Jeremy Gilbert Kiel v. Laura Frances Kiel

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 6/11/10 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal 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 R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , 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 2081111 Jeremy G i l b e r t Kiel v. Laura Frances Kiel Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t (DR-08-54) Court BRYAN, J u d g e . Jeremy G i l b e r t K i e l ("the husband") a p p e a l s d i v o r c i n g him from Laura Frances K i e l it awarded t h e w i f e attorney alimony t h e judgment ("the w i f e " ) i n gross, i n s o f a r as p e r i o d i c alimony, f e e , a n d a p r i v a t e - i n v e s t i g a t o r f e e . We a f f i r m . an 2081111 On January divorce on 16, the 2008, grounds the of committed by the husband. complaint and counterclaimed i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y . The and, subsequently, damages or, in January June 26, 3, to the incompatibility The husband and for a adultery the the wife's ground of w i f e answered the husband's c o u n t e r c l a i m the gross, to the trial. alternative, to state a claim for from her The parents. trial court alimony in Thereafter, held 2009, the trial court entered f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s of the a bench 2009, a t w h i c h i t r e c e i v e d e v i d e n c e c o n t a i n e d the husband answered f o r a d i v o r c e on amended h e r c o m p l a i n t inherited proceeded sued f o r the husband's a l l e g e d misuse of funds compensate her w i f e had wife a action trial on ore tenus. On judgment, which fact: "The p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d in Russellville, A l a b a m a on J a n u a r y 6, 1996. A c c o r d i n g t o t h e W i f e , t h e p a r t i e s met i n h i g h s c h o o l and d a t e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e i r c o l l e g e s t u d i e s . Both p a r t i e s possess c o l l e g e u n d e r g r a d u a t e d e g r e e s . The W i f e e a r n e d a M a s t e r s Degree p r i o r t o the m a r r i a g e . D u r i n g the e n t i r e t y of the marriage, the Husband was the primary wage-earner. F o l l o w i n g the marriage, the Wife l e f t a high school teaching p o s i t i o n p r i o r to securing tenure in order to accompany the Husband to M i s s i s s i p p i where he a c c e p t e d a p o s i t i o n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h h i s e n g i n e e r i n g e d u c a t i o n . The H u s b a n d l a t e r f o u n d employment i n M a d i s o n C o u n t y and t h e p a r t i e s r e l o c a t e d t o A l a b a m a . The H u s b a n d r e m a i n e d e m p l o y e d with that employer or i t s predecessor as a maintenance s u p e r v i s o r u n t i l h i s l a y o f f i n January 2 2081111 o f 2009. The H u s b a n d i s p r e s e n t l y d r a w i n g s e v e r a n c e pay b e n e f i t s i n a sum s i m i l a r t o h i s e a r l i e r b a s e pay although the severance package benefits terminate i n S e p t e m b e r 2009. D u r i n g t r i a l , the H u s b a n d c l a i m e d t o be m a k i n g an a c t i v e j o b s e a r c h . He does n o t s u f f e r f r o m any h e a l t h c o n d i t i o n s t h a t l i m i t h i s employment and has c o n s i d e r a b l e experience in his field. " F o l l o w i n g t h e move t o M a d i s o n C o u n t y , t h e W i f e s o u g h t and s e c u r e d employment i n an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e position with Virginia College. She left that employment in the latter part of 2000 in a n t i c i p a t i o n of the b i r t h of the p a r t i e s ' f i r s t c h i l d , ... who was b o r n M a r c h 23, 2001. L a t e r , on June 2, 2003 and on O c t o b e r 19, 2005 t h e p a r t i e s ' [ t w o ] r e m a i n i n g c h i l d r e n , ... were b o r n . P r i o r t o [ t h e f i r s t c h i l d ' s ] b i r t h , the p a r t i e s agreed the W i f e w o u l d n o t w o r k o u t s i d e t h e home and t h a t she w o u l d s e r v e as t h e homemaker and s t a y a t home mom t o the p a r t i e s ' three c h i l d r e n . " I n 2005, t h e W i f e ' s m o t h e r , h e r remaining surviving parent, was killed i n an automobile a c c i d e n t . The W i f e was the s o l e s u r v i v o r of her p a r e n t s and i n h e r i t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y $ 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 , a l l o f w h i c h she p l a c e d i n t h e p a r t i e s ' j o i n t s a v i n g s and checking accounts w i t h Redstone F e d e r a l C r e d i t Union [('RFCU')]. Although she had access to the family's banking and c r e d i t card records, she t e s t i f i e d t h e H u s b a n d was t h e b i l l p a y e r and she t r u s t e d him t o manage t h e money. [ 1 ] "The W i f e t e s t i f i e d she c o n s i d e r e d h e r m a r r i a g e t o be p e r f e c t u n t i l t h e l a t t e r p a r t o f 2006 o r e a r l y p a r t o f 2007. She s t a t e d she l o v e d h e r h u s b a n d , h e r c h i l d r e n and t h e i r r e s i d e n c e . Her c o n c e r n s a t t h a t t i m e were t h e i n c r e a s i n g amount o f t i m e t h e H u s b a n d P a r t o f t h a t $300,000 i n h e r i t a n c e was a f a m i l y f a r m , which the t r i a l c o u r t r e f e r s t o l a t e r i n i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t . 