Anthony McCaskill v. Sylvia McCaskill

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/11/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 2100600 Anthony M c C a s k i l l v. Sylvia McCaskill Sylvia McCaskill v. Anthony M c C a s k i l l Appeals from Mobile C i r c u i t (DR-07-900095) THOMAS, J u d g e . Court 2100600 A n t h o n y M c C a s k i l l ("the husband") a p p e a l s f r o m a j u d g m e n t of the Mobile McCaskill Circuit ("the wife") between the p a r t i e s . court's With Court judgment. and divorcing dividing him the marital The w i f e c r o s s - a p p e a l s With respect from Sylvia property from the to the appeal, we trial affirm. r e s p e c t t o t h e c r o s s - a p p e a l , we a f f i r m i n p a r t , r e v e r s e i n p a r t , and remand w i t h The p a r t i e s instructions. were m a r r i e d i n May 1990. After nearly 17 years of marriage, the husband f i l e d a complaint f o r a d i v o r c e i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t on M a r c h 17, 2007, c l a i m i n g i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y of temperament. claimed for a c o m p l a i n t was 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 divorce filed, on May 23, 2007. At and c r o s s - the time the t h e p a r t i e s h a d two m i n o r c h i l d r e n -- a son who was a p p r o x i m a t e l y 16 y e a r s o l d and a d a u g h t e r who approximately was 15 y e a r s o l d ( c o l l e c t i v e l y r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e children"). On order, April 2007, requiring, "maintain utilities, The 12, in the t r i a l pertinent t h e s t a t u s quo court part, as t o payment issued a that the pretrial parties o f t h e house note, food, n e c e s s i t i e s , f i x e d c r e d i t o b l i g a t i o n s , e t c . " pretrial order further precluded 2 either party from 2100600 disposing of assets or withdrawing funds from savings accounts. The wife support and filed an f o r e x c l u s i v e use r e s i d e n c e on J a n u a r y petitioned the After 16, granting to which the The trial complaint heard and heard ore indicates CenturyTel of Alabama, $64,299.73 in 2009, $48,000 y e a r - t o - d a t e trial. child 2010, and LLC, i n 2010 and divorce. to the pay wife's trial January court 6, 2011, regarding The trial court from a f i n a n c i a l expert the husband i n Mobile, he had that earned at the time worked he had a c t i o n was during pending, the nearly three and approximately of the October a half years a l t h o u g h he d i d m a i n t a i n h e a l t h 3 for earned The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t pay t h e w i f e support the accounts. that that the testimony f r o m b o t h p a r t i e s and record marital husband court denied tenus r e g a r d i n g the w i f e ' s r e t i r e m e n t The the continuances, cross-claim for a testimony of the lite 2008. numerous court f o r pendente possession order c o n d u c t e d a h e a r i n g on O c t o b e r 26, at motion Among o t h e r r e q u e s t s , t h e w i f e court support. January and 11, 2008. trial temporary c h i l d m o t i o n on instanter 2010 any this insurance 2100600 for the c h i l d r e n . The h u s b a n d a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t he paying the u t i l i t y b i l l s the p r e t r i a l residence order. being sometime d u r i n g 2009, i n d e f i a n c e turned o f f i n March " 2009. The trial court 2009, a d m o n i s h i n g t h e h u s b a n d t o whatever a c t i o n necessary today t o have t h e w a t e r t u r n e d retirement accounts: m i l i t a r y retirement, a pension with CenturyTel, a 401(k) testified T h e r e was account w i t h CenturyTel. worth approximately no testimony Additionally, residence He introduced regarding worth and 401(k) of t r i a l . the value of h i s pension. the husband t e s t i f i e d was his $30,000 a t t h e t i m e m i l i t a r y r e t i r e m e n t or the C e n t u r y T e l marital on 1 The h u s b a n d f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he has t h r e e a c c o u n t was of That r e s u l t e d i n the water a t the m a r i t a l i s s u e d an o r d e r on M a r c h 5, "take stopped t h a t he b e l i e v e d t h e $300,000 and that he r e q u e s t i n g t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t order the p a r t i e s to s e l l m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e and d i v i d e t h e e q u i t y . He was the further testified The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e e l e c t r i c i t y t o t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e was t u r n e d o f f i n e a r l y S e p t e m b e r 2009 and t h a t she and t h e c h i l d r e n s t a y e d a t t h e w i f e ' s s i s t e r ' s home f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y one month u n t i l t h e w i f e was a b l e t o have t h e e l e c t r i c i t y t u r n e d b a c k on. She d i d n o t p e t i t i o n t h e c o u r t t o i n s t r u c t the husband t o b r i n g the e l e c t r i c i t y b i l l c u r r e n t . 