Ernest Kreitzberg v. Myra Kreitzberg

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/02/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter o f Decisions, Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2011 2100269 Ernest Kreitzberg v. Myra K r e i t z b e r g Myra K r e i t z b e r g v. Ernest Kreitzberg Appeals from Baldwin C i r c u i t (DR-09-900369) THOMAS, J u d g e . Court 2100269 E r n e s t K r e i t z b e r g ("the husband") a p p e a l s of the Baldwin Kreitzberg wife ("the w i f e " ) alimony parties. Circuit Court affirm cross-appeals i n part, instructions. ^After n e a r l y complaint reverse With respect Facts 35 y e a r s from i n part, Myra breakdown o f t h e m a r r i a g e . 1 court's and remand with we a f f i r m . History of marriage, i n the t r i a l between t h e t o the appeal, t o the cross-appeal, t h e husband f i l e d a c o u r t on J u l y 9, 2009, c l a i m i n g i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f temperament and c o u n t e r c l a i m e d from the t r i a l With respect and P r o c e d u r a l f o ra divorce him the m a r i t a l property judgment d i v o r c i n g t h e p a r t i e s . we divorcing t h a t , among o t h e r t h i n g s , a w a r d e d t h e and d i v i d e d The w i f e from a judgment a n d an i r r e t r i e v a b l e The w i f e a n s w e r e d t h e c o m p l a i n t f o r a d i v o r c e on September 23, 2009. I n h e r c o u n t e r c l a i m , t h e w i f e a l l e g e d t h a t t h e husband had p h y s i c a l l y and e m o t i o n a l l y a b u s e d h e r d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e On M a r c h 9, 2010, t h e h u s b a n d of the marriage. amended h i s c o m p l a i n t fora A l t h o u g h t h e p a r t i e s m a r r i e d on December 30, 1974, i t was u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s h a d been c o h a b i t i n g a n d l i v i n g t o g e t h e r as h u s b a n d a n d w i f e s i n c e J a n u a r y 1969. However, t h e t r i a l c o u r t made no f i n d i n g s r e g a r d i n g t h e i s s u e o f a commonlaw m a r r i a g e . Thus, we c o n s i d e r t h e p a r t i e s t o have been married f o r nearly 35 y e a r s a t the time the divorce p r o c e e d i n g s were i n i t i a t e d . 1 2 2100269 d i v o r c e t o i n c l u d e an a l l e g a t i o n t h a t t h e w i f e h a d p h y s i c a l l y and The emotionally wife abused him d u r i n g t h e course o f t h e m a r r i a g e . answered t h e amended a l l e g a t i o n s o f abuse. On O c t o b e r complaint and d e n i e d The p a r t i e s c o n d u c t e d 6 a n d 18, 2010, t h e t r i a l counterclaim for a divorce. only witnesses The to testify discovery. court t r i a l r e g a r d i n g t h e husband's d i v o r c e c o m p l a i n t the conducted a and t h e w i f e ' s The h u s b a n d a n d t h e w i f e were t h e during husband t e s t i f i e d t h e two-day at t r i a l that trial. he h a d r e c e i v e d an i n h e r i t a n c e from b o t h h i s mother and h i s aunt. Specifically, he t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d i n h e r i t e d 2,484 s h a r e s o f E x x o n M o b i l Corporation 30, stock 1997. He f r o m h i s m o t h e r a f t e r h e r d e a t h on J a n u a r y stated that those shares of stock had been t r a n s f e r r e d i n t o h i s name a l o n e . He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d program manages t h e s t o c k called "Computer Share" t h a t program c o n t i n u a l l y r e i n v e s t s any d i v i d e n d the s t o c k produces. addition testified that mother. He and t h a t income that He s t a t e d t h a t t h e w i f e ' s name was n e v e r on h i s s t o c k a c c o u n t w i t h In that a to ExxonMobil. the ExxonMobil stock, he h a d i n h e r i t e d $99,712 stated that, upon 3 receipt the i n cash of husband from h i s t h e cash, he 2100269 i m m e d i a t e l y had t a k e n t h e money t o t h e b a n k , had o f t h e money t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s T r e a s u r y t o pay inheritance and certificate of purchased that Countryside, been p l a c e d had placed deposit CD at Illinois. the remaining ("CD"). He Countryside in further t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e CD had i n h i s name o n l y . The Bank t h a t i n 2005 he Bank o f C o u n t r y s i d e and t h a t t h e CD husband t e s t i f i e d f r o m 2005 u n t i l AmSouth was t h e CD The along with had moved t h e CD The husband t e s t i f i e d State Fairhope t h a t the p l a c e d i n h i s name a l o n e and t h a t a l l t h e immediately husband t e s t i f i e d t h e money i n t h e CD, t h a t i n 2008 he w h i c h had dividend stock from reinvested. 4 at interest had withdrawn a l l grown t o $ 1 3 3 , 3 1 2 . 