Tiffany Sasser Meek v. William Patrick Meek

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 6/24/11 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 R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a 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, 2010-2011 2091110 Tiffany Sasser Meek v. W i l l i a m P a t r i c k Meek Appeal from Baldwin C i r c u i t Court (DR-06-589) BRYAN, J u d g e . T i f f a n y S a s s e r Meek ("the w i f e " ) a p p e a l s e n t e r e d by t h e Baldwin C i r c u i t Court ("the d i v o r c e d h e r f r o m W i l l i a m P a t r i c k Meek Procedural History from a judgment trial court") that ("the h u s b a n d " ) . 2091110 This this i s the second time court. these p a r t i e s have b e e n I n Meek v. Meek, 54 So. 3d 389 2 0 1 0 ) , we d i s m i s s e d t h e w i f e ' s i n i t i a l taken f r o m a n o n f i n a l j u d g m e n t . We ( A l a . C i v . App. appeal b e c a u s e i t was set forth f a c t s and p r o c e d u r a l h i s t o r y i n Meek, s u p r a , before the p e r t i n e n t as f o l l o w s : "The p a r t i e s m a r r i e d on M a r c h 11, 1995, and one c h i l d was b o r n o f t h e m a r r i a g e , a g i r l b o r n i n May 2003 ('the c h i l d ' ) . On June 1, 2006, t h e h u s b a n d f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t f o r a d i v o r c e on t h e g r o u n d s o f i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f temperament and an i r r e t r i e v a b l e breakdown o f t h e m a r r i a g e . In h i s complaint, the husband r e q u e s t e d t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e q u i t a b l y d i v i d e t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s and l i a b i l i t i e s of the p a r t i e s . On June 26, 2006, t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a 'standard' order ('the June 2006 o r d e r ' ) that a d d r e s s e d i s s u e s s u c h as c h i l d s u p p o r t , v i s i t a t i o n , t h e f i n a n c i a l o b l i g a t i o n s o f t h e p a r t i e s , and t h e d i s p o s a l o f a s s e t s d u r i n g the pendency of the d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g s . The c a s e was i n i t i a l l y s e t f o r t r i a l on September 26, 2006, b u t i t was c o n t i n u e d s e v e r a l t i m e s t h r o u g h o u t 2006 and 2007. "On November 26, 2007, t h e h u s b a n d f i l e d a motion s e e k i n g t o h o l d the w i f e i n contempt because, he a l l e g e d , t h e w i f e h a d r e s t r i c t e d h i s v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d in violation of the v i s i t a t i o n p r o v i s i o n s i n t h e June 2006 o r d e r . The t r i a l c o u r t c o n d u c t e d an o r e t e n u s h e a r i n g on t h e p e n d i n g divorce complaints and t h e h u s b a n d ' s m o t i o n f o r c o n t e m p t on May 2, 2008, on J u l y 31, 2008, and on November 12, 2008. "On A p r i l 14, 2009, t h e w i f e f i l e d an ' I n s t a n t e r M o t i o n t o R e q u i r e C o m p l i a n c e w i t h [ t h e June 2006 o r d e r ] ' ('the w i f e ' s m o t i o n f o r c o n t e m p t ' ) . I n t h a t m o t i o n , t h e w i f e a l l e g e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was i n c o n t e m p t o f p a r a g r a p h f o u r o f t h e June 2006 o r d e r , 2 2091110 which ordered the p a r t i e s ' t o pay debts i n c u r r e d d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e a n d any o t h e r r e g u l a r , r e c u r r i n g 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 ... i n t h e same manner and f r o m t h e same s o u r c e s as t h e y have c u s t o m a r i l y been p a i d d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e . ' The w i f e also alleged that the husband was i n contempt o f p a r a g r a p h f i v e o f t h e June 2006 o r d e r , w h i c h o r d e r e d that ' [ t ] h e p a r t i e s s h a l l not dispose of assets acquired during the marriage without leave of court, e x c e p t where n e c e s s a r y i n t h e n o r m a l a n d r e a s o n a b l e c o u r s e o f b u s i n e s s . ' As n o t e d i n t h e w i f e ' s m o t i o n for c o n t e m p t , t h e June 2006 o r d e r was s t i l l i n e f f e c t because t h e t r i a l c o u r t had n o t e n t e r e d a n o t h e r o r d e r c h a n g i n g o r amending t h e p r o v i s i o n s i n t h e June 2006 o r d e r . "The t r i a l c o u r t c o n d u c t e d a h e a r i n g on t h e w i f e ' s m o t i o n f o r c o n t e m p t on May 4, 2009. A t r a n s c r i p t f r o m t h a t h e a r i n g i s i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l , and, d u r i n g t h e h e a r i n g , t h e t r i a l court s t a t e d t h a t a ' d r a f t o r d e r ' had been s e n t v i a e l e c t r o n i c m a i l ('e-mail') t o t h e p a r t i e s ' a t t o r n e y s shortly after the f i n a l ore tenus h e a r i n g i n November 2 0 0 8 ; a p p a r e n t l y , t h e d r a f t o r d e r c o n t a i n e d c e r t a i n p r o v i s i o n s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t wanted t o i n c l u d e i n t h e f i n a l j u d g m e n t . The t r i a l court d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e d r a f t o r d e r s e n t v i a e - m a i l was as e f f e c t i v e as i f t h e d e c i s i o n s s e t f o r t h i n t h e d r a f t o r d e r h a d b e e n ' v e r b a l l y o r d e r e d ... f r o m t h e b e n c h . ' The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e w i f e ' s motion f o r contempt had been f i l e d a f t e r a d e c i s i o n had been rendered, a p p a r e n t l y r e f e r r i n g t o t h e d r a f t o r d e r t h a t was s e n t v i a e - m a i l . Thus, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t , t h e June 2006 o r d e r was no l o n g e r i n e f f e c t a t t h e t i m e t h a t t h e w i f e ' s m o t i o n f o r c o n t e m p t was f i l e d . F o l l o w i n g t h e h e a r i n g on t h e w i f e ' s m o t i o n f o r c o n t e m p t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r t h a t s t a t e d : 'The [ w i f e ] ' s [ m o t i o n f o r c o n t e m p t ] w i l l be t a k e n as a M o t i o n t o A l t e r , Amend, o r V a c a t e upon the e n t r y o f the F i n a l Decree i n t h i s matter.'" 3 2091110 Id. a t 391-92 The trial (footnotes court purported d i v o r c e on June 26, 2009 not rule motions. on The w i f e nonfinal and to enter a final judgment o f ("the June 2009 o r d e r " ) , b u t i t d i d the husband's or the wife's pending appealed that purported c o u r t , and we c o n c l u d e d was omitted). contempt judgment t o t h i s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s June 2009 unappealable because the t r i a l court order had f a i l e d t o r u l e on t h e p e n d i n g c o n t e m p t m o t i o n s . I d . a t 393-94. A f t e r the d i s m i s s a l of the wife's appeal, the t r i a l conducted f u r t h e r proceedings a final on A u g u s t 12, 2010, and j u d g m e n t o f d i v o r c e on A u g u s t 13, 2010. court entered Pursuant to t h a t j u d g m e n t , t h e w i f e was a w a r d e d l e g a l and p h y s i c a l custody of the c h i l d , s u b j e c t t o the s p e c i f i c v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s of the husband. Regarding c h i l d support, the t r i a l court s t a t e d that i t had d e v i a t e d from the c h i l d - s u p p o r t g u i d e l i n e s s e t f o r t h i n Rule 32, special support, A l a . R. diet, J u d . Admin., due and a w a r d e d t h e w i f e but the t r i a l i n part $1,500 to the child's a month i n c h i l d c o u r t a l l o w e d the husband t o c l a i m the i n c o m e - t a x e x e m p t i o n f o r t h e c h i l d u n t i l t h e w i f e was e m p l o y e d for more t h a n s i x months. health insurance The h u s b a n d was o r d e r e d to provide f o r t h e c h i l d , and he was o r d e r e d t o pay a l l 4 2091110 the child's ordered unpaid medical t o pay one-half expenses. The h u s b a n d was a l s o o f t h e w i f e ' s COBRA i n s u r a n c e f o r 24 months. The w i f e was a w a r d e d 24 months o f r e h a b i l i t a t i v e i n t h e amount o f $2,700 a month. right t o award future. and The t r i a l c o u r t r e s e r v e d t h e permanent p e r i o d i c alimony i n the The t r i a l c o u r t a w a r d e d t h e h u s b a n d a l l r i g h t , interest husband i n and t o t h e m a r t i a l r e s i d e n c e , t o p a y o f f any l i a b i l i t i e s residence, However, and o r d e r e d the m a r i t a l secured title, ordered the by t h e m a r i t a l residence t o be sold. t h e w i f e was a w a r d e d a l l t h e e q u i t y i n t h e m a r i t a l residence expenses after the f o r making residence. title, the wife alimony The t r i a l residence sold, necessary court less repairs awarded the to the husband's marital t h e husband a l l r i g h t , and i n t e r e s t i n and t o a l l r e a l p r o p e r t y i n h i s name, and i t f o u n d t h a t s u c h p r o p e r t y was n o t m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y . The w i f e was a w a r d e d 1 0 0 % o f t h e f u n d s i n t h e h u s b a n d ' s retirement account as o f November husband's l o a n a g a i n s t t h e account. his vehicle, her vehicle after 12, 2008, excluding the The h u s b a n d was a w a r d e d a n d t h e w i f e was a w a r d e d 1 0 0 % o f t h e e q u i t y i n i t was s o l d a n d t h e r e m a i n i n g 5 d e b t on t h e 2091110 v e h i c l e was p a i d . E a c h p a r t y was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r d e b t s i n h i s o r h e r name f r o m November 12, 2008, forward, each p a r t y was awarded t h e p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y i n h i s or h e r p o s s e