E.A.B. v. D.G.W., Jr.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 5/18/12 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 2100718 E.A.B. v. D.G.W., J r . D.G.W., J r . v. E.A.B. Appeals from Baldwin C i r c u i t (DR-10-900030) Court 2100718 BRYAN, Judge. 1 E.A.B. ("the w i f e " ) a p p e a l s f r o m a j u d g m e n t d i v o r c i n g h e r from D.G.W., J r . ("the h u s b a n d " ) , a p p e a l s . We The and t h e husband cross- affirm. p a r t i e s m a r r i e d i n 1990 a n d s e p a r a t e d i n J u l y When t h e a c t i o n was t r i e d 2008. i n November 2010, t h e w i f e was 4 4 y e a r s o l d , a n d t h e h u s b a n d was 50. The p a r t i e s m a r r i e d i n June 1990. They had a daughter i n 1994 a n d a s o n i n 1996. When t h e a c t i o n was t r i e d , t h e d a u g h t e r was a j u n i o r a t t h e I n t e r l o c h e n A r t s Academy, a p r i v a t e h i g h s c h o o l i n M i c h i g a n , a n d t h e s o n was a f r e s h m a n i n t h e F a i r h o p e p u b l i c - s c h o o l system. 2 The h u s b a n d i s an a t t o r n e y i n p r i v a t e p r a c t i c e w i t h a l a w firm law i n Mobile firm ("the l a w f i r m " ) . He owns an i n t e r e s t and has p e r s o n a l l y guaranteed debt i n the owed b y t h e l a w f i r m . I n a d d i t i o n , he owns an i n t e r e s t i n a p a r t n e r s h i p ("the Due t o d e l a y s b y t h e c o u r t r e p o r t e r s i n p r e p a r i n g t h e t r a n s c r i p t s o f t h e t r i a l o f t h i s a c t i o n , t h i s a p p e a l was n o t a s s i g n e d t o t h i s j u d g e u n t i l more t h a n 290 d a y s a f t e r t h e f i l i n g of the notice of appeal. 1 D u r i n g t r i a l , t h e p a r t i e s r e a c h e d an a g r e e m e n t r e g a r d i n g c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n . They a g r e e d t h a t t h e y w o u l d have j o i n t l e g a l c u s t o d y , t h a t t h e h u s b a n d w o u l d have p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y , a n d t h a t t h e w i f e w o u l d have v i s i t a t i o n . C o n s e q u e n t l y , c u s t o d y i s n o t an i s s u e on a p p e a l . 2 2 2100718 partnership") His t h a t owns r e a l p r o p e r t y u s e d b y t h e l a w f i r m . a d j u s t e d g r o s s income was $369,342 i n 2007, $1,276,794 i n 2008, a n d $1,368,623 i n 2009. From J a n u a r y 1, 2010, t h r o u g h mid-November 2010, when t h e a c t i o n was t r i e d , t h e husband had r e c e i v e d g r o s s draws f r o m t h e l a w f i r m t o t a l i n g $768,332.07. The w i f e g r a d u a t e d f r o m B i r m i n g h a m S o u t h e r n C o l l e g e a n d earned a p a r a l e g a l c e r t i f i c a t e worked f u l l parties' from S p r i n g H i l l C o l l e g e . She t i m e as a p a r a l e g a l f o r a s h o r t p e r i o d b e f o r e t h e daughter was b o r n i n 1994. When t h e d a u g h t e r was born, t h e w i f e stopped w o r k i n g t o care f o r t h e daughter, and she d i d n o t work entered school; o u t s i d e t h e home a g a i n u n t i l at that point, she began the children working as a s u b s t i t u t e t e a c h e r a t t h e i r s c h o o l . I n t h e s p r i n g o f 2008, s h e b e g a n w o r k i n g p a r t t i m e a t Page & P a l e t t e , a s t o r e i n F a i r h o p e t h a t s e l l s b o o k s a n d o t h e r m i s c e l l a n e o u s m e r c h a n d i s e . She was still w o r k i n g p a r t t i m e a t Page & P a l e t t e f o r $7.50 p e r h o u r when t h i s a c t i o n was t r i e d . H e r income f r o m Page & P a l e t t e i n 2009 t o t a l e d $12,714.59, a n d h e r a n t i c i p a t e d income f r o m Page & Palette f o r 2010 was a p p r o x i m a t e l y $12,000. T h r o u g h o u t t h e marriage, the wife p a r t i c i p a t e d i n volunteer organizations. She s e r v e d a s p r e s i d e n t o f t h e p a r e n t - t e a c h e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a t 3 2100718 her children's s c h o o l and p a r t i c i p a t e d F a i r h o p e Youth B a s e b a l l , i n the a c t i v i t i e s of t h e E a s t e r n Shore L i t e r a c y Council, t h e S o u t h B a l d w i n C o u n t y U n i t e d Way, t h e E a s t e r n S h o r e C h o r a l S o c i e t y , and t h e E a s t e r n Shore The wife t e s t i f i e d that Junior Auxiliary. the marriage had i r r e t r i e v a b l y b r o k e n down when t h e h u s b a n d i n f o r m e d h e r i n O c t o b e r 2009 t h a t he h a d begun d a t i n g a n o t h e r woman. The husband, on t h e o t h e r hand, testified as follows r e g a r d i n g t h e b r e a k d o w n o f t h e m a r r i a g e . The p r o b l e m s i nthe m a r r i a g e h a d begun s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e p a r t i e s ' s o n was b o r n i n 1996 as a r e s u l t exhibited stopped a of the w i f e ' s behavior changing. cold keeping attitude t h e house toward orderly, the p a