2 5 , and He derived CD reinvested. purchased ExxonMobil stock with i t . income any 2005. from the ("AmSouth") i n he r e m a i n e d i n t h e f o r m o f a CD w i t h AmSouth 2008. a c c r u e d was that i n t h e f o r m o f a CD u n t i l t o AmSouth Bank had that a of State testified into the had i n v e s t m e n t income f r o m t h e CD, testified t a x e s on $91,712 had c o n t i n u a l l y r e i n v e s t e d t h e money i n t h e CD, He $8,000 he the He sent the also stated that was had any immediately 2100269 Other testified savings than that the he stocks and had i n h e r i t e d bonds f r o m h i s m o t h e r . cash, the $23,000 husband i n United also States He s t a t e d t h a t t h a t money was h e l d i n t h e f o r m o f s a v i n g s bonds i n h i s name u n t i l 2005, when he redeemed the savings bonds a t AmSouth. The husband t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a f t e r he redeemed t h e s a v i n g s b o n d s , he p l a c e d t h e money i n t o a money-market a c c o u n t h e l d j o i n t l y the w i f e ' s the joint names. He s t a t e d t h a t he h a d p l a c e d money-market account i n order i n h i s and t h e money i n t o pay taxes on t h e i n v e s t m e n t income h i s i n h e r i t e d money a n d s t o c k s h a d g e n e r a t e d because the couple f i l e d joint tax returns. The h u s b a n d a l s o t e s t i f i e d from h i s aunt. He t e s t i f i e d he h a d i n h e r i t e d a t o t a l t h a t he h a d i n h e r i t e d t h a t she h a d d i e d i n 2008, an initial payment. payment that o f $87,000 f r o m h e r e s t a t e , a n d t h a t he h a d r e c e i v e d t h e money i n two s e p a r a t e as assets and another The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d that payments -- $60,000 $27,000 as the he h a d d e p o s i t e d final the $60,000 i n an a c c o u n t he h a d o p e n e d i n h i s name a t R o y a l Bank o f Canada ("RBC"). He t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a f t e r h a v i n g p l a c e d t h e money i n t h e RBC a c c o u n t , he i m m e d i a t e l y w r o t e a c h e c k f o r t h e e n t i r e $60,000 t o E x x o n M o b i l t o p u r c h a s e 827 s h a r e s o f s t o c k . 5 2100269 He t e s t i f i e d t h a t a l l d i v i d e n d income d e r i v e d was a u t o m a t i c a l l y The husband from t h a t stock reinvested. testified that he h a d r e c e i v e d payment o f $27,000 i n O c t o b e r 2009. p l a c e d t h a t money i n a p e r s o n a l He s t a t e d checking the f i n a l that he h a d a c c o u n t a t RBC i n h i s name a n d t h a t he h a d t h e n t r a n s f e r r e d t h a t money t o E x x o n M o b i l to purchase additional shares of stock. He f u r t h e r stated t h a t a l l t h e d i v i d e n d income f r o m t h a t s t o c k was a u t o m a t i c a l l y reinvested. He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d n e v e r s o l d a n y o f h i s E x x o n M o b i l s t o c k o r w i t h d r a w n a n y money f r o m h i s s t o c k with ExxonMobil. The h u s b a n d the account ExxonMobil also t e s t i f i e d that the dividend stock was listed income f r o m on t h e p a r t i e s ' j o i n t t a x returns. He s t a t e d t h a t i n some y e a r s t h e p a r t i e s h a d a t a x liability upon w h i c h government. parties they paid He t e s t i f i e d had p a i d taxes to the United that the t o t a l States amount o f t a x e s t h e on t h e E x x o n M o b i l d i v i d e n d s was $8,560 a n d t h a t t h e t o t a l t a x e s t h e y had p a i d a f t e r redeeming t h e savings bonds was $10,980. He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d the parties derived had p a i d from from i n h e r i t e d a s s e t s 1997 u n t i l that the t o t a l 2009 was $32,253. 6 on any taxes income 2100269 He testified that the assets of the marital i n c l u d e d a 2003 S a t u r n a u t o m o b i l e , a s c o o t e r , estate a rowboat w i t h a m o t o r w o r t h a p p r o x i m a t e l y $1,000, a 1978 C a t a l i n a s a i l b o a t worth approximately property. $2,000-$3,000, and items of personal A d d i t i o n a l l y , he t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s owned t h e i r home i n F a i r h o p e and t h a t i t d i d n o t have an mortgage on i t . residence was $225,000 value He opined $225,000. He that the value stated by c o n s i d e r i n g that a large outstanding of the m a r i t a l he h a d come t o t h e number o f c o m p a r a b l e homes t h a t h a d b e e n s o l d i n t h e p a r t i e s ' n e i g h b o r h o o d . The husband retirement RBC and also testified that he had an individual a c c o u n t ("IRA") w i t h a b a l a n c e o f a r o u n d $36,000 a t that the wife also had h e r own IRA and p a r t i e s h a d a j o i n t money-market a c c o u n t c o n t a i n i n g He further t e s t i f i e d that account w i t h a balance t h e p a r t i e s had a j o i n t of approximately His t e s t i f i e d that the j o i n t $1,300. checking f u n d e d b y h i s S o c i a l S e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s and h i s two accounts. Specifically, the $210,000. checking He t h a t t h e p a r t i e s l i v e d o f f o f t h e money i n t h e j o i n t account. that stated checking account i s retirement he s t a t e d t h a t he has a p e n s i o n with J I Chase Company f r o m w h i c h he r e c e i v e s a p p r o x i m a t e l y $363 p e r 7 2100269 month and from a pension w i t h A l l i s Chalmers Manufacturing which he Additionally, receives he stated approximately that his Social $1,678 p e r month i s a l s o d e p o s i t e d wife's Social deposited The Security i n t o her own check husband t e s t i f i e d $16,000 f r o m t h e attorneys throughout the t h a t he d i d not e x p e c t the w i f e t o pay Security check of had the $598 is account. withdrawn a t o t a l checking divorce month. approximately checking parties' joint per i n t o the account, w h i l e of separate $580 Company action. of account t o pay He his stated that he f o r h i s a t t o r n e y fees but that he f e l t t h e p a r t i e s s h o u l d s p l i t t h e c o s t o f t h e a t t o r n e y fees i n the d i v o r c e a c t i o n . party 50% of the He a l s o a s k e d the c o u r t t o award each money-market account