l u e o f t h e home. 3 13 2080169 that the facts of the cases materially distinguishable and that the t r i a l husband had no divorce cited the from the f a c t s court correctly further by former of the p r e s e n t determined that obligation wife pursuant to the the are case former parties' judgment. Conclusion Based trial on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court. AFFIRMED. Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, Bryan, and Thomas, J J . , concur. A l t h o u g h t h e f o r m e r w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she s t i l l owed h e r f a t h e r on t h e m o r t g a g e t h a t he h a d t a k e n o u t o n h i s own house, the d i v o r c e judgment had r e q u i r e d the former w i f e t o pay t h a t debt. I n any e v e n t , t h e i n s u r a n c e p r o c e e d s were s u f f i c i e n t t o p a y t h e GMAC m o r t g a g e i n d e b t e d n e s s a n d t h e l o a n to t h e former w i f e ' s f a t h e r , and s t i l l l e a v e t h e former w i f e w i t h proceeds g r e a t e r than the v a l u e the w i f e had a s s i g n e d t o t h e f o r m e r m a r i t a l home. 14
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
