Susanne M. Davis v. Edward E. Davis

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 10/12/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2110119 Susanne M. Davis v. Edward E. Davis Appeal from Elmore C i r c u i t Court (DR-09-900186) PITTMAN, J u d g e . After a 36-year marriage, Susanne M. D a v i s ("the w i f e " ) f i l e d an a c t i o n s e e k i n g a d i v o r c e f r o m E d w a r d E. D a v i s ("the husband"). settled The p a r t i e s have a l l issues pertaining no m i n o r children, to the division and they of marital 2110119 a s s e t s and l i a b i l i t i e s i n m e d i a t i o n . incorporated their d i v o r c e judgment. would have mediation settlement agreement That agreement p r o v i d e d e x c l u s i v e ownership Court into the t h a t t h e husband o f t h e m a r i t a l home, r e f i n a n c e t h e mortgage indebtedness pay The E l m o r e C i r c u i t would on t h e p r o p e r t y , a n d w o u l d t h e w i f e $24,000 f o r h e r e q u i t y i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y . The only issues remaining request f o r p e r i o d i c alimony attorney's fee. responsible The t r i a l for trial were the wife's a n d b o t h p a r t i e s ' r e q u e s t s f o r an c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t made e a c h f o r h i s o r h e r own attorney's fee. party In the p e n u l t i m a t e paragraph o f t h e judgment, t h e t r i a l c o u r t ordered the husband t o pay t h e w i f e " s p o u s a l s u p p o r t i n t h e amount o f $500.00 p e r month for 52 months commencing on June 1, 2 0 1 1 , a n d continuing for the following 51 months. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , t h e h u s b a n d may p a y t o t h e w i f e , on o r b e f o r e J a n u a r y 1, 2012, $24,000.00 as f u l l a n d f i n a l s e t t l e m e n t o f h i s o b l i g a t i o n t o t h e w i f e under this paragraph." The wife appeals, contending that, i f the p r o v i s i o n i s deemed t o be an a w a r d o f a l i m o n y the t r i a l failing alimony. foregoing i n gross, then court acted outside the l i m i t s of i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n t o award ( o r t o r e s e r v e t h e r i g h t t o award) p e r i o d i c In the a l t e r n a t i v e , 2 she c o n t e n d s that, i f the 2110119 p r o v i s i o n i s deemed t o be an a w a r d o f r e h a b i l i t a t i v e alimony o r p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y l i m i t e d t o a p e r i o d o f 52 months, t h e n t h e amount o f t h e award i s inequitable. We affirm the trial c o u r t ' s judgment. I. "'A d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t s h o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d o r c o n s t r u e d as other written instruments are i n t e r p r e t e d S a r t i n v. S a r t i n , 678 So. 2d 1181 or construed. ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996) . "The words o f t h e a g r e e m e n t a r e t o be g i v e n t h e i r o r d i n a r y m e a n i n g , and the intentions of the p a r t i e s them." I d ^ , a t 1183.'" ( A l a . C i v . App. 494 2009) derived from R o u t z o n g v. B a k e r , 20 So. 3d 802, ( q u o t i n g R.G. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 0 ) ) . penultimate a r e t o be paragraph v. G.G., 806 771 So. 2d 490, We c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e award i n t h e of the judgment was "either ' r e h a b i l i t a t i v e a l i m o n y , ' see A l f r e d v. A l f r e d , 89 So. 3d 786 (Ala. limited C i v . App. 2012), or 'periodic p e r i o d o f [52] months,' see i d . , concurring [Ms. 2110024, (Ala. C i v . App. an 89 So. 2d a t 791 September 2012). allowance 14, 2012] 3 support So. 3d of the a F r y e v. , T h a t i s so b e c a u s e p e r i o d i c f o r the future to (Moore, J . , i n p a r t and c o n c u r r i n g i n t h e r e s u l t ) . " Frye, "is alimony alimony [recipient 2110119 spouse] payable spouse]," (1974), from the and t h e a w a r d i n t h i s c a s e was "spousal 2d 1146, support." 1148 ordering See (Ala. Civ. payments of that the certain, (alimony time because the of "the wife's division," Ex parte ( A l a . C i v . App. all The a So. judgment then the of payments i n the r a t h e r t o pay payment was were not husband's the to estate a future allowance for of the husband's f u t u r e earnings"). in of gross 10 "is So. a 3d form 24, property 27 (Ala. 2008) So. 2d 909, 912 and t h e p a r t i e s had p r e v i o u s l y s e t t l e d i n mediation without providing gross. wife's O c t o b e r 2016, of amount rights property-division issues for alimony i n and 750 designated months, and J o h n s o n v. J o h n s o n , 840 2002)), 2d 743, (construing month f o r 12 Brunner, ( c i t i n g with approval So. [paying t o be p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y , d e s p i t e inchoate alimony 299 the specifically 1984) purpose s u p p o r t of the w i f e out Further, App. payment i n g r o s s ) , but 55, of H u l d t q u i s t v. H u l d t q u i s t , 465 $350 p e r $300 a month f o r 8 y e a r s , replace earnings Ex p a r t e H a g e r , 293 A l a . 