s s i o n , e x c e p t the husband was awarded a pitcher, a miniature yacht, and f a m i l y p h o t o g r a p h s t h a t were i n the wife's possession. The husband $10,000 the was ordered wife's attorney's t o pay t o w a r d payment of fees. The h u s b a n d ' s November 2007 m o t i o n f o r c o n t e m p t and t h e wife's A p r i l the t r i a l 2009 m o t i o n f o r c o n t e m p t were d e n i e d . However, c o u r t found t h a t t h e husband had f a i l e d t o pay a l l sums due p u r s u a n t t o t h e June 2006 o r d e r , and t h e t r i a l ordered the husband t o p a y $14,413 to the wife. court The wife timely appealed. Issues The w i f e r a i s e s f o u r i s s u e s f o r t h i s c o u r t t o c o n s i d e r on a p p e a l : (1) w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t e x c e e d e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n fashioning evidence the husband's presented; (2) visitation whether the rights trial in light court of the erred by d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t t h e h u s b a n d owed o n l y $14,413 p u r s u a n t t o t h e June 2006 order; (3) w h e t h e r the t r i a l court exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d i v i d i n g t h e p a r t i e s ' p r o p e r t y and a w a r d i n g h e r 6 2091110 o n l y 24 months o f r e h a b i l i t a t i v e a l i m o n y ; and (4) w h e t h e r trial the court exemption erred f o r the by awarding child until the she husband maintained the income-tax employment for s i x months. Facts The parties separated i n May 2006, m a r r i a g e . A t t h a t t i m e , t h e h u s b a n d was old, was the w i f e 3 weeks 36 old. The child been b o r n premature, and she maladies, as c h i l d was w e l l as had The years from wife of 38 years the y e a r s o l d , and suffered autism. 11 approximately approximately years was after child approximately numerous medical maintained s e v e r e l y a u t i s t i c and t h a t t h e c h i l d was 20 that the required to maintain a s t r i c t gluten/casein-free d i e t i n order to p r o h i b i t autistic trial, The was regression. the child I t was undisputed r e q u i r e d near constant t h a t , at the i f the child deny t h a t t h e c h i l d had was autistic. a gluten/casein-free the medical child's premature b i r t h . The The c o n d i t i o n was diet, he he believed because of her had not required but h u s b a n d s t a t e d t h a t he 7 that husband d i d s p e c i a l needs o r t h a t she was to maintain of care. husband i n d i c a t e d , throughout h i s testimony, unsure time that extremely seen great 2091110 improvements i n t h e c h i l d and t h a t , d e s p i t e h e r d e v e l o p m e n t a l d e l a y s , he b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e c h i l d w o u l d be a b l e t o c a r e f o r h e r s e l f a t some p o i n t i n t h e f u t u r e . The wife t e s t i f i e d that the progress t h e c h i l d h a d made was due t o a s t a b l e e n v i r o n m e n t a n d a r i g o r o u s therapy, hours schedule i n c l u d i n g s i x h o u r s a week o f s p e e c h t h e r a p y , a week occupational therapy. of hyperbaric therapy, the c h i l d that the treatment and two hours that each received child's two h o u r s stated The w i f e which therapy, three doctor u n t i l after had the divorce week of of physical treatment, a week, c o s t $100 b u t been was charging finalized. s t a t e d t h a t she w a n t e d t h e f u n d s i n t h e h u s b a n d ' s a c c o u n t t o be u t i l i z e d t o p u r c h a s e a h y p e r b a r i c she seven a week hyperbaric times not a of her f o r The wife retirement chamber t h a t c o u l d u s e a t home, w h i c h she e s t i m a t e d w o u l d c o s t b e t w e e n $16,000 a n d $18,000. The wife approximately allowed that estimated $1,000 a month. the c h i l d i t had behaviors. that the c h i l d ' s special diet cost The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d t o e a t i c e cream on h e r t h i r d b i r t h d a y a n d caused The w i f e the child to regress into s t a t e d t h a t she h a d m a i n t a i n e d 8 autistic a strict 2091110 diet f o r the c h i l d since that time, but, according to the w i f e , t h e h u s b a n d h a d no u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the child's medical limitations she m a i n t a i n or the requirement that a g l u t e n / c a s e i n - f r e e d i e t . The c h i l d t o o k 12 d i f f e r e n t and medications every day, which cost strict vitamins approximately $200 a h u s b a n d s t a t e d t h a t he h a d o b e y e d t h e c h i l d ' s dietary month. The r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a n d t h a t he i n t e n d e d those recommendations. t o continue t o adhere t o The h u s b a n d s t a t e d t h a t he h a d b a t h e d the c h i l d , p r e p a r e d h e r meals, f e d her, brushed h e r t e e t h , and administered The her medication w h e n e v e r he was home f r o m work. w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a f t e r t h e husband took t h e c h i l d t o M o b i l e B a y i n J u n e 2007 d u r i n g a v i s i t , the c h i l d exhibited symptoms i n d i c a t i n g t h a t s h e h a d r e g r e s s e d a n d a l s o r o t a v i r u s , pneumonia, and asthma. contracted The h u s b a n d s t a t e d t h a t he had a l l o w e d t h e c h i l d t o p u t h e r l e g s i n M o b i l e Bay, was no i n d i c a t i o n , other than the wife's actions illnesses. However, f r o m t h a t p o i n t f o r w a r d , husband t o remain periods with the c h i l d , a direct testimony, husband's the were a t h e r home cause of the thewife during and t h e w i f e requested 9 and t h e r e that the child's required his visitation that the t r i a l 2091110 court require the husband to v i s i t a t i o n periods with husband c o u l d v i s i t as he the the c a l l e d f i r s t , as remain child. child i n her The had will he n e v e r be cannot a day come." welcome t o v i s i t had not child of the wife as and f o o d t h a t was not wife stated that that I w i l l that a n y t i m e he "there tell him husband the was c h o s e t o and that understanding c h i l d ' s m e d i c a l c o n d i t i o n posed a danger t o the the r e a s o n she v i s i t the c h i l d w i t h o u t her the use of the child d i d not be detrimental to or the child want t h e h u s b a n d s u p e r v i s i o n . She a l c o h o l , smokeless tobacco, would she visitations. s t a t e d t h a t the husband's l a c k of t h a t t h a t was long been d r i n k i n g , The testified an " o p e n - d o o r p o l i c y " f o r The and the later the c a l l s me t h a t i f he She stated that would l i k e , as l o n g as he d i d n o t t r y t o f e e d t h e c h i l d w i t h i n her d i e t a r y r e s t r i c t i o n s . his wife a n y t i m e he l o n g as he home d u r i n g also stated cigarettes child. The that around husband a d m i t t e d t h a t he d r a n k a l c o h o l and u s e d s m o k e l e s s t o b a c c o , the wife stated that the h u s b a n d had smokeless tobacco around the One refused to to stop and using child. o f t h e c h i l d ' s d o c t o r s , Dr. Mary Megson, i n d i c a t e d i n a l e t t e r d a t e d A u g u s t 1, 2006, t h a t t h e 10 flicker of l i g h t s on 2091110 l o n g c a r r i d e s o v e r s t i m u l a t e d t h e c h i l d ' s nervous system and could lead to migraines and a u t i s t i c regression. The wife t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d n o t t r a v e l e d w i t h t h e c h i l d a f t e r she learned of her autism traveling caused the c h i l d d i a g n o s i s b e c a u s e , she s a i d , t o go i n t o a " z o m b i e - l i k e " s t a t e , a n d , she b e l i e v e d , i t was c o n t r a r y t o t h e c h i l d ' s w e l l b e i n g f o r h e r t o t r a v e l any d i s t a n c e o t h e r t h a n t o g e t t r e a t m e n t . husband stated before and to that the c h i l d A t l a n t a , Georgia, to Destin, Florida -- complained of migraines her behavior. child's child The wear wife while on long t o Ocean S p r i n g , and that the child should not Andrea Pointer, stated about that dark-tinted traveling, but glasses the never to the f o r the ophthalmologist, recommended that travel. the child's speech April 2004. A t the time child was and t e s t i f i e d t h a t she began t r e a t i n g o f t h e November r e c e i v i n g therapy and f i v e had she h a d s p o k e n pathologist, from P o i n t e r Mississippi, child r e l y i n g on D r . Megson's A u g u s t 2006 l e t t e r , the car rides a n d he h a d n o t n o t i c e d any change i n ophthalmologist to had been However, t h e other approximately language the c h i l d i n 2008 h e a r i n g , days a week therapists for a total of s i x 11 five the 2091110 h o u r s o f t h e r a p y a week. the child spinning engage in in P o i n t e r s t a t e d t h a t she h a d o b s e r v e d self-stimulatory circles, when she was behaviors, not in a e n v i r o n m e n t o r when t h e r e h a d been any s l i g h t environment. such as controlled change i n h e r P o i n t e r s t a t e d t h a t t h e c h i l d has a c o m p r o m i s e d immune s y s t e m b e c a u s e she was b o r n p r e m a t u r e . After the parties F a i r h o p e , where the the p a r t i e s family the husband moved h a d been l i v i n g , t o E l b a , By the time where 2008 h e a r i n g , t h e h u s b a n d was l i v i n g i n a h o u s e i n E n t e r p r i s e with girlfriend. lived. from of the J u l y his husband's separated, A c c o r d i n g t o t h e husband, the w i f e would not a l l o w the husband t o take the c h i l d to Enterprise, which i s approximately a three-hour d r