r t i e s ' stopped The w i f e daughter, cooking on a r e g u l a r b a s i s a n d d i d n o t c o o k n u t r i t i o u s m e a l s when she d i d cook, stopped e x e r c i s i n g , a great deal. told and a l l o w e d h e r w e i g h t t o i n c r e a s e Those p r o b l e m s the wife that became p r o g r e s s i v e l y w o r s e . he t h o u g h t she might be s u f f e r i n g He from d e p r e s s i o n ; h o w e v e r , she d i d n o t s e e k p r o f e s s i o n a l h e l p . I n 2002, he t o o k t h e w i f e t o H a w a i i a n d d i s c u s s e d t h e p r o b l e m s he was h a v i n g w i t h h e r ; h o w e v e r , he saw no i m p r o v e m e n t a f t e r t h e y returned f r o m H a w a i i . The h u s b a n d a s k e d 4 the wife t o prepare 2100718 t h e i n t e r i o r o f t h e i r h o u s e f o r H u r r i c a n e I v a n i n 2004 a n d f o r H u r r i c a n e K a t r i n a i n 2005 s o t h a t he c o u l d d e v o t e h i s t i m e a n d a t t e n t i o n t o p r e p a r i n g t h e e x t e r i o r ; however, t h e w i f e i g n o r e d his requests. T h e i r h o u s e was f l o o d e d b y H u r r i c a n e Katrina, and t h e i r p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y s u f f e r e d damage f r o m t h e f l o o d i n g that could have b e e n avoided i f the wife had prepared i n t e r i o r o f t h e h o u s e f o r t h e h u r r i c a n e as he h a d In 2006, began the p a r t i e s ceased sleeping apart. having I n 2007, intimate requested. relations he saw t h e w i f e a parent. Thereafter, he a r r a n g e d f o r family and physically s h o v e t h e d a u g h t e r , w h i c h he c o n s i d e r e d u n a c c e p t a b l e by the behavior counseling w i t h a t h e r a p i s t ; h o w e v e r , he saw no i m p r o v e m e n t i n t h e w i f e ' s behavior legally a f t e r a year changed of counseling. I n A p r i l her l a s t name 2008, t h e w i f e t o h e r maiden name without t e l l i n g h i m . I n t h e s p r i n g o f 2008, t h e h u s b a n d s u g g e s t e d the w i f e t h a t they separate, house t o l i v e house t h a t she f i n d a i n n e a r t h e f a m i l y r e s i d e n c e . The w i f e f o u n d a she l i k e d residence a n d he s u g g e s t e d i n Point Clear, w h i c h was n e a r the family i n P o i n t C l e a r . The h u s b a n d p a i d a down payment o f $47,000 f o r t h e w i f e ' s new h o u s e a n d f i n a n c e d t h e b a l a n c e the to purchase price. He gave the wife 5 her choice of of the 2100718 furniture i n the f a m i l y residence and p a i d f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y $6,000 o f a d d i t i o n a l f u r n i t u r e she p i c k e d o u t a t a f u r n i t u r e store. The I n J u l y 2008, t h e w i f e moved i n t o t h e h e r new h o u s e . children remained with residence. He had hoped temporary and t h a t they however, the wife's t h e husband that could i n the the separation work out t h e i r comments became " v e r y would be differences; nasty" r e l a t i o n s h i p became w o r s e i n s t e a d o f b e t t e r . family and t h e i r C o n s e q u e n t l y , he came t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e r e was no way t o i m p r o v e t h e relationship there and t h a t marriage. The parties regarding t h e terms mediation i n April was no hope attempted of a divorce 2 0 0 9 ; however, a g r e e m e n t were u n s u c c e s s f u l . woman, and they began to reach an agreement and p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a the attempts On A u g u s t dating. of continuing the A t o reach an 15, 2009, he met a romantic and sexual r e l a t i o n s h i p d e v e l o p e d , a n d , i n O c t o b e r 2009, he t o l d t h e w i f e t h a t he was d a t i n g . S u b s e q u e n t t o A u g u s t 15, 2009, he t o o k t h e other woman on trips and bought her g i f t s , including a " p r o m i s e r i n g " t h a t c o s t $5,313.75. H i s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e o t h e r woman was o n g o i n g when t h e a c t i o n was t r i e d . On January 15, 2 0 1 0 , t h e h u s b a n d 6 sued the wife fora 2100718 divorce on the ground of subsequently counterclaimed incompatibility and i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y , and f o ra divorce adultery. The evidence o r e tenus a t a bench t r i a l 18, 2010. On November p a r t i e s ' attorneys j u d g m e n t . The e - m a i l , wife on t h e g r o u n d s o f trial court received on November 2, 3, 16, a n d 24, 2 0 1 0 , t h e t r i a l an e - m a i l the court sent the accompanied by a d r a f t o f t h e w h i c h was made an e x h i b i t o f t h e c o u r t d u r i n g a M a r c h 1, 2 0 1 1 , h e a r i n g motions, stated, i n p e r t i n e n t on t h e p a r t i e s ' p o s t j u d g m e n t part: " I want t o t e l l y o u a l i t t l e a b o u t my r e a s o n i n g i n t h i s case. F i r s t , I b e l i e v e i t i s v e