Eddie W. Wilson v. Suzanne L. Wilson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL:
11/18/2011
Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance
s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r .
R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e 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
OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012
2100540
Eddie W. W i l s o n
v.
Suzanne L. Wilson
Appeal
PER
from M o b i l e C i r c u i t Court
(DR-07-500998)
CURIAM.
Eddie
("the
W. W i l s o n
wife")
separated.
After
a trial
("the husband")
were m a r r i e d
i n 1977.
The h u s b a n d
filed
a n d Suzanne
InA p r i l
L.
Wilson
2007, t h e p a r t i e s
f o r a divorce
i n July
i n O c t o b e r 2010, a t w h i c h t h e o n l y
2007.
issues f o r
2100540
the
trial
stock
court's
held
in
p r o p e r t y and,
entered
and
the
wife's
i f so,
name
the value
awarding the
court
had
whether
be
158
wife
the
shares
considered
of t h a t stock, the
husband $120,000
10 y e a r s .
husband
were
could
a judgment awarding the
p a i d over
the
determination
158
i n alimony
marital
trial
shares
the
improperly
judgment,
admitted
certain
evidence
was
valuation
at t r i a l ,
testimony,
arguing
that
certain
the
the
based
i n alimony
be
denied,
trial
testimony,
that,
award of $120,000
to
had
relied
on
in
the
gross
inequitable.
The
parties
record r e f l e c t s the f o l l o w i n g f a c t s .
married,
Works.
the
husband
H o w e v e r , he h a d
S e a f o o d Company, I n c .
time,
by
the
wife's parents.
employment
with
s t e a l i n g money and
was
employed
At the time
at
worked f o r a s h o r t time
Pearl
his
and
stock
in gross,
i m p r o p e r l y r e s t r i c t e d c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , had i m p r o p e r l y
on
court
of
A f t e r h i s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was
appealed
of
SPS
in
Landry's
i n 1976
Boat
at
("SPS"), a company owned, a t
The
1976
s h r i m p f r o m SPS.
h u s b a n d was
after
he
dismissed
was
Apparently
accused
at the
the
Sea
that
from
of
wife's
request, her f a t h e r , Joseph L a d n i e r , h i r e d the husband to work
at
SPS
a g a i n i n 1985.
Since that time,
2
t h e h u s b a n d has
worked
2100540
at SPS;
he
freezes
has
shrimp,
$100,000 p e r
SPS.
run
As
the
since
year
part
I.Q.F. p l a n t , w h i c h i n d i v i d u a l l y
and
of
approximately
has
his
June 2010,
The
husband f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d
had
charged
wife
a l s o works
year.
The
c a s e was
wife
the
she
husband
that
had
had
however,
her
the
him
apparently
on
the
affair
i n w h i c h he
with
moved a f t e r
also paid
she
earns
a
the
was
first
had
on
prompted,
the
the
o f $40
having
references
of
the
separation
of
to
per
3
family
divorce
SPS.
The
to
and
month.
The
adultery;
infidelity
o r a more
parties.
that
husband
infidelity
into
the
finances
per
the
he
$74,000
committed
admitted
the
fuel.
his belief
family
a
The
at
in priority.
a allowance
from
SPS.
according
and
b e e n i n v o l v e d i n 1990
friend
to
approximately
handled
admitted
few
for his
r e f l e c t e d t h a t , once the
whether
had
over
t h e summer o f 2010
c o n t r o l l i n g nature
wife
earns
i s provided
certain restaurant
family
i t i s unclear
had
a
separation
trial,
relationship
SPS
husband
husband would l o s e h i s j o b
placed
based
the
that u n t i l
at t r i a l
his wife's
placed
testified
at
f o r SPS;
parties'
husband, by
that
lunch
testimony
over,
The
the
his
He
c o n s i s t e n t l y r e c e i v e d bonuses
compensation,
company v e h i c l e ; u n t i l
1995.
quick
was
at
an
recent
w h o s e home
he
2100540
In
1990, Joseph
stock
to
She
a
executed
i n annual
shares
promissory
o f SPS
note
for
i n s t a l l m e n t s o f $21,347.35 over
i n favor of Joseph Ladnier.
Joseph Ladnier
to
t r a n s f e r r e d 137
the wife.