containing $210,000. A d d i t i o n a l l y , he s t a t e d t h a t he w o u l d l i k e t h e c o u r t t o a w a r d each p a r t y 50% of the p a r t i e s ' monthly j o i n t income, which compromises h i s J I Chase p e n s i o n , h i s A l l i s Chalmers pension, his the Security Social check. This Security and d i v i s i o n would provide $1,600 p e r month. w i f e was check, He wife's Social each p a r t y w i t h roughly a l s o s t a t e d t h a t he d i d n o t m i n d i f t h e a w a r d e d t h e 2003 S a t u r n 8 automobile but t h a t he would 2100269 like the parties' Catalina s a i l b o a t , the scooter, and the rowboat. The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had n e v e r c o m m i t t e d any of domestic v i o l e n c e against t h a t t h e w i f e had him on two the w i f e . However, he He s t a t e d t h a t the thrown a p l a t e t h a t s t r u c k h i s head, c a u s i n g called, that resulted in the wife's d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e on J u l y 4, 2009. wife had testified but as struck a him t h a t he t h a t he in the d i d not d i d go r e s u l t of to the the s a i d , he The her had husband t e s t i f i e d daughter, Michelle while He that like he him did conversations and that allow she with Kainz, arrested was driving. had that the be for the He incident attention wife the p a r t i e s ' disagreements, had but, arrested. t h a t the w i f e ' s Kainz, the he stated and c r e a t e d problems i n the marriage. not being h o s p i t a l to seek m e d i c a l never been wife He a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t eye incident. against the p o l i c e to n o t i f y the p o l i c e of t h i s c a l l e d the p o l i c e r e g a r d i n g he testified committed acts of domestic v i o l e n c e separate occasions. act plots wife but Kainz's He have t h a t he 9 grandchild had o p i n e d t h a t K a i n z does against to relationship with had him. He testified private telephone t o l d the w i f e that 2100269 he p r e f e r r e d t o be i n v o l v e d i n any t e l e p h o n e c o n v e r s a t i o n s had. wife. He a l s o He stated testified that that he was n o t t r y i n g he h a d r e q u e s t e d she to control the that Kainz stop sending the w i f e p i c t u r e s of K a i n z ' s granddaughter because the p i c t u r e s u p s e t t h e w i f e b e c a u s e t h e y r e m i n d e d h e r t h a t she was not a b l e t o v i s i t he the c h i l d . The h u s b a n d a l s o t e s t i f i e d d i d not shout o b s c e n i t i e s a t the wife The wife testified that d e t e r i o r a t e d over the years. had serious emotional marital the p a r t i e s ' marriage She t e s t i f i e d problems, that the p a r t i e s including verbal much t h e husband s p e n t more t i m e t o g e t h e r . The w i f e abuse, t h o s e p r o b l e m s h a d s t a r t e d i n t h e 1980s b u t h a d g o t t e n after abuse. had that severe and p h y s i c a l h e r names. stated more abuse, or c a l l that retired because She t e s t i f i e d that the p a r t i e s she h a d filed f o r a d i v o r c e i n t h e m i d - 1 9 8 0 s b e c a u s e o f an i n c i d e n t i n w h i c h the husband had c o r n e r e d h e r and t h r e a t e n e d t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e husband had t h r e a t e n e d other times, to k i l l to k i l l b u t , s h e s a i d , he d i d n o t t h r e a t e n e v e r y time t h e y had a d i s p u t e . She t e s t i f i e d her. her several to k i l l She f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d 10 her t h a t he w o u l d t a l k t o h e r i n a d e m e a n i n g way and t h a t he h a d t h r e a t e n e d b u r n down t h e p a r t i e s ' home. She to that the 2100269 husband would throw objects at her. Specifically, t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had t h r o w n a wooden s t o o l , p a i n t s , and a b o w l f u l l o f w a t e r , w h i c h had h i t h e r i n t h e b a c k o f t h e She also testified that the husband m a g a z i n e and a r e m o t e c o n t r o l . in her face. approximately She also once a She had hit her that from the he had year dog head. with t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had stated month she a spit abused her until the 2000 present. The wife testified h u s b a n d on J u l y 4, charge of domestic stated that the thrown the plate The had she had thrown t h a t she had regarding been response that dropped to the testified that a plate at the b e e n a r r e s t e d on incident. and that husband's she a She had constant w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had n e v e r s t r u c k eye. w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d had of ExxonMobil stock She violence in husband i n the The 2009, and charges e m o t i o n a l abuse. the that with the a value of p a r t i e s had 11,626.992 s h a r e s approximately paid f r o m t h e i r j o i n t money-market a c c o u n t . taxes on However, she $758,000. the stock testified t h a t t h e h u s b a n d had p l a c e d o n l y $23,000 o f h i s i n h e r i t a n c e i n the p a r t i e s ' j o i n t money-market a c c o u n t and 11 t h a t he had kept 2100269 the r e s t o f t h e money and a s s e t s She stated that, other joint money-market than he h a d i n h e r i t e d separate. t h e $23,000 d e p o s i t e d account, the the inheritance husband's into had n e v e r been 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 r e s i d e n c e was testified $247,000. that She the value