r y c l e a r from t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h i s m a r r i a g e was i r r e t r i e v a b l y b r o k e n i n 2008. The [ t h e h u s b a n d ' s ] r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h [ t h e o t h e r woman] s t a r t e d l o n g a f t e r t h a t t i m e , and I b e l i e v e i t d i d n o t i n a n y way c o n t r i b u t e t o the breakdown o f t h i s m a r r i a g e . T h e r e f o r e , I d i d n o t g i v e t h a t a n y w e i g h t i n m a k i n g my u l t i m a t e d e c i s i o n . "Additionally, I a l l o c a t e d no v a l u e i n my c a l c u l a t i o n s t o [ t h e husband's] i n t e r e s t i n t h e law firm or the firm's b u i l d i n g partnership, outside of what i t a l l o w s him t o produce i n income. H i s c o n t i n g e n t l i a b i l i t y on t h e f i r m ' s l i n e o f c r e d i t e x c e e d s h i s member's e q u i t y , a n d f u r t h e r , a l t h o u g h his i n t e r e s t may be shown as $ 6 1 1 [ t h o u s a n d ] on p a p e r , I d o n ' t v i e w t h a t as a t a n g i b l e o r m a r k e t a b l e a s s e t f r o m w h i c h [ t h e w i f e ] s h o u l d be a w a r d e d an interest. " I i m p u t e d income t o [ t h e w i f e ] a t $ 4 0 , 0 0 0 , as I believe that i s a fair salary for a legal assistant or paralegal with her education and leadership s k i l l s . I c a l c u l a t e d a l i m o n y and c h i l d 7 2100718 s u p p o r t b a s e d on t h i s . C e r t a i n l y she may d e c i d e t o c o n t i n u e t o work p a r t t i m e as a b o o k s e l l e r , b u t she must make t h e c h o i c e t h e n t o r e d u c e h e r l i f e s t y l e a c c o r d i n g l y . A l s o , from the p e r s p e c t i v e o f alimony, I t o o k i n t o a c c o u n t t h e t a x c o n s e q u e n c e s when I c a l c u l a t e d what I b e l i e v e t o be a f a i r amount." The t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t on December 2, 2010. The j u d g m e n t d i d n o t s t a t e a g r o u n d f o r t h e d i v o r c e . As subsequently following amended, marital t h e judgment awarded t h e husband t h e assets f o r which the record indicates a value: Asset Net Value family residence Highway 181 p r o p e r t y Point Clear property C o u n t y Road 24 p r o p e r t y pick-up truck Mustang Land Rover Suburban Boston Whaler boat Kubota t r a c t o r Ford t r a c t o r Caterpillar tractor 1933 F o r d antique race cars golf cart 3 motorcycles i n t e r e s t s i n law f i r m and p a r t n e r s h i p 1/2 o f h u s b a n d ' s 4 0 1 ( k ) cash $319,000 3,000 141,000 35,000 4,400 15,000 18,000 5,000 5,000 24,000 24,000 37,000 32,000 6,250 2,500 1,700 611,667 331,000 365,000 $1,980,517 T o t a l net value 8 2100718 The j u d g m e n t o r d e r e d the wife's wife. The Subtracting assets new house, which the t r i a l balance that listed t h e husband t o pay the mortgage owed $177,362 above on that court mortgage from the t o t a l awarded was of the to the $177,362. net value reduces the net value on of the husband's share of the assets f o r which the r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s a value t o $1,803.155 In ($1,980,517 minus $177,362 addition, following the marital judgment assets equals awarded f o r which the $1,803,155). the husband record does the not i n d i c a t e a v a l u e : h i s p e r s o n a l e f f e c t s and h e i r l o o m s ; a c a n o e ; art work; antique f u r n i t u r e ; three t r a i l e r s ; race-car tires; a c o i n c o l l e c t i o n ; and a l l f u r n i t u r e , f u r n i s h i n g s , t o o l s , and lawn-care equipment l o c a t e d a t the f a m i l y r e s i d e n c e . As subsequently amended, t h e j u d g m e n t awarded t h e w i f e the f o l l o w i n g m a r i t a l a s s e t s f o r which the r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s a value: Asset Net V a l u e w i f e ' s new h o u s e Land C r u i s e r race cars 1/2 o f h u s b a n d ' s 4 0 1 ( k ) cash $200,000 7,500 1,250 331,000 50,000 T o t a l net value $589,750 9 2100718 I n a d d i t i o n , the judgment awarded the w i f e the f o l l o w i n g m a r i t a l a s s e t s f o r w h i c h t h e r e c o r d does n o t i n d i c a t e a v a l u e : h e r j e w e l r y , p e r s o n a l e f f e c t s , and h e i r l o o m s ; p o r t r a i t s o f t h e children; a collection of bride's baskets; Christmas d e c o r a t i o n s o f h e r c h o o s i n g ; a l l s i l v e r i n t h e Gorham C a m e l l i a p a t t e r n ; a b i g c o n c h s h e l l ; and the tools, located and lawn-care equipment furniture, at furnishings, the wife's new interests in house. The judgment business several also awarded entities the that husband own real property i n v e s t m e n t p u r p o s e s , w h i c h t h e w i f e c o n c e d e d were assets ("the contingent $5,000 per contingent assets"). I n a d d i t i o n , the judgment ordered wife for month in t h e h u s b a n d t o