Cheri Denise Spuhl v. Robert Spuhl

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/22/2012 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 2101057 C h e r i Denise Spuhl v. Robert Spuhl Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t (DR-2010-649) Court THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . C h e r i Denise Spuhl divorcing h e r from judgment, which regarding custody ("the w i f e " ) Robert incorporated Spuhl appeals ("the h u s b a n d " ) . an a g r e e m e n t and t h e d i v i s i o n from a judgment The of the parties of certain real property, 2101057 o r d e r e d t h e h u s b a n d t o pay t h e w i f e p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y and support, d i v i d e d the marital property, and a l l o c a t e d debt. B r i e f l y , the r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s the f o l l o w i n g . married i n J a n u a r y 1993. born of the marriage. previous marriage; action. At t r i a l , affair, w h i c h was that the affair Two The c h i l d r e n ("the w i f e had they were two adults child The p a r t i e s c h i l d r e n " ) were o t h e r c h i l d r e n from a at the time of this t h e w i f e c o n t e n d e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d had continuing was what at had the time caused the of the trial, breakdown and of the marriage. The h u s b a n d , on t h e o t h e r h a n d , t e s t i f i e d t h a t had the wife asked for a divorce as early as 2004. evidence i n d i c a t e d t h a t the p a r t i e s f r e q u e n t l y argued, a t e a c h o t h e r and the c a l l i n g e a c h o t h e r v u l g a r names. arguments t u r n e d incident physical. i n w h i c h he and then s c r a t c h e d When t h e p a r t i e s m a r r i e d , The Army. He had husband r e t i r e d 2005, and the yelling At times, the an wife him. t h e h u s b a n d was been i n the and he The husband t e s t i f i e d t o t h e w i f e were a r g u i n g " g r a b b e d " h i s g e n i t a l s and States The an army s i n c e i n the United December 1983. f r o m t h e army as a l i e u t e n a n t c o l o n e l i n family then moved h u s b a n d w o r k e d as a c i v i l i a n . to H u n t s v i l l e , where At the time the husband 2 the filed 2101057 t h i s a c t i o n , h i s g r o s s m o n t h l y s a l a r y was $ 8 , 9 9 3 . 8 1 . employer, t h e husband telephone b i l l also was p a i d , earned bonuses, his cellular- a n d , i n 2010, he r e c e i v e d a $4,800 d i s t r i b u t i o n f r o m h i s e m p l o y e r ' s "SAR a c c o u n t . " the husband From h i s received military-retirement In addition, benefits o f $3,802 e a c h month, w h i c h i n c l u d e d a V e t e r a n s A f f a i r s ' w a i v e r o f $ 3 7 6 . The husband's gross monthly income a t the time o f the t r i a l was $ 1 4 , 9 5 1 . 1 4 ; h i s a v e r a g e m o n t h l y n e t income was $ 9 , 3 9 0 . The wife marriage. She deployments, for d i d n o t work testified outside that, t h e home because during of the the husband's she was o f t e n t h e o n l y p e r s o n a v a i l a b l e t o c a r e the children. The w i f e said that between running the h o u s e h o l d a n d h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s as a m i l i t a r y s p o u s e , w h i c h i n c l u d e d a s s i s t i n g o t h e r m i l i t a r y s p o u s e s w i t h a n y number o f difficulties t h e y may e n c o u n t e r , she f o u n d i t i m p o s s i b l e t o have a c a r e e r o u t s i d e t h e home. At the time of the t r i a l , the w i f e w o r k e d as a r e c e p t i o n i s t i n a d o c t o r ' s o f f i c e e a r n i n g $11 hourly. She w o r k e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 30 t o 32 h o u r s e a c h week. The p a r t i e s d i d n o t own a n y r e a l p r o p e r t y a t t h e t i m e o f the trial. They t e s t i f i e d as t o t h e i r p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y ; t h e 3 2101057 v a l u e of t h e i r v a r i o u s bank a c c o u n t s , insurance p o l i c i e s ; t h e i r t h r e e v e h i c l e s ; and After a retirement accounts, c o n s i d e r i n g the evidence, judgment dividing the parties' the their trial personal and debt. court entered property, their v e h i c l e s , and t h e i r v a r i o u s i n s u r a n c e p o l i c i e s , b a n k