i v e from F a i r h o p e , f o r v i s i t a t i o n b e c a u s e she was o p p o s e d t o t h e c h i l d ' s r i d i n g a long i n a vehicle for period. At the time the p a r t i e s separated and throughout the p r o c e e d i n g s b e l o w , t h e h u s b a n d w o r k e d as an e n g i n e e r on an o i l rig and h i s gross approximately $117,000 consecutive weeks weeks of off monthly income a year. e a c h month work. The was The and wife 12 $9,746 a month, husband worked then had worked or f o r two two consecutive as a teacher, 2091110 specifically, a s p e e c h and language p a t h o l o g i s t , i n Baldwin C o u n t y u n t i l e a r l y 2003 when she s u f f e r e d c o m p l i c a t i o n s during her earned child. At a p p r o x i m a t e l y $32,000 a y e a r , but the pregnancy w i t h workforce. the The husband that time, the w i f e acknowledged the w i f e never returned that the wife s t a y e d home t o c a r e f o r t h e c h i l d s i n c e h e r b i r t h and had b e e n an e x c e l l e n t c a r e t a k e r h u s b a n d s t a t e d t h a t he why d i d not f o r the there had that she However, child. believe to the was any reason t h e w i f e c o u l d n o t go b a c k t o work once t h e c h i l d started school. The wife testified that she desired to return to when t h e t i m e came t h a t t h e c h i l d d i d n o t r e q u i r e h e r care. The wife a l s o s t a t e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t she was work constant no longer q u a l i f i e d t o work as a s p e e c h and l a n g u a g e p a t h o l o g i s t b e c a u s e her c e r t i f i c a t i o n had expired. The t o r e t u r n t o work as a s p e e c h and required to obtain h u s b a n d be r e q u i r e d t o pay At the that condition stated would the change the tuition time of i t in was the 13 order l a n g u a g e p a t h o l o g i s t she a m a s t e r ' s d e g r e e , and master's degree. wife wife stated that i n the asked that f o r her the to obtain her November 2008 unlikely next she that several was hearing, the years child's so as to 2091110 a l l o w h e r t o o b t a i n t h e c e r t i f i c a t i o n she n e e d e d t o r e t u r n t o work. The p a r t i e s t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y h a d a t t e m p t e d t o e n r o l l the c h i l d i n s c h o o l before they separated, special the diet, husband, the school the c h i l d school i n the f a l l but, because of her would not accept her. According had told him o f 2008, b u t t h e r e that she was starting i s no i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e c h i l d h a d a c t u a l l y begun s c h o o l a t t h a t time. The w i f e s t a t e d t h a t she d i d n o t t h i n k t h a t t h e c h i l d , who f i v e y e a r s o l d a t t h e t i m e o f t h e November 2008 h e a r i n g , be able to attend public or p r i v a t e school visual, other auditory, reasons. The s t a t e d that the c h i l d and wife tactile admitted was would because of her c o m p r o m i s e d immune s y s t e m , h e r i n a b i l i t y t o be v a c c i n a t e d , her to and h y p e r s e n s i t i v i t y , among that w o u l d n o t be a b l e Dr. Megson h a d to attend school not at some p o i n t i n t h e f u t u r e . The husband stated that the p a r t i e s had p u r c h a s e d the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e i n November 2005 f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y $425,000. T h e r e were two m o r t g a g e s e n c u m b e r i n g t h e m a r i t a l residence, which t o t a l e d approximately $395,000 i n May 2006, and the t o t a l m o n t h l y m o r t g a g e payment was $2,670. The h u s b a n d s t a t e d t h a t he was w i l l i n g t o a l l o w t h e w i f e t o k e e p t h e f u r n i s h i n g s 14 2091110 in the m a r t i a l residence, w h i c h he valued $50,000. By t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f t r i a l , t h e r e was no e q u i t y i n the m a r i t a l At the time of t r i a l , pieces at approximately the p a r t i e s agreed t h a t residence. an i n t e r e s t i n two i n E l b a : a one-quarter i n t e r e s t i n a of p r o p e r t y t h e h u s b a n d had 20- a c r e t r a c t o f l a n d , w h i c h i s what r e m a i n e d f r o m a l a r g e r t r a c t he had i n h e r i t e d an i n t e r e s t i n f r o m h i s f a t h e r , and t h i r d i n t e r e s t i n 162 acres of t i m b e r l a n d from the husband's g r a n d f a t h e r his brother. The wife's p i e c e of p r o p e r t y . The the p a r t i e s separated, sale of p a r t interest of the not one- t h a t had been a g i f t t o the husband, h i s mother, name was on the title and to e i t h e r record i n d i c a t e s that, s h o r t l y before t h e h u s b a n d r e c e i v e d $56,000 f r o m tract i n from h i s a of father. land t h a t he According 1 had the i n h e r i t e d an to the husband, he deposited t h a t money i n t o an a c c o u n t he h e l d j o i n t l y w i t h the wife that, had and depleted those in approximately funds so that two only weeks, $2,000 the wife remained. husband i n d i c a t e d t h a t h i s o n e - q u a r t e r i n t e r e s t i n the The 20-acre T h e r e i s an i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t , a f t e r t h e s a l e o f p a r t o f t h e t r a c t o f l a n d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d had i n h e r i t e d an i n t e r e s t i n f r o m h i s f a t h e r , h i s o n e - q u a r t e r i n t e r e s t i n 20 a c r e s was a l l t h a t remained of h i s i n h e r i t a n c e from h i s father. 1 15 2091110 tract o f l a n d h a d n e v e r b e e n u s e d f o r t h e common b e n e f i t o f t h e p a r t i e s . The h u s b a n d s t a t e d t h a t he h a d a l l o w e d to share could h i s interest build a boat i n that ramp on land f o r $2,500 the property. a friend so t h a t The man husband i n d i c a t e d t h a t he h a d n o t t r a n s f e r r e d a d e e d t o h i s f r i e n d a n d t h a t i t had been a "handshake" d e a l . t r a c t of timberland, t o 10 y e a r s b e f o r e of timber Regarding t h e 162-acre t h e husband s t a t e d t h a t , a p p r o x i m a t e l y trial, 8 "we" r e c e i v e d $10,000 f r o m t h e s a l e on t h a t l a n d . The h u s b a n d d i d n o t i n d i c a t e w h e t h e r he a n d t h e w i f e o r he a n d h i s b r o t h e r $10,000 f r o m t h e s a l e o f t i m b e r . and mother had r e c e i v e d T h e r e i s a l s o no e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e money r e c e i v e d f r o m t h e s a l e o f timber was u s e d f o r t h e common b e n e f i t o f t h e p a r t i e s . The wife $40,000. drove a BMW 525 t h a t The h u s b a n d h a d b e e n p a y i n g t h e husband valued at the wife's monthly c a r payment i n t h e amount o f $545 a month, a n d , a c c o r d i n g to the h u s b a n d , t h e p a r t i e s owed $23,000 on t h e w i f e ' s v e h i c l e . The h u s b a n d d r o v e a 2003 T o y o t a t r u c k t h a t was p a i d f o r , a n d he estimated The stated that that h i s truck was w o r t h he h a d a p p r o x i m a t e l y $10,000. $12,550 in a husband retirement a c c o u n t a n d t h a t t h a t amount h a d b e e n a c c u m u l a t e d d u r i n g t h e 16 2091110 marriage. However, account increased conclusion The the of the value by of the husband's approximately $4,000 income-tax refund i n 2008, w h i c h was t h e h u s b a n d w i t h an i t e m i z e d l i s t had used to support herself husband p r o j e c t e d divorced would husband testified $40,000 in be the wife t h a t money child after The girlfriend on including he debt husband a trip t h a t h i s budget a f t e r the approximately that unsecured separated. had in spent a the name month. after testified that he six vacations West, F l o r i d a . The parties The approximately his approximately t o Key $4,355 accumulated t h a t he b o r r o w e d $4,000 t o f i n a n c e had and o f how The separated. The were the kept the p a r t i e s o v e r $17,000. presented parties before trial. h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e w i f e had been retirement the had parties taken his during 2007, husband stated that vacation and that s e v e r a l h u n d r e d d o l l a r s a t massage p a r l o r s and he a florist. The he h u s b a n d ' s a c t u a l e x p e n s e s t o t a l e d $1,890 a month, testified month towards t h a t he the had wife been p a y i n g and the 17 approximately c h i l d ' s expenses and $5,000 a since the 2091110 parties separated i n May parties' household bills month. According to separated, a month 2006. The usually the wife, wife stated that totaled around $7,000 while the parties a were t h e h u s b a n d h a d g i v e n h e r b e t w e e n $2,400 a n d $2,800 i n a d d i t i o n to paying t h e m o r t g a g e s on t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e . However, a f t e r t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e November hearing, the 2008 t h e h u s b a n d gave t h e w i f e b e t w e e n $1,000 a n d $1,545 a month, b u t he a l s o c o n t r i b u t e d $5,123 a month t o h o u s e h o l d expenses, i n c l u d i n g payment o f t h e m o r t g a g e s on t h e m a r i t a l residence. The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d n o t i f i e d t h e h u s b a n d t h a t she d i d n o t have enough money t o c a r e f o r t h e c h i l d o r t o p a y the u t i l i t y b i l l s a t the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e , the sell wife, the husband had t o l d t h e i r belongings. and, a c c o r d i n g t o her to l i g h t candles and t o The w i f e s t a t e d t h a t she h a d c r e d i t - c a r d d e b t i