1 3 2081111 was r e q u i r e d t o w o r k ( f r e q u e n t l y 18 h o u r s p e r d a y , f r o m 1:00 a.m. u n t i l 6:00 p.m.) a n d h e r Husband's i n c r e a s i n g i n d i f f e r e n c e toward h e r and t h e c h i l d r e n . The H u s b a n d s t a t e d he c o n s i d e r e d t h e W i f e ' s s p e n d i n g on 'toys f o r the children, fast food and m i s c e l l a n e o u s i t e m s , ' a l l o f w h i c h he a g r e e d were f o r t h e f a m i l y , t o be a p r o b l e m . He a l s o s t a t e d he was c o n c e r n e d a b o u t h e r c a r e o f t h e c h i l d r e n a n d t h e f a c t t h a t t h e younger c h i l d r e n o f t e n s l e p t w i t h t h e W i f e , u l t i m a t e l y r e s u l t i n g i n t h e Husband r e l o c a t i n g t o a n o t h e r bedroom. " D e s p i t e t h e s e c o n c e r n s , t h e Husband c o n t i n u e d t o manage t h e p a r t i e s ' financial affairs even e n c o u r a g i n g t h e W i f e t o a u c t i o n t h e f a m i l y f a r m she i n h e r i t e d . The f a r m was s o l d i n J u l y 2006 a n d t h e n e t p r o c e e d s o f o v e r $230,000 were d e p o s i t e d t o t h e p a r t i e s ' j o i n t RFCU s a v i n g s a c c o u n t . The H u s b a n d p a i d o f f t h e f a m i l y c r e d i t c a r d s , made a $150,000 down payment on a $600,000 new home a n d p a i d o f f t h e i r a u t o m o b i l e s . Due t o h i s s t a t e d c o n c e r n a b o u t t h e W i f e ' s s p e n d i n g , he p l a c e d t h e W i f e on a b u d g e t o f $1,200 t o $1,500 p e r month. B a n k i n g r e c o r d s a d m i t t e d t o e v i d e n c e b y t h e H u s b a n d r e v e a l , on o c c a s i o n , sums were t r a n s f e r r e d b y h i m f r o m t h e RFCU j o i n t account i n t o a separate account f o r the Wife a l t h o u g h , upon f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s , i t i s a p p a r e n t t h a t t h e t r a n s f e r s t o t h e W i f e were a c t u a l l y m o n i e s f r o m t h e j o i n t s a v i n g s a c c o u n t t h a t was f u n d e d , a t t h a t time, almost e x c l u s i v e l y by funds from t h e Wife's inheritance. The W i f e testified she t e r m i n a t e d gymnastic and dance lessons f o r [one of the c h i l d r e n ] i n an e f f o r t t o appease h e r Husband r e g a r d i n g t h e a l l e g e d f i n a n c i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s . She a l s o met w i t h h e r m i n i s t e r a n d h i s w i f e a n d a r r a n g e d f o r c o u p l e s c o u n s e l i n g f o r h e r and t h e Husband. Her c o n c e r n s r e m a i n e d t h e Husband's e x t r e m e w o r k h o u r s and h i s i n c r e a s i n g d i s t a n c e f r o m h e r . The H u s b a n d refused t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n the counseling a f t e r the f i r s t meeting. "Following the f a i l e d 4 counseling effort, the 2081111 Wife engaged a p r i v a t e i n v e s t i g a t o r . That i n q u i r y r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e H u s b a n d was i n v o l v e d i n a s e x u a l a f f a i r w i t h a co-employee. Evidence before the Court, i n c l u d i n g t h e Husband's a d m i s s i o n t o the a f f a i r , testimony o f t h e paramour and f i n a n c i a l r e c o r d s , r e v e a l t h e Husband's e x t r a m a r i t a l s e x u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p b e g a n no l a t e r t h a n t h e S p r i n g o f 2006 and c o n t i n u e d a t l e a s t u n t i l t h e e a r l y p a r t o f 2008. " F i n a n c i a l records admitted t o evidence revealed a t t h e same t i m e t h e H u s b a n d was c o m p l a i n i n g a b o u t the Wife's spending f o r t h e c h i l d r e n , he h a d p u r c h a s e d j e w e l r y , i n c l u d i n g a ruby and g o l d pendant and a o n e - c a r a t d i a m o n d r i n g , an e x p e n s i v e Coach purse, a Thomas K i n c a i d p r i n t a n d f l o w e r s on a number o f o c c a s i o n s f o r h i s g i r l f r i e n d . He p a i d f o r m e a l s a t e x p e n s i v e r e s t a u r a n t s on o v e r n i g h t , o u t o f town t r a v e l w i t h h i s g i r l f r i e n d a n d l o d g i n g a n d limousine s e r v i c e while with her i n A t l a n t a . Family c r e d i t cards r e v e a l e d other purchases of j e w e l r y , m e a l s a n d i t e m s a t women's c l o t h i n g s t o r e s (Ann T a y l o r , V i c t o r i a Secret, etc.) that the Wife d i d not r e c o g n i z e a s p u r c h a s e s b y o r f o r h e r . The H u s b a n d s t a t e d he was unaware o f t h e c h a r g e s a l t h o u g h a number o f c h a r g e s were on t h e same d a t e s a n d same v e n u e s as t h e Husband's t r a v e l w i t h h i s p a r a m o u r . Other r e c o r d s and t e s t i m o n y o f t h e Husband c o n f i r m e d t h a t t h r e e weeks p r i o r t o t h e c l o s i n g o f p u r c h a s e o f the $600,000 home (funded by the Wife's inheritance), t h e Husband and h i s g i r l f r i e n d traveled t o G r e e n v i l l e , South Carolina where numerous p u r c h a s e s were i n c u r r e d on f a m i l y c r e d i t cards. T h r e e weeks f o l l o w i n g t h e c l o s i n g , t h e Husband p u r c h a s e d t h e o n e - c a r a t diamond r i n g f o r h i s p a r a m o u r a n d met h e r i n A t l a n t a , where he c h a r g e d h o t e l , r e s t a u r a n t a n d l i m o u s i n e e x p e n s e s on f a m i l y c r e d i t c a r d s . A l l o f t h e s e e x p e n s e s were p a i d f r o m accounts funded p r i m a r i l y by t h e Wife's i n h e r i t a n c e and were i n c u r r e d w h i l e t h e H u s b a n d w i t h h e l d o r i n t e n t i o n a l l y misled