pay permanent periodic the alimony; i n c o r p o r a t e d the p a r t i e s ' agreement r e g a r d i n g c u s t o d y ; imputed income o f $40,000 t o t h e w i f e ; o r d e r e d p e r month i n c h i l d s u p p o r t ; and be responsible for paying On December 22, m o t i o n . Among o t h e r c o u r t had ordered h i s or her 2010, the the w i f e wife t o pay t h a t each p a r t y would own attorney filed a fees. postjudgment t h i n g s , the w i f e a s s e r t e d t h a t the e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o g r a n t t h e d i v o r c e on t h e 10 $500 trial ground 2100718 of adultery, i n dividing the m a r i t a l property, $40,000 o f income t o t h e w i f e , i n imputing i n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e husband's contingent l i a b i l i t y f o r debts of the law f i r m i n determining the v a l u e o f t h e husband's i n t e r e s t partnership, and i n f a i l i n g i n t h e law f i r m and t h e t o order t h e husband t o pay t h e w i f e ' s a t t o r n e y f e e s . On December 28, 2010, t h e h u s b a n d filed a other postjudgment motion i n which he asserted, t h i n g s , t h a t he h a d l e a r n e d a f t e r t h e t r i a l c o n t r a c t e d t o buy a business i n Fairhope, among t h a t the w i f e had t h a t the w i f e had i n t e n t i o n a l l y f a i l e d t o d i s c l o s e t h a t she h a d done so when she t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l , and t h a t 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 and t h e a w a r d o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y t h e w i f e ' s new b u s i n e s s The trial s h o u l d be r e d u c e d t o r e f l e c t as a s o u r c e court heard o f income. the p a r t i e s ' postjudgment motions on M a r c h 1, 2 0 1 1 . A t t h a t h e a r i n g , ore tenus testimony the b u s i n e s s entered in i n Fairhope. of received regarding her purchase of court the wife's postjudgment motion some r e l a t i v e l y marital court On M a r c h 2 1 , 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l an o r d e r t h a t g r a n t e d p a r t by making division from t h e w i f e the t r i a l property minor that adjustments favored i n the the wife but otherwise denied the w i f e ' s postjudgment motion. R e j e c t i n g the 11 2100718 wife's assertion husband's contingent determining f i r m and that the i t had liability value of the erred in f o r debt husband's of considering the law interest the firm i n the in law the p a r t n e r s h i p , the t r i a l c o u r t s t a t e d : " d . The C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h e v a l u e o f t h e p a r t i e s ' marital estate without consideration of the c o n t i n g e n t a s s e t s and l i a b i l i t i e s o f t h e p a r t i e s , and made i t s d i v i s i o n a c c o r d i n g l y . The C o u r t then c o n s i d e r e d and v a l u e d t h e c o n t i n g e n t a s s e t s and liabilities separately. In reviewing said distribution, the Court reaffirms i t s previous j u d g m e n t as t o t h e d i v i s i o n o f t h o s e a s s e t s and debts." Also separate The on March order 21, ruling t r i a l court granted 2011, on the the sought a p r o p e r t y and reduction the court entered husband's postjudgment of the but denied wife's share award of p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y , a motion. t h a t m o t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o an t h a t i s not m a t e r i a l t o t h i s appeal it trial issue i t i n s o f a r as of the marital stating: "2. Although the Court agrees t h a t the Defendant Wife's pending purchase of a b u s i n e s s at the time of t r i a l was a m a t e r i a l o m i s s i o n on t h e p a r t o f t h e W i f e a t t r i a l , t h e income f r o m t h a t b u s i n e s s a t t h i s time i s too s p e c u l a t i v e f o r the Court to c o n s i d e r a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e p r i o r o r d e r . The C o u r t i m p u t e d a f a i r income t o t h e W i f e i n t h e c a l c u l a t i o n o f a l i m o n y , and t h a t o r d e r s h a l l s t a n d . " The w i f e t i m e l y a p p e a l e d and t o t h i s c o u r t on A p r i l 29, the husband t i m e l y c r o s s - a p p e a l e d 12 on May 13, 2011. 2011, 2100718 Because the t r i a l review c o u r t r e c e i v e d evidence ore tenus, i s g o v e r n e d by t h e our following principles: "'"'[W]hen a trial court hears ore tenus testimony, i t s f i n d i n g s on disputed facts are p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t and i t s j u d g m e n t b a s e d on those f i n d i n g s w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d u n l e s s t h e j u d g m e n t i s p a l p a b l y e r r o n e o u s or m a n i f e s t l y u n j u s t . ' " ' Water Works & S a n i t a r y Sewer Bd. v. P a r k s , 977 So. 2d 440, 443 ( A l a . 