n h e r name o n l y i n t h e amount o f $85,000 t h a t h a d accumulated before submitted and a f t e r t h e p a r t i e s s e p a r a t e d . The w i f e an e x h i b i t o f h e r m o n t h l y e x p e n s e s , w h i c h t o t a l e d approximately $6,100 a month, n o t i n c l u d i n g t h e c o s t m o n t h l y m o r t g a g e s on t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e . Standard of Review 18 of the 2091110 "When a t r i a l c o u r t r e c e i v e s o r e t e n u s e v i d e n c e , i t s j u d g m e n t b a s e d on t h a t e v i d e n c e i s e n t i t l e d t o 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 on a p p e a l and w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d a b s e n t a s h o w i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e x c e e d e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n o r t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t i s so u n s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e as t o be p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y wrong. S c h o l l v. P a r s o n s , 655 So. 2d 1060, 1062 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1995). This 'presumption of c o r r e c t n e s s i s b a s e d i n p a r t on t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s unique a b i l i t y t o o b s e r v e t h e p a r t i e s and the witnesses and t o e v a l u a t e t h e i r credibility and demeanor.' L i t t l e t o n v. L i t t l e t o n , 741 So. 2d 1083, 1085 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1999). This c o u r t i s not p e r m i t t e d t o r e w e i g h t h e e v i d e n c e on a p p e a l and s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r t h a t of the t r i a l c o u r t . Somers v. McCoy, 777 So. 2d 141, 142 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2000). " S t o n e v. S t o n e , 26 So. 3d 1232, 1235-36 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) . Analysis I. The award of wife first argues t h a t the visitation to evidence presented and failure the to condition. that the residence grasp Visitation the trial husband court erred i n i t s in light of the evidence i n d i c a t i n g the seriousness of the and first visit should that, during that v i s i t , be court at the t h e w i f e was medical husband's child's In the d i v o r c e judgment, the t r i a l husband's the medical provided wife's required to "go o v e r w i t h t h e [ h u s b a n d ] t h e c h i l d ' s current m e d i c a l i s s u e s , d e s c r i b i n g them f u l l y , and she s h a l l 19 2091110 provide the [husband] w i t h a schedule of the c h i l d ' s t y p i c a l d a y . The [ h u s b a n d ] i n h i s f u t u r e v i s i t a t i o n i s t o a t t e m p t t o r e p l i c a t e t h e c h i l d ' s t y p i c a l day schedule as b e s t he c a n . The [ w i f e ] s h a l l ... e d u c a t [ e ] t h e [ h u s b a n d ] on t h e c h i l d ' s d i e t . The p a r t i e s s h a l l p r e p a r e a meal f o r t h e c h i l d t o g e t h e r and t h e y s h a l l f e e d t h e c h i l d . " The judgment visitation shall further provided take place that i n Fairhope t h e [ h u s b a n d ] s h a l l be a l l o w e d , the husband's f o r four hours, "but on t h a t d a y , t o t a k e c h i l d t o the Sunflower Cafe t o eat without [ w i f e ] ." occur The Enterprise, shopping husband's such ... the presence of the wife from was allowed and t h e w i f e together Saturday to other place transport f o r the c h i l d period. as until the Sunday at child to and t h e h u s b a n d were o r d e r e d f o r food visitation a t noon After those h u s b a n d was a w a r d e d " S c h e d u l e A" v i s i t a t i o n or the The h u s b a n d ' s n e x t two v i s i t s w i t h t h e c h i l d were t o i n Enterprise noon. next he deems t o go to eat during four visits, the the "at h i s residence appropriate .. .." 2 The judgment f u r t h e r s t a t e d : "e. [The husband] is responsible for a l l P u r s u a n t t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s " S c h e d u l e A" v i s i t a t i o n s c h e d u l e , t h e h u s b a n d was a w a r d e d v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d on a l t e r n a t i n g weekends. Due t o t h e c h i l d ' s m e d i c a l a p p o i n t m e n t s o f F r i d a y a f t e r n o o n s , t h e h u s b a n d ' s v i s i t a t i o n p e r i o d began a t 11:00 a.m. on S a t u r d a y and e n d e d a t 6:00 p.m. on Sunday. 2 20 2091110 t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and t r a n s p o r t a t i o n expense t o and from h i s p a r e n t i n g t i m e . I f t h e [wife] t r a n s p o r t s t h e c h i l d , t h e [husband] s h a l l p a y t h e e x p e n s e o f said transportation. " f . N e i t h e r p a r e n t s h a l l p e r m i t t h e c h i l d t o go i n t o any n a t u r a l w a t e r s , l i k e r i v e r s , b a y s , c r e e k s or ponds. "g. O n l y t h e s e p a r e n t s s h a l l d i s c i p l i n e t h e minor c h i l d and t h e y s h a l l n o t s u f f e r o r p e r m i t others to c o r p o r a l l y d i s c i p l i n e the c h i l d . "h. The [husband] s h a l l f u r t h e r be p e r m i t t e d t o see t h e m i n o r c h i l d a t any o t h e r t i m e he c a n i n F a i r h o p e , Alabama, a f t e r f i r s t p r o v i d i n g f o r t y - e i g h t (48) h o u r s n o t i c e t o t h e [ w i f e ] , c o n s e n t t o w h i c h s h a l l n o t be u n r e a s o n a b l y w i t h h e l d by t h e [ w i f e ] . " I . The [husband] s h a l l be a c c o r d e d t h e h o l i d a y s c h e d u l e i n k e e p i n g w i t h S c h e d u l e 'B' .... "j. The [husband] shall have v i s i t a t i o n i n k e e p i n g w i t h S c h e d u l e 'A' telephone "k. The [husband] c a n g e t e m e r g e n c y c a r e f o r t h e c h i l d , b u t any o t h e r t y p e o f m e d i c a l c a r e f o r t h e c h i l d s h a l l be l e f t t o t h e [ w i f e ] . " l . T h e r e s h a l l be no s m o k i n g anywhere a r o u n d the minor c h i l d , and n e i t h e r p a r e n t s h a l l s u f f e r nor p e r m i t t h e same. "m. T h e r e s h a l l be no s m o k e l e s s t o b a c c o anywhere a r o u n d t h e m i n o r c h i l d a n d no one s h a l l u s e t h i s tobacco w h i l e c a r i n g f o r the c h i l d . "n. T h e r e s h a l l be n o t h i n g u n s a n i t a r y a r o u n d t h e child, or a n y t h i n g t h a t would, to a reasonable p e r s o n , be deemed g e r m - l a d e n . "o. The child's diet, 21 as recommended by h e r 2091110 physicians, s h a l l be f o l l o w e d w i t h o u t exception. "p. [The husband] s h a l l n o t d r i n k a l c o h o l i n a n y form w h i l e c a r i n g f o r t h e minor c h i l d , o r w i t h i n t w e n t y - f o u r (24) h o u r s o f a s s u m i n g h e r c a r e . "q. N e i t h e r p a r t y s h a l l c o h a b i t w i t h a member o f t h e o p p o s i t e s e x t o whom he o r s h e i s n o t m a r r i e d n o r r e l a t e d b y b l o o d o r m a r r i a g e , a n d w i t h whom he or she i s s e x u a l l y i n t i m a t e , w h i l e c a r i n g f o r t h e minor c h i l d . " In 2010), trial P r a t t v. P r a t t , this court set forth court's a b i l i t y schedule 56 So. 3 d 638, 641 ( A l a . C i v . App. the a p p l i c a b l e law regarding t o d e t e r m i n e an a p p r o p r i a t e for a noncustodial visitation parent: "'The trial c o u r t has broad d i s c r e t i o n i n determining the v i s i t a t i o n rights of a noncustodial p a r e n t , a n d i t s d e c i s i o n i n t h i s r e g a r d w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d a b s e n t an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . ' C a r r v . B r o y l e s , 652 So. 2 d 299, 303 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 4 ) . In exercising i t s discretion over visitation matters, '"[t]he t r i a l court i s entrusted t o balance the r i g h t s o f t h e parents w i t h t h e c h i l d ' s best i n t e r e s t s t o f a s h i o n a v i s i t a t i o n award t h a t i s t a i l o r e d t o t h e s p e c i f i c f a c t s and circumstances o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l c a s e . " ' R a t l i f f v . R a t l i f f , 5 So. 3 d 570, 586 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) ( q u o t i n g N a u d i t t v . Haddock, 882 So. 2 d 364, 367 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) (plurality opinion)). A noncustodial parent g e n e r a l l y enjoys 'reasonable r i g h t s o f v i s i t a t i o n ' w i t h h i s o r h e r c h i l d r e n . N a y l o r v . Oden, 415 So. 2 d 1118, 1120 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 2 ) . However, t h o s e rights may be r e s t r i c t e d i n order to protect c h i l d r e n from conduct, c o n d i t i o n s , o r circumstances s u r r o u n d i n g t h e i r n o n c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t t h a t endanger t h e c h i l d r e n ' s h e a l t h , s a f e t y , o r w e l l - b e i n g . See Ex p a r t e Thompson, 51 So. 3d 265, 272 ( A l a . 