Natalie Rockett v. Craig L. Rockett

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 08/05/2011 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 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2011 2100420 N a t a l i e Rockett v. C r a i g L. Rockett Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court, Bessemer D i v i s i o n (DR-09-163) THOMAS, J u d g e . N a t a l i e Rockett ("the w i f e " ) appeals from a judgment o f the Bessemer D i v i s i o n o f t h e J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court d i v o r c i n g h e r f r o m C r a i g L. R o c k e t t ("the husband") i n s o f a r a s i t f a i l e d 2100420 to award her p e r i o d i c alimony or to reserve the issue of alimony for future consideration. The p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d separated i n J u l y 2008, and, f i l e d a complaint the wife based on a divorce and c o u n t e r c l a i m e d for a divorce, alleging trial court several issues pendente lite requesting award based entered answered the incompatibility. a l s o moved t h e and wife from The s t a t i n g t h a t the p a r t i e s had court husband court, seeking relief, trial parties incompatibility. a d u l t e r y , abandonment, and wife The 2009, t h e on M a r c h 12, i n the t r i a l husband's c o m p l a i n t The i n F e b r u a r y 1992. that on the a pendente f o r pendente lite r e a c h e d an a g r e e m e n t the trial parties' lite order court enter agreement. on May on 20, a The 2009. The p e n d e n t e l i t e o r d e r r e s t r a i n e d t h e p a r t i e s f r o m h a r a s s i n g , stalking, parties or or threatening each other, from c o n t a c t i n g or o t h e r w i s e indirectly, with each other. and i t restrained communicating, The pendente the directly lite order f u r t h e r p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e w i f e w o u l d have e x c l u s i v e p o s s e s s i o n of the m a r i t a l On June 5, pendente l i t e residence. 2009, t h e relief. h u s b a n d moved t h e trial court for I n h i s motion, the husband s t a t e d t h a t 2 2100420 the p a r t i e s h a d been u n a b l e t o a g r e e on d i s p o s i t i o n of the marital residence, that n e i t h e r p a r t y d e s i r e d to possess the marital and t h a t i t was residence, i n the best the p a r t i e s t o p l a c e the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e i n t e r e s t s of f o r s a l e , using the p r o c e e d s f r o m t h e s a l e t o s a t i s f y t h e o u t s t a n d i n g m o r t g a g e and dividing any husband requested requiring remaining p r o c e e d s between that the trial the p a r t i e s to place the p a r t i e s . court enter The an the m a r i t a l residence order on t h e market f o r s a l e and r e q u i r i n g each p a r t y t o pay o n e - h a l f of the m o n t h l y mortgage-payment o b l i g a t i o n . On June 19, 2009, the wife pendente l i t e alimony. she employed u n t i l had been store where she had moved the t r i a l court f o r I n her motion, the wife a l l e g e d that worked March closed, 2009, and when the c l o t h i n g that she had been u n a b l e t o f i n d employment s i n c e t h a t t i m e d e s p i t e h e r d i l i g e n t efforts. The wife alleged that she needed financial a s s i s t a n c e f r o m t h e h u s b a n d and t h a t h e r o n l y s o u r c e o f income was wife $250 p e r week i n u n e m p l o y m e n t - i n s u r a n c e b e n e f i t s . f u r t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t she was u n a b l e t o p a y t h e m o r t g a g e payment o r u t i l i t y b i l l s 13, The 2009, the t r i a l f o r the m a r i t a l residence. court entered 3 a On A u g u s t second pendente lite 2100420 order, r e q u i r i n g the p a r t i e s t o l i s t the m a r i t a l residence f o r s a l e , o r d e r i n g t h a t any p r o c e e d s f r o m t h e s a l e o f t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e be p a i d t o t h e c i r c u i t c l e r k p e n d i n g f u r t h e r o r d e r s of the t r i a l court, m o r t g a g e payments The which 2010, trial and o r d e r i n g court the t r i a l held court automobile, his or her possession for the outstanding be a hearing entered a 4, 2010, a t On September judgment 7, d i v o r c i n g the c o u r t awarded each p a r t y c l o t h e s , and p e r s o n a l property currently i n a n d o r d e r e d e a c h p