of the marital s t a t e d t h a t she d i d n o t c a r e t o keep t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e b u t t h a t she w o u l d l i k e 5 0 % o f t h e p a r t i e s ' e q u i t y i n the house. She also t e s t i f i e d that wanted the t r i a l c o u r t t o o r d e r t h a t the p a r t i e s ' IRA she accounts be e q u a l i z e d b e c a u s e h e r I R A c o n t a i n e d a b o u t $31,000 w h i l e t h e husband's IRA contained about $35,000. She t h a t she w a n t e d h e r p e r s o n a l c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t , approximately In $2,000, also testified w i t h a value of t o be a w a r d e d e n t i r e l y t o h e r . regard to a d d i t i o n a l income, t h e w i f e t e s t i f i e d that she h a d c o n s i d e r e d h e r m o n t h l y e x p e n s e s f o l l o w i n g t h e d i v o r c e . She testified $2,845.74, was that her monthly living expenses would be w h i c h i n c l u d e d t h e c o s t o f p a y i n g r e n t b e c a u s e she not a s k i n g f o r the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e . The w i f e d i d n o t d i s p u t e the husband's t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g the p a r t i e s ' monthly income, and she testified that the p a r t i e s ' monthly i n c l u d e d a b o u t $300 f r o m t h e h u s b a n d ' s J I C h a s e p e n s i o n , 12 income about 2100269 $500 f r o m t h e husband's A l l i s Chalmers pension, Social Security S o c i a l S e c u r i t y check. the court to split and about $600 the from her t e s t i f i e d t h a t she w o u l d l i k e She trial check, a b o u t $1,600 f r o m the p a r t i e s ' monthly income evenly b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s , w h i c h w o u l d g i v e h e r a p p r o x i m a t e l y $1,600 per month. She f u r t h e r asked the $1,500 i n m o n t h l y alimony trial i n order The wife testified that had a stroke had i n 2006. f o o t i n 2008. a replacement hip She in require another surgery After exhibits, 2010, considering the The i n 2006 and i n her trial her her with the f o r a l l of t o pay she h e a l t h i s s u e s throughout the marriage. i n 2005 and award her divorce. further surgery to to provide a d d i t i o n a l money she w o u l d n e e d i n o r d e r expenses f o l l o w i n g the court had She had had open-heart t h a t she had had and that she a plate t h a t she will her f o o t i n the the ore t e n u s t e s t i m o n y and entered she placed had most on court serious wife also t e s t i f i e d that further t e s t i f i e d 2007 had had likely future. the trial a j u d g m e n t on November 19, d i v o r c i n g t h e p a r t i e s 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 and p h y s i c a l and e m o t i o n a l abuse by its November 19, 2010, judgment, the 13 the husband. P u r s u a n t trial court ordered to the 2100269 d i v i s i o n o f t h e m a r t i a l a s s e t s as f o l l o w s : ( 1 ) t h e h u s b a n d was awarded was 100% of the awarded the m a r i t a l ExxonMobil stock; (2) the r e s i d e n c e , which the t r i a l husband court found to have a f a i r m a r k e t v a l u e o f $ 2 4 7 , 0 0 0 ; ( 3 ) t h e w i f e was 65% of the e q u i t y i n the m a r i t a l t h e h u s b a n d was was accordingly, o r d e r e d t o pay t h e w i f e $ 1 6 0 , 5 5 0 ; ( 4 ) t h e w i f e awarded 50% account p l u s r e s i d e n c e , and, awarded of the $16,000 t h e h u s b a n d had w i t h d r a w n f r o m t h e j o i n t a c c o u n t ; (5) the the husband was awarded awarded $8,000 as checking the was additional of the p a r t i e s ' j o i n t for wife an value the 2003 the Saturn parties' reimbursement automobile; Catalina (6) sailboat, s c o o t e r , t h e r o w b o a t , and a t r a i l e r ; ( 7 ) t h e w i f e was 50% of the parties' joint money-market the awarded account, plus an a d d i t i o n a l $5,000 as r e i m b u r s e m e n t f o r $10,000 t h e h u s b a n d had w i t h d r a w n f r o m t h e money-market a c c o u n t d u r i n g t r i a l ; ( 8 ) husband was ordered to e q u a l i z e the p a r t i e s ' IRA periodic alimony h u s b a n d was pay the wife $757.69 in order a c c o u n t s ; ( 9 ) t h e w i f e was t o pay the wife's attorney fees to awarded i n t h e amount o f $2,500 p e r m o n t h ; ( 1 0 ) ordered the in the the amount o f $ 1 4 , 6 2 5 ; and ( 1 1 ) t h e p a r t i e s were a w a r d e d s p e c i f i c items of p e r s o n a l property. 14 2100269 On of December 20, appeal. The wife 2010, the husband f i l e d filed a cross-appeal a timely notice on December 30, 2010. Issues The husband argues t h r e e issues on appeal: (1) whether 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 i t s a w a r d o f $2,500 i n monthly p e r i o d i c alimony to the w i f e i n v i o l a t i o n of § 2 - 5 1 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, (2) w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l of alimony v i o l a t e s § 30-2-51(b)(3), whether the t r i a l the husband's wife failed and (3) retirement t o meet h e r accounts burden r a i s e s one issue because, of p r o v i n g course on of the he alleges, which the retirement marriage. c r o s s - a p p e a l : whether the c o u r t e r r e d i n f i n d i n g t h a t t h e a s s e t s i n h e r i t e d by the h u s b a n d were n o t 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 the trial wife A l a . Code 1975, award 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 sums f r o m f u n d s were a c q u i r e d d u r i n g t