2010) ('A 22 a 2091110 t r i a l court i n e s t a b l i s h i n g v i s i t a t i o n p r i v i l e g e s f o r a n o n c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t must c o n s i d e r t h e best i n t e r e s t s and w e l f a r e o f t h e m i n o r c h i l d and, where a p p r o p r i a t e , as i n t h i s c a s e , s e t c o n d i t i o n s on v i s i t a t i o n t h a t p r o t e c t the c h i l d . ' ) . In f a s h i o n i n g the a p p r o p r i a t e r e s t r i c t i o n s , out of r e s p e c t f o r the public policy encouraging interaction between n o n c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t s and t h e i r c h i l d r e n , see A l a . Code 1975, § 30-3-150 ( a d d r e s s i n g j o i n t custody), and § 30-3-160 (addressing Alabama Parent-Child R e l a t i o n s h i p P r o t e c t i o n A c t ) , the t r i a l court may n o t use an o v e r b r o a d r e s t r i c t i o n t h a t does more t h a n n e c e s s a r y t o p r o t e c t t h e c h i l d r e n . See S m i t h v. S m i t h , 887 So. 2d 257 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) , and S m i t h v. S m i t h , 599 So. 2d 1182, 1187 (Ala. Civ. App. 19 9 1 ) . " On appeal, the w i f e argues t h a t the t r i a l f a i l i n g t o p l a c e more r e s t r i c t i o n s with the child because: (1) Dr. court erred i n on t h e h u s b a n d ' s v i s i t a t i o n Megson recommended t h a t the c h i l d avoid lengthy unnecessary v e h i c u l a r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n ; t h e h u s b a n d was a typical u n w i l l i n g t o a d m i t t h a t t h e c h i l d was c h i l d her the husband would not age; and not (2) like (3) t h e e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t f o l l o w the v i s i t a t i o n parameters i n the judgment. As set forth above, Dr. Megson, i n August 2006, t h a t the c h i l d should a v o i d long car r i d e s because the of l i g h t s the child. attorney, could lead to migraines and autistic In a l e t t e r w r i t t e n i n A p r i l Dr. Megson s t a t e d t h a t 23 wrote flicker regression 2008 t o t h e " i t i s important in wife's that [the 2091110 child] i s i n a c o n s i s t e n t home e n v i r o n m e n t where h e r a u t i s m treatments are understood [and] diet[,] w i f e argues and f o l l o w e d , i n c l u d i n g supplements and t h a t she has a p r e d i c t a b l e r o u t i n e . " t h a t t h i s e v i d e n c e was u n d i s p u t e d and, i t was n o t s u b j e c t t o t h e o r e t e n u s The thus, that rule. The w i f e c i t e s no a u t h o r i t y , a n d we a r e n o t aware o f a n y , that requires discretion, a trial court, i n lieu of exercising i t s t o a d h e r e t o a r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f an e x p e r t i n a c u s t o d y o r v i s i t a t i o n a c t i o n . S e e , e . g . , Ex p a r t e R.D.N., 918 So. 2d 100, 105 ( A l a . 2005) ( n o t i n g t h a t a t r i a l discretion to "disagree[] court-appointed issue"). trier with professional c o u r t has t h e t h e recommendation in evaluating [a] i t s custody Expert witnesses are used d u r i n g t r i a l t o a s s i s t the of presented, fact i n making a determination of the issues b u t t h e y do n o t make t h e f i n a l d e c i s i o n the c o n t r o v e r s y before t h e t r i a l c o u r t o r t h e j u r y . is of regarding That t a s k f o r t h e t r i e r o f f a c t , i n t h i s case t h e t r i a l - c o u r t judge, a f t e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a l l t h e t e s t i m o n y -- e x p e r t a n d l a y -¬ as w e l l as any o t h e r e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d b y t h e p a r t i e s . See F o r d v. F o r d , 54 A l a . App. 510, 5 1 3 , 310 So. 2d 230, App. 1974) ("The r o l e o f an e x p e r t w i t n e s s 24 232 ( C i v . i s to assist i n 2091110 reaching a proper conclusion from facts presented, b e c a u s e o f want o f e x p e r i e n c e o r k n o w l e d g e t h e c o u r t is incapable of determining by t h e m s e l v e s . " ) . agree w i t h t h e w i f e t h a t t h e t r i a l which or jury Although we c o u r t was n o t a t l i b e r t y t o d i s r e g a r d Dr. Megson's s t a t e m e n t s , we c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e trial court e r r e d by a l l o w i n g t h e c h i l d to v i s i t t h e husband a t h i s home i n E n t e r p r i s e . Although the c h i l d ' s doctors recommended t h a t t h e c h i l d avoid unnecessary c a r r i d e s because there that the f l i c k e r of l i g h t s would was a p o s s i b i l i t y result i n migraines or a u t i s t i c r e g r e s s i o n , t h e husband t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e c h i l d had been on l o n g any c a r rides before detrimental indication that effect on the c h i l d since D r . Megson's A u g u s t trial court protect in could the c h i l d have a n d t h a t he h a d n e v e r the c h i l d . had n o t been 2006 l e t t e r concluded that There was on a l o n g from t h e f l i c k e r o f l i g h t s but the were ways t o during her time a v e h i c l e and t h a t t h e husband's r i g h t t o v i s i t a t i o n the child, without award of v i s i t a t i o n trial court interference from the wife, a t h i s home i n E n t e r p r i s e . c o u l d have c o n c l u d e d t h a t t o r e f u s e 25 some car ride was w r i t t e n , there noticed merited with an Thus, t h e to allow the 2091110 child to v i s i t with the husband a t h i s home i n E n t e r p r i s e w o u l d have been an o v e r l y b r o a d r e s t r i c t i o n t h a t d i d more t h a n n e c e s s a r y t o p r o t e c t t h e c h i l d . The v i s i t a t i o n p a r a m e t e r s s e t forth i n the t r i a l maintain court's the c h i l d ' s v i s i t a t i o n periods judgment r e q u i r e d t h e husband t o s c h e d u l e as much a p o s s i b l e i n order during h i s t o l i m i t any p o s s i b l e detrimental i m p a c t t o t h e c h i l d b a s e d on a change i n h e r e n v i r o n m e n t . The wife indicated also argues i n h i s testimony seriousness of the child's that that the husband repeatedly he d i d n o t comprehend t h e medical condition and t h a t h i s t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e d t h a t he w o u l d n o t a b i d e by t h e p a r a m e t e r s set forth i n the divorce judgment. We agree that h u s b a n d ' s t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e d t h a t he was u n s u r e t h a t was t h e s o u r c e o f t h e c h i l d ' s m e d i c a l c o n d i t i o n s the autism a n d t h a t he d i d n o t b e l i e v e t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s c o n d i t i o n was as c a t a s t r o p h i c as the wife suggested. However, he d i d n o t deny t h a t t h e c h i l d h a d s p e c i a l n e e d s , a n d he s t a t e d t h a t he u n d e r s t o o d t h a t the c h i l d h a d t o r e m a i n on a s t r i c t g l u t e n / c a s e i n - f r e e F u r t h e r m o r e , we c a n n o t r e v e r s e on the basis restrictions that the t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l husband i n t h e judgment. 26 may not abide by diet. court the 2091110 The wife also argues t h a t the v i s i t a t i o n broad because i t allows with the c h i l d a t a n y l o c a t i o n he deems a p p r o p r i a t e , of o n l y a t t h e husband's the child hours' i n Fairhope notice. arguments We requires t h e husband award residence, and a l l o w s a t any time a f t e r cannot conclude that t o h i s home d u r i n g too visitation instead him t o v i s i t g i v i n g the wife either reversal of the v i s i t a t i o n record indicates that the t r i a l husband to exercise is 48 of these award. The court refused t o confine the periods of v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d b e c a u s e t h e j u d g m e n t p r o v i d e d ample p r o t e c t i o n s f o r t h e child's well-being. husband t o v i s i t Regarding the p r o v i s i o n that allows the the c h i l d a t any time i n F a i r h o p e a f t e r 48 hours' notice t o the wife, the record reveals that the wife or h e r a t t o r n e y , on m u l t i p l e o c c a s i o n s t h e w i f e was w i l l i n g t o a l l o w t h e husband t o v i s i t a t h e r home i n F a i r h o p e reasonable notice. i nthe record, stated that a t any t i m e , These r e p e a t e d a s l o n g as he the c h i l d provided a s s u r a n c e s c o u l d have l e d the t r i a l c o u r t t o commit t h e a l l e g e d e r r o r t h a t t h e w i f e now complains o f on a p p e a l . See M o b i l e I n f i r m a r y Med. C t r . v . Hodgen, 884 So. 2d 801, 808 ( A l a . 2003) ( q u o t i n g N e a l v . N e a l , 856 So. 2d 766, 784 ( A l a . 2002)) 27 ("'A p a r t y cannot win a 2091110 r e v e r s a l on an e r r o r t h a t p a r t y has i n v i t e d the t r i a l c o u r t to commit.'"). After and after c o n s i d e r i n g t h e a r g u m e n t s o f t h e p a r t i e s on a p p e a l , we cannot conclude setting a that the review trial of court of the II. The wife the Enforcement of the argues that The the to pay rights. court expenses i n a manner c o n s i s t e n t w i t h After husband and the failed the to fully husband t o pay conducted i n order t h e h u s b a n d owed t h e w i f e f o r proceeding the Accordingly, June 2006 O r d e r h e a r i n g was marital in affirmed. requiring t o d e t e r m i n e t h e amount, i f any, failure i t s discretion t o be trial by A u g u s t 2010 record exceeded j u d g m e n t i s due J u n e 2006 o r d e r o n l y $14,413. his the f o r t h the husband's v i s i t a t i o n that aspect enforce thorough wife during the the divorce June 2006 testified, the order. husband's a t t o r n e y s t a t e d t h a t the i s s u e s addressed at t h a t h e a r i n g had b e e n a d d r e s s e d i n a ".02 c a s e no. DR- sometime a f t e r the 06-589.02) t h a t had contempt" a c t i o n ( i . e . , apparently been f i l e d June 2009 o r d e r had b e e n e n t e r e d . the contempt motion number d e s i g n a t i o n had been The filed t r i a l court stated that with f o r "whatever reason" 28 a and different case- t h a t the order 2091110 entered i n t h a t a c t i o n h a d d e a l t w i t h , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e h u s b a n d ' s o b l i g a t i o n s p u r s u a n t t o t h e June 2006 referenced by t h e t r i a l i n