2007) ( q u o t i n g F a d a l l a v. F a d a l l a , 929 So. 2d 429, 433 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n P h i l p o t v. S t a t e , 843 So. 2d 122, 125 (Ala. 2002)). '"The p r e s u m p t i o n of c o r r e c t n e s s , however, i s r e b u t t a b l e and may be overcome where t h e r e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence p r e s e n t e d to the t r i a l c o u r t to s u s t a i n i t s j u d g m e n t . " ' Waltman v. R o w e l l , 913 So. 2d 1083, 1086 ( A l a . 2005) ( q u o t i n g D e n n i s v. Dobbs, 474 So. 2d 77, 79 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ) . ' A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e o r e t e n u s r u l e does n o t e x t e n d t o c l o a k w i t h 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 a t r i a l j u d g e ' s c o n c l u s i o n s of law or the i n c o r r e c t a p p l i c a t i o n of law t o the facts.' Waltman v. R o w e l l , 913 So. 2d a t 1086." R e t a i l D e v e l o p e r s o f A l a b a m a , LLC Inc., 985 So. 2d 924, 929 Club, ( A l a . 2007). In her appeal, the w i f e f i r s t erred i n f a i l i n g v. E a s t Gadsden G o l f argues t h a t the t r i a l to s p e c i f y a ground f o r the divorce. " A l t h o u g h i t i s the b e t t e r p r a c t i c e t o s e t out the g r o u n d s [upon w h i c h t h e d i v o r c e i s g r a n t e d ] i n i t s d e c r e e , a t r i a l c o u r t w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d f o r i t s f a i l u r e t o do s o . C o z a d v. C o z a d , 372 So. 2d 1322 (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 7 9 ) . Where t h e d e c r e e f a i l s to c o n t a i n grounds f o r the d i v o r c e , t h i s c o u r t will e x a m i n e t h e r e c o r d t o see i f t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o support the ground or grounds propounded by t h e p a r t i e s and i f so the decree w i l l be a f f i r m e d . Cozad, s u p r a . " 13 court 2100718 M a t h i e s o n v. Mathieson, 409 So. 2d 439, 442 (Ala. Civ. App. 1982). In the present case, the p a r t i e s both sought a d i v o r c e on the ground of i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y , w h i l e the w i f e sought a d i v o r c e on t h e a d d i t i o n a l g r o u n d o f a d u l t e r y . The supports a Therefore, divorce on the t r i a l court's t h e d i v o r c e does n o t The the w i f e the ground failure husband's of the incompatibility. to s p e c i f y a ground f o r c o n s t i t u t e r e v e r s i b l e error. Id. w i f e a l s o argues t h a t the t r i a l says, testimony trial c o u r t d i d not court e r r e d because, specifically grant a d i v o r c e on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d had c o m m i t t e d a d u l t e r y . I n R o b e r t s v. R o b e r t s , the husband sued So. wife 2d 150 i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y , and t h e w i f e c o u n t e r c l a i m e d for a divorce on the The 357 So. a divorce 2d at on 151. the 1977), of adultery. for ( A l a . C i v . App. ground ground of the 357 trial court e n t e r e d a judgment g r a n t i n g a d i v o r c e w i t h o u t s t a t i n g a ground for t h e d i v o r c e . I d . The w i f e a p p e a l e d t o t h i s c o u r t , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t " t h e r e was the divorce on argument, t h i s the ground of court arguing, e r r o r i n f a i l i n g to adultery." Id. Rejecting stated: "This c o u r t s a i d i n the case of R u s s e l l R u s s e l l , 45 A l a . App. 255, 257, 229 So. 2d 30, 14 v. 32 grant that 2100718 (1969) and r e p e a t e d i n t h e c a s e o f L l o y d v. L l o y d , 46 A l a . App. 441, 442, 243 So. 2d 525, 527 (1970), ' ( I ) f the evidence i s l e g a l l y s u f f i c i e n t to support t h e d e c r e e o f t h e c o u r t b e l o w as t o any ground a l l e g e d i n t h e B i l l o f C o m p l a i n t , t h e d e c r e e must be a f f i r m e d . ' We f i n d t h e e v i d e n c e and i t s r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t a d i v o r c e on e i t h e r the ground of i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y or a d u l t e r y . The f a i l u r e to s t a t e which ground i s t h e r e f o r e not reversible error." Id. at 151-52. As case n o t e d above, supports Therefore, the the ground error. a the divorce husband's t e s t i m o n y on the ground trial court's failure the divorce did for present of i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y . to specify adultery as not constitute reversible the trial Id. The wife also argues that c o n s i d e r i n g the husband's c o n t i n g e n t law f i r m i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e l a w f i r m and court's e-mail that the court erred in l i a b i l i t y f o r debt of the the v a l u e of the husband's i n t e r e s t i n the p a r t n e r s h i p marital property. found i n the f o r purposes of d i v i d i n g the