the Wife regarding h i s m a r i t a l m i s c o n d u c t . A t t r i a l , t h e W i f e t e s t i f i e d she would never have a l l o w e d t h e Husband access t o her 5 2081111 i n h e r i t a n c e h a d he h o n e s t l y d i s c l o s e d h i s a f f a i r . A l t h o u g h t h e H u s b a n d a d m i t t e d t o h a v i n g made 'poor j u d g m e n t s , ' he made t h a t c o n c e s s i o n o n l y a f t e r he l e a r n e d o f t h e s u r v e i l l a n c e a n d t h a t h i s a f f a i r was d i s c o v e r e d . I n t h e words o f an e l d e r f r o m h i s c h u r c h , t h e Husband's p r i m a r y s o r r o w was ' t h a t he had b e e n c a u g h t . ' When t h e W i f e f i l e d h e r c o m p l a i n t f o r d i v o r c e i n J a n u a r y 2008 l e s s t h a n one month a f t e r l e a r n i n g of the a f f a i r , her i n h e r i t a n c e had b e e n t o t a l l y d e p l e t e d . The C o u r t e x p r e s s l y f i n d s t h e Husband r e p e a t e d l y d e c e i v e d and m i s l e d t h e Wife r e g a r d i n g h i s a f f a i r and h i s r e c k l e s s misuse o f t h e parties' financial accounts." B a s e d on t h o s e other things, factual divorced findings, the t r i a l the parties on the c o u r t , among grounds of i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y and a d u l t e r y committed by t h e h u s b a n d ; awarded the wife awarded support s o l e p h y s i c a l custody t h e husband months; visitation; 2 awarded i n t h e amount o f $1,780 p e r month; alimony i n gross periodic of the p a r t i e s ' alimony awarded 3 c h i l d r e n and the wife child awarded t h e w i f e i n t h e amount o f $150,000; a w a r d e d t h e w i f e i n t h e amount o f $1,600 p e r month the wife an a t t o r n e y f o r 60 f e e i n t h e amount o f The p a r t i e s had s t i p u l a t e d t h a t t h e w i f e s h o u l d awarded p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l custody o f t h e c h i l d r e n . 2 be However, t h e t r i a l c o u r t n o t e d t h a t t h e c a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e c h i l d s u p p o r t was b a s e d on t h e h u s b a n d ' s s e v e r a n c e p a y , w h i c h w o u l d t e r m i n a t e i n S e p t e m b e r 2009, a n d , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e c h i l d s u p p o r t m i g h t h a v e t o be m o d i f i e d f o l l o w i n g t h e t e r m i n a t i o n of h i s severance p a y . 3 6 2081111 $20,000; a w a r d e d t h e w i f e amount of benefits or, $3,000; a private-investigator awarded the wife health-insurance f o r 36 applied divided coverage, months as and t h e w i f e available secured awarded the wife additional periodic up her own t o $250 per alimony to be t o t h e payment o f t h e premiums f o r t h a t c o v e r a g e ; and the parties' personal property. awarded t h e w i f e t h e f o l l o w i n g p e r s o n a l 1. health-insurance t o be p a i d f o r by t h e h u s b a n d i f t h e y were i f t h e y were n o t a v a i l a b l e month COBRA fee i n the the marriage personal property she had The 4 trial property: owned before o r h a d i n h e r i t e d o r h a d r e c e i v e d by g i f t the marriage and h e r p e r s o n a l 2 . t h e 2005 GMC 3. the balance Yukon court the during effects; automobile; o f any b a n k i n g account i n her i n d i v i d u a l W h i l e t h e d i v o r c e a c t i o n was p e n d i n g , t h e p a r t i e s s o l d the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e a t a l o s s i n order t o r e l i e v e themselves of t h e i r mortgage p a y m e n t s . They had p u r c h a s e d t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e f o r a p r i c e o f $602,675.65 i n 2 0 0 6 . T h e y s o l d i t f o r a p r i c e o f $475,000 i n 2 0 0 8 . A t c l o s i n g , t h e p a y o f f f o r t h e i r f i r s t m o r t g a g e was $409, 333.05, and t h e p a y o f f f o r t h e i r ^ ^ ^^^4-^-^^^ i: c n TOT i n T ^ ^ v., ^T^^^ s e ^c ^o ^n ^d m o r t g a g e T . T - , ^ was $60,787.19. I v., a d d 4 -t ^i o n , n i they were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r some o f t h e c l o s i n g c o s t s , s u c h as t h e r e a l e s t a t e a g e n t ' s c o m m i s s i o n . The p r o c e e d s f r o m t h e s a l e o f t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e f a i l e d t o c o v e r $29,610.95 o f t h e amount due f r o m t h e h u s b a n d and t h e w i f e a t c l o s i n g . C o n s e q u e n t l y , they had t o p a y t h a t $29,610.95 o u t o f t h e i r p o c k e t s . 4 7 2081111 name; 4. o n e - h a l f of the balance account i n both 5. the i n any b a n k i n g or financial o f t h e p a r t i e s ' names; furniture and furnishings presently p o s s e s s i o n , w i t h e x c e p t i o n of the f o l l o w i n g items i n her awarded to the husband: a. a p a t i o s e t , b. two c o l l e c t o r d o l l s o f t h e w i f e ' s s e l e c t i o n , a n d c. one t e l e v i s i o n 6. o n e - h a l f of the wife's of t h e v e s t e d i n t e r e s t of t h e husband i n t h e following retirement plans and a. S i e m e n ' s - C o n t i n e n t a l c. GM P e n s i o n personal court P l a n , and P l a n ; and 7. a $ 1,250 c h e c k p a y a b l e trial accounts: 401(k) P l a n , b. C o n t i n e n t a l P e n s i o n The selection; awarded to the p a r t i e s j o i n t l y . the husband the following property: 1. t h e p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y he h a d owned b e f o r e t h e m a r r i a g e or had marriage inherited or