accounts, and military- retirement accounts, retirement benefits. The excluding the h u s b a n d was husband's ordered $2,250 e a c h month i n p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y . The t o pay 28% of the husband's gross wife t r i a l court stated t h a t t h e amount o f t h e w i f e ' s p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y was to the t o be nondisability equal military- retirement benefits. The trial court also ordered the h u s b a n d t o pay "basic c h i l d s u p p o r t " p l u s $ 6 0 6 a month f o r t h e c h i l d r e n ' s t u i t i o n Holy S p i r i t School. The judgment f u r t h e r p r o v i d e s t h a t once the c h i l d r e n complete the e i g h t h grade at Holy S p i r i t the wife school, has and the the option of husband w i l l sending The The wife appeals a private high t o be responsible for at a p r i v a t e high w i f e i s t o be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r any e a c h month. school. c o s t s i n excess of $606 from the 4 School, them t o continue $ 6 0 6 e a c h month t o w a r d t h e t u i t i o n at judgment. 2101057 The wife discretion contends in the that the t r i a l division of the S p e c i f i c a l l y , the wife a s s e r t s , the t r i a l did a court abused i t s marital property. c o u r t e r r e d when i t n o t i n c l u d e t h e h u s b a n d ' s m i l i t a r y - r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s as marital asset when dividing the m a r i t a l i n s t e a d , ordered that the p e r i o d i c alimony was to be paid from the property and, s h e was t o r e c e i v e husband's m i l i t a r y - r e t i r e m e n t benefits. Matters within o f alimony the t r i a l and p r o p e r t y court's discretion, division rest and r u l i n g s soundly on those m a t t e r s w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l e x c e p t f o r a p l a i n a n d p a l p a b l e abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 9 4 ) . this court trial So. W e l c h v. W e l c h , 636 So. 2d 464 However, r e g a r d i n g a q u e s t i o n o f l a w , i n d u l g e s no p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s as t o t h e court's ruling. Ricwil, I n c . v . S.L. Pappas & Co., 599 2d 1126 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . In t h e judgment, the t r i a l court s t a t e d : "The award h e r e i n made t o t h e W i f e o f a p o r t i o n o f t h e Husband's m i l i t a r y retirement benefits i s being made as p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y , c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the o p i n i o n of the Court Alabama i n Rose v. R o s e , of C i v i l Appeals of [70 So. 3d 429] ( A l a . C i v . 5 in App., 2101057 A p r i l 1, 2 0 1 1 ) . " In d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h the a t t o r n e y s d u r i n g trial, court s a i d that "there's said the trial i f a military--if award I make t o nature the husband [the w i f e ] from i s already that of alimony which i s s u b j e c t to 1975]. a recent case that retired, retirement [§] the any is in the 3 0 - 2 - 5 5 [ , A l a . Code Remarriage or c o h a b i t a t i o n would stop In their b r i e f s to t h i s c o u r t , the p a r t i e s both r e p r e s e n t to t h i s court t h a t the "recent case" to which the t r i a l was Rose v. appears treating Rose, that 70 the So. 3d trial 429 court it." c o u r t was ( A l a . C i v . App. read military-retirement benefits Rose as as a referring 2011). It prohibiting marital asset s u b j e c t t o d i v i s i o n and as p r o v i d i n g t h a t s u c h b e n e f i t s c o u l d be a w a r d e d o n l y as p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y . Rose t o o parties' share of c o u r t was called divorce the constituted an judgment former husband's a w a r d o f an p r o p e r t y o r w h e t h e r i t was divorce t r i a l c o u r t has read narrowly. In Rose, t h i s the The judgment, parties, provided which on providing the former whether wife a military-retirement benefits unmodifiable a source f o r the d i v i s i o n division of m a r i t a l of p e r i o d i c alimony. incorporated 6 to determine an agreement of of " a s s e t s " i d e n t i f i e d The the by 2101057 the parties, including retirement benefits. the The husband's military- The j u