$137,000, payable
years
Ladnier
testified,
At t r i a l ,
however,
both
10
t h e w i f e and
t h a t t h e s t o c k was a
gift
t h e w i f e a n d t h a t t h e w i f e h a d n e v e r p a i d a n y money f o r t h e
stock.
had
Bruce Vest,
not paid
despite
SPS's a c c o u n t a n t ,
Joseph
the fact
Ladnier
that
f o r t h e 137
Joseph
2000, Joseph L a d n i e r
year,
SPS t r a n s f e r r e d 21 a d d i t i o n a l
that
stock
account,
o f $4,000
a
check
drawn
the wife t e s t i f i e d
the
annual
shares
from
at t r i a l
the
21 s h a r e s
for
t h e 21 s h a r e s
w i t h a check but,
had
been
concern."
returned
also
Vest
testified
Vest
That
of stock
of
same
to the
that the wife paid f o r
their
joint
checking
t h a t she had n o t p a i d f o r
to the wife.
Vest
of stock.
stock,
p e r share.
the husband t e s t i f i e d
with
of
and h i s w i f e s o l d t h e i r shares
t o SPS f o r t h e p r i c e
Although
shares
tax returns.
stock
wife.
that the wife
had l i s t e d
Ladnier
p a y m e n t s a s i n c o m e on h i s a n n u a l
In
testified
testified
about
that the w i f e had p a i d
as he r e c a l l e d ,
SPS's
viability
as
the check
a
"going
s t a t e d t h a t he h a d h a d c o n c e r n s as t o w h e t h e r
4
2100540
SPS
was
a g o i n g c o n c e r n w h e n he p r e p a r e d t h e m o s t r e c e n t t a x
r e t u r n f o r the company.
of
t r i a l , SPS
determined
the
was
that
next tax
The
several
H o w e v e r , he t e s t i f i e d , a s o f t h e
a " g o i n g c o n c e r n " b e c a u s e , he
SPS
had
adequate
to
established
disbursements
from
i n 2006.
that
SPS
the
the
parties'
off
a home-equity
joint
the
after
I n December
i t
2006,
expenses.
that
wife
she
paid
and
i t through
2007,
She t e s t i f i e d
a
the
college
to the
an
parties'
the
to
wife
of
of
her
pay
remaining
funds,
regular
family
pay
received
a
$325,000
used
I n December 2007,
$ 5 0 , 0 0 0 ; she
children.
wife occurred i n January
5
a
home
testified
$50,000 t o h e r p a r e n t s b e c a u s e
expenses
"S"
she had p l a c e d i n
t h a t t h e e n t i r e $ 3 2 5 , 0 0 0 was
disbursement
gave the e n t i r e
became
she u s e d t o
used
the
received
and w h i c h
that
were
had
owed t o t h e
a debt
testified
April
received
distribution
had
the w i f e r e c e i v e d
pay b o t h s t a t e and f e d e r a l income t a x e s .
the
had
debt
$20,000,
In
disbursement.
checking account
wife
approximately
to
carry
wife
$100,000 d i s b u r s e m e n t , w h i c h , she t e s t i f i e d ,
builder;
s a i d , he
year.
evidence
corporation
equity
date
The
2008; the
they
final
wife
2100540
t e s t i f i e d t h a t she u s e d t h e e n t i r e $85,000 d i s b u r s e d
that
time t o pay
The
of
state
and
federal
p a r t i e s b o t h employed
SPS
and
i t s
Both
experts
The
experts
stock.
significantly.
husband's
income
valuations
testified
Mark
taxes.
to determine the
Their
expert,
to her at
at
value
differed
trial.
Pawlowski,
is
a
certified
p u b l i c a c c o u n t a n t ("CPA") s p e c i a l i z i n g i n b u s i n e s s v a l u a t i o n .
He
has
CVA,
two
certifications
or c e r t i f i c a t i o n
relating
to business valuation: a
as a v a l u a t i o n a n a l y s t ,
accreditation i n business valuation.
there
are
three
approaches
the market
explained
t h a t he h a d c h o s e n ,
income
approach
explained,
required
used
the
approach,
when
a
based
million
o f December
However,
decreasing
deteriorating.
the
Pawlowski
since
the
income
2004
of
the
asset
He
i n December 2007, t o u t i l i z e
the
SPS.