had r e c e i v e d and h i s p e r s o n a l 2. t h e 2005 Dodge Ram effects; truck; 8 by gift during the 2081111 3. t h e b a l a n c e o f any banking account i n h i s individual name; 4. one-half of the balance i n any banking or financial a c c o u n t i n b o t h of the p a r t i e s ' names; 5. the furniture possession and the a. a p a t i o and furnishings following presently items in in the his wife's set, possession: b. c o l l e c t o r d o l l s of the w i f e ' s c. 6. two one television one-half retirement of his of the w i f e ' s s e l e c t i o n ; vested interest in the Siemen's-Continental b. Continental c. GM Pension husband 401(k) Pension Plan, Plan, and Plan. timely filed a postjudgment c h a l l e n g i n g t h e j u d g m e n t on s e v e r a l g r o u n d s . F i r s t , parte Dickson, following accounts: a. The s e l e c t i o n , and 29 So. 3d 159 motion citing Ex ( A l a . 2009), the husband a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t had e r r e d i n a w a r d i n g t h e w i f e a l i m o n y i n gross i n the amount o f $150,000 b e c a u s e , he exceeded the value of h i s e s t a t e a t the 9 said, that time of the award divorce, 2081111 which, according t o the husband, c o n s i s t e d of the f o l l o w i n g : 1. R e n a s a n t c h e c k i n g 2. L i s t e r h i l l a c c o u n t i n t h e amount o f $12.78; savings account w i t h a value of l e s s than $100.00; 3. o n e - h a l f value of a Siemen's-Continental o f $21,036.44; 4. o n e - h a l f $7,454.85; 5. 401(k) p l a n w i t h a a of a C o n t i n e n t a l Pension Plan with a value of and Dodge $10,000.00 Second, Ram truck t o $11,000.00 with an estimated value of that the t r i a l court had 5 the husband a s s e r t e d e r r e d i n a w a r d i n g t h e w i f e p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y i n t h e amount o f $1,600 p e r month f o r 60 months b e c a u s e , he s a i d , t h e e v i d e n c e had e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t he w o u l d n o t have t h e f i n a n c i a l means t o pay i t . S p e c i f i c a l l y , from his job at he a s s e r t e d Continental severance pay would terminate not his been a b l e severance to find pay t h a t he h a d b e e n l a i d o f f i n January 2009, that his i n S e p t e m b e r 2009, t h a t he h a d a n o t h e r j o b , t h a t h i s n e t income f r o m had been $5,412.82 i n March 2009 and The husband's e s t a t e a t t h e time of t h e d i v o r c e a l s o i n c l u d e d o n e - h a l f o f a GM P e n s i o n P l a n ; h o w e v e r , t h e r e c o r d does n o t i n d i c a t e t h e v a l u e o f h i s s h a r e o f t h a t p e n s i o n p l a n . 5 10 2081111 $5,261.63 in April e x p e n s e s were Third, erred 2009, and t h a t h i s minimum b a s i c living $1,605.31. the husband asserted i n awarding the wife that an a t t o r n e y the t r i a l court had f e e i n t h e amount o f $20,000 and a p r i v a t e - i n v e s t i g a t o r f e e i n t h e amount o f $3,000 b e c a u s e , he s a i d , he d i d n o t have t h e f i n a n c i a l means t o p a y those awards. In response t o the husband's wife asserted in gross, postjudgment motion, the t h a t , as an a l t e r n a t i v e t o h e r c l a i m f o r a l i m o n y she had stated a claim f o r damages due t o the h u s b a n d ' s m i s u s e o f h e r i n h e r i t a n c e f r o m h e r p a r e n t s and t h a t , e v e n i f t h e a w a r d o f a l i m o n y i n g r o s s was because i t exceeded the husband's e s t a t e due t o be r e d u c e d a t the time of the d i v o r c e , she was e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r $150,000 on h e r c l a i m f o r damages. The w i f e a l s o moved t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o a l t e r o r amend the to j u d g m e n t t o a w a r d h e r a l i m o n y i n g r o s s i n an amount e q u a l the husband's s e p a r a t e e s t a t e a t the time of the a n d t o a w a r d h e r t h e b a l a n c e o f t h e $150,000 the husband's alternative, misuse to award of her her inheritance $150,000 husband's misuse of h e r i n h e r i t a n c e 11 as divorce as damages f o r or, in the damages for the i n l i e u of awarding i t t o 2081111 h e r as a l i m o n y i n g r o s s . F o l l o w i n g a h e a r i n g on t h e p a r t i e s ' p o s t j u d g m e n t the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r s t a t i n g , motions, i n pertinent part: " T h i s m a t t e r came on b e f o r e t h e C o u r t on m o t i o n s f i l e d t h e [ h u s b a n d ] and t h e [ w i f e ] , e a c h r e q u e s t i n g r e l i e f p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59 t o t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s o f Civil Procedure. The Court has c o n s i d e r e d the p l e a d i n g s f i l e d by b o t h p a r t i e s , s t i p u l a t i o n s of the p a r t i e s and a r g u m e n t o f t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e c o u n s e l r e g a r d i n g t h e p o s t - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n s . The C o u r t has a l s o c o n s i d e r e d the r e c e n t d e c i s i o n of the Alabama Supreme C o u r t i n [Ex p a r t e D i c k s o n , 29 So. 3d 159 (Ala. 2009),] r e g a r d i n g the alimony i n gross i n the F i n a l D e c r e e o f D i v o r c e i n t h i s m a t t e r . B a s e d upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e a b o v e , t h e C o u r t makes t h e f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s and o r d e r s : "CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINDINGS OF FACT "A. Upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e s t a n d a r d s s e t o u t i n [Ex p a r t e D i c k s o n ] , s u p r a , t h e C o u r t e x p r e s s l y f i n d s t h a t the a l i m o n y i n g r o s s awarded t o the [wife] i n the case c o n s i d e r a b l y exceeds the v a l u e of t h e [husband's] e s t a t e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e d i v o r c e . A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e p a r t i e s ' R u l e 59 m o t i o n s on t h a t i s s u e a r e t o due t o be g r a n t e d and t h a t p o r t i o n o f t h e F i n a l D e c r e e i s due t o be a l t e r e d o r amended. "B. Our c a s e l a w i s c l e a r t h a t no f i x e d s t a n d a r d or mathematical formula exists for dividing p r o p e r t i e s i n a d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g . The p r o p o r t i o n or share of p r o p e r t y g i v e n t o each spouse is required only to be equitable and graduated a c c o r d i n g t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s p r e s e n t e d i n e a c h c a s e . A n t e p e n k o v. A n t e p e n k o , 549 So. 2d 1357 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 9 ) . When d i v i d i n g marital p r o p e r t y and d e t e r m i n i n g the need f o r support, the t r i a l c o u r t c o n s i d e r s a number o f f a c t o r s , i n c l u d i n g t h e l e n g t h f o r t h e m a r r i a g e , age 12 2081111 and h e a l t h o f t h e p a r t i e s , f u t u r e p r o s p e c t s o f t h e parties, the source, type and v a l u e of the p r o p e r t i e s , the standard o f l i v i n g t o which the p a r t i e s have become a c c u s t o m e d d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e and t h e f a u l t o f t h e p a r t i e s c o n t r i b u t i n g t o t h e b r e a k u p o f t h e m a r r i a g e . P a t e v . Guy, 942 So. 2d 380 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) , G o l d e n v. G o l d e n , 681 So. 2d 605 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) . "C. The F i n a l D e c r e e o f D i v o r c e i n t h i s m a t t e r contains a lengthy f i n d i n g of facts regarding the p a r t i e s ' c o n d u c t t o w a r d one a n o t h e r i n f i n a n c i a l and p e r s o n a l m a t t e r s . I n summary, t h e C o u r t e x p r e s s l y f o u n d t h a t t h e [husband] ' r e p e a t e d l y d e c e i v e d a n d m i s l e d t h e [wife] r e g a r d i n g h i s a f f a i r and h i s r e c k l e s s misuse of the p a r t i e s ' f i n a n c i a l accounts' and t h a t t h i s b e h a v i o r s i g n i f i c a n t l y i m p a c t e d t h e ' f i n a n c i a l and e m o t i o n a l w e l l - b e i n g o f t h e [wife] and t h e p a r t i e s ' t h r e e c h i l d r e n . ' Those f i n d i n g s have n o t b e e n a l t e r e d n o r a r e t h e y c h a l l e n g e d i n any of t h e p l e a d i n g s . "D. D u r i n g t r i a l , b o t h p a r t i e s t e s t i f i e d a t length regarding the assets they acquired during the m a r r i a g e and those t h a t remained a t time o f t h e h e a r i n g . The C o u r t h a s c o n s i d e r e d t h a t t e s t i m o n y as well as e x h i b i t s a d m i t t e d t o e v i d e n c e by t h e parties, including the [husband's] Domestic R e l a t i o n s F i n a n c i a l S t a t e m e n t i n w h i c h he l i s t e d t h e v a l u e s o f t h e p r o p e r t i e s i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n and those i n t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e [ w i f e ] . B a s e d upon t h a t review, the Court finds that the [husband's] v a l u a t i o n of h i s separate e s t a t e , i n c l u d i n g items of personal property retained i n h i s possession but excluding the one-half of r e t i r e m e n t accounts awarded t o t h e W i f e , t o t a l e d over $84,000.00. " B a s e d upon t h e above f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law, c o n s i d e r e d w i t h the p l e a d i n g s f i l e d by t h e p a r t i e s i n t h i s cause, b o t h a t t r i a l 13 2081111 and i n t h e i r follows: Rule 59 m o t i o n s , the Court ORDERS as " 1 . P a r a g r a p h 17 o f t h e F i n a l D e c r e e [ d e a l i n g with alimony i n gross] i s vacated i n i t s e n t i r e t y and t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u b s t i t u t e d i n l i e u t h e r e o f : "The W i f e i s a w a r d e d t h e sum o f $65,000.00 as a l i m o n y i n g r o s s t o be p a i d by t h e H u s b a n d . The C o u r t has c o n s i d e r e d the Husband's e x p e n d i t u r e of f a m i l y funds, i n c l u d i n g , i n l a r g e measure, the e n t i r e i n h e r i t a n c e r e c e i v e d by t h e W i f e f r o m t h e e s t a t e s o f h e r m o t h e r and f a t h e r , d u r i n g a p e r i o d o f t i m e he d e c e i v e d and m i s l e d t h e W i f e r e g a r d i n g h i s e x t r a - m a r i t a l a f f a i r and e x h i b i t s admitted to evidence, including the [husband's] Domestic Relations F i n a n c i a l Statement w i t h h i s i n v e n t o r y of p r o p e r t i e s and v a l u e s . B a s e d upon t h a t review, the Court finds that the [husband's] valuation of his separate estate, including items of personal p r o p e r t y r e t a i n e d i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n but excluding the one-half of retirement a c c o u n t s awarded t o the W i f e , t o t a l e d over $84,000.00. "The H u s b a n d may s a t i s f y