h e The court's 30- parties. Standard of Review "A d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t t h a t i s b a s e d on e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d ore tenus i s a f f o r d e d a p r e s u m p t i o n of c o r r e c t n e s s . Brown v. Brown, 719 So. 2d 228 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 8 ) . T h i s p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s i s b a s e d upon t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s u n i q u e p o s i t i o n t o o b s e r v e t h e p a r t i e s and w i t n e s s e s f i r s t h a n d and t o 15 2100269 e v a l u a t e t h e i r demeanor a n d c r e d i b i l i t y . Brown, s u p r a ; H a l l v . M a z z o n e , 486 So. 2d 408 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . A j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t b a s e d on i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t s w i l l be r e v e r s e d o n l y where i t i s s o u n s u p p o r t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e a s t o be p l a i n l y a n d p a l p a b l y w r o n g . Brown, s u p r a . However, t h e r e i s no presumption of correctness i n the t r i a l court's a p p l i c a t i o n o f l a w t o t h e f a c t s . G a s t o n v . Ames, 514 So. 2d 877 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . " R o b i n s o n v. R o b i n s o n , 795 So. 2d 729, 732-33 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2001). Analysis We w i l l trial first consider the wife's contention that the c o u r t e r r e d i n f i n d i n g t h a t t h e a s s e t s i n h e r i t e d by t h e h u s b a n d were n o t 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 parties' marriage determined before because i t is a threshold issue t o be c o n s i d e r i n g t h e husband's arguments. The w i f e argues t h a t t h e husband's i n h e r i t a n c e , s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e ExxonMobil stock, marriage because, listed husband was u s e d f o r t h e common b e n e f i t s h e s a y s , t h e d i v i d e n d s f r o m t h e s t o c k were a s income on t h e p a r t i e s ' placed $23,000 joint tax returns of h i s inheritance ExxonMobil trial court s t o c k because awarded the husband and the i n their money-market a c c o u n t i n o r d e r t o p a y t h e p a r t i e s ' The of the joint taxes. 100% of the i t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e s t o c k was t h e 16 2100269 husband's separate property that had n o t been u s e d f o r the common b e n e f i t o f t h e m a r r i a g e a n d was t h e r e f o r e n o t s u b j e c t t o d i v i s i o n u n d e r A l a . Code 1975, the trial court § 30-2-51(a). Specifically, s t a t e d on t h e r e c o r d : " I d o n ' t know t h a t t h e r e w o u l d have b e e n any way f o r [ t h e h u s b a n d ] t o do a n y t h i n g e l s e t o k e e p h i s i n h e r i t a n c e s e p a r a t e i n what he d i d . B a s e d on t h a t , I'm a w a r d i n g h i m 100 p e r c e n t o f t h e [ E x x o n M o b i l ] stock. A f t e r a 4 1 - y e a r m a r r i a g e [ ] ends l i k e i t d o e s , t h a t does n o t f e e l r i g h t , b u t t h a t i s what I b e l i e v e t h e l a w r e q u i r e s me t o do." 2 Section 30-2-51(a) provides: " I f e i t h e r s p o u s e h a s no s e p a r a t e e s t a t e o r i f i t i s i n s u f f i c i e n t f o r t h e maintenance o f a spouse, t h e j u d g e , upon g r a n t i n g a d i v o r c e , a t h i s o r h e r d i s c r e t i o n , may o r d e r t o a s p o u s e an a l l o w a n c e o u t of t h e e s t a t e o f t h e other spouse, t a k i n g i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e value t h e r e o f and t h e c o n d i t i o n o f the spouse's f a m i l y . N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e f o r e g o i n g , t h e j u d g e may n o t t a k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n any property acquired p r i o r t o the marriage of the p a r t i e s o r by i n h e r i t a n c e o r g i f t u n l e s s t h e judge f i n d s f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y , o r income p r o d u c e d by t h e p r o p e r t y , has been 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 marriage." The husband testifying spent as t o e x a c t l y a considerable amount how he h a d i n v e s t e d i n h e r i t a n c e from b o t h h i s mother and h i s aunt. wife's 2 testimony 17 time and used t h e Moreover, t h e d i d n o t c o n t r a d i c t t h e husband's S e e , s u p r a n o t e 1. of testimony 2100269 regarding the issue t h a t t h e h u s b a n d had of his inheritance. cashed U n i t e d I t was S t a t e s s a v i n g s bonds w o r t h $23,000 and had p l a c e d t h a t amount o f money i n t o t h e joint money-market a c c o u n t t o pay i n h e r i t e d f u n d s and a s s e t s had undisputed taxes but that parties' a l l other r e m a i n e d i n h i s name a l o n e t h a t any i n v e s t m e n t income d e r i v e d f r o m t h o s e f u n d s and had been automatically reinvested. Moreover, s p e c i f i c a l l y t e s t i f i e d t h a t , o t h e r t h a n t h e $23,000 into the joint money-market a c c o u n t , used h i s i n h e r i t a n c e to b e n e f i t the 3 Her testimony was as the assets the wife deposited h u s b a n d had household. never 3 follows: "Q. [ H u s b a n d ' s c o u n s e l ] : O t h e r t h a n $23,000 i n bonds, did any of the cash that he i n h e r i t e d , s t o c k he i n h e r i t e d was t h a t e v e r u s e d t o b e n e f i t y o u r h o u s e h o l d i n any way? "A. [ W i f e ] : No, "Q. [Husband's c o u n s e l ] : Were t h e dividends g e n e r a t e d f r o m t h e s t o c k s t h a t he p u r c h a s e d from a l l of the i n h e r i t e d a s s e t s ever used for household expenses? "A. [ W i f e ] : Nope, j u s t p a i d t a x e s "Q. [Husband's c o u n s e l ] : Were t h e y e v e r u s e d f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e f a m i l y i n any way? "A. [ W i f e ] : Nope." and i s n ' t t h a t a shame. 