S p e c i f i c a l l y , the w i f e argues t h a t the indicates that the trial husband's i n t e r e s t i n the court law erroneously f i r m and p a r t n e r s h i p had no v a l u e f o r p u r p o s e s o f t h e p r o p e r t y because their liability value was f o r debt of the o f f s e t by law firm. 15 the trial husband's the division contingent 2100718 This court "contingent included should has held a s s e t s and i n the that, in valuing marital contingent the p a r t i e s ' net worth but and awarded s e p a r a t e l y " and ... determine[] the value p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l estate without a s s e t s and l i a b i l i t i e s ; in that consider[] App. trial 2 0 1 0 ) . The court liability his the trial contingent trial initially court assets considered 3d e-mail the then error. Id. However, wife's postjudgment subsequently law f i r m and the trial 668, motion corrected 673-74 i n t e r e s t s i n the law f i r m and estate without liability f o r debt of husband's contingent the by that law liability 16 the value the valuing the f i r m and f o r debt of on trial the was court husband's the contingent considered the of the as p a r t o f husband's then the contingent ruling the p a r t n e r s h i p considering (Ala. the p a r t n e r s h i p , which indicates i t s error ... indicates that order the liabilities husband's court's the contingent should and 63 So. court's of the net worth of f o r the law f i r m ' s debt i n d e t e r m i n i n g i n t e r e s t s i n the marital to t h e i r a f t e r determining fashion, their reference s e p a r a t e l y . " G r e l i e r v. G r e l i e r , Civ. be of t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t "should parties [are] not t o calculated separately be computation liabilities property, law the firm in 2100718 v a l u i n g the contingent assets. 3 Although the trial court did n o t change 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 as a r e s u l t of i t s subsequent v a l u a t i o n of the husband's i n t e r e s t s i n the law firm and the contingent change partnership liability the reversible division error without on 3d a t 672 remand of only marital i f i t husband's that business marketability c o u r t had property or husband's resulted i t had minority and an inequitable C f . G r e l i e r v. G r e l i e r , court's the without discounts i n s t r u c t e d i t t o do constitute in considered interests to value of court court's had not erroneously t h a t i t had failed to the applying that value 63 judgment as any this found i t to e q u i t a b l e t o d i v i d e t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y as i t had b e f o r e , trial to would ( h o l d i n g t h a t , when t h e t r i a l stated the f o r debt of the law f i r m , i t s f a i l u r e d i v i s i o n of the m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y . So. considering comply w i t h be the this mandate). The w i f e has n o t a r g u e d on a p p e a l t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n awarding the husband the c o n t i n g e n t a s s e t s or t h a t the award of the c o n t i n g e n t a s s e t s t o the husband r e n d e r e d the t r i a l c o u r 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 and a w a r d o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y i n e q u i t a b l e . T h e r e f o r e , she has w a i v e d t h o s e i s s u e s . See B o s h e l l v. K e i t h , 418 So. 2d 89, 92 ( A l a . 1982) ("When an a p p e l l a n t f a i l s t o a r g u e an i s s u e i n i t s b r i e f , t h a t issue i s waived."). 3 17 2100718 The the w i f e a l s o argues t h a t the t r i a l marital property and award court's d i v i s i o n of of p e r i o d i c alimony were inequitable. "[T]he d i v i s i o n o f p r o p e r t y and t h e award o f a l i m o n y a r e i n t e r r e l a t e d , a n d 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 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 i s s u e . See O'Neal .,-,1 / n o a ^ -T/T-r / A 0 ; -A,^,^ 1 r v. O ' N e a l , 678 So. 2d 161 (- ATl ,a . C -i^ ^. App. 1 9 9 6 ) . A v p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n does n o t 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 t h e p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s o f e a c h c a s e ; a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f what i s e q u i t a b l e r e s t s w i t h i n 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 . See G o l d e n v . G o l d e n , 681 So. 2d 605 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) . "When d i v i d i n g m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y a n d d e t e r m i n i n g a p a r t y ' s need f o r a l i m o n y , a t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d c o n s i d e r s e v e r a l f a c t o r s , i n c l u d i n g '"the l e n g t h o f t h e m a r r i a g e , t h e age a n d h e a l t h o f t h e p a r t i e s , t h e f u t u r e employment p r o s p e c t s o f t h e p a r t i e s , t h e s o u r c e , v a l u e , a n d t y p e o f p r o p e r t y owned, a n d t h e s t a n d a r d o f l i v i n g t o w h i c h t h e p a r t i e s have become a c c u s t o m e d d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e . " ' Ex p a r t e E l l i o t t , 782 So. 2d 308 ( A l a . 