d g m e n t r e f e r r e d 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 as a " p r o p e r t y 431. former settlement." Rose, 70 So. 3d a t judgment s t a t e d t h a t the former w i f e would receive 50% o f t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s , i n c l u d i n g any c o s t - o f - l i v i n g allowances. the former terminate wife wife's I t went on t o s a y , h o w e v e r , entitlement to those i f she were t o r e m a r r y o r d i e . began receiving payments of benefits Id. the that would When t h e f o r m e r former husband's b e n e f i t s , she i n c l u d e d them as income on h e r t a x r e t u r n s . The D e f e n s e F i n a n c e and A c c o u n t i n g agency Service ("DFAS"), t h e responsible for issuing military-retirement benefits, i s s u e d the former w i f e ' s p o r t i o n o f the payments d i r e c t l y her. The former cohabitating contacted with DFAS, husband a learned member of instructing filed seeking an action to that the the payments t o the former w i f e . wife Id. former opposite agency to wife sex, stop DFAS c o m p l i e d , and t h e recoup the t o h o l d the former husband w i f e c o n t e n d e d t h a t h e r award the and to was he issuing former unissued payments i n contempt. The and former o f 50% o f t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s m i l i t a r y - r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s was 7 an u n m o d i f i a b l e division of 2101057 marital property. The former husband c h a r a c t e r i z e d the as p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y . This may court divided be noted as available as alimony. Singleton App. ( A l a . C i v . App. 431-32. that, "[a]lthough property, a source 1 9 9 6 ) ; see 1261 Id. at of v. such income Harp, ( A l a . C i v . App. retirement benefits So. 2d Daniel, I d ^ at equally periodic 882 So. S t r o n g v. S t r o n g , 1998)." are 880, 841 432. benefits t o pay from which 689 a l s o D a n i e l v. 2 0 0 2 ) , and award (Ala. 2d 709 Civ. 1246, 2d 1259, further We So. 1251 noted t h a t " t h e r e i s no r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s , i n t h e e v e n t o f a d i v o r c e , be t r e a t e d o n l y as a s o u r c e o f a l i m o n y i n g r o s s o r as m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y Id. After gross, discussing the i . e . , an u n m o d i f i a b l e settlement," and the former to equitable differences wife's between award of p r o p e r t y p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y , and of each form of award w i t h that subject the award alimony or a applying a share of in "property the f a c t s i n R o s e , we of division." elements determined the former h u s b a n d ' s m i l i t a r y - r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s c o n s t i t u t e d an a w a r d o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y t h a t was Nothing i n Rose s h o u l d j u d i c i a l l y modifiable. be read as limiting Id. at a trial 433. court's d i s c r e t i o n as t o w h e t h e r t o t r e a t m i l i t a r y - r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s 8 2101057 as marital property source of p e r i o d i c In t h i s case, subject to equitable division o r as a alimony. the husband contends t h a t the t r i a l court " p r o p e r l y used i t s d i s c r e t i o n t o p r o p e r l y t r e a t the husband's m i l i t a r y retirement pension as a s o u r c e o f a l i m o n y . " However, i n making t h e award o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y t o t h e w i f e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t a c t e d under the i m p r e s s i o n matter. t h a t i t h a d no c h o i c e i n t h e I n o t h e r words, the t r i a l court d i d not e x e r c i s e i t s own d i s c r e t i o n i n m a k i n g t h e a w a r d ; i n s t e a d , i t b e l i e v e d t h a t u n d e r Rose i t was r e q u i r e d t o make s u c h an award. In f a c t , i t was could not required determined that to the do wife so. The was trial entitled court to a share have of the h u s b a n d ' s m i l i t a r y - r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s as p a r t o f an e q u i t a b l e division subject of the l a r g e s t m a r i t a l asset, to modification; or, the which would not trial court could