1 4 2100600 t h a t he owed a p p r o x i m a t e l y in h i s name o n l y , $9,600 i n c r e d i t - c a r d d e b t t h a t some o f w h i c h was accumulated was during the marriage. The Inc., w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she was f r o m w h i c h she receives a salary. she e a r n e d $20,000 i n 2009 and She also t e s t i f i e d a p a r t n e r i n S c h o o l Zone, She 2 that $34,000 i n approximately testified 2010. t h a t she w o r k e d as a s u b s t i t u t e t e a c h e r t h e M o b i l e C o u n t y P u b l i c S c h o o l S y s t e m , f o r w h i c h she was $58 per the wife testified b e l i e v e d t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e was worth wife further t e s t i f i e d accounts First, from her previous the w i f e t e s t i f i e d w h i c h had from Additionally, paid $225,000. The day. in IBM. the time brokerage been rolled of t r i a l . account had three employment w i t h IBM t h a t she over That account t h a t she into contained an had IRA had that retirement Corporation. a 401(k) upon h e r approximately separation $357,214 t h a t she had that stock been funded by 3 account, Second, the w i f e t e s t i f i e d had she at a options S c h o o l Z o n e , I n c . , i s a company f o r m e d by t h e w i f e and her s i s t e r t h a t s e l l s s c h o o l uniforms. The w i f e t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l t h a t she had a 4 0 % i n t e r e s t i n t h e company. 2 T h e w i f e w o r k e d f o r IBM f r o m 1977 p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d i n May 1990. 3 The 5 until September 2009. 2100600 p u r c h a s e d w i t h p a y r o l l d e d u c t i o n s f r o m h e r IBM p a y c h e c k . That a c c o u n t c o n t a i n e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y $2,000 a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l . Third, the she t e s t i f i e d that she r e c e i v e s 4 a p e n s i o n f r o m IBM i n amount o f $169 p e r month. The trial divorcing marital c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t on J a n u a r y 1 1 , 2 0 1 1 , the parties assets and d i v i d i n g and d e b t s were the m a r i t a l divided assets. as f o l l o w s : The ( 1 ) the h u s b a n d was a w a r d e d t h e 2001 a n d 2004 T o y o t a Tacoma v e h i c l e s , (2) the wife was a w a r d e d Honda CRV v e h i c l e , the wife a n d t h e 2001 T o y o t a C o r o l l a was a w a r d e d S c h o o l Zone, I n c . , t h e 1991 Mazda v e h i c l e , any i n t e r e s t t h e 1998 vehicle, ( 3 ) the parties ( 4 ) t h e w i f e was o r d e r e d t o be may have i n responsible for c r e d i t - c a r d d e b t s t o V I S A , Bank o f A m e r i c a , C i t i B a n k , Big Ten T i r e s , accounts divided and, ( 5 ) each p a r t y was a w a r d e d a l l f i n a n c i a l i n h i s o r h e r i n d i v i d u a l name. other items of p e r s o n a l and The j u d g m e n t also property. T h e w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she o f t e n u s e d t h a t a c c o u n t t o make up t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n h e r p r e v i o u s IBM s a l a r y a n d h e r current salary. She f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she was f o r c e d t o increase t h e use o f t h e funds i n t h a t account t o pay t h e u t i l i t y b i l l s a f t e r t h e husband stopped p a y i n g those b i l l s i n 2009. 4 6 2100600 In the a d d i t i o n , the t r i a l c o u r t ordered m a r i t a l residence Pending the ordered to husband sale was pay of and the half of awarded The both monthly of the party was payment. marital The residence o r d e r e d t o be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r payment maintenance f o r the residence. The o f t h e d a u g h t e r , and the husband was c h i l d support i n t h e amount o f $372 p e r on January 28, amend, o r v a c a t e 2011. the The wife judgment on p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n s were d e n i e d . t i m e l y appeal filed 2011, The appeal, the on A p r i l 21, o f a s s e t s and 2011. after which a wife filed trial court 2011. husband argues ( 1 ) erred i n i t s division to 