2000) ( q u o t i n g N o w e l l v. N o w e l l , 474 So. 2d 1128, 1129 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1985)) ( f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d ) . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t may a l s o consider the conduct o f the p a r t i e s w i t h regard t o t h e b r e a k d o w n o f t h e m a r r i a g e , e v e n where t h e parties are divorced on the basis of i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y , o r w h e r e , as h e r e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t f a i l e d t o s p e c i f y t h e g r o u n d s upon w h i c h i t b a s e d i t s d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t . Ex p a r t e Drummond, 785 So. 2d 358 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ; M y r i c k v . M y r i c k , 714 So. 2d 311 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 8 ) . I t i s w e l l - s e t t l e d t h a t where a trial court does n o t make s p e c i f i c factual f i n d i n g s , t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t must assume t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t made t h o s e f i n d i n g s n e c e s s a r y t o s u p p o r t i t s j u d g m e n t , u n l e s s s u c h f i n d i n g s w o u l d be c l e a r l y erroneous. Ex p a r t e Fann, 810 So. 2d 631 ( A l a . 18 2100718 2 0 0 1 ) ; Ex 1996)." parte Bryowsky, 676 So. 2d B a g g e t t v. B a g g e t t , 855 So. 2d 556, 559-60 2003). to the factors 1322 ( A l a . listed In addition Baggett, the trial relative economic marriage in App. and dividing p e r i o d i c alimony. Civ. court may also noneconomic the marital ( A l a . C i v . App. i n Baggett consider the contributions property and v. spouses' to the awarding Weeks v. Weeks, 27 So. 3d 526, 532-33 ( A l a . 2008). "'[T]here i s no r i g i d standard or mathematical formula on w h i c h a t r i a l c o u r t must b a s e i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n 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 a s s e t s . ' Yohey v. Yohey, 890 So. 2d 160, 164 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 4 ) . 'Even i f a p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n f a v o r s one p a r t y o v e r t h e o t h e r , t h a t i s n o t , i n and o f i t s e l f , an a b u s e 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, 576 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 9 ) . " Id. a t 532. In the present case, the m a r i t a l assets f o r which the r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s a v a l u e have a t o t a l n e t v a l u e o f $2,392,905. The t r i a l c o u r t a w a r d e d t h e h u s b a n d $1,803,155 of t h a t total n e t v a l u e and a w a r d e d t h e w i f e $589,750 o f i t . Thus, t h e t r i a l c o u r t awarded t h e husband a p p r o x i m a t e l y 75% o f t h e t o t a l n e t value of the m a r i t a l assets f o r which the record i n d i c a t e s a value and awarded the wife approximately 19 25% of i t . In 2100718 a d d i t i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t a w a r d e d t h e w i f e $5,000 p e r month i n permanent p e r i o d i c h u s b a n d was 50 alimony. When t h e y e a r s o l d , and the l a s t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 20 y e a r s . The w i f e was being good h e a l t h . The a c t i o n was wife was The h u s b a n d was treated for depression husband's 44. future tried, The the marriage i n good h e a l t h . b u t was otherwise i n employment p r o s p e c t s and a b i l i t y to earn are s u b s t a n t i a l l y g r e a t e r than the w i f e ' s . h u s b a n d and during the the wife e n j o y e d an t h e m a r r i a g e . The marriage marital evidence were would of living husband's economic c o n t r i b u t i o n s f a r exceeded the assets a f f l u e n t standard wife's acquired support noneconomic c o n t r i b u t i o n s a with and money finding to the virtually he that marriage also to a l l the earned. the The The husband's far exceeded t h e w i f e ' s ; t h e e v i d e n c e w o u l d s u p p o r t f i n d i n g s t h a t he became the primary caregiver made g r e a t e r did p a r t i e s ' c h i l d r e n and that that husband arranged f o r m a r i t a l c o u n s e l i n g effort at salvaging the marriage f o u n d t h a t t h e m a r r i a g e had already before i n August adultery began 20 and f o r over year. A l t h o u g h the husband committed a d u l t e r y , the t r i a l the he c o n t r i b u t i o n s toward s a l v a g i n g