a r t y t o be r e s p o n s i b l e d e b t on t h e a u t o m o b i l e t h a t he o r she was The t r i a l sold, with on A u g u s t testified. I n i t s judgment, t h e t r i a l the awarded. t o make t h e on t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e . t h e husband and t h e w i f e parties. t h e husband court ordered that the marital the net proceeds of the sale residence 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 ; h o w e v e r , i f one o f t h e p a r t i e s d e s i r e d t o keep t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e , the party could n o t i f y the other p a r t y w i t h i n 60 d a y s a n d t h e n assume t h e m o r t g a g e . was o r d e r e d t o vacate The w i f e t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e w i t h i n 60 d a y s o f t h e e n t r y o f t h e j u d g m e n t i f t h e h u s b a n d e l e c t e d t o assume t h e outstanding mortgage. The t r i a l court e a c h p a r t y was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r any b i l l s 4 f u r t h e r ordered that i n h i s o r h e r name. 2100420 The trial court also ordered the husband to pay the wife $6,000 as a l i m o n y i n g r o s s , p a y a b l e i n 12 m o n t h l y p a y m e n t s a t $500 p e r month, a w a r d e d t h e w i f e $323 as h e r h a l f i n t e r e s t i n the husband's r e t i r e m e n t pay h i s or her The own account, attorney's wife f i l e d and ordered each p a r t y to fees. a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on O c t o b e r 7, 2010, i n w h i c h she a r g u e d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e t r i a l court should $500- convert per-month should The wife i t s $6,000 a l i m o n y - i n - g r o s s periodic-alimony order the award h u s b a n d t o pay and the award t o a that wife's the trial court attorney's fees. t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d t h e w i f e ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , and subsequently The appealed to t h i s w i f e a r g u e s on appeal the court. t h a t the trial court erred by f a i l i n g t o a w a r d h e r p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y and by n o t r e s e r v i n g t h e r i g h t to order p e r i o d i c alimony i n the f u t u r e . a d d r e s s t h e w i f e ' s argument t h a t t h e t r i a l awarding her p e r i o d i c We will c o u r t e r r e d i n not alimony. "The w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w i s t h a t a d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t b a s e d on o r e t e n u s 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 . See R o b i n s o n v . R o b i n s o n , 795 So. 2 d 729 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) . Such a judgment w i l l be reversed o n l y where i t i s u n s u p p o r t e d by the e v i d e n c e so as 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 . I d . a t 733. On a p p e a l t h e d i v i s i o n o f p r o p e r t y a n d t h e a w a r d o f a l i m o n y a r e i n t e r r e l a t e d , and t h e entire 5 first 2100420 j u d g m e n t m u s t 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 issue. See O ' N e a l v . O ' N e a l , 678 So. 2 d 161 ( A l a . Civ. App. 1 9 9 6 ) . A p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n does not have t o be e q u a l i n o r d e r t o be e q u i t a b l e b a s e d on the p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s of each c a s e ; a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of what i s e q u i t a b l e r e s t s w i t h i n the sound d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t . See G o l d e n v . G o l d e n , 681 So. 2 d 605 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996)." B a g g e t t v. B a g g e t t , When reviewing alimony, we 855 the So. trial must a l s o 2d 5 5 6 , 559 court's consider ( A l a . C i v . App. determination i t s division of 2003). regarding the m a r i t a l estate. "An a w a r d o f a l i m o n y a n d 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 are c o n s i d e r e d together and are matters w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . C a r t e r v. C a r t e r , 934 So. 2d 406 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ) ( c i t i n g Ex p a r t e D u r b i n , 818 So. 2d 4 0 4 , 408 (Ala. 2001)). Because those matters are i n t e r r e l a t e d , the e n t i r e j u d g m e n t m u s t 