10, husband f i l e d The 5 the a motion February t o t h i s c o u r t on M a r c h 30, 2011. her n o t i c e of appeal month. amend, o r v a c a t e t r i a l c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g on M a r c h 17, On each mortgage husband f i l e d a motion to a l t e r , judgment The equity equally. and o r d e r e d t o pay alter, the sell awarded c u s t o d y w i f e was insurance, net m a r i t a l residence, possession p e n d i n g i t s s a l e and was of t a x e s , to d i v i d e the the p a r t i e s to that the l i a b i l i t i e s and (2) that T h e son r e a c h e d t h e age o f m a j o r i t y b e f o r e t h i s a c t i o n was s c h e d u l e d f o r t r i a l . The d a u g h t e r r e a c h e d t h e age o f m a j o r i t y a p p r o x i m a t e l y f o u r months a f t e r t h e f i n a l j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d . 5 7 2100600 the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o a w a r d h i m an a t t o r n e y f e e . The raises wife court erred four when issues i t failed r e t r o a c t i v e c h i l d support, it failed utility trial t o order bills on a p p e a l : to trial t o pay c o u r t e r r e d when t o reimburse the wife f o r the separation, during c o u r t e r r e d by i m p u t i n g the t h e husband ( 2 ) that the t r i a l t h e husband she p a i d order ( 1 ) that ( 3 ) that the t o t h e w i f e an income o f $25 an hour i n t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t c a l c u l a t i o n , and ( 4 ) t h a t t h e t r i a l court erred by ordering her to be responsible f o r the husband's c r e d i t - c a r d debt. We f i r s t marital assets address the issues d e a l i n g with the d i v i s i o n of and liabilities. "'The l a w i s c l e a r t h a t m a t t e r s s u c h as a l i m o n y and property division pursuant t o divorce rest s o u n d l y 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 and 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 where s u c h discretion was p a l p a b l y abused. Montgomery [ v . Montgomery, 519 So. 2d 525 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 7 ) ] . The i s s u e s c o n c e r n i n g a l i m o n y a n d t h e d i v i s i o n o f p r o p e r t y a r e i n t e r r e l a t e d , and i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether 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 , 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 . Montgomery, supra. Many f a c t o r s , i n c l u d i n g the conduct o f t h e p a r t i e s r e g a r d i n g t h e cause o f t h e divorce, are proper to consider i n making an e q u i t a b l e d i v i s i o n . L u t z v. L u t z , 485 So. 2d 1174 (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 8 6 ) . The a w a r d i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o be e q u a l , b u t must be e q u i t a b l e i n l i g h t o f t h e evidence, a n d what i s e q u i t a b l e r e s t s w i t h i n t h e sound 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 . Ross [v. Ross, 8 2100600 447 So. 2d 812 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 4 ) ] . An a w a r d t h a t f a v o r s one p a r t y o v e r t h e o t h e r i s n o t i n a n d o f i t s e l f an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . J o r d a n v. J o r d a n , 547 So. 2d 574 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 9 ) . ' "'Boykin v. B o y k i n , App. 1993)." Martin , v. M a r t i n , 628 So. 2d 949, 952 [Ms. 2100124, July (Ala. Civ. 22, 2011] So. 3d ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) . A l t h o u g h the husband argues t h a t "the t r i a l i n i t s d i v i s i o n o f a s s e t s and l i a b i l i t i e s , " e n t i r e l y on t h e t r i a l wife's retirement court's funds. court hisbrief erred focuses f a i l u r e t o a w a r d h i m any o f t h e U n d e r § 3 0 - 2 - 5 1 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975, " [ t ] h e 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 f o l l o w i n g conditions are met: "(1) The p a r t i e s have b e e n m a r r i e d f o r a p e r i o d o f 10 y e a r s d u r i n g w h i c h t h e r e t i r e m e n t was b e i n g a c c u m u l a t e d . "(2) The c o u r t s h a l l n o t i n c l u d e i n t h e e s t a t e t h e v a l u e o f any retirement b e n e f i t s acquired p r i o r t o the marriage i n c l u d i n g any i n t e r e s t o r a p p r e c i a t i o n o f the b e n e f i t s . "(3) The total amount of the retirement benefits payable to the n o n - c o v e r e d s p o u s e s h a l l n o t e x c e e d 50 9 2100600 p e r c e n t of the r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s t h a t be c o n s i d e r e d by t h e c o u r t . " (Emphasis added.) The husband seems t o t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e p a r t i e s meet t h e 3 0 - 2 - 5 1 ( b ) , he wife's consider is entitled retirement the requirements accounts. 