18 and on i t . 2100269 The (Ala. w i f e r e l i e s upon Weichman v. Weichman, 628 Civ. App. court erred. 1993), to b o l s t e r her claim So. that the I n Weichman, t h i s c o u r t a f f i r m e d a t r i a l j u d g m e n t h o l d i n g t h a t a b a s e b a l l - c a r d c o l l e c t i o n was asset and not part of the evidence presented w i f e had c o n t r i b u t e d to the the collection However, and i n the had in this ExxonMobil case, was no husband's trial court purchased the part separate trial of evidence the 867 trial court's a marital estate when established that c o l l e c t i o n and been s t o c k was there 2d that additions with court marital concluded that any s t o c k had b e e n s o l d f o r use by e i t h e r p a r t y . to assets. that husband's s e p a r a t e indicating the the estate, part of the Therefore, this c a s e i s u n l i k e Weichman. "The determination of a spouses's separate matter f o r the t r i e r of f a c t a f t e r r e v i e w i n g in e a c h c a s e . " S h i r l e y v. Civ. App. 1992). significant inheritance. that, bonds, other the In amount this of the husband's case, testimony Moreover, than Shirley, as noted $23,000 from inheritance 19 600 the So. a l l the 2d 284, trial regarding above, estate the the sale had never is a evidence 287 court (Ala. heard a the husband's wife testified of the been savings used to 2100269 b e n e f i t t h e p a r t i e s i n a n y way. See H u l l v. H u l l , 904, 908 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) i n h e r i t a n c e had n o t been used (holding 887 So. 2d that the wife'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 u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e when t h e e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t the wife had withdrawn only $10,000 f r o m h e r i n h e r i t a n c e on one o c c a s i o n t o r e m o d e l t h e k i t c h e n ) . testimony, finding we c a n n o t that Therefore, conclude that the t r i a l t h e husband's inheritance, b a s e d on t h e court erred i n specifically the E x x o n M o b i l s t o c k , h a d n o t b e e n u s e d r e g u l a r l y f o r t h e common benefit of thep a r t i e s during t h e i r marriage. a f f i r m the t r i a l A c c o r d i n g l y , we c o u r t ' s judgment i n s o f a r as i t awarded 100% of t h e E x x o n M o b i l s t o c k t o t h e husband. The husband contends awarding the wife because, he s a y s , monthly income. alimony award that $2,500 p e r month t h e award him i n h e r i t a n c e , which the t r i a l separate retirement estate, court i n light alimony ofh i s he a r g u e s t h a t payment o f t h e to either liquidate his c o u r t c o n c l u d e d was p a r t o f h i s or give the wife more b e n e f i t s ; thus, he c l a i m s that the t r i a l judgment awarding erred i n i n periodic i s excessive Specifically, requires the t r i a l than s u c h a l a r g e a l i m o n y award 20 50% of h i s court's indirectly did 2100269 what § 3 0 - 2 - 5 1 ( a ) and ( b ) ( 3 ) p r o h i b i t i t from doing directly. " [ M ] a t t e r s o f a l i m o n y and p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n rest soundly 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 , and r u l i n g s on t h o s e m a t t e r s w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l e x c e p t f o r a p l a i n and p a l p a b l e a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n . W e l c h v. W e l c h , 636 So. 2d 464 ( A l a . Civ. App. 1 9 9 4 ) . M a t t e r s o f a l i m o n y and p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n a r e i n t e r r e l a t e d , and t h e e n t i r e j u d g m e n t must be c o n s i d e r e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n as t o e i t h e r o f t h o s e i s s u e s . W i l l i n g v. W i l l i n g , 655 So. 2d 1064 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 5 ) . " H e n d e r s o n v. Henderson, 800 So. 2d 595, 597 (Ala. Civ. 2000). It i s well established that " [ t ] h e purposes of alimony are to p r e s e r v e , to the e x t e n t p o s s i b l e , the economic s t a t u s of the p a r t i e s t h a t e x i s t e d d u r i n g the marriage and t o p r o v i d e s u p p o r t f o r t h e d e p e n d e n t f o r m e r s p o u s e . Kahn v. Kahn, 682 So. 2d 1377, 1380 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) ; and O'Neal v. O ' N e a l , 678 So. 2d 161, 165 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) . An a w a r d o f a l i m o n y and t h e d i v i s i o n o f m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y must be c o n s i d e r e d t o g e t h e r and must be e q u i t a b l e . Ex p a r t e D u r b i n , 818 So. 2d [404] a t 408 [ ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ] . The d e t e r m i n a t i o n as t o what i s e q u i t a b l e l i e s w i t h i n the sound d i s c r e t i o n of the trial court. Id. Factors t o be considered in d e t e r m i n i n g an a w a r d o f a l i m o n y and t h e d i v i s i o n o f