c a s e no. DR-06-589.02 on September 2009; however, neither hearing preceding that order t h a t h a d been The parties repeatedly court an o r d e r order. nor the entered record of 4, the t h e e n t r y o f t h a t o r d e r a r e i n t h e r e c o r d on appeal. According the t r i a l before t o t h e t r a n s c r i p t f r o m t h e A u g u s t 2010 c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t , b a s e d on t h e t e s t i m o n y p r e s e n t e d the entry determined that of September June 4, 2006 2009, and order, November that the t o p a y a p p r o x i m a t e l y $497 a month t h a t f o r that period stated i t had 2008 have p a i d p u r s u a n t t o t h e June 2006 o r d e r . arrearage also the between husband had f a i l e d should hearing, totaled $14,413. i t had d e t e r m i n e d that he The total The t r i a l court f r o m December 2008 t h r o u g h September 2009 t h e h u s b a n d h a d f a i l e d t o p a y t h e w i f e $23,455.28. had e n t e r e d I t i s undisputed that the t r i a l a judgment a g a i n s t $23,455.28. regarding the wife The trial court court previously t h e h u s b a n d i n t h e amount o f stated that i t had notes t e s t i m o n y as t o e v e r y payment made by t h e h u s b a n d t o and that i t s calculations 29 were based on that 2091110 testimony. The w i f e d i d not of t h a t testimony o b j e c t to the t r i a l a postjudgment motion, calculating the pursuant the June The w i f e a l s o d i d n o t t h a t the husband's to use t o d e t e r m i n e t h e amount t h e h u s b a n d owed h e r p u r s u a n t t o t h e June 2006 o r d e r . in court's trial financial obligation wife was support trial the f a i l e d t o f u l l y e n f o r c e t h e June 2006 o r d e r , o r t h a t t h e r e to the to had evidence that erred in court insufficient 2006 o r d e r , c o u r t had argue, the trial court's d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s o b l i g a t i o n p u r s u a n t t o t h e June 2006 order. Accordingly, w i f e ' s argument on a p p e a l to court may b e c a u s e i t was not not consider first t h e t r i a l c o u r t . See Andrews v. M e r r i t t O i l Co., 409, 410 ( A l a . 1992). pay a l l sums due 612 $14,413 f o r t h e h u s b a n d ' s pursuant to the June 2006 So. D i v i s i o n of P r o p e r t y failure order and A w a r d o f A l i m o n y "The i s s u e s o f p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n and a l i m o n y a r e interrelated, and, therefore, they must be considered together on appeal. Albertson v. A l b e r t s o n , 678 So. 2d 118, 120 (Ala. Civ. App. 1 9 9 5 ) . When t h e t r i a l c o u r t f a s h i o n s a p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n f o l l o w i n g the p r e s e n t a t i o n of ore tenus evidence, i t s j u d g m e n t as t o t h a t e v i d e n c e i s p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t on a p p e a l and w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d 30 2d divorce affirmed. III. the presented A c c o r d i n g l y , t h a t aspect of the judgment a w a r d i n g the w i f e to this is 2091110 absent a showing t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n or t h a t i t s d e c i s i o n i s p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y wrong. R o b e r t s v. R o b e r t s , 802 So. 2d 230, 235 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) ; P a r r i s h v. P a r r i s h , 617 So. 2d 1036, 1038 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) ; and H a l l v. M a z z o n e , 486 So. 2d 408, 410 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . A p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n i s r e q u i r e d t o be e q u i t a b l e , n o t e q u a l , and a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f what i s e q u i t a b l e r e s t s w i t h i n the broad d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t . P a r r i s h , 617 So. 2d a t 1038. In f a s h i o n i n g a property d i v i s i o n and an a w a r d o f a l i m o n y , t h e t r i a l c o u r t must c o n s i d e r f a c t o r s s u c h as t h e e a r n i n g c a p a c i t i e s of the p a r t i e s ; t h e i r f u t u r e p r o s p e c t s ; t h e i r ages, h e a l t h , and s t a t i o n i n l i f e ; the l e n g t h of the p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e ; and t h e s o u r c e , v a l u e , and t y p e o f m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y . R o b i n s o n v. R o b i n s o n , 795 So. 2d 729, 734 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) . '[W]e n o t e t h a t t h e r e i s no r i g i d s t a n d a r d o r m a t h e m a t i c a l formula on w h i c h a t r i a l c o u r t must b a s e i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n of alimony and t h e d i v i s i o n o f m a r i t a l a s s e t s . ' Yohey v. Yohey, 890 So. 2d 160, 164 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004). " S t o n e v. The S t o n e , 26 wife So. argues 3d a t that d i v i s i o n o f p r o p e r t y was awarded her 1236. the award o n l y 24 months o f r e h a b i l i t a t i v e t h e h u s b a n d had a separate and the gift o r i n h e r i t a n c e was husband's p r o p e r t y is well settled and First, had will court instead "[t]he consider determining r e c e i v e d by p a r t of h i s separate 31 we court erred i n t h a t he that alimony the because i t determined t h a t estate. the w i f e ' s argument t h a t the t r i a l that alimony i n e q u i t a b l e because the t r i a l of permanent p e r i o d i c alimony It of way of estate. determination whether 2091110 property i s m a r i t a l property or belongs t o the separate o f one o f t h e p a r t i e s i s a m a t t e r estate generally w i t h i n the t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n . " Kaufman v. Kaufman, 934 So. 2d 1073, 1080 (Ala. 1128 C i v . App. 2005) (citing A l s t o n v. A l s t o n , 555 So. 2d ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 9 ) ) . "A p a r t y ' s ' " s e p a r a t e e s t a t e " i s t h a t p r o p e r t y o v e r w h i c h [he o r ] she e x e r c i s e s e x c l u s i v e c o n t r o l a n d f r o m w h i c h t h e [ s p o u s e ] ... d e r i v e s no b e n e f i t b y reason o f t h e m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . ' Gartman v. G a r t m a n , 376 So. 2d 7 1 1 , 713 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 7 8 ) . The s e p a r a t e e s t a t e o f t h e p a r t i e s i n a d i v o r c e proceeding i n c l u d e s p r o p e r t y owned p r i o r t o t h e marriage and p r o p e r t y received by gift or i n h e r i t a n c e during the marriage. § 30-2-51(a), A l a . Code 1975. A l t h o u g h marital property generally i n c l u d e s property purchased or otherwise accumulated by t h e p a r t i e s d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e , i t may a l s o include the property acquired before the marriage or r e c e i v e d by g i f t o r i n h e r i t a n c e d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e when i t i s u s e d , o r income f r o m i t i s u s e d , r e g u l a r l y f o r t h e common b e n e f i t o f t h e p a r t i e s d u r i n g t h e i r m a r r i a g e . See § 3 0 - 2 - 5 1 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975. "The t r i a l j u d g e i s g r a n t e d b r o a d d i s c r e t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether p r o p e r t y purchased before the p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e o r r e c e i v e d by g i f t o r i n h e r i t a n c e was u s e d ' r e g u l a r l y f o r t h e common b e n e f i t o f t h e p a r t i e s d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e . ' See § 3 0 - 2 - 5 1 , A l a . Code 1975. Even i f t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s t h a t s u c h p r o p e r t y was r e g u l a r l y u s e d f o r t h e common b e n e f i t of the p a r t i e s during the marriage, the d e t e r m i n a t i o n whether t o i n c l u d e such p r o p e r t y i n t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s t o be d i v i d e d b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s l i e s w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . [Ex p a r t e ] D u r b i n , 818 So. 2d 404 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) . " 32 2091110 N i c h o l s v . N i c h o l s , 824 So. 2d 797, The the w i f e argues t h a t t h e husband's i n h e r i t e d i n t e r e s t i n 20-acre that 802 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2001) . t r a c t i s marital property because once l a r g e r t r a c t was s o l d d u r i n g a portion of t h e marriage and the f u n d s f r o m t h a t s a l e were u s e d f o r t h e common b e n e f i t o f t h e parties. implicit The w i f e does n o t c i t e a n y a u t h o r i t y t o s u p p o r t h e r proposition that the t r i a l court was r e q u i r e d to c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e husband's r e m a i n i n g i n t e r e s t i n t h e 20-acre t r a c t was r e g u l a r l y u s e d f o r t h e common b e n e f i t o f t h e p a r t i e s s i m p l y b e c a u s e a p a r c e l o f t h e l a r g e r t r a c t h a d been s o l d a n d the husband had e x e r c i s e d h i s d i s c r e t i o n t o use t h e proceeds he received from t h e s a l e t o pay t h e p a r t i e s ' debts. Furthermore, regarding that t h e husband brother, wife's there owned t h e 162-acre t r a c t o f jointly with h i s mother timberland and h i s i s scant evidence i n the record t o support the assertions on a p p e a l that t h e husband had used t h e p r o c e e d s f r o m t h e s a l e o f t i m b e r f o r t h e common b e n e f i t o f t h e parties during the marriage. 