2d 794, 795 ( A l a . 2000). in his requirements Although 6 accounts m a r i t a l property, t h a t retirement accounts argue be that "there a trial meet i s no the t r i a l in § funds i n court the the may above requirement d i v i d e d . " Ex p a r t e Y o s t , Therefore, brief s e t out to a p o r t i o n of the retirement as may 775 So. court d i d not I t appears t h a t o n l y a p o r t i o n of the funds i n the w i f e ' s r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t s a r e d i v i s i b l e as m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y . The husband's e x p e r t p r e s e n t e d evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the w i f e ' s p r e m a r r i a g e s a l a r y funded 19.77% of the r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t s , b u t he f a i l e d t o e x p l a i n how he a r r i v e d a t t h a t c a l c u l a t i o n . He f u r t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t he d i d n o t know w h e t h e r t h e w i f e ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n and h e r e m p l o y e r ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n r e m a i n e d t h e same t h r o u g h o u t h e r employment. B a s e d on t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d have c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e r e was n o t s u f f i c i e n t evidences to the p o r t i o n of the b e n e f i t s the w i f e c o n t r i b u t e d d u r i n g the marriage. The t r i a l c o u r t w o u l d have t h e n b e e n p r e c l u d e d f r o m a w a r d i n g t h e h u s b a n d any p o r t i o n o f t h e w i f e ' s r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s . See A p p l e g a t e v. A p p l e g a t e , 863 So. 2d 1123, 1124 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) ("[T]he f a i l u r e t o p r e s e n t t h e necessary evidence of the p r e s e n t v a l u a t i o n of r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s and t h e p o r t i o n o f t h o s e b e n e f i t s a c q u i r e d p r i o r t o t h e m a r r i a g e p r e v e n t s t h e t r i a l c o u r t f r o m e x e r c i s i n g i t s ... d i s c r e t i o n t o a w a r d one s p o u s e any p o r t i o n o f t h e r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s of the o t h e r spouse.") . 6 10 2100600 e r r when i t a w a r d e d e a c h p a r t y a l l f i n a n c i a l accounts i n h i s o r h e r i n d i v i d u a l name. Taking her issues out of order, trial the court e r r e d when i t o r d e r e d husband's trial, his debt, h e r t o be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r specifically the c r e d i t - c a r d debt. a combined However, t h e f i n a l this debt, balance of approximately j u d g m e n t made t h e w i f e along with a d d i t i o n a l c r e d i t cards t h e debt u l t i m a t e l y made approximately The in wife responsible connected with two the wife t h i s a c t i o n was p e n d i n g . responsible for a total of $21,489 o f c r e d i t - c a r d d e b t . argues i n her b r i e f t h e husband's should solely $9,600. h e l d i n b o t h p a r t i e s ' names t h a t t h e w i f e had used t o pay expenses w h i l e This At t h e h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d f o u r c r e d i t c a r d s i n name w i t h for t h e w i f e argues t h a t t h e name a r e p a r t that the four c r e d i t of h i s separate n o t be i n c l u d e d i n t h e d i v i s i o n o f m a r i t a l e s t a t e and property. "'A p a r t y ' s "'separate estate' i s that p r o p e r t y o v e r w h i c h [he o r ] s h e e x e r c i s e s exclusive control and from which 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 r e a s o n 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. 