t h i s a w a r d by payment i n f u l l w i t h i n 30 d a y s o f t h e d a t e o f t h i s O r d e r o r , a t h i s o p t i o n , by payment i n monthly i n s t a l l m e n t s t o the Wife as follows: " ( a ) Payments o f $300 p e r month so l o n g as t h e H u s b a n d i s p a y i n g p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y i s due t o t h e W i f e p u r s u a n t t o t h i s O r d e r ; and, t h e r e a f t e r , "(b) Upon t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y p a y m e n t s , p a y m e n t s o f $1,000 p e r month u n t i l s u c h t i m e as t h e j u d g m e n t i s 14 2081111 satisfied in full. " ( c ) Payments s h a l l b e g i n on t h e f i r s t day o f t h e month i m m e d i a t e l y following e n t r y o f t h i s O r d e r and c o n t i n u e due and p a y a b l e on t h e f i r s t day o f e a c h month t h e r e a f t e r u n t i l the judgment i s s a t i s f i e d i n f u l l . The [ h u s b a n d ' s ] o b l i g a t i o n s h a l l be r e d u c e d by any p a y m e n t s made by h i m pursuant t o the e a r l i e r order i n this matter. II to "3. A l l r e m a i n i n g c l a i m s o f t h e p a r t i e s , t h e e x t e n t a w a r d e d h e r e i n , a r e DENIED." The h u s b a n d t h e n t i m e l y a p p e a l e d t o t h i s Because the t r i a l review except court. court r e c e i v e d evidence ore tenus, i s g o v e r n e d by t h e f o l l o w i n g p r i n c i p l e s : "'"'[W]hen a trial court hears ore tenus testimony, i t s f i n d i n g s on d i s p u t e d f a c t s are p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t and i t s j u d g m e n t b a s e d on t h o s e f i n d i n g s w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d u n l e s s t h e j u d g m e n t i s p a l p a b l y e r r o n e o u s o r m a n i f e s t l y u n j u s t . ' " ' Water Works & S a n i t a r y Sewer Bd. v. P a r k s , 977 So. 2d 440, 443 ( A l a . 2007) ( q u o t i n g F a d a l l a v. F a d a l l a , 929 So. 2d 429, 433 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n P h i l p o t v. S t a t e , 843 So. 2d 122, 125 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ) . '"The p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s , however, i s r e b u t t a b l e and may be overcome where t h e r e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence presented to the t r i a l court t o s u s t a i n i t s j u d g m e n t . " ' Waltman v. R o w e l l , 913 So. 2d 1083, 1086 ( A l a . 2005) ( q u o t i n g D e n n i s v. Dobbs, 474 So. 2d 77, 79 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ) . ' A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e o r e t e n u s r u l e does n o t e x t e n d t o c l o a k w i t h a p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s a t r i a l judge's c o n c l u s i o n s of law o r the i n c o r r e c t a p p l i c a t i o n of law t o the f a c t s . ' Waltman v. R o w e l l , 913 So. 2d a t 1086." 15 our 2081111 Retail Inc., Developers 985 So. Citing that the at 2d 924, 929 v. E a s t Gadsden G o l f award of says, $65,000 i n a l i m o n y i t exceeds the value of the d i v o r c e . S p e c i f i c a l l y , i n gross one-half of the he a r g u e s $56,982.59 r e t i r e m e n t accounts, which b. equals is argues erroneous of h i s e s t a t e a t the time of the d i v o r c e c o n s i s t e d of the a. Club, ( A l a . 2007). Ex p a r t e D i c k s o n , s u p r a , t h e h u s b a n d f i r s t b e c a u s e , he time o f A l a b a m a , LLC the that his estate following: total value of his $28,491.29; t h e $10,050 v a l u e o f h i s Dodge Ram truck; and c. a bedroom s u i t e w i t h a v a l u e b e t w e e n $12,000 and $15,000. Thus, t h e h u s b a n d a r g u e s t h a t , a t most, h i s e s t a t e a t t h e o f t h e d i v o r c e had a v a l u e o f $53,541.29 and, time therefore, that t h e a w a r d o f $65,000 i n a l i m o n y i n g r o s s e x c e e d s t h e v a l u e o f his e s t a t e at the time of the d i v o r c e . However, "Defendant's financial the husband Domestic statement"), ignores Relations which the the Financial husband e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l as D e f e n d a n t ' s E x h i b i t 15. statement, which the t r i a l document Statement" (the introduced into In the c o u r t r e l i e d upon i n 16 titled financial calculating 2081111 that the husband's e s t a t e value a t the time of the divorce i n e x c e s s o f $84,000, t h e h u s b a n d l i s t s values other f o r property he was than the retirement t h e bedroom judgment a c c o u n t s , t h e Dodge Ram t r u c k , a n d suite: $2,199.00 534.94 899.00 39.99 793.06 336.98 2,252.90 10,775.00 499.00 9,926.40 129.00 3,437.44 $31,822.71 A d d i n g t h e $31.822.71 v a l u e above t o t h e $53,541.29 v a l u e value the f o l l o w i n g a w a r d e d by t h e d i v o r c e Denon home t h e a t e r s y s t e m Sony c a m c o r d e r P a n a s o n i c F l a t S c r e e n 32" TV paper shredder c o l l e g e and s p o r t s m e m o r a b i l i a Austin sculptures furniture D a n i e l Moore p r i n t s patio set outdoor t o o l s , equipment, and s p o r t i n g goods i r o n and i r o n i n g b o a r d John Deere P r e c i s i o n equipment Dodge Ram had a truck, 6 of the items of property of the retirement a n d t h e bedroom suite listed accounts, the results in a total o f $85,364 f o r t h e h u s b a n d ' s e s t a t e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e divorce. Therefore, h i s argument t h a t t h e $65,000 award o f T h i s f i g u r e does n o t i n c l u d e t h e two c o l l e c t o r d o l l s o r t h e t e l e v i s i o n a w a r d e d t h e h u s b a n d b e c a u s e t h o s e i t e m s were t o be s e l e c t e d b y t h e w i f e a n d t h e r e c o r d d o e s n o t i n d i c a t e w h i c h c o l l e c t o r d o l l s or t e l e v i s i o n the wife s e l e c t e d . 