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 e x c e e d e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n as t o e i t h e r i s s u e . See [ H a r m o n v . ] H a r m o n , [928 So. 2 d 295 ( A l a . Civ. App. 2 0 0 5 ) ] . Furthermore, a property d i v i s i o n d o e s n o t h a v e t o be e q u a l , b u t i t m u s t be e q u i t a b l e , J . H . F . v . P . S . F . , 835 So. 2 d 1024 (Ala. Civ. App. 2 0 0 2 ) , a n d i t m u s t be ' s u p p o r t e d b y t h e p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s o f t h e c a s e , ' Ex p a r t e E l l i o t t , 782 So. 2d 3 0 8 , 311 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . The d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f w h a t i s e q u i t a b l e i s a matter of d i s c r e t i o n f o r the trial c o u r t . See C a r t e r , s u p r a . " Clements 2007). v. The determining Clements, trial a court party's 990 So. 2d should need 383, consider for 6 alimony 390 (Ala. Civ. App. s e v e r a l f a c t o r s when and when dividing 2100420 marital property, including "'the l e n g t h of the marriage, age and h e a l t h o f t h e p a r t i e s , of the p a r t i e s , and t h e f u t u r e employment of living to which accustomed during the marriage.'" 311 1128, 1129 prospects t h e s o u r c e , v a l u e , and t y p e o f p r o p e r t y owned, the standard 308, the ( A l a . 2000) the p a r t i e s Ex p a r t e E l l i o t t , (quoting Nowell ( A l a . C i v . App. have v. Nowell, become 782 S o . 2 d 474 So. 2d 1985)). The h u s b a n d was 39 y e a r s o l d a t the time of t r i a l . He was e m p l o y e d by A l a b a m a A v i a t i o n , where he h a d w o r k e d f o r o v e r 19 y e a r s , and he e a r n e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y $45,000 p e r y e a r . After t h e p a r t i e s s e p a r a t e d i n J u l y 2008, t h e h u s b a n d l i v e d w i t h h i s p a r e n t s f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y one y e a r . The h u s b a n d t h e n moved i n with claimed his girlfriend, relationship only w i t h whom he after the parties had t o have begun separated. h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s m o n t h l y take-home income was and t h a t h i s m o n t h l y l i v i n g e x p e n s e s t o t a l e d $2,548, the mortgage payment w i f e was r e s i d i n g , also testified on t h e m a r i t a l residence a The $2,692 including i n which the f o r w h i c h he was r e s p o n s i b l e . The h u s b a n d t h a t he e a r n e d some income from p l a y i n g i n a r o c k band p a r t - t i m e ; however, t h e husband t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h a t 7 2100420 income b a r e l y c o v e r e d t h e e x p e n s e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e b a n d ' s activities. The w i f e was 53 y e a r s o l d a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l . had w o r k e d i n r e t a i l , "off specifically specialty-clothing stores, and o n " f o r over 40 y e a r s . The w i f e has a degree i n merchandising w i t h a minor i n m a r k e t i n g . e m p l o y e r was The w i f e a s p e c i a l t y - c l o t h i n g store bachelor's Her last i n Mountain Brook, where she h a d w o r k e d f o r 18 y e a r s ; she managed t h e s t o r e and e a r n e d an a n n u a l s a l a r y o f $ 4 5 , 0 0 0 . The s t o r e c l o s e d i n M a r c h 2009, leaving the wife unemployed. The wife received u n e m p l o y m e n t - i n s u r a n c e payments i n t h e amount o f $250 p e r week after she l o s t h e r j o b ; h e r u n e m p l o y m e n t - i n s u r a n c e payments ended i n March 2010. The wife testified that she began l o o k i n g f o r work as s o o n as she f o u n d o u t t h e s t o r e w o u l d be closing -- a r o u n d C h r i s t m a s o f 2008. The w i f e d i d n o t find new employment u n t i l a f t e r she s t o p p e d r e c e i v i n g unemploymentinsurance payments -- i n May 2010 -- when the wife began working a t another s p e c i a l t y - c l o t h i n g s t o r e ; at the time of trial, the w i f e worked t h e r e $10 p e r h o u r , earning 29 h o u r s p e r week a t a r a t e o f a total t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d l o o k e d o f $290 The wife for additional, part-time work 8 p e r week. 2100420 t h a t w o u l d n o t i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e h o u r s she was w o r k i n g a t h e r new