3 Even assuming t h a t t h e husband We n o t e t h a t t h e c i t a t i o n i n t h e w i f e ' s b r i e f on a p p e a l to testimony i n the record that a l l e g e d l y supports her statement i n t h e b r i e f t h a t t h e proceeds from t h e s a l e o f t h e t i m b e r "were d e p o s i t e d i n t h e p a r t i e s ' j o i n t a c c o u n t a n d u s e d f o r n o r m a l l i v i n g e x p e n s e s a n d payment o f h o u s e h o l d b i l l s , " i s 3 33 2091110 did use those during funds f o r t h e common b e n e f i t of the p a r t i e s t h e m a r r i a g e , we c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l court exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n by c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e one-time use o f the proceeds "regular" make the sale of timber use f o r t h e b e n e f i t t h e husband's property. App. from of the p a r t i e s s u f f i c i e n t t o i n t e r e s t i n t h e 162-acre See H u l l v. H u l l , 2003) d i d not constitute a (concluding tract marital 887 So. 2d 904, 909 ( A l a . that the wife's one-time Civ. use o f i n h e r i t e d f u n d s f o r t h e common b e n e f i t o f t h e p a r t i e s d i d n o t c o n s t i t u t e a " r e g u l a r " use of h e r separate property the by § Ala. all trial court was t h e r e f o r e "precluded Code 1975,] f r o m c o n s i d e r i n g [her separate and t h a t 30-2-51(a)[, property] at i n d i v i d i n g the p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l property"). Accordingly, misleading, follows: we c o n c l u d e at best. that The t e s t i m o n y the t r i a l court d i d not c i t e d by t h e w i f e "Q. [The w i f e ' s a t t o r n e y ] : W e l l , money o f f o f a t i m b e r c u t t i n g ? i s as d i d y o u make "A. [The h u s b a n d ] : Yeah. We made money. T h i s was about e i g h t years ago." Such t e s t i m o n y hardly c o n s t i t u t e s evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e husband d e p o s i t e d proceeds from t h e s a l e o f t h e t i m b e r i n t o a j o i n t a c c o u n t t h a t was u s e d f o r n o r m a l e x p e n s e s and payment o f h o u s e h o l d b i l l s , as t h e w i f e a l l e g e s . 34 2091110 exceed i t s discretion by determining that the husband's i n t e r e s t i n t h e 2 0 - a c r e t r a c t o f l a n d and h i s i n t e r e s t i n t h e 1 6 2 - a c r e t r a c t o f l a n d were p a r t o f h i s s e p a r a t e Pursuant was t o the August 2010 d i v o r c e judgment, t h e w i f e a w a r d e d $2,700 a month i n r e h a b i l i t a t i v e months account vehicle ($64,800 total); (approximately 100% $16,550); (approximately marital residence of estate. alimony the husband's retirement 100% o f t h e e q u i t y $17,000); the f o r 24 furnishings i n her i n the ( a p p r o x i m a t e l y $50,000); and a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s i n t h e amount o f $10,000. The w i f e a l s o r e c e i v e d a j u d g m e n t in against t h e amount failed supra) of $14,413 t o pay pursuant in addition to t h e h u s b a n d f o r sums t o t h e June the sums that throughout the divorce proceeding. testimony, 2006 order the According the husband p a i d a p p r o x i m a t e l y he (discussed husband paid to the wife's $5,000 a month i n h o u s e h o l d e x p e n s e s i n a d d i t i o n t o g i v i n g h e r b e t w e e n $1,000 and $1,500 a month. The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e w i f e was a b l e t o u s e t h e p a r t i e s ' $17,000 t a x r e f u n d f o r t h e payment o f p e n d e n t e l i t e e x p e n s e s . The w i f e was o r d e r e d t o p a y a l l d e b t s in her forward. name The that were record incurred from indicated that 35 November the wife 12, 2008, had i n c u r r e d 2091110 approximately parties $85,000 i n d e b t i n h e r name b e f o r e a n d a f t e r t h e separated, plus an additional e x p e n s e s a f t e r November 12, 2 0 0 8 . The and Because items we concluded have of personal determined be ordered considered. 4 that w i t h an unknown the t r i a l court value. correctly e s t a t e , the value of those See H u l l , a l l the indebtedness $395,000. t h e $40, 000 d e b t addition property supra. The residence He was a l s o r e s p o n s i b l e f o r payment he h a d a c c u m u l a t e d set forth was on t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e , w h i c h was t o t h e amounts he p a i d d u r i n g proceedings, parcels husband t o pay t h e c o s t s o f r e p a i r t o t h e m a r i t a l approximately of medical t h a t t h e h u s b a n d ' s i n t e r e s t i n two p a r c e l s o f l a n d were p a r t o f h i s s e p a r a t e and in h u s b a n d was a w a r d e d h i s v e h i c l e ( v a l u e d a t $10,000) three cannot $5,000 above, i n h i s name. In t h e pendency o f t h e t h e husband was required to o b t a i n a l i f e - i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y i n t h e amount o f $500,000 a n d to pay one-half of the wife's monthly h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e cost. T h e r e c o r d i s u n c l e a r as t o how t h e w i f e a c c u m u l a t e d s u c h a l a r g e amount o f d e b t , a l l e g e d l y b e f o r e a n d a f t e r t h e p a r t i e s separated, because t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s used $54,000 f r o m t h e p r o c e e d s o f t h e s a l e o f p a r t o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s separate p r o p e r t y t o pay o f f the p a r t i e s ' b i l l s s h o r t l y before the p a r t i e s separated. 4 36 2091110 The husband was further uncovered medical month. ordered to pay expenses, which t o t a l e d a l l the child's at l e a s t $1,400 a 5 With this award i n mind, we will consider the wife's a r g u m e n t t h a t she s h o u l d have been a w a r d e d p e r m a n e n t p e r i o d i c alimony. The wife presented evidence indicating that m o n t h l y b u d g e t , e x c l u d i n g i t e m s w h i c h t h e h u s b a n d was to pay $4,200 or she a month. approximately was ordered 6 $1,580 The a to sell, wife's month totaled monthly f o r payment ordered approximately budget of her includes unsecured c r e d i t - c a r d d e b t and $225 a month f o r c l o t h i n g f o r h e r and child. will I n c l u d i n g the wife's c h i l d - s u p p o r t award, r e c e i v e a t o t a l o f $4,200 a month i n s u p p o r t . considering reasonable the l a r g e cash to conclude sums a w a r d e d t o t h e t h a t t h e w i f e c o u l d use her the wife However, wife, those the i t is sums t o We d e t e r m i n e d t h i s amount by c a l c u l a t i n g t h e c o s t o f t h e c h i l d ' s weekly hyperbaric treatments ($100 p e r hyperbaric t r e a t m e n t , 3 h y p e r b a r i c t r e a t m e n t s p e r week = a p p r o x i m a t e l y $1,200 a month) p l u s an a d d i t i o n a l $200 a month f o r t h e c h i l d ' s v i t a m i n s and m e d i c a t i o n s . 5 T h i s t o t a l does n o t i n c l u d e a m o n t h l y c o s t f o r a home. However, i t d o e s i n c l u d e $885 i n m o n t h l y payments t o w a r d u t i l i t y b i l l s and c o s t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e ( s u c h as y a r d m a i n t e n a n c e , home m a i n t e n a n c e , and an alarm s y s t e m ) t h a t c o u l d be u s e d as a payment t o w a r d r e n t i n g a home. 6 37 2091110 g r e a t l y reduce her her c r e d i t - c a r d d e b t and, monthly l i v i n g The record a f t e r t a x e s and $6,800 a Therefore, month t o support himself required to pay after to the and monthly t o pay to expenses totaled m a r i t a l residence, the wife, pursuant month, w i t h o u t i n c l u d i n g t h e the husband's monthly o t h e r d e d u c t i o n s were made, was o b l i g a t i o n s due husband's the costs The wife rehabilitative have been evidence t h a t she only o b l i g a t i o n s he divorce the $2,600 a judgment. approximately $1,900 of p a y i n g the mortgage a l i f e - i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y , the argues that a l i m o n y was indicated permanent that was The a on child's of the w i f e ' s monthly 24-month periodic her near f u t u r e . needs t h r e e the insufficient financial The wife, and limitation that alimony she position i n her language p a t h o l o g i s t . can the not alleges to obtain r e t u r n t o work as a speech However, t h e r e 38 would brief, of should because a d d i t i o n a l years of s c h o o l i n g a m a s t e r ' s d e g r e e so t h a t she and had paid expense. awarded improve i n the he income, approximately husband the u n c o v e r e d m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s , and o n e - h a l f health-insurance g r e a t l y reduce expenses. i n d i c a t e d t h a t the month. financial thus, i s nothing in the 2091110 record to support the w i f e ' s would years take three to statement i n her obtain t e a c h i n g c e r t i f i c a t e so t h a t she at the November 2008 h e a r i n g , her brief master's that i t degree c o u l d r e t u r n t o work. the wife testified or a Also, that she t h o u g h t i t was u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e c h i l d w o u l d be w e l l enough t o attend school w i t h i n the record indicated that next the c h i l d i n school before several years. p a r t i e s had they separated, p a r t i e s , t h e c h i l d ' s c o n d i t i o n was part due to unquestionably, the efforts However, attempted the to put the and, according to both improving greatly, i n large of the wife, which were, commendable. " ' T h i s c o u r t has d e f i n e d r e h a b i l i t a t i v e a l i m o n y as "a s u b - c l a s s