47, as fact current periodic-alimony and she may o f t h a t a w a r d a t any award w i l l not expire s e e k a m o d i f i c a t i o n o r an time before 4 i t s expiration. until extension See E n z o r v. 2110119 Enzor, (Ala. 704 [Ms. 2100105, December 30, C i v . App. 2011] So. 3d , 2 0 1 1 ) ; T r e u s d e l l v. T r e u s d e l l , 671 So. 2d 699, ( A l a . C i v . App. 1995). II. The t r i a l c o u r t o r d e r e d t h e h u s b a n d t o p a y $500 p e r month i n pendente trial lite s p o u s a l s u p p o r t . The w i f e c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n n o t t o i n c r e a s e t h e amount o f p e r i o d i c alimony pendente o v e r and lite above what t h e h u s b a n d s u p p o r t was had been p a y i n g i n inequitable. " T h i s c o u r t and o u r supreme c o u r t have e n u m e r a t e d the many f a c t o r s t r i a l c o u r t s must c o n s i d e r when w e i g h i n g t h e p r o p r i e t y o f an award o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y , Edwards v. E d w a r d s , 26 So. 3d 1254, 1259 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) , w h i c h i n c l u d e : t h e l e n g t h o f the m a r r i a g e , S t o n e v. S t o n e , 26 So. 3d 1232, 1236 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) ; 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 became a c c u s t o m e d during the m a r r i a g e , W a s h i n g t o n v. W a s h i n g t o n , 24 So. 3d 1126, 1135-36 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) ; t h e r e l a t i v e f a u l t o f the p a r t i e s f o r the breakdown of the m a r r i a g e , L a c k e y v. L a c k e y , 18 So. 3d 393, 401 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) ; t h e age and h e a l t h o f t h e p a r t i e s , Ex p a r t e E l l i o t t , 782 So. 2d 308, 311 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ; and 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 , B a g g e t t v. B a g g e t t , 855 So. 2d 556, 559 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) . I n w e i g h i n g t h o s e f a c t o r s , a t r i a l court essentially determines whether the petitioning spouse has demonstrated a need for continuing monetary support to s u s t a i n the former, m a r i t a l s t a n d a r d o f l i v i n g t h a t t h e r e s p o n d i n g s p o u s e can and, u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , s h o u l d meet. See G a t e s v. G a t e s , 830 So. 2d 746, 749-50 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) ; H e w i t t v. H e w i t t , 637 So. 2d 1382, 1384 ( A l a . 5 2110119 C i v . App. 1994) ('The f a i l u r e t o award alimony, a l t h o u g h d i s c r e t i o n a r y , i s a r b i t r a r y and c a p r i c i o u s when t h e needs o f t h e w i f e a r e shown t o m e r i t an award and t h e husband has t h e a b i l i t y t o p a y . ' ) . " S h e w b a r t v. S h e w b a r t , 64 So. 3d 1080, 1087 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010). At The t h e time husband of t r i a l , is a graduate b o t h p a r t i e s were of the United Academy a n d h o l d s a m a s t e r ' s d e g r e e . U n i v e r s i t y a t Montgomery The t r i a l 56 y e a r s o l d . States Military The w i f e a t t e n d e d Auburn but d i d not r e c e i v e a c o l l e g e degree. c o u r t ' s judgment s u m m a r i z e d t h e p a r t i e s ' employment h i s t o r y as f o l l o w s : "The w i f e h a s h a d v a r i o u s employment d u r i n g t h e term of t h e marriage, i n c l u d i n g employment in a pharmacy, a g r o c e r y s t o r e , a p u b l i s h i n g company, a n d a t Montgomery R a d i o l o g y where s h e w o r k e d i n t h e billing department. She left employment with Montgomery R a d i o l o g y t o assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a s s i s t i n g w i t h c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a new home t h a t s h e and [ t h e husband] were b u i l d i n g . A f t e r t h e home was c o m p l e t e , s h e went t o work w i t h H e a l t h Med d o i n g h e a l t h s c r e e n i n g on a c o n t r a c t b a s i s . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e w i f e ' s t e s t i m o n y , t h e j o b w i t h H e a l t h Med p a i d $15.00 p e r h o u r , b u t was s p o r a d i c a n d s h e w o r k e d o n l y s e v e r a l d a y s e a c h week. ... "The h u s b a n d h a s w o r k e d w i t h Winn D i x i e , w i t h h i s f a t h e r i n a f a m i l y i n s u r a n c e b u s i n e s s , and w i t h Alabama Home F u r n i s h i n g s . The h u s b a n d ... i s e m p l o y e d b y t h e R e t i r e m e n t Systems o f A l a b a m a a s [the] department [of o f f i c e s e r v i c e s ] d i r e c t o r and has b e e n s o e m p l o y e d f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y 20 y e a r s . The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t he ... w i l l be e l i g i b l e 6 2110119 f o r r e t i r e m e n t and t o r e c e i v e r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s a t age 60. H i s e a r n i n g s b e t w e e n 2007 a n d 2009 f r o m t h e R e t i r e m e n t S y s t e m s o f A l a b a m a have b e e n as f o l l o w s : 2007, $69,760.10; 2008, $75,163.76; a n d i n 2009, $78,523.92. The she wife said, was n o t e m p l o y e d a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l she was d i s a b l e d from s c o l i o s i s , a c u r v a t u r e a n d u n a b l e t o work. from Dupuytren's d i s e a s e , disorder o r l i f t s heavy a hereditary objects, connective-tissue t h a t causes t h e f i n g e r s t o bend towards t h e palm o f t h e hand. graft She s u f f e r s of t h e spine t h a t causes back p a i n when she s t a n d s f o r e x t e n d e d p e r i o d s and because, I n 2008, t h e w i f e u n d e r w e n t r e c o n s t r u c t i v e surgery on h e r r i g h t tendon- thumb, a f t e r w h i c h she d e v e l o p e d c h r o n i c - p a i n syndrome. L a t e r , she u n d e r w e n t t h e same s u r g i c a l procedure thumb; wearing on h e r l e f t a cast on h e r l e f t a t the time hand. The w i f e of t r i a l s t a t e d t h a t she c o u l d u s e h e r r i g h t h a n d a n d t h a t she was i n "an state" concerning her future prognosis. had she was observation She s t a t e d t h a t she applied f o r Social Security d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s ; that her claim had been hearing denied; and t h a t she h a d b e e n before a hearing officer. She e x p e c t e d approximately claim $500 p e r month i n d i s a b i l i t y was a p p r o v e d . The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d 7 awaiting to receive benefits that a i f her he h a d h a d 2110119 open-heart surgery be i n good h e a l t h The trial responsibility i n 2003 b u t t h a t he c o n s i d e r e d currently. court determined f o r the m a r i t a l that "both discord the p a r t i e s ' separation parties that resulted i n the d i s s o l u t i o n of t h i s marriage." precipitated himself to i n 2009 share eventually The e v e n t t h a t was a heated c o n f r o n t a t i o n d u r i n g w h i c h t h e h u s b a n d demanded t h a t t h e w i f e depart the marital Montgomery. residence The w i f e mother's house, divorce. The t r i a l and l i v e with h e r mother i n l e f t the m a r i t a l residence, and e v e n t u a l l y court's filed a went t o h e r complaint for a judgment s t a t e s : "[The w i f e ' s m o t h e r ] h a s s i n c e d i e d a n d [ t h e w i f e ] c o n t i n u e s t o r e s i d e i n h e r m o t h e r ' s home w h i c h i s now owned b y t h e w i f e a n d h e r b r o t h e r [The w i f e ] l i v e s i n t h e home r e n t f r e e b u t p a y s t h e homeowners' a s s o c i a t i o n dues o f $140.00 p e r month and a l l t a x e s a n d u t i l i t i e s on t h e home. T h e r e i s no m o r t g a g e on t h e home a n d t h e w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e estimates t h e c u r r e n t v a l u e o f t h i s home t o be $190,000.00. Evidence introduced at the f i n a l hearing e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t t h e home i s c u r r e n t l y a s s e s s e d a t $230,000.00 b y t h e Montgomery C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t o f Revenue. A c c o r d i n g t o t h e w i f e , t h i s home i s c u r r e n t l y o f f e r e d f o r s a l e , t h o u g h n o t l i s t e d w i t h an a g e n t , a n d t h a t s h e a n d h e r b r o t h e r will eventually sell t h e home a n d d i v i d e t h e proceeds. "The t e s t i m o n y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t s i n c e 2005, t h e w i f e h a s r e c e i v e d $289,602.61 a s g i f t s f r o m h e r l a t e m o t h e r . The e v i d e n c e f u r t h e r e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e 8 2110119 w i f e w i l l r