That
approach,
capitalization-of-earnings
Pawlowski,
as
a business:
that
approach.
valuing
projection
on
and
o r an
Pawlowski t e s t i f i e d
to valuing
approach,
a n d a ABV,
future
income
earnings.
approach,
SPS
method
According
was
worth
he
that
to
$6.4
2007.
explained
and
that
that
SPS's
SPS's
sales
had
been
profits
had
also
been
P a w l o w s k i q u e s t i o n e d how
6
SPS
could
h a v e made
2100540
such
significant
2008 when
SPS
disbursements
i tposted
had o f f s e t
an $800,000 l o s s .
i t s production
$550,000 p e r y e a r
to i t s three
losses
Pawlowski
by
i n " B y r d " money, w h i c h
i m p o s e d on i m p o r t e d
seafood
that
shareholders
noted
refers to a
Byrd
money
ongoing
the
and
cash
asset
determine
subtract
cash-flow
the "near
flow,
method.
The a s s e t
asset
worth
that
approximately
producers.
Because o f
by the l o s s
task
of
estimating
reevaluated
SPS
of the assets
that
date,
of
S P S was w o r t h
using
sum i t s l i a b i l i t i e s .
o f SPS a n d t o
As o f December 31,
SPS was w o r t h $2.8 m i l l i o n b a s e d o n
Each
share
o f SPS s t o c k
$8,860 b a s e d on P a w l o w s k i ' s
Pawlowski adjusted
SPS was w o r t h
h i s v a l u a t i o n as o f J u l y
$3.3 m i l l i o n
$10,541.
7
was
December 31,
2010, b a s e d on u p d a t e d i n f o r m a t i o n ; he t e s t i f i e d
of
of the
method, he s a i d , r e q u i r e d h i m t o
method o f v a l u a t i o n .
2009, v a l u a t i o n .
31,
s a i d , he
t h e sum o f t h e v a l u e
from
created
impossible"
Pawlowski
2009, P a w l o w s k i t e s t i f i e d ,
the
issues
tariff
i s c o l l e c t e d by the f e d e r a l
I n 2 0 0 8 , h o w e v e r , SPS h a d r e c e i v e d n o B y r d m o n e y .
significant
that
receiving at least
government and then d i s t r i b u t e d t o domestic seafood
the
in
and t h a t
t h a t , as
each
share
2100540
The
wife's
submitted
expert,
two r e p o r t s
D.
Carney,
v a l u i n g SPS.
a
CPA.
Carney t e s t i f i e d
had
i n t e r v i e w e d V e s t and SPS's p r e s i d e n t , G r e g L a d n i e r ,
the
wife's
he
had
climate
Ladnier
Ficarino.
decline
shrimp
loss
a n d a n SPS
discussed
business
the
and
shrimp
Vest,
as
and t a x r e t u r n s
stockholder.
business
i n Bayou L a B a t r e ,
well
Carney
boats,
of
with
someone
of
shrimp,
the increase
investors
the loss
i n the cost
for rebuilding
i n t h e economy,
due
and t h e a s s e t s
of
and
the
with
named
Mr.
suppliers
and
of d i e s e l fuel,
the
to
the
hurricanes,
o f t h e company.
on t h e i n f o r m a t i o n h e g a t h e r e d , C a r n e y t e s t i f i e d ,
that
that
w h e r e SPS i s l o c a t e d ,
as
and
who i s
said
i n general
he
S p e c i f i c a l l y , C a r n e y s a i d t h a t he h a d d i s c u s s e d t h e
i n the p r i c e
decline
statements
He
that
reviewed
brother
financial
is
had
Greg
SPS's
Jack
SPS
was
worth
$1,719,000
as
o f December
explained
t h a t he b a s e d h i s c o n c l u s i o n
not
anyone w o u l d want
think
he
31,
Based
concluded
2007.
He
on t h e f a c t t h a t he d i d
t o b u y t h e company.
He
updated
h i s v a l u a t i o n a s o f J u l y 3 1 , 2 0 1 0 , a n d d e t e r m i n e d t h a t SPS
was
worth
the
$1,206,400
negative
the
as
of
that
date,
e f f e c t s of a large o i l s p i l l
shrimp
industry.
8
i n part
because
i n the Gulf
of
o f M e x i c o on
2100540
At
worth
trial,
had
been
explained
believe
be
testified
affected
that,
based
t h a t the
items,
"going
by
the
on
that
the
concern"
that
possibility
company had
opinion
at
he
the
him,
suffered
and
losses
the
trial,
Carney lowered h i s v a l u a t i o n of
SPS
he
the
He
did
company
not
could
market
w o u l d no
that
SPS's
heard.
trial,
l a c k of
that
of
had
equipment of the
because of
troubled
his
testimony
testimony
b u i l d i n g s and
sold for t h e i r value
those
a
Carney
the
for
longer
be
significant
were p r o b l e m a t i c .