be have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e w i f e was e n t i t l e d n o t o n l y t o a s h a r e o f the husband's military-retirement benefits division of the marital property, but entitled t o an a w a r d o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y . as also part that of she Accordingly, r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t as t o i t s p r o p e r t y a was we division and i t s a w a r d o f a l i m o n y and we remand t h i s c a u s e t o t h e t r i a l 9 2101057 court so t h a t i t can parties' marital retirement On abused exercise assets, b e n e f i t s , and appeal, the i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d i v i d i n g the including the i n awarding p e r i o d i c wife also contends t h a t i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n awarding her periodic the trial court $2,250 e a c h month pay awarded t o alimony than that the that in i n s u f f i c i e n t f o r h e r needs and t h a t t h e h u s b a n d i s a b l e t o periodic asserts alimony. is in She military- amount more alimony. husband's amount the trial court her. " ' M a t t e r s o f a l i m o n y and p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n a r e i n t e r r e l a t e d , and t h e e n t i r e j u d g m e n t must be c o n s i d e r e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g 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 either of those issues. Willing v. W i l l i n g , 655 So. 2d 1064 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995).' " H e n d e r s o n v. H e n d e r s o n , C i v . App. 2 0 0 0 ) . " K r e i t z b e r g v. K r e i t z b e r g , 2011). to B e c a u s e we i t s division remanding this division of a l i m o n y , we 80 800 So. So. 3d 2d 925, 595, 933 597 (Ala. (Ala. Civ. App. a r e r e v e r s i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t as of cause marital pretermit property and f o r the trial property and consideration 10 i t s award court its to of alimony and reconsider its award of t h i s of issue. periodic 2101057 The w i f e a l s o argues t h a t the ordered the husband to pay trial $606 c o u r t e r r e d when i t each month toward the c h i l d r e n ' s p r i v a t e - s c h o o l t u i t i o n once t h e y r e a c h h i g h s c h o o l . In the the judgment, the tuition Spirit trial incurred School. The for court the ordered to c h i l d r e n can judgment students husband t o children's education attend t h r o u g h the e i g h t h grade; however, the courses the beyond the Holy at Spirit Holy School s c h o o l does n o t eighth grade pay offer year. The provides: " T h e r e a f t e r , t h e [husband] s h a l l be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r and pay t h e t u i t i o n r e q u i r e d f o r t h e c h i l d r e n t o attend private school, i f they attend private s c h o o l ; p r o v i d e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e amount t o be p a i d by t h e [husband] e a c h month s h a l l n o t e x c e e d t h e m o n t h l y amount p a i d by t h e [husband] f o r t h e c h i l d r e n to attend Holy S p i r i t School, which i s c u r r e n t l y t h e sum o f $606 p e r month "In the event the [wife] e l e c t s f o r e i t h e r or both of the p a r t i e s ' [ c h i l d r e n ] t o a t t e n d p r i v a t e s c h o o l a f t e r t h e i r completion of the e i g h t h grade at H o l y S p i r i t S c h o o l , she s h a l l be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r and pay any c o s t s f o r s a i d p r i v a t e s c h o o l i n g i n e x c e s s o f t h e amount h e r e i n o r d e r e d t o be p a i d by the [husband] " The w i f e a s s e r t s t h a t the regarding the c h i l d r e n reach due t o be payment of high school reversed" language the private-school the 11 court court expenses " i s impermissibly because trial used once the speculative and received no evidence 2101057 regarding future possibility of (abrogated 2100752, May 2012)), and 77 on So. other 4, 3d 148, 157-58 are grounds, 2012] Faellaci So. 3d Martin, v. So. i n the Lockridge App. 2011) Faellaci, 2d [Ms. (Ala. Civ. , 624 circumstances (Ala. Civ. App. 192, 193 (Ala. Civ. c a s e s c i t e d by are d i f f e r e n t than those i n t h i s case. the wife In b o t h L o c k r i d g e and f a t h e r s a p p e a l e d f