Harold Bernard Powe v. Corrine Powe

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/20/09 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 2080557 H a r o l d Bernard Powe v. C o r r i n e Powe Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t (DR-07-900567) Court THOMAS, J u d g e . Harold ("the Bernard Powe ("the husband") w i f e " ) were m a r r i e d i n J a n u a r y 1982. and C o r r i n e Powe I n June 2005, t h e w i f e moved o u t o f t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e , p r o m p t i n g t h e h u s b a n d to f i l e a complaint s e e k i n g a d i v o r c e i n November 2007. After 2080557 a trial, court at which only the two parties e n t e r e d a judgment d i v o r c i n g the testified, parties and t h e i r p r o p e r t y ; t h e j u d g m e n t f u r t h e r a d d r e s s e d , by c u s t o d y o f t h e p a r t i e s ' m i n o r c h i l d and The the t r i a l court husband's m i l i t a r y - r e t i r e m e n t was receiving military-retirement and time of the trial. the wife of arguing that Ala. a portion the Code 1975, dividing agreement, support. The a f t e r 20 of The his husband years of military-retirement benefits, subject of to c e r t a i n 30-2-51(b) the at the award to benefits, requirements set § 30-2-51(b), which permits a t r i a l spouse a p o r t i o n service. benefits husband appeals the award v i o l a t e s the other spouse's out in court to retirement requirements. reads: "(b) The j u d g e , a t h i s o r h e r d i s c r e t i o n , may i n c l u d e i n the e s t a t e of e i t h e r spouse the p r e s e n t v a l u e o f any f u t u r e o r c u r r e n t r e t i r e m e n t benefits, t h a t a s p o u s e may have a v e s t e d i n t e r e s t i n o r may be r e c e i v i n g on t h e d a t e t h e a c t i o n f o r d i v o r c e i s f i l e d , p r o v i d e d t h a t the f o l l o w i n g c o n d i t i o n s are met: 2 had month i n c o m b i n e d military-disability a w a r d one Section benefits. a p p r o x i m a t e l y $1,428 p e r divorce trial a l s o a w a r d e d t h e w i f e $500 p e r month f r o m r e t i r e d f r o m t h e m i l i t a r y i n 1999, He child the 2080557 "(1) The p a r t i e s have b e e n m a r r i e d a p e r i o d o f 10 y e a r s d u r i n g w h i c h r e t i r e m e n t was b e i n g a c c u m u l a t e d . for the "(2) The c o u r t s h a l l n o t i n c l u d e i n t h e e s t a t e t h e v a l u e o f any retirement b e n e f i t s a c q u i r e d p r i o r to the marriage i n c l u d i n g any i n t e r e s t o r a p p r e c i a t i o n o f the b e n e f i t s . "(3) The total amount of the retirement benefits payable to the non-covered spouse s h a l l not exceed 50 p e r c e n t o f t h e r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s t h a t may be c o n s i d e r e d by t h e c o u r t . " The husband argues both t h a t the w i f e f a i l e d to e s t a b l i s h t h e p r e s e n t v a l u e o f h i s m i l i t a r y - r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s and that t h e w i f e f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h e amount o f t h o s e b e n e f i t s t h a t accrued during the p a r t i e s ' marriage. Because the f a i l e d t o a r g u e t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h a t t h e w i f e had husband failed p r o v e t h e amount o f h i s m i l i t a r y - r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s t h a t accrued during issue. See t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e , we K i l l i n g s w o r t h v. 983 ( A l a . C i v . App. the trial present In court value the the K i l l i n g s w o r t h , 925 So. 2d had that 977, However, t h e h u s b a n d d i d r a i s e i n issue whether of h i s r e t i r e m e n t general, establish 2005). cannot address to this court has present value of 3 the wife had proved the the failure to benefits at benefits. held the that retirement 2080557 i s s u e p r e c l u d e s an award o f a p o r t i o n o f t h o s e b e n e f i t s § under 30-3-51(b). " I n W i l s o n v. W i l s o n , 941 So. 2d 967 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ; A p p l e g a t e v. A p p l e g a t e , 863 So. 2d 1123 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) ; and M c A l p i n e v. M c A l p i n e , 865 So. 2d 438, 440 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) , t h i s c o u r t h e l d t h a t , i n o r d e r t o s u p p o r t an award t o one spouse o f a p o r t i o n o f the o t h e r spouse's r e t i r e m e n t benefits pursuant to § 30-2-51(b), the spouse seeking s u c h an award must i n t r o d u c e evidence e s t a b l i s h i n g the ' p r e s e n t v a l u e ' of the r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s . Moreover, t h i s c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t ' " [ t ] h e f a i l u r e to present the necessary evidence of the present valuation of retirement benefits ... p r e v e n t s t h e t r i a l c o u r t f r o m e x e r c i s i n g i t s ... d i s c r e t i o n t o award one s p o u s e any p o r t i o n o f t h e r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s o f t h e o t h e r s p o u s e . M c A l p i n e v. M c A l p i n e , 865 So. 2d 438 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) . " ' W i l s o n , 941 So. 2d a t 970 ( q u o t i n g A p p l e g a t e , 863 So. 2d a t 1124) Brattmiller App. v. Brattmiller, So. 2d 359, 362 (Ala. Civ. 2007). More recently, 2070724, A p r i l 2009), however, 24, 2009] we indicated r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s was monthly benefits So. 3d that the v. , Campbell, [Ms. ( A l a . C i v . App. was already present receiving value of the p r o v e d by e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e amount o f the r e t i r e e present case, l i k e monthly i n Campbell i n a case i n which the r e t i r e e benefits, the 975 was the husband military-retirement receiving. husband in i n Campbell, i s r e c e i v i n g benefits. 4 The However, unlike the 2080557 husband i n Campbell, the receiving, as disability a part of his monthly b e n e f i t s , which are divorce. S t o n e v. So. , 3d Mansell, husband i n the p r e s e n t case i s a l s o Stone, (Ala. 490 U.S. Although 581, the not [Ms. Civ. 584 retirement benefits, that the year, the App. does benefits and not $1,085 p e r tax not established our the b e n e f i t s t o be the Mansell the month. The a retirement husband's portion return are for remainder disability 2006 are of benefits indicates $13,020 the per husband's disability benefits, wife is holding present i n Campbell, the value of $1,085 p e r month. less than 50% the The which of evidence at husband's the present value 5 the husband f a i l e d t o argue to the t r i a l c o u r t t h a t § 30-2-51(b)(2) to the month of Because the award of h i s m i l i t a r y - r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s trial retirement a w a r d o f $500 p e r husband's m i l i t a r y - r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s . an v. taxable. B a s e d on to upon 2009] (citing pension benefits $1,428 i n b e n e f i t s , t h e n , must be are 26, contain of what joint husband's t a x a b l e or $1, 428, to d i v i s i o n June 2009) of (1989)). record parties' subject 2070861, s t a t e m e n t i n d i c a t i n g what p o r t i o n are benefit barred wife, we 2080557 must a f f i r m t h e a w a r d o f $500 p e r month i n m i l i t a r y - r e t i r e m e n t benefits to the wife. AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman, concur. 6 Bryan, and 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.