Thus,
at
a final
time to
$1
that
SPS
1
applied
a
million.
Carney's
"fast
sale
value
as
value.
asset
valuation
discount"
o f J u l y 31,
Pawlowski
approach
to
valuing
Pawlowski
explained,
the
fair
that
SPS;
SPS's v a l u e
on
resulted
market
His
indicated that
testified
basing
indicate
SPS's a s s e t s .
2010,
C a r n e y was
reducing
to
reports
value
he
estimate
i t was
Carney
was
however,
he
of
SPS's
a liquidated
also
using
explained
an
that
"liquidation
value,"
in
Carney's
"significantly
of
the
assets."
which,
Pawlowski
I n t e r e s t i n g l y , we n o t e t h a t C a r n e y s h o u l d h a v e b e e n w e l l
aware of the
losses
s u f f e r e d by
SPS
after
reviewing
the
company's
financial
statements
and
tax
returns,
as
he
t e s t i f i e d he h a d d o n e .
1
9
2100540
t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e r e e x i s t e d no
for
example,
the
done t o a r r i v e
no
inventory
that
Pawlowski said,
that
SPS
SPS
concern.
In f a c t ,
plans
to
As
noted
above, the
alimony
of
SPS
in
c l o s e or
stock
gross,
marital assets.
and
had
The
awarded
c o u r t was
gift
to
the
wife
alone
assigned
§
the
had
the
his
approximately
presented
and,
i f the
husband
testified
of
a l l 158
$120,000
the
property
remaining
$120,000, b e f o r e
w i t h the
issues
In
a d d i t i o n , the
of v a l u i n g the
10
gift
the
whether
been
a
property,
common b e n e f i t o f t h e p a r t i e s
c o n s i d e r e d by t h e t r i a l
30-2-51(a).
task
was
in
parties'
divided i t s
stock
were
existed.
share
and
had
t r e a t e d i t -¬
Greg L a d n i e r
SPS
of,
liquidation,
divided a l lpersonal
been used f o r the
s u c h t h a t i t c o u l d be
1975,
of
been p u r c h a s e d w i t h m a r i t a l funds or had
whether i t had
Code
Because there
c o u r t awarded the w i f e
m a r i t a l residence
trial.
which Carney
verge
liquidate
p a r t i e s had
totaled
trial
the
at t r i a l ,
to
and
w h i c h had
s t o c k had
50%,
t r e a t e d a s he
representing
The
s o l d the
on
trial
equity,
the
hand by
was
s h o u l d be
no
shares
on
to reduce the value
at i t s " l i q u i d a t e d value."
indications
as a g o i n g
reason
stock.
court under A l a .
trial
court
was
2100540
In
that
r e v i e w i n g any
the
trial
property
and
necessary
v.
c o u r t has
be
reversed
be
unjust
a
use
m u s t be
over
the
545
So.
2d
w h a t e v e r means a r e r e a s o n a b l e
75,
77
(Ala. Civ.
j u d g m e n t i s p r e s u m e d t o be
unless
and
Grimsley,
division,
the
App.
the
545
trial
and
1989).
The
will
evidence
So.
not
as
2d a t 76.
court
may
i n c l u d i n g the p a r t i e s ' r e s p e c t i v e present
future
capacities,
conduct,
of
the
d u r a t i o n of the
marital property.
(Ala.
their
C i v . App.
particular
reviewed.
App.
the value
v.
485
So.
Lutz,
Because the
Murphy v.
and
f a c t s and
624
So.
2d
and
type
1176
circumstances
of
620,
the
of
consider
case
623
and
their
1174,
t h i s c o u r t must a l s o
circumstances
Murphy,
2d
In
being
(Ala. Civ.
19 9 3 ) .
On
erred
facts
health,
and
each d i v o r c e case are d i f f e r e n t ,
the
and
marriage,
Lutz
1986).
ages
to
consider
several factors,
earning
of
Grimsley
c o r r e c t and
i t i s so u n s u p p o r t e d b y
p a l p a b l y wrong.
property
mindful
division
to e q u i t a b l y d i v i d e the p a r t i e s ' p r o p e r t y .
court's
making
wide d i s c r e t i o n
t h a t i t may
Grimsley,
trial
d i v i s i o n o f p r o p e r t y , we
appeal,
by
regarding
the
admitting
the
husband f i r s t
and
valuation
argues t h a t the
by
considering
of
SPS.