1978) . The s e p a r a t e estate of the p a r t i e s i n a divorce proceeding includes p r o p e r t y owned p r i o r t o t h e m a r r i a g e a n d p r o p e r t y 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 11 cards 2100600 during the marriage. Code 1975. Meek v. Meek, (Ala. § 30-2-51(a), A l a . [Ms. 2091110, J u n e 24, 2011] C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) ( q u o t i n g cards, exercised exclusive and i t i s c l e a r I t i s undisputed control from , N i c h o l s v. N i c h o l s , 824 So. 2d 797, 802 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) . husband So. 3d over the record that the the four that credit t h e husband i n c u r r e d c r e d i t - c a r d debt d u r i n g the p e r i o d of s e p a r a t i o n was n o t f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e m a r r i a g e . clear what p o r t i o n accrued before trial, incurred during indicated the marriage. However, i t i s n o t balance and a f t e r t h e s e p a r a t i o n t h e husband regarding of the current that card was of the p a r t i e s . At some The w i f e that on e a c h of the debt was o f f e r e d no e v i d e n c e the p o r t i o n of c r e d i t - c a r d debt i n c u r r e d a f t e r the separation. W i t h o u t e v i d e n c e o f t h e d e b t t h a t was incurred d u r i n g t h e s e p a r a t i o n , we c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e c r e d i t - c a r d d e b t was 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 Brown, 72 So. 3d 28, 36-37 Further, the f i n a l e a c h p a r t y any f i n a n c i a l and pensions, evidence ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) . judgment o f t h e t r i a l court a c c o u n t s , i n c l u d i n g 401(k) i n h i s or her i n d i v i d u a l was p r e s e n t e d e s t a t e . See Brown v. at t r i a l 12 name. regarding awarded accounts Although the value no of the 2100600 husband's r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t s , t h e w i f e does n o t d i s p u t e t h e husband's retirement assertion that substantial than her accounts t h e husband's a c c o u n t s . "A t r i a l are more court i s f r e e t o c o n s i d e r t h e r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s ... as a s s e t s o f t h e parties 644 t o d i v o r c e i n f a s h i o n i n g i t s awards." Byrd So. 2d 31, 32 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1994). To v. Byrd, address the a r g u m e n t s o f b o t h p a r t i e s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t was n o t r e q u i r e d t o award the husband a p o r t i o n o f t h e w i f e ' s r e t i r e m e n t Yost, 775 So. 2d a t 795, b u t i t was parties' accounts as free to consider a l l the the equitable d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s and d e b t s . B y r d , 644 So. 2d at retirement accounts, part of 32. A that review the awarded presented of the remainder husband three was awarded vehicles. at t r i a l 7 of the f i n a l two vehicles; Although as t o t h e v a l u e little judgment the wife evidence shows was was o r t h e payment s t a t u s o f D u r i n g the pendency of the d i v o r c e , the w i f e p u r c h a s e d a L e x u s v e h i c l e f o r $20,000 f o r h e r s e l f and a n o t h e r v e h i c l e f o r t h e s o n f o r $4, 500. The s o n w r e c k e d t h e v e h i c l e p u r c h a s e d for him i n an a c c i d e n t . The L e x u s v e h i c l e was not s p e c i f i c a l l y a d d r e s s e d i n t h e f i n a l judgment; however, t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h a t o r d e r e d any v e h i c l e n o t r e f e r e n c e d i n t h e judgment w o u l d remain w i t h the p a r t y having currently possessing the v e h i c l e . 7 13 2100600 the v e h i c l e s , the husband indicated that i n c l u d e d a " c a r payment," w h i l e the h i s monthly bills p a r t i e s agreed that v e h i c l e s a w a r d e d t o t h e w i f e were w i t h o u t indebtedness. final interest judgment a l s o awarded the Zone, I n c . 8 Finally, the s e l l the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e h u s b a n d was trial and awarded p o s s e s s i o n s a l e ; however, a l t h o u g h w i f e her court ordered in The School the p a r t i e s to s p l i t the e q u i t y e q u a l l y . of the the residence t h e p a r t i e s were o r d e r e d The pending i t s to each h a l f o f t h e m o n t h l y m o r t g a g e payment, t h e h u s b a n d was pay ordered t o be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e t a x e s , i n s u r a n c e , and m a i n t e n a n c e o f the residence. The of most r e c o r d i s d e v o i d of evidence r e g a r d i n g the v a l u a t i o n of the assets distributed by the trial court's j u d g m e n t , i n c l u d i n g t h e h u s b a n d ' s r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t s and value the of the v e h i c l e s . "'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 o f 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 the trial court's unique p o s i t i o n to 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 to evaluate their demeanor and The wife testified that School Zone, Inc. a p p r o x i m a t e l y $26,000 i n d e b t a t t h e t i m e o f t h e t r i a l . 