j o b ; however, unsuccessful. she testified that her e f f o r t s When a s k e d on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n had been w h e t h e r she h a d a t t e m p t e d t o f i n d employment t h a t w o u l d a f f o r d h e r more h o u r s per week than responded the that her employer because turn into monthly 29 she first she h o p e d was obligation testified that totaled working, the was to her The $1,061; wife testified however, the "would that wife at the time of t r i a l , also t h e w i f e was s t i l l residence; l i v i n g i n the m a r i t a l The w i f e f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she e s t i m a t e d she w o u l d n e e d her she w o u l d n e e d an a d d i t i o n a l $750 o r $800 i n o r d e r t o p a y r e n t once she moved o u t o f t h e m a r i t a l residence. wife current t h a t h e r employment t h e r e something b e t t e r . " expenses currently that an a d d i t i o n a l $1,500 t o $2,000 p e r month on which to l i v e . The wife problems. testified that she suffered from health S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d t y p e II diabetes and a m i t r a l - v a l v e i s s u e . The w i f e t e s t i f i e d that s t r e s s a g g r a v a t e s h e r m i t r a l - v a l v e i s s u e a n d t h a t , when she i s u n d e r a l a r g e amount o f s t r e s s , h e r c h a n c e o f h a v i n g a or h e a r t attack increases. The w i f e 9 also t e s t i f i e d stroke that she 2100420 was not t a k i n g a l l the medications t a k i n g b e c a u s e she The testimony t h a t she c o u l d not a f f o r d c o l l e g e d e g r e e and similar that the expenses w i t h her considered the alimony. See when deciding whether M i l l e r v. M i l l e r , 2009)(quoting Civ. App. consider' also 2009)("In alimony, 47 So. E b e r t v. E b e r t , 1985))("This court has held i n d e c i d i n g an Stone, fashioning the trial So. 3d property award 265 1232, 1236 division noted 2d 615, the just her periodic 618 (Ala. 'ability 10 (Ala. Civ. and an to f a c t o r to award f a c t o r s such as See App. of the "). above, the t r i a l whether t o award p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y her (Ala. Civ. i s a proper c o u r t must c o n s i d e r 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 M o r e o v e r , as we not award of p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y . " ) . 26 a to that in c o u r t c o u l d have and So. a i t i s c l e a r from 3d 262, 469 opposed t o a c t u a l e a r n i n g s , S t o n e v. of experience c u r r e n t income, the t r i a l ability, App. w i f e has c a n n o t p r e s e n t l y meet a l l o f earning income, as wife The Although wife's current earn, incomes. a l a r g e number o f y e a r s the r e t a i l - c l o t h i n g s a l e s i n d u s t r y . evidence them. shows t h a t , u n t i l t h e w i f e l o s t h e r j o b i n M a r c h 2009, t h e p a r t i e s had the s h o u l d have b e e n court's decision must be c o n s i d e r e d i n l i g h t 2100420 o f i t s d i v i s i o n o f t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y . See C l e m e n t s , 990 So. 2d a t 390. In t h i s case, the p a r t i e s ' main a s s e t . not want, residence. and 1 could Thus, the m a r i t a l residence c o n s t i t u t e d Both p a r t i e s t e s t i f i e d not afford to keep, the m a r i t a l residence w i t h t h e p r o c e e d s o f t h e s a l e t o be s p l i t parties. titled pay t h a t they d i d the was o r d e r e d associated with testimony property, the automobile, and whatever regarding the value of the p a r t i e s ' a n d b a s e d on t h e t e s t i m o n y mutual-fund account o f $3,500, that was personal The w i f e was a w a r d e d i n h e r name, a n d was a w a r d e d o n e - h a l f v a l u e o f t h e husband's r e t i r e m e n t account. h u s b a n d was o r d e r e d T h e r e was i t does n o t a p p e a r t h a t t h e p a r t i e s h a d any s i g n i f i c a n t s a v i n g s . balance automobile i n h i s o r h e r name, a l o n g w i t h t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y was i n t h a t p a r t y ' s p o s s e s s i o n . a sold, e q u a l l y between t h e The h u s b a n d a n d t h e w i f e e a c h r e c e i v e d an the debt little marital t o pay t o the w i f e which had a of the present A d d i t i o n a l l y , the $6,000 as a l i m o n y i n The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e e s t i m a t e d t h a t t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e c o u l d s e l l " i n t h e h i g h $180s," a l t h o u g h t h e o n l y o f f e r t h e p a r t i e s h a d h a d on t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e h a d b e e n approximately $170,000. The o u t s t a n d i n g b a l a n c e on t h e mortgage e q u a l e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y $163,177.51. Both p a r t i e s s t a t e d t h a t i f the m a r i t a l residence d i d not s e l l , i t would l i k e l y go i n t o f o r e c l o s u r e . 