6 17 2081111 alimony i n gross exceeded the value of h i s e s t a t e at the time o f t h e d i v o r c e has no m e r i t . C o n s e q u e n t l y , we a f f i r m t h e t r i a l court's gross j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as i t a w a r d e d t h e w i f e alimony i n i n t h e amount o f $65,000. The husband p e r f u n c t o r i l y argues e r r e d i n awarding the w i f e an a t t o r n e y that the t r i a l court f e e i n t h e amount o f $20,000 and a p r i v a t e - i n v e s t i g a t o r f e e i n t h e amount o f $3,000 b e c a u s e , he s a y s , t h o s e amounts a r e e x c e s s i v e ; h o w e v e r , he has c i t e d no l e g a l a u t h o r i t y i n s u p p o r t o f t h i s a r g u m e n t . "We have u n e q u i v o c a l l y s t a t e d t h a t i t i s not the f u n c t i o n of t h i s Court to legal do a p a r t y ' s arguments for propositions legal a not research party o r t o make and a d d r e s s based supported on by undelineated sufficient authority a r g u m e n t . S p r a d l i n v. S p r a d l i n , 601 So. 2d 76 Dykes v. Lane T r u c k i n g , Therefore, award general ( A l a . 1992)." I n c . , 652 So. 2d 248, 251 ( A l a . 1994) . we f i n d no m e r i t i n t h e h u s b a n d ' s argument t h a t t h e o f an attorney f e e i n t h e amount o f $20,000 and t h e a w a r d o f a p r i v a t e - i n v e s t i g a t o r f e e i n t h e amount o f were e r r o n e o u s b e c a u s e t h e y were The or husband a l s o argues $3,000 excessive. that the t r i a l court erred i n a w a r d i n g t h e w i f e an a t t o r n e y f e e i n t h e amount o f $20,000 and 18 2081111 a p r i v a t e - i n v e s t i g a t o r f e e i n t h e amount o f $3,000 b e c a u s e , he says, those awards c o n s t i t u t e d a d d i t i o n a l alimony in u n d e r t h e supreme c o u r t ' s h o l d i n g i n Ex p a r t e D i c k s o n , gross supra, and t h e r e s u l t i n g t o t a l o f $88,000 i n a l i m o n y i n g r o s s e x c e e d s his estate at the time did not present o f t h e d i v o r c e . However, t h a t argument t o t h e t r i a l the husband c o u r t . We cannot r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t on t h e b a s i s o f an argument that the husband Andrews d i d not present v. M e r r i t t O i l Co., 612 So. 2d 409, 410 ("This C o u r t c a n n o t c o n s i d e r time on evidence appeal; and rather, arguments and court. our review considered a w a r d e d t h e w i f e an a t t o r n e y i s restricted by court's the See ( A l a . 1992) arguments r a i s e d f o r the A c c o r d i n g l y , we a f f i r m t h e t r i a l it to the t r i a l trial first t o the court."). j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as f e e i n t h e amount o f $20,000 a p r i v a t e - i n v e s t i g a t o r f e e i n t h e amount o f $3,000. The husband a l s o argues that the t r i a l court erred i n a w a r d i n g t h e w i f e p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y i n t h e amount o f $1,600 p e r month b e c a u s e , he s a y s , the t r i a l f a c t o r i n s e t t i n g t h a t amount, court considered only one i . e . , the husband's a d u l t e r y . We f i n d no m e r i t i n t h a t argument b e c a u s e i t i s a p p a r e n t f r o m the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment t h a t , i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e husband's 19 2081111 a d u l t e r y , the t r i a l court considered other f a c t o r s i n s e t t i n g t h e amount o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s p e r i o d i c - a l i m o n y o b l i g a t i o n , s u c h as the 13-year p a r t i e s had length of the marriage; the fact that a g r e e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d w o u l d work w h i l e t h e the wife s t a y e d a t home and t o o k c a r e o f t h e c h i l d r e n and t h e h o u s e h o l d d u r i n g the marriage; wife's support t h e f a c t t h a t t h e h u s b a n d had m i s u s e d t h e i n h e r i t a n c e , which for the wife squandered i t ; the the marriage; and would have f o l l o w i n g the lifestyle the provided divorce p a r t i e s had a source of i f he had not enjoyed the husband's g r e a t e r e a r n i n g during potential. F i n a l l y , the husband argues t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n a w a r d i n g t h e w i f e p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y i n t h e amount o f $1,600 p e r month b e c a u s e , he him because, he says, says, t h a t award w i l l after he pays financially child support cripple in the amount o f $1,780 p e r month and p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y i n t h e amount of pay $1,600 p e r month, he will be left h i s b a s i c monthly expenses i n the with only amount o f $1,814.69 to $1,605.31. 