8 14 had 2100600 c r e d i b i l i t y . Brown, s u p r a ; H a l l v. Mazzone , 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 o f 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 so u n s u p p o r t e d by the evidence as to be p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y w r o n g . Brown, s u p r a . However, there is no presumption of correctness in the trial court's a p p l i c a t i o n o f law 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 ) . ' "'Robinson v. R o b i n s o n , 795 C i v . App. 20 0 1 ) . " K r e i t z b e r g v. K r e i t z b e r g , 80 2011). To equal, but reiterate, must be trial the court.'" evidence division of the j u d g m e n t i s due The failing and to wife "'[t]he next to order the argues the . support and that that the to evidence, We the conclude be and the that trial that court's aspect of trial court erred retroactive child When t h i s a c t i o n was p a r t i e s ' c h i l d r e n were t h i s a c t i o n was the App. sound d i s c r e t i o n of 3d a t to required the The son pending; the 15 approximately r e a c h e d t h e age by support f o r household expenses i n c u r r e d years o l d , r e s p e c t i v e l y . while of (Ala. Civ. affirmed. the pendency of t h i s a c t i o n . filed, in light t h e h u s b a n d t o pay reimburse her 931 i s not m a r i t a l assets t o be 925, 732-33 ( A l a . award So. sufficient 2d 729, 3d rests within Martin, was So. equitable what i s e q u i t a b l e So. during initially 15 of and 16 majority daughter a t t a i n e d the age 2100600 of majority shortly after the trial court entered its judgment. The App. w i f e c i t e s Brown v. Brown, 719 1998), support. in support of her divorce. temporary c h i l d She later support i n her (Ala. Civ. retroactive divorce court failed cross-claim remaining for a The had i n awarding a c h i l d - s u p p o r t erred had b e e n no place. So. 2d a t 231. husband i n Brown pendente l i t e The that two-year p e r i o d action. when t h e r e 719 child f i l e d a c l a i m f o r temporary support remained pending throughout the trial for 2d 228 S i m i l a r t o t h e c a s e a t b a r , t h e w i f e i n Brown to request the claim So. argued child-support Brown c o u r t h e l d that of the arrearage order in that, " [ g ] i v e n t h i s s t a t e ' s p o l i c y and l a w r e q u i r i n g a p a r e n t t o s u p p o r t a m i n o r c h i l d , we h o l d t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t may, i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n , award c h i l d support r e t r o a c t i v e to the f i l i n g of the complaint for d i v o r c e where t h e t r i a l c o u r t has f a i l e d t o e n t e r a pendente l i t e c h i l d support order f o r the p e r i o d i n w h i c h t h e p a r e n t had a d u t y t o s u p p o r t t h e c h i l d but f a i l e d to p r o v i d e t h a t support." 719 So. 2d a t The the 232. w i f e f i l e d a m o t i o n on J a n u a r y 11, trial court f o r pendente l i t e child 2008, p e t i t i o n i n g support. The trial c o u r t denied her request. However, f o l l o w i n g t h e r e a s o n i n g of this basic principle is court i n Brown, " [ a ] 16 of Alabama law 2100600 that a parent support has a duty to support i s a fundamental r i g h t So. 2d a t 231 666 So. 2d (quoting 517, State 518 2005), that the r e g a r d l e s s of the the Alabama 1994. See support pending. support the in court this failure Brown, 719 insofar So. as child entry revised a not to To or retroactive of 2d 380, parental a do support cause at i t support exists In a d d i t i o n , of action for parent the time allow to d i d not this the in the to 232. support failed to and remand we that support. 17 includes we court's of her the child reverse an the award cause an was noncustodial or include the action benefit his Therefore, provide trial so w o u l d r e w a r d t h e judgment amount o f r e t r o a c t i v e c h i l d court (Ala. Civ. a nonsupporting accrue refusal 2d Bentley, This 385 719 § 30-3-110 t h r o u g h § 30-3-115. will regard for judgment against children during noncustodial parent. parent 1995)). t h e h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t he "This oversight of created A l a . Code 1975, for So. v. l a c k of court i n s t r u c t i o n s . " child At t r i a l , App. 942 "right Legislature retroactive r e l . Shellhouse Civ. f u r t h e r s t a t e d i n P a t e v. Guy, App. 