o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y " that allows a spouse "time to reestablish a self-supporting s t a t u s . " ' F o w l e r v. F o w l e r , 773 So. 2d 491, 495 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2000) ( q u o t i n g J e f f c o a t v. J e f f c o a t , 628 So. 2d 741, 743 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) , o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , C r e n s h a w v. C r e n s h a w , 816 So. 2d 104 6 ( A l a . C i v . App. 20 0 1 ) ) . " B e n s o n v. B e n s o n , 876 Although different the award, So. 2d 1157, members of we cannot exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n alimony f o r 24 months by 1164 this ( A l a . C i v . App. court conclude that awarding the in light of the may the wife fact have trial 2003) . made a court rehabilitative that the trial c o u r t r e s e r v e d the r i g h t t o award the w i f e p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y a t 39 2091110 the conclusion of the rehabilitative period and considering t h a t t h e w i f e was awarded almost a l l the m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y . See Stone 26 not v. Stone, So. 3d at 1235-36 ("This court is p e r m i t t e d t o r e w e i g h t h e e v i d e n c e on a p p e a l and s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment for that evidence presented, of the trial court.") . Based on the i t i s not unreasonable to conclude t h a t months w o u l d be a s u f f i c i e n t amount o f t i m e t o a l l o w t h e to obtain the workforce, certification considering the evidence c h i l d ' s c o n d i t i o n was improving school i n the at parties. some p o i n t We necessary to foreseeable necessary should the attend both n o t e , however, t h a t c o n s i d e r i n g the l e n g t h of and the f o r the disparity trial extent i n the court p e r i o d i c alimony to the w i f e To the by p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e , t h e p a r t i e s ' ages and h e a l t h , t h e i r prospects, the that and t h a t h e r a b i l i t y t o f u t u r e was wife reenter indicating to reserve i n the t h a t the w i f e future income, i t right was to award trial court future. argues t h a t the of degree, we conclude t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t d i d not exceed i t s d i s c r e t i o n by failing required to do so the the the amount tuition have r e q u i r e d parties' 24 f o r her h u s b a n d t o pay to because obtain the 40 wife her the full master's presented no evidence 2091110 indicating what Furthermore, the husband's obligation an would i t i s unclear how such f i n a n c e d by t h e h u s b a n d , who was be. o b l i g a t i o n would a w a r d e d h i s v e h i c l e and be three i t e m s o f p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y and o r d e r e d t o pay s e v e r a l t h o u s a n d dollars in financial o b l i g a t i o n s pursuant to the divorce judgment. IV. Finally, the awarding the claim the The wife Income-Tax E x e m p t i o n argues t h a t the husband, the income-tax noncustodial dependency trial court parent, exemption erred right the for by to the child b e c a u s e , i n d o i n g s o , t h e t r i a l c o u r t f a i l e d t o make a w r i t t e n finding support and stating i t s reasons guidelines. Langley v. See Langley, for deviating from R u l e 3 2 ( A ) ( i i ) , A l a . R. 895 So. 2d 971, 975 the Jud. childAdmin.; (Ala. Civ. App. 2003). The wife discretion a l s o argues t h a t the by awarding the husband trial the court right income-tax dependency exemption because the o p e r a t i n g under the i m p r e s s i o n alimony was not a r g u e d t h a t she, a "taxable as t h e to claim the trial court was t h a t r e c e i p t of event" f o r the c u s t o d i a l parent, 41 exceeded i t s rehabilitative wife. s h o u l d be The wife entitled 2091110 to c l a i m the income-tax dependency exemption because of award of r e h a b i l i t a t i v e $32,400 wife's a year. not t a x a b l e taxable Rose, Civ. [Ms. So. same 2d modifiable alimony upon T r e u s d e l l v. 1995) was receiving So. 2011] 3d have h e l d that a was had no other App. of a Treusdell, 671 So. the , (Ala. [Ms. 2080744, Giardina 2008), 2d and v. 2010)). alimony Giardina, that i t has an change wife's 3d ( A l a . C i v . App. see Rose Adkins, v. c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as that award." rehabilitative showing (stating award in circumstances, 699, 704 of is a 987 the periodic (Ala. Civ. see App. r e h a b i l i t a t i v e - a l i m o n y award to future m o d i f i c a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g extension and i n c r e a s e , upon c h a n g e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s " ) . See a l s o G i a r d i n a , 987 So. "subject (Ala. Civ. the So. , of p e r i o d i c alimony, 620 alimony v. party (citing 2010] 606, the the to Adkins we that as 1, Furthermore, stated held that p e r i o d i c alimony " i s t r e a t e d 2081182, A p r i l J a n u a r y 22, court t h e w i f e s t a t e d t h a t she 2011) App. subclass trial income. c o u r t has income the r e c e i p t of r e h a b i l i t a t i v e i n c o m e , and sources of t a x a b l e This alimony, which t o t a l e d approximately However, income f r o m t h e her 2d a t 620 ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t a r e c i p i e n t of 42 rehabilitative 2091110 alimony has t h e r i g h t to file a petition t o modify that award). In (Ala. K e l l e y v . S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t o f Revenue, 796 So. 2d 1114 C i v . App. 2 0 0 0 ) , t h i s c o u r t d i s c u s s e d 26 U.S.C. § 215(b) w h i c h p r o v i d e s t h a t a l i m o n y , as d e f i n e d i n 26 U.S.C. § 7 1 ( b ) , is includible i n the gross income o f t h e r e c i p i e n t spouse. A l i m o n y i s d e f i n e d i n 26 U.S.C. 7 1 ( b ) , as f o l l o w s : "(1) In general. -- The t e r m 'alimony o r s e p a r a t e m a i n t e n a n c e payment' means any payment i n cash i f "(A) s u c h payment i s r e c e i v e d b y ( o r on b e h a l f o f ) a s p o u s e u n d e r a d i v o r c e o r separation instrument, "(B) the divorce or separation i n s t r u m e n t does n o t d e s i g n a t e s u c h payment as a payment w h i c h i s n o t i n c l u d i b l e i n g r o s s income u n d e r t h i s s e c t i o n a n d n o t a l l o w a b l e as a d e d u c t i o n u n d e r s e c t i o n 215, "(C) i n t h e c a s e o f an i n d i v i d u a l l e g a l l y s e p a r a t e d from h i s spouse under a decree of divorce or of separate maintenance, t h e payee spouse and t h e payor spouse a r e n o t members o f t h e same h o u s e h o l d a t t h e t i m e s u c h payment i s made, and "(D) t h e r e i s no l i a b i l i t y t o make any s u c h payment f o r a n y p e r i o d a f t e r t h e d e a t h of t h e payee spouse a n d t h e r e i s no l i a b i l i t y t o make a n y payment ( i n c a s h o r p r o p e r t y ) as a s u b s t i t u t e f o r s u c h p a y m e n t s a f t e r t h e d e a t h o f t h e payee spouse." 43 2091110 T h i s d e f i n i t i o n o f a l i m o n y a p p l i e s t o an a w a r d o f a l i m o n y in a d i v o r c e judgment whether i t i s l a b e l e d p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y or rehabilitative alimony i n the divorce r e h a b i l i t a t i v e alimony, judgment. Because as a s u b c l a s s o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y , h a s t h e same c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y , we c o n c l u d e t h a t an a w a r d o f r e h a b i l i t a t i v e a l i m o n y f a l l s w i t h i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n of alimony pursuant t o 26 U.S.C. conclude that r e h a b i l i t a t i v e the r e c i p i e n t spouse. under the impression 71(b). we a l i m o n y i s t a x a b l e as income t o Because t h e t r i a l that Accordingly, the wife's c o u r t was operating s u b s t a n t i a l award o f r e h a b i l i t a t i v e a l i m o n y was n o t t a x a b l e i n c o m e , we must r e v e r s e the j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as i t a s s i g n s exemption t h e income-tax dependency t o t h e h u s b a n d a n d remand t h e c a u s e t o t h e t r i a l court t o determine whether, i n l i g h t of the f a c t t h a t the w i f e d i d have a p p r o x i m a t e l y $32,000 a y e a r i n t a x a b l e i n c o m e , she s h o u l d be a b l e t o m a i n t a i n t h e i n c o m e - t a x d e p e n d e n c y e x e m p t i o n as t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t . 7 B e c a u s e we a r e r e v e r s i n g t h e j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as i t a s s i g n s t h e income-tax dependency exemption t o t h e husband and a r e r e m a n d i n g t h e c a u s e , we w i l l n o t a d d r e s s t h e w i f e ' s a r g u m e n t on a p p e a l t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t f a i l e d t o c o m p l y w i t h Rule 3 2 ( A ) ( i i ) . However, we s t r e s s t h a t t h i s c o u r t h a s , i n previous cases, s t r i c t l y enforced the p r o v i s i o n s of Rule 32(A)(ii). 7 44 2091110 Conclusion The j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l the husband's visitation court, rights, property, and awarded affirmed. The j u d g m e n t , i n s o f a r dependency cause the wife as i t s e t f o r t h divided the rehabilitative as i t a s s i g n e d exemption t o t h e husband, i s remanded insofar f o r proceedings parties' alimony, i s the income-tax i s reversed, consistent and t h e with this opinion. AFFIRMED I N PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, concur. P . J . , and Pittman, 45 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.