7 T h e h u s b a n d does n o t a r g u e t h a t any o f h i s o t h e r m o n t h l y f i n a n c i a l o b l i g a t i o n s s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d i n determining whether the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n awarding the w i f e p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y i n t h e amount o f $1,600 p e r month. B e c a u s e " [ i ] t i s n o t t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h i s c o u r t t o a d v o c a t e a p o s i t i o n on b e h a l f o f an a p p e l l a n t o r t o c r e a t e a l e g a l a r g u m e n t f o r t h e a p p e l l a n t , " S c h i e s z v. S c h i e s z , 941 So. 2d 279, 289 ( A l a . C i v . 7 20 2081111 The h u s b a n d c i t e s R u b e r t v. R u b e r t , 709 So. 2d 1283 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 8 ) , a n d W h e e l e s v. W h e e l e s , 770 So. 2d 635 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 0 ) , i n s u p p o r t o f t h i s a r g u m e n t . However, t h o s e c a s e s are factually distinguishable In Rubert, f r o m t h e c a s e now b e f o r e u s . t h e h u s b a n d ' s n e t i n c o m e was approximately $4,300 p e r month, w h i l e h i s l i v i n g e x p e n s e s , n o t i n c l u d i n g any amounts he s p e n t on t h e p a r t i e s ' 1 9 - y e a r - o l d m e n t a l l y i l l s o n , were between mentally $1,800 and $2,000 i l l son's monthly per expenses, month. Including the t h e husband's monthly l i v i n g e x p e n s e s t o t a l e d $2,500 t o $2,800 p e r month. The trial c o u r t o r d e r e d t h e husband t o pay t h e w i f e p e r i o d i c alimony i n the that amount o f $2,200 p e r month her l i v i n g expenses were despite only evidence $1,800 indicating p e r month. This c o u r t h e l d t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t had e r r e d i n awarding the w i f e periodic that alimony i n t h e amount award exceeded the wife's o f $2,200 p e r month b e c a u s e needs and would leave h u s b a n d w i t h o n l y $2,100 p e r month o f h i s n e t p a y w i t h the which t o p a y $2,500 t o $2,800 p e r month i n e x p e n s e s f o r h i m s e l f a n d App. 2 0 0 6 ) , we w i l l c o n s i d e r o n l y t h e h u s b a n d ' s m o n t h l y o b l i g a t i o n s t o pay c h i l d s u p p o r t , p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y , and h i s b a s i c expenses i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n a w a r d i n g t h e w i f e p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y i n t h e amount o f $1,600 p e r month. 21 2081111 the p a r t i e s ' m e n t a l l y i l l son. In Wheeles, t h e husband's n e t income, i n c l u d i n g pay, overtime was a p p r o x i m a t e l y $3,800 p e r month. However, he t e s t i f i e d t h a t o v e r t i m e work, w h i c h h a d b e e n p l e n t i f u l was no years. longer available His basic living as often as in prior i t had been e x p e n s e s were $1,627.98 years, i n prior p e r month. The t r i a l c o u r t o r d e r e d h i m t o p a y c h i l d s u p p o r t i n t h e amount of $1,044 p e r month and p e r i o d i c $1,150 p e r month. N o t i n g t h a t , the husband's availability only $1,230 support income, alimony i n t h e amount of even the h i g h e s t e s t i m a t e o f i . e . , $3,800, which presupposed the o f o v e r t i m e work, w o u l d l e a v e t h e h u s b a n d w i t h t o pay p e r i o d i c i n t h e amount alimony o f $1,044 e x p e n s e s o f $1,628, t h i s after p e r month paying h i s c h i l d and h i s m o n t h l y court held that the t r i a l c o u r t had e r r e d i n a w a r d i n g t h e w i f e p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y i n t h e amount o f $1,150 p e r month, w h i c h was o n l y $80 l e s s t h a n t h e b a l a n c e o f the h u s b a n d ' s n e t i n c o m e r e m a i n i n g a f t e r he p a i d h i s m o n t h l y c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n and h i s b a s i c In the case now before us, 22 expenses. the husband's net income 2081111 a v e r a g e d $5,337.22 p e r m o n t h . 8 His basic living expenses are $1,605.31 p e r month. The t r i a l c o u r t o r d e r e d h i m t o p a y $1,780 per month i n c h i l d s u p p o r t a n d $1,600 p e r month i n p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y . A f t e r p a y i n g h i s m o n t h l y c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n and his b a s i c m o n t h l y e x p e n s e s , he w i l l be l e f t w i t h a b a l a n c e o f $1,951.91 e a c h month t o p a y p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y i n t h e amount o f $1,600 p e r month. T h u s , he w i l l net pay each obligation, month after h i s monthly paying basic be l e f t $351.91 o f h i s h i s monthly expenses, p e r i o d i c - a l i m o n y a w a r d e d by t h e t r i a l the with child-support and the monthly court. Accordingly, i n c a s e now b e f o r e u s , t h e f i n a n c i a l i m p a c t on t h e h u s b a n d o f the periodic alimony awarded by the trial court is s u b s t a n t i a l l y l e s s t h a n i t was on t h e h u s b a n d s i n R u b e r t a n d W h e e l e s . C o n s e q u e n t l y , we f i n d no e r r o r i n t h e t r i a l court's a w a r d i n g t h e w i f e p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y i n t h e amount o f $1,600 p e r month i n t h e c a s e now b e f o r e u s , a n d we a f f i r m t h a t a s p e c t o f the trial The c o u r t ' s judgment. wife's request f o r an attorney f e e on appeal i s denied. I t was $5,412.82 i n M a r c h 2009 a n d $5,261.63 i n A p r i l 2009. The a v e r a g e o f t h o s e two amounts i s $5,337.22. 8 23 2081111 AFFIRMED. Thompson, concur. P . J . , and Pittman, 24 Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . ,

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.