'Parental of a l l minor c h i l d r e n . ' " ex (Ala. a minor c h i l d . of for the appropriate 2100600 Pate is further instructive regarding the r e t r o a c t i v e reimbursement of m a r i t a l expenses. present case, the t r i a l court issue of S i m i l a r to the i n Pate i s s u e d a pendente lite o r d e r i n s t r u c t i n g t h e p a r t i e s t o pay t h e i r " p r o r a t a " s h a r e o f t h e m a r i t a l e x p e n s e s . 942 case admitted that he So. had 2d a t 385. not The father i n that contributed to any of the m o n t h l y h o u s e h o l d e x p e n s e s , o t h e r t h a n homeowner's insurance, during Id. court the pendency held that r i g h t t o be order divorce divorce a legally court "[m]aintain status rent, u t i l i t i e s , is responsible i n the residence. It unilaterally quo present to case payment enforceable the pendency issued of a other the pretrial things, house from paying is stopped the the also paying record note utility that the husband bills for the undisputed the utility that bills the to or B a s e d upon t h i s court's holding c o u r t e r r e d when i t f a i l e d t o o r d e r 18 was marital husband sometime 2009, r e s u l t i n g i n t h e t e m p o r a r y l o s s o f w a t e r and service. of 385-86. p a r t i e s , among as This food, n e c e s s i t i e s , f i x e d c r e d i t o b l i g a t i o n s , clear for during a c t i o n . " Id. at i n s t r u c t e d the It proceeding. " [ t ] h e c h i l d r e n ha[d] trial that etc." the s u p p o r t e d by b o t h p a r e n t s t h e i r parent's The of in electricity i n Pate, the husband to the trial reimburse 2100600 the w i f e f o r u t i l i t y divorce action. bills she p a i d d u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y o f Therefore, the we r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as i t f a i l e d t o award the w i f e reimbursement f o r t h a t expense we remand t h e includes cause f o r the e n t r y of a r e v i s e d judgment t h a t a reimbursement award t o the w i f e the u t i l i t y pretrial bills t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was i n the ordered amount t o pay of i n the order. The wife also imputed to the support and argues wife an that the income o f trial $25 an court hour i n i t s c a l c u l a t i o n s . A f t e r a thorough review including the erroneously of the c h i l d - s u p p o r t - c a l c u l a t i o n f o r m s , we childrecord, are unable t o a s c e r t a i n t h e o r i g i n o f t h e income a t t r i b u t e d t o e a c h p a r t y by the trial court. "'[T]his c h i l d - s u p p o r t o r d e r i f i t has court found i n order Willis 2010) Civ. v. (quoting App. to Willis, Mosley 1999)). We v. cannot affirm t o g u e s s a t what f a c t s t h e enter 45 court the So. Mosley, support 3d 347, 747 349 So. therefore reverse order entered 894, 898 the trial court to determine the husband's (Ala. cause child-support o b l i g a t i o n i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h R u l e 3 2 ( E ) , A l a . R. Finally, App. judgment i n s o f a r as i t e s t a b l i s h e s t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t a w a r d and remand t h e to trial (Ala. Civ. 2d the i t a the husband contends t h a t the t r i a l 19 Jud. court Admin. erred 2100600 in failing t o a w a r d h i m an a t t o r n e y f e e . I t i swell settled t h a t t h e a w a r d o f an a t t o r n e y f e e i s w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f the t r i a l of judge and w i l l discretion. 2011] Enzor v. E n z o r , So. 3d case, n o t be r e v e r s e d e x c e p t , f o r an abuse [Ms. 2100105, December 30, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) . we f i n d no e v i d e n c e In t h i s t h a t t h e d e n i a l o f an a t t o r n e y - f e e a w a r d was an abuse o f t h e t r i a l court's discretion. A c c o r d i n g l y , we r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment i n s o f a r as i t f a i l e d t o a w a r d r e t r o a c t i v e c h i l d s u p p o r t , failed to enforce utilities, the p r e t r i a l order regarding judgment judgment payment a n d i n s o f a r as i t c a l c u l a t e d c h i l d s u p p o r t , remand t h e c a u s e w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h e t r i a l a i n s o f a r as i t consistent with regard with this opinion. to the d i v i s i o n of a n d we court to enter We affirm the o f m a r i t a l a s s e t s and debts. APPEAL -- AFFIRMED CROSS-APPEAL AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED I N PART; AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. 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 20 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.