1 11 2100420 gross. it From t h e i t e m s appears that the f o r which the t r i a l wife was awarded at c o u r t had least half m a r i t a l e s t a t e and, i n a d d i t i o n , $6,000 i n a l i m o n y Thus, the earning considering wife's capacity, together property, education, w i t h the of the i n gross. experience, division i n c l u d i n g the award o f a l i m o n y values, and of the m a r i t a l i n g r o s s , the trial c o u r t c o u l d have c o n c l u d e d t h a t i t d i d not need t o award wife p e r i o d i c alimony. t h e r e f o r e a f f i r m the t r i a l determination trial We not t o award p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y However, we the 2 reach court's p e r i o d i c alimony a different failure i n the to future. court's to the w i f e . conclusion with regard reserve the the right "Where t h e t r i a l to to order c o u r t does The w i f e a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e h u s b a n d ' s c o n d u c t w a r r a n t s an a w a r d o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y . Although the t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t s t a t e t h e g r o u n d s on w h i c h i t b a s e d t h e p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e , the t r i a l c o u r t f o u n d t h a t i t was undisputed that "the [husband] h a d e n g a g e d i n an a d u l t e r o u s a f f a i r a f t e r the b r e a k u p o f t h e m a r r i a g e and c o n t i n u e d up t h o u g h t h e day o f trial." Although the conduct of the p a r t i e s i s a f a c t o r t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t may c o n s i d e r when c o n s i d e r i n g an a w a r d o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y and t h e d i v i s i o n o f t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y , see Ex p a r t e Drummond, 785 So. 2d 358, 363 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ( q u o t i n g M y r i c k v. M y r i c k , 714 So. 2d 311, 315 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998)) ("' [T]he c o n d u c t o f t h e p a r t i e s and f a u l t w i t h r e g a r d t o the breakdown of the m a r r i a g e are f a c t o r s f o r the t r i a l c o u r t to c o n s i d e r i n f a s h i o n i n g i t s p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n . ' " ) , a p a r t y ' s c o n d u c t does n o t mandate an a w a r d o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y i n a l l cases. 2 12 2100420 n o t g r a n t an a w a r d o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y i n t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t and does not consideration, Tibbetts, reserve the i t s power right to grant 762 So. 2d 856, 858 the circumstances it the failed to reserve so future T i b b e t t s v. the r i g h t Given c a s e , we c a n n o t s a y t o an a w a r d o f p e r i o d i c Therefore, the t r i a l f u t u r e . See Ex p a r t e upon i t i s lost." of the p a r t i e s i n t h i s i n the future. do ( A l a . C i v . App. 1999) . t h a t t h e w i f e w o u l d n o t be e n t i t l e d alimony to c o u r t e r r e d when t o order p e r i o d i c alimony i n Yost, 775 So. 2d 794, 797 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ( a f f i r m i n g a t r i a l court's d e n i a l of p e r i o d i c alimony but holding i t was p e r i o d i c alimony We failed reverse error to not reserve the right order i n the future). the t r i a l court's judgment insofar t o reserve the i s s u e of p e r i o d i c alimony. the t r i a l to We as i t affirm c o u r t ' s judgment i n a l l o t h e r r e s p e c t s . AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n Moore, J . , c o n c u r s and Bryan, J J . , concur. i n the r e s u l t , without 13 writing.

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.