property i n c l u d e the p a r t i e s ' r e s p e c t i v e ages, earning capacities, and future prospects; the p a r t i e s ' s t a n d a r d o f l i v i n g and s t a t i o n s i n l i f e ; the l e n g t h of the marriage; the conduct of the p a r t i e s i n r e g a r d t o t h e c a u s e o f t h e d i v o r c e ; and t h e s o u r c e , v a l u e , and t y p e s o f m a r i t a l p r o p e r t i e s . M u r r a y v. M u r r a y , 598 So. 2d 921 ( A l a . C i v . App. 21 App. 2100269 1 9 9 2 ) ; R o l l s v. R o l l s , 623 So. 2d 744 (Ala. Civ. App. 1 9 9 3 ) ; Crowe v. Crowe, 602 So. 2d 441, 443 (Ala. C i v . App. 1992) ( f a u l t can be c o n s i d e r e d i n d i v i d i n g property, even i f the divorce is not g r a n t e d on t h e b a s i s o f f a u l t ) . " C a r t e r v. C a r t e r , 934 So. 2d 406, 409 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005). A d d i t i o n a l l y , we n o t e t h a t " [ p ] e r i o d i c a l i m o n y i s p a y a b l e f r o m the c u r r e n t earnings 47 So. 979 3d 262, So. 2d In 265 798, this of the paying ( A l a . C i v . App. 800 s p o u s e . " M i l l e r v. 2009) ( c i t i n g B r a y v. ( A l a . C i v . App. case, the parties Miller, Bray, 2007). are both retired and the e v i d e n c e as t o t h e amount o f m o n t h l y income t h e y r e c e i v e undisputed. also undisputed I t was t h a t t h e w i f e had had was some serious medical issues. F u r t h e r , the t r i a l c o u r t d i v o r c e d the parties grounds of and on emotional the a b u s e on the i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y and part of the husband; thus, c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d ' s c o n d u c t was i n r e g a r d t o the cause of the d i v o r c e . presented evidence to the trial physical A d d i t i o n a l l y , the court i n d i c a t i n g that $2,845.74, w h i c h i n c l u d e d t h e c o s t o f p a y i n g cannot periodic conclude alimony to that the the trial wife. 22 court However, wife her approximately rent. erred we trial a major f a c t o r m o n t h l y e x p e n s e s f o l l o w i n g t h e d i v o r c e w o u l d be we the Therefore, in awarding will consider 2100269 whether t h e award o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y i s e x c e s s i v e i n l i g h t o f the f i n a n c i a l a s s e t s of the husband. Specifically, the husband argues t h a t the t r i a l court 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 $2,500 p e r month b e c a u s e , he excessive alimony award by says, he c a n o n l y p a y s u c h an liquidating h i s i n h e r i t a n c e or p a y i n g more t h a n 5 0 % o f h i s r e t i r e m e n t income t o t h e w i f e . note t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t may way to i n d i r e c t l y circumvent the p r o v i s i o n s of § and ( b ) ( 3 ) . See, e.g., Murphy v. Murphy, 23 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1993) We n o t u s e an a w a r d o f a l i m o n y as a 30-2-51(a) 624 So. 2d 620, 622¬ (reversing a t r i a l c o u r t ' s award o f a l i m o n y i n g r o s s t o t h e w i f e and h o l d i n g t h a t t h e " d i s p o s i t i o n was an effort prohibits" could be to indirectly do used to satisfy the existing law awarded t o t h e husband when t h e o n l y a s s e t s what that award the were two retirement accounts). The p a r t i e s a g r e e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s ' income was f u n d e d by t h e h u s b a n d ' s J I Chase p e n s i o n , pension, all and t h e p a r t i e s ' retirement testimony, benefits. the husband's A l l i s Social Chalmers S e c u r i t y checks, which are According to the husband's which the wife d i d not d i s p u t e , the p a r t i e s ' 23 total 2100269 monthly income t h e husband's total m o n t h l y income w i t h o u t any c o n t r i b u t i o n f r o m t h e w i f e ' s Social Security 51(b)(3), was $3,219. c h e c k was $ 2 , 6 2 1 . However, T h e r e f o r e , p u r s u a n t t o § 30-2- t h e w i f e i s e n t i t l e d t o a maximum o f $1,310.50 p e r 4 month f r o m t h e h u s b a n d ' s m o n t h l y i n c o m e . t h e r e t i r e m e n t income was t h e h u s b a n d ' s and b e c a u s e "[p]eriodic Accordingly, because s o l e source o f income 5 alimony i s payable from t h e c u r r e n t e a r n i n g s o f t h e p a y i n g s p o u s e , " t h e maximum amount o f p e r i o d i c 4 S e c t i o n 30-2-51(b)(3) provides: "(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 t h e e s t a t e o f e i t h e r spouse t h e 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 b e n e f i t s , 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 , provided that the following conditions are met: " "(3) The t o t a l amount of the retirement b e n e f i t s payable t o the non-covered spouse s h a l l n o t e x c e e d 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 b y t h e c o u r t . " T h e r e was some t e s t i m o n y a t t r i a l i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e h u s b a n d h a d a d d i t i o n a l income i n t h e f o r m o f d i v i d e n d s f r o m t h e E x x o n M o b i l s t o c k , as e v i d e n c e d b y t h e p a r t i e s j o i n t t a x returns. However, t h i s income c a n n o t be c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e award o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y b e c a u s e t h e E x x o n M o b i l s t o c k was deemed t o be p a r t o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s s e p a r a t e e s t a t e . See § 302-51(a). 