11
He
trial
Carney's
argues
that
court
testimony
Carney's
2100540
testimony
in
should not
p a r t , on
used
an
thus,
hearsay.
Carney's
the
court
44
determined
purposes
value
So.
court
was
explained
f u r t h e r argues
to
value
precluded
cannot
44
use
that
"fair
1092,
value"
1097
3d
the
that
based,
Carney
company
from
and,
relying
of
of
the
court
on
1097.
As
we
a
i s not
to
e n t i t y but,
entity.
artificially
instead,
Grelier
2009).
court valuing a business
that
valuing
a divorce
( A l a . C i v . App.
discounts
at
trial
of the
company b e c a u s e s u c h an
So.
a
context
market value"
the
3d
i n the
that a t r i a l
of the
Grelier,
has
"fair
determine
Grelier,
trial
held business
determine the
to
husband
b e c a u s e i t was
opinion.
This
is
The
i n a p p r o p r i a t e methodology
that
closely
have been a d m i t t e d
for
We
have
divorce
deflate
the
approach i s i n e q u i t a b l e .
explained:
"Alabama law has n o t a d o p t e d a ' f a i r m a r k e t v a l u e '
standard
for assessing marital property.
Rather,
under Alabama law, a t r i a l c o u r t must d e t e r m i n e the
value of p r o p e r t y w i t h the o n l y l i m i t a t i o n
being
that
the
value
must
be
equitable
under
the
c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r c a s e . See g e n e r a l l y
Y o h e y v . Y o h e y , 890
So.
2 d 160
(Ala. Civ.
App.
2004). That s t a n d a r d i m p l i e s t h a t the v a l u a t i o n must
be
fair
t o a l l p a r t i e s c o n c e r n e d . See
generally
B l a c k ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y 578
( 8 t h ed. 2004) ( d e f i n i n g
'equitable
distribution'
as
the
'fair
...
a l l o c a t i o n ' of m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y ) . In cases i n which
a d i v o r c e c o u r t does not contemplate the s a l e of a
business
i n which
one
of
the
spouses
holds
a
12
v.
2100540
m i n o r i t y i n t e r e s t but,
instead, intends
that
the
business shall
remain a going concern,
i t makes
little
sense
to
determine
fair
value
by
the
measuring s t i c k of a h y p o t h e t i c a l s a l e s p r i c e . That
methodology would a r t i f i c i a l l y
reduce the value
of
the m a r i t a l asset i n almost every case, which would
be u n f a i r , i . e . , i n e q u i t a b l e , t o t h e p a r t y r e c e i v i n g
only a p o r t i o n of the reduced value or the
property
equivalent
to
that
reduced
value
but
would
be
advantageous to the p a r t y
r e t a i n i n g the
business
i n t e r e s t , i n c l u d i n g i t s a c t u a l v a l u e t o him or her
as t h e
holder."
Id.
(emphasis
The
added).
husband
entirely
on
reduced
his
indicating
and
a
i s correct
liquidation
valuation
that
the
stated
he
in
valuations
t h a t he
company.
However,
liquidated
at
a p p r o a c h and
court
did
trial
apply
would
would
of
the
than
require
the
merely
said
testimony
equipment
regarding
not
for
sale
trial.
and
Using
otherwise
figures
that
a
his
was
by
r e v e r s a l of
the
Carney,
market,
earlier
harmless
13
and
being
resulted in a
If
the
trial
that
error
i f
those figures
would
the
liquidation
judgment, but
error in admitting
he
trial
not
the
obtain.
used
be
based
at
lacked
"fast sale discounts"
would
the
and
is
t h i n k anyone w o u l d want t o buy
was
time
court d i d not,
evidence
SPS
Carney
hearing
testimony
d i d not
the
valuation
after
his
Carney's v a l u a t i o n
approach.
buildings
applying
lower
obviously
that
not
the
into
require
2100540
reversal
of
the
j u d g m e n t may
be
the
improper
opinion
judgment.
Rule
45,
r e v e r s e d or set a s i d e
admission
of
See
the
...
to
court
of
which
A l a . R.