the marriage than t h e w i f e . The sponsored f o r the a court i r r e t r i e v a b l y b r o k e n down or September of 2009, 2100718 which was over a year a f t e r t h e p a r t i e s had after the p a r t i e s had separated a t t e m p t e d t o a g r e e upon t h e t e r m s o f d i v o r c e . Moreover, the evidence would support the wife was and primarily responsible for a finding the failure that of the and m a r r i a g e due to her negative a t t i t u d e toward the daughter her to behavior failure despite the husband's and t h e f a m i l y c o u n s e l i n g he a r r a n g e d requests modify her and sponsored. T a k i n g i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n a l l t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t was trial c o u r t , we conclude t h a t the marital property The wife imputing and also income of trial the division court's before of award of p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y i s e q u i t a b l e . argues that the trial $40, 000 per year to court her. erred However, evidence i n d i c a t e s t h a t , d e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t the husband primary p h y s i c a l custody i n t o her find a new h o u s e i n J u l y 2008, t h e w i f e made no full-time job. t h a t she could earn The evidence would support court the had c o n s i d e r a b l y more t h a n t h e Jud. Admin., p r o v i d e s f i n d s that e i t h e r parent 21 effort a finding $7.50 per Pallette. that, " [ i ] f is voluntarily to underemployed h o u r she e a r n e d as a p a r t - t i m e e m p l o y e e o f Page and R u l e 3 2 ( B ) ( 5 ) , A l a . R. in o f t h e c h i l d r e n a f t e r t h e w i f e moved t h a t , g i v e n h e r e d u c a t i o n and a b i l i t i e s , she was and a unemployed the or 2100718 underemployed, i t s h a l l estimate otherwise " have and (Emphasis shall added.) impute t h e income t h a t p a r e n t to Accordingly, t r i a l c o u r t d i d not e r r i n i m p u t i n g to the The that parent we that conclude would income that income o f $40,000 p e r year wife. wife's final argument is that the trial court exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n f a i l i n g t o order the husband to her the attorney pay fees. "Whether t o a w a r d an a t t o r n e y f e e i n a d o m e s t i c r e l a t i o n s case i 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 and, a b s e n t an abuse o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n , i t s r u l i n g on t h a t q u e s t i o n w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d . Thompson v. Thompson, 650 So. 2d 928 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 4 ) . ' F a c t o r s t o be c o n s i d e r e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t when a w a r d i n g such fees include the financial circumstances of the p a r t i e s , the p a r t i e s ' conduct, the results of the litigation, and, where appropriate, the trial court's knowledge and e x p e r i e n c e as t o t h e v a l u e o f t h e s e r v i c e s p e r f o r m e d by t h e a t t o r n e y . ' F i g u r e s v. F i g u r e s , 624 So. 2d 188, 191 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) . " Glover The v. G l o v e r , 678 So. 2d 174, 176 ( A l a . C i v . App. husband's f i n a n c i a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s a r e more f a v o r a b l e t h a n t h e w i f e ' s . However, t h e e v i d e n c e w o u l d s u p p o r t t h a t t h e w i f e ' s c o n d u c t was of the marriage, and the the p r i m a r y a finding cause of the breakdown h u s b a n d p r e v a i l e d on d i s p u t e d i s s u e s i n t h e a c t i o n . A c c o r d i n g l y , we 22 1996). most o f conclude the that 2100718 the t r i a l c o u r t d i d not exceed i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n o r d e r i n g each p a r t y t o be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r h i s or her In h i s c r o s s - a p p e a l , court erred the attorney fees. husband argues t h a t the of the m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y and h e r a w a r d o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y due to the concealing the to fact reduce the t h a t she had wife's trial share wife's in declining own contracted t o buy business i n F a i r h o p e . However, we a g r e e w i t h t h e t r i a l finding that financial the the c o n d i t i o n was division alimony. respect The effect of of too the we on the s p e c u l a t i v e to warrant marital property Therefore, business affirm and the the a court's wife's changing award of p e r i o d i c trial court's attorney fee ruling with to that i s s u e . wife's motion for an on appeal is denied. AFFIRMED. Pittman and Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Thompson, P . J . , concurs i n the Moore, J . , r e c u s e s himself. 23 r e s u l t , without 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.