5 24 2100269 alimony the trial court c o u l d have a w a r d e d t o t h e $1,310.50 p e r month. M i l l e r , h o l d t h a t the trial alimony award 3d a t 265. Therefore, c o u r t e r r e d i n awarding the w i f e p e r month i n p e r i o d i c Accordingly, 47 So. wife was we $2,500 alimony. we reverse because the the award trial court's violates A d d i t i o n a l l y , b e c a u s e an a w a r d o f a l i m o n y § periodic- 30-2-51(b)(3). must be considered t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e d i v i s i o n o f m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y , see Albertson v. A l b e r t s o n , 1995), also reverse property. the On alimony fact So. 2d 118, 120 the judgment i n s o f a r remand, t h e t r i a l a w a r d and appropriate the 678 in light that the husband's s e p a r a t e ( A l a . C i v . App. as i t d i v i d e d the division of the p a r t i e s ' as i t considers retirement stock is an awarding because, he the of and the estate. wife says, incomes asset L a s t l y , the husband contends t h a t the t r i a l in marital court i s i n s t r u c t e d to adjust the p r o p e r t y ExxonMobil we any the sums f r o m h i s wife failed to court erred retirement meet her accounts burden of p r o v i n g w h i c h r e t i r e m e n t f u n d s were a c q u i r e d d u r i n g t h e course of spouse the marriage. It is a general 25 rule that "the 2100269 seeking an proving award of r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s b e a r s the amount accumulated during 651, 654 Code 1975 value of the marriage." ( A l a . C i v . App. ("The of any marriage retirement court benefits Payne v. that Payne, 48 shall retirement not include benefits i n the acquired So. 3d Ala. estate prior of were 2010) ; see a l s o § 3 0 - 2 - 5 1 ( b ) ( 2 ) , the to the " ) . However, i n t h i s c a s e , we c a n n o t a d d r e s s t h e h u s b a n d ' s a r g u m e n t on a p p e a l issue before The the burden the t r i a l trial b e c a u s e he f a i l e d to r a i s e this court. c o u r t made no f i n d i n g s of f a c t r e l a t i v e to i t s a w a r d o f r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s ; i t s j u d g m e n t m e r e l y awards wife p e r i o d i c alimony i n a s p e c i f i c amount and the requires that t h e h u s b a n d pay an a d d i t i o n a l $757.69 i n o r d e r t o e q u a l i z e t h e IRA accounts for review h i s c h a l l e n g e to the s u f f i c i e n c y of the evidence to between the p a r t i e s . what r e t i r e m e n t lengthy marriage, issue before a s s e t s were a c q u i r e d d u r i n g t h e h u s b a n d was the t r i a l a postjudgment motion. So. 2d 797, the trial Thus, i n o r d e r t o the preserve as parties' r e q u i r e d t o have a r g u e d t h a t c o u r t o r t o have r a i s e d t h a t i s s u e i n See New 801-02 ( A l a . 2004) c o u r t makes no Props., ("[I]n a nonjury specific 26 L.L.C. v. S t e w a r t , 905 case i n which f i n d i n g s of f a c t , a party 2100269 must move f o r a new t r i a l the trial or otherwise court the question weight of the evidence relating properly raise before to the s u f f i c i e n c y or i n order t o preserve that question f o r a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w . " ) ; s e e a l s o Powe v. Powe, 48 So. 3d 635, 637 (Ala. C i v . App. 2009) ( r e f u s i n g t o address argument t h a t t h e w i f e h a d f a i l e d military-retirement p a r t i e s ' marriage issue i n the t r i a l In benefits that t h e husband's t o p r o v e t h e amount o f h i s had accrued during the because t h e husband had f a i l e d t o argue t h a t court). t h i s case, t h e husband d i d n o t argue t h a t t h e w i f e had failed t o prove what during the marriage postjudgment motion. retirement assets at and trial Therefore, we had been he d i d not cannot acquired file address a the h u s b a n d ' s argument t h a t t h e w i f e f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h e amount o f the husband's r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s t h a t had a c c r u e d d u r i n g t h e p a r t i e s ' marriage. judgment insofar 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 as i t awarded the wife $757.69 court's of the husband's IRA i n o r d e r t o e q u a l i z e t h e p a r t i e s ' IRA a c c o u n t s . Conclusion To s u m m a r i z e o u r h o l d i n g s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e h u s b a n d ' s appeal, we a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l 27 c o u r t i n s o f a r as 2100269 i t awards t h e w i f e a p o r t i o n o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s I R A t o e q u a l i z e the parties' trial IRA a c c o u n t s ; we reverse t h e judgment of the c o u r t i n s o f a r a s i t awards t h e w i f e $2,500 i n p e r i o d i c alimony and d i v i d e s the parties' remand t h e c a u s e t o t h e t r i a l respect i s part of h i s separate common benefit a n d we court with i n s t r u c t i o n s . to the cross-appeal, j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as i t h o l d s marital property; we affirm the t r i a l With court's t h a t t h e husband's i n h e r i t a n c e e s t a t e a n d h a d n o t been u s e d f o r t h e of the p a r t i e s during the course of the marriage. APPEAL AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. CROSS-APPEAL AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n , concur. 28 Bryan, 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.