...
it
should
appear
injuriously
we
explain
The
b e c a u s e we
remanding
how
are
rights
unable
the
i t valued
cause
the
the
number
of
alimony-in-gross
The
alimony
husband
i n gross
in
the
or
of
has
the
cause,
probably
parties.").
whether
i n v a l u i n g the
trial
court
the
shares,
i t
to
court erred
shares
trial
shares
for
to
o f SPS
cannot address
some i n d i c a t i o n
property subject to d i v i s i o n
i f in fact
of
...
shares.
H o w e v e r , we
contention without
shares,
the
("No
taken
is
to determine
i t f a i l e d t o i n c l u d e a l l 158
the m a r i t a l e s t a t e .
to
to
unless
of the e n t i r e
complained
husband f u r t h e r argues t h a t the
the extent
as
error
c o u r t r e l i e d on C a r n e y ' s f i g u r e s
are
that
the
affected substantial
Consequently,
trial
that
...
appeal
a p p l i c a t i o n i s made, a f t e r a n e x a m i n a t i o n
P.
on t h e g r o u n d o f
evidence,
the
App.
i t
and
the m e r i t s
from the
considered
i t s reason
i t d i d , when d e t e r m i n i n g
stock i n
to
trial
be
of
court
marital
for excluding
any
the
the
amount o f
award.
additionally
awarded
to
contends
him
14
i s not
that
the
fair
and
amount
of
equitable.
2100540
This
court
cannot give
that
issue
knowing t h e f a c t u a l determinations
s e t o u t above and w i t h o u t
discounted
this
court
findings
Fann,
i n t h e absence
will
assume
necessary
c o u r t as
court
reasons.
of specific
findings of fact,
the t r i a l
court
that
t o support
the record
without
made b y t h e t r i a l
i t s judgment.
810 S o . 2 d 6 3 1 , 636 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) .
reviewing
review
a l s o knowing whether t h e t r i a l
t h e award f o re q u i t a b l e
Generally,
any s e r i o u s
and the language
made
those
See Ex
parte
However, when,
after
o f t h e judgment,
this
court i sunable t o determine the p r e c i s e nature
of the factual
findings of the t r i a l
c o u r t as t o t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and v a l u e
of m a r i t a l property,
thereby
to
a property
determine
court
the
should
trial
308-09
So.
whether
inhibiting
(Ala. Civ.
stock;
from
897 S o . 2 d 3 0 3 ,
v. G i a r d i n a ,
( A l a . C i v . App. 2008).
a s t o (1) t h e f a i r
the t r i a l
value
(2) t h e n u m b e r o f s h a r e s
as m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y ;
v. W i l h o i t e ,
and G i a r d i n a
remand t h e cause and i n s t r u c t
findings
this
App. 2004);
2d 606, 622-23
ability
i s equitable,
See W i l h o i t e
division
court's
f o rfurther clarification
remand t h e cause
court.
this
court
Accordingly,
we
to specify i t s
o f t h e 158 s h a r e s
i t d e t e r m i n e d t o be
(3) t h e r e a s o n s f o r e x c l u d i n g
15
987
o f SPS
divisible
any
shares
2100540
from
i t s property
considered
husband.
court
i f i t did;
i n d i v i d i n g the shares;
used i n reaching
the
division,
(4) t h e f a c t o r s i t
a n d (5) t h e c a l c u l a t i o n s i t
i t s award o f $120,000 i n a l i m o n y i n g r o s s t o
The t r i a l
court
shall
make
a
return
to
this
c o n t a i n i n g t h e a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d f i n d i n g s w i t h i n 42 d a y s .
B e c a u s e we a r e r e m a n d i n g t h e c a u s e a s o u t l i n e d a b o v e ,
need n o t address t h e husband's other
If,
after
maintains
clarification
that
the t r i a l
examination
o f Bruce Vest
to the p r i o r
termination
may a d d r e s s
The
those
wife's
issues
motion
issues
o f t h e judgment,
court
erred
at this
and i n admitting
juncture.
t h e husband
i n limiting
to
still
h i s cross-
evidence
relating
o f h i s employment a t SPS, t h i s
at that
we
court
time.
strike
t h e husband's
brief
i s
denied.
REMANDED WITH
Thompson,
JJ.,
INSTRUCTIONS.
P . J . , and Pittman,
concur.
16
Bryan,
Thomas,
and Moore,
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.