r o m j u d g m e n t s o r d e r i n g them t o set money f o r t h e i r otherwise postminority were children's postminority ordered educations, t o o young t o a t t e n d of the a r g u m e n t , t h e w i f e r e l i e s on M a r t i n v. M a r t i n , 1 9 9 3 ) . The aside or p a r t i e s i f they the any, school. Lockridge, App. on if the c o s t s of sending the c h i l d r e n to a p r i v a t e In support of her v. expenses, "undue h a r d s h i p " r e q u i r e d t o pay high private-school postminority to for their even though the college. support pay at The that educations c h i l d r e n were in their l i v e s were p r e m a t u r e b e c a u s e , t h e y s a i d , t h e r e was t h a t s u c h s u p p o r t w o u l d be n e c e s s a r y or expenses f o r h i s c h i l d r e n ' s education, still awards children's no evidence proper. H e r e , t h e h u s b a n d , i . e . , t h e p a r t y who 12 children's f a t h e r s argued that point or was ordered to pay i s not c h a l l e n g i n g the 2101057 judgment. the Moreover, t o the extent the w i f e i s a s s e r t i n g t h a t husband should be required month f o r t h e c h i l d r e n , who time of the t r i a l , t o pay more t h a n $606 were 14 and 11 y e a r s to attend private high each o l d at the school, she has f a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e r e i s , i n f a c t , a n e e d f o r more money. 1 In the judgment, the t r i a l court gave the wife the o p t i o n of d e c i d i n g whether t o send the c h i l d r e n t o a p r i v a t e high school. the U n l i k e p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n , a l l c h i l d r e n have opportunity without involved example, having in to obtain t o pay whether a child's at least a high-school tuition. Some o f t h e to postminority award commitment t o , o r a p t i t u d e see Ex p a r t e B a y l i s s , 550 So. 2d 986, 987 education considerations support, for for, college, ( A l a . 1989), are not i n v o l v e d here. I f t h e w i f e e l e c t s t o have t h e c h i l d r e n a t t e n d a private high school, the husband $60 6 e a c h month t o w a r d t h e c o s t t h e has b e e n ordered t o pay same amount he now pays We n o t e t h a t c h i l d s u p p o r t , i n c l u d i n g t h e amount o f t u i t i o n t h e p a r t i e s must p a y t o w a r d p r i v a t e s c h o o l , i s a l w a y s s u b j e c t t o m o d i f i c a t i o n upon a s h o w i n g o f a m a t e r i a l change i n circumstances. See, e.g., L i n d e n m u t h v. L i n d e n m u t h , 66 So. 3d 267, 271 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) (judgment s p e c i f y i n g f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o pay h a l f o f e l d e s t c h i l d ' s c o l l e g e b o o k s and t u i t i o n e x p e n s e s was s u b j e c t t o f u r t h e r m o d i f i c a t i o n upon p r o o f o f c h a n g e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s ) . 1 13 2101057 for the children to attend private school. We c o n c l u d e that the w i f e has f a i l e d t o demonstrate t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t abused its d i s c r e t i o n i n o r d e r i n g t h e h u s b a n d t o p a y $606 e a c h month toward the costs of p r i v a t e s c h o o l i n g i f the c h i l d r e n a private high school. Therefore, that portion judgment p r o v i d i n g f o r p r i v a t e - s c h o o l t u i t i o n For the reasons set forth above, c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t as t o i t s p r o p e r t y attend of the i s affirmed. we r e v e r s e the t r i a l d i v i s i o n and i t s award o f a l i m o n y , a n d we remand t h i s c a u s e t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o r i t t o e x e r c i s e i t s own d i s c r e t i o n when r e c o n s i d e r i n g t h e d i v i s i o n o f marital property and t h e award o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y , i n l i g h t of t h i s o p i n i o n . The r e m a i n d e r o f t h e j u d g m e n t i s a f f i r m e d . The p a r t i e s ' requests f o rattorneys' fees on a p p e a l a r e denied. AFFIRMED I N PART; REVERSED I N PART; AND REMANDED INSTRUCTIONS. Pittman, B r y a n , Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . 14 WITH

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.