e a l i z e , a t a minimum, $95,000.00 when h e r l a t e m o t h e r ' s home i n Montgomery s e l l s . U s i n g t h e s e amounts, t h e w i f e ' s t o t a l g i f t s f r o m h e r m o t h e r d u r i n g t h e p a s t f i v e y e a r s t o t a l $384,602.61, o r an a v e r a g e o f $76,921.00 p e r y e a r d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d . D u r i n g t h e p a s t t h r e e y e a r s , t h e h u s b a n d has e a r n e d f r o m h i s employment an a v e r a g e o f $74,482.00." The save or h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e invest part mother, but, money and he said, w o u l d do the the money she w i f e had received her a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t she had s p e n t o r g i v e n t o t h e p a r t i e s ' adult children a l l but gifts t h a t she had $6,000 o f i t what she her t h a t i t was t o l d him from wife the r e c e i v e d from her more t h a n monthly said, he include residence were t o sell for herself. her At trial, the wife husband's monthly net income must pay payments gross income $4,700, for g a s o l i n e ; $420 f o r m e d i c a l b i l l s ; 9 which the i s $6,690.60. the His from which, $4,769 i n m o n t h l y e x p e n s e s . $1,412 buy t o t a l e d $2,624. i s approximately totaling she m o t h e r ' s h o u s e and Those e x p e n s e s m o r t g a g e s on t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e ; for $384,000 i n mother. w i f e a c k n o w l e d g e d were s p e c u l a t i v e The pleased. a l i s t o f m o n t h l y e x p e n s e s t h a t , she e s t i m a t e d , w o u l d i n c u r i f she another with had The presented she of wife first His and he expenses second $650 f o r g r o c e r i e s ; $515 $285 f o r i n d e b t e d n e s s on 2110119 his t r u c k ; and $274 t o r e p a y h i s s i s t e r s f o r a $6,000 p e r s o n a l loan. With respect ability t o pay to the wife's alimony, the trial need court and the husband's determined: "The e v i d e n c e t e n d e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t n e i t h e r the husband nor the wife currently has any d i s c r e t i o n a r y f u n d s and b o t h a p p e a r t o t h e C o u r t t o be l i v i n g on what i s commonly r e f e r r e d t o as a month-to-month b a s i s . Since the time of the p e n d e n t e l i t e h e a r i n g , t h e h u s b a n d has p a i d m o n t h l y s p o u s a l s u p p o r t t o t h e w i f e i n t h e amount o f $500.00 p e r month and has had t o b o r r o w o r draw f r o m h i s d e f e r r e d c o m p e n s a t i o n a c c o u n t t o pay some o f t h e c o s t s o r e x p e n s e s a c c o m p a n i e d by t h i s l i t i g a t i o n . "Remarkably, the w i f e t e s t i f i e d d u r i n g her March 2010 d e p o s i t i o n t h a t she was n o t d i s a b l e d and was a b l e t o be e m p l o y e d . D u r i n g her t r i a l testimony, two months l a t e r , t h e w i f e c l a i m e d t h a t she is d i s a b l e d and n o t a b l e t o work. I t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t she has n o t s o u g h t employment s i n c e t h e s e p a r a t i o n . I t a p p e a r s t o t h e C o u r t t h a t t h e w i f e has r e m a i n e d content t o s p e n d f r e e l y and await an a w a r d o f permanent a l i m o n y . I f such i s the case, the w i f e ' s a n t i c i p a t i o n i s m i s p l a c e d . The C o u r t f i n d s f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t she i s i n d e e d a b l e t o be e m p l o y e d s h o u l d she d e c i d e t o s e e k employment." The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e w i f e was as the trial testimony was court's given months, a f t e r h e r wife s a i d , her judgment i n May 2011 deposition scoliosis had deposed i n March states, 14 testimony. but her trial months, r a t h e r t h a n In the w o r s e n e d and 10 that 2010, she interim, had 2 the undergone 2110119 s u r g e r y on h e r l e f t thumb. mistake concerning the wife's testimony, Notwithstanding be deposition testimony i t i s apparent employed. court's t h e amount o f t i m e t h a t had e l a p s e d b e t w e e n that trial wife's court had c l a i m t h a t she a was unable stood for long wife had f o l l o w i n g surgery and regained the physical therapy, wife also expected there was was an use of heavy her and objects, right hand that the that, following a healing period, to evidentiary d i s b e l i e v e the w i f e ' s indicating basis w i f e ' s s c o l i o s i s c a u s e d h e r b a c k p a i n o n l y when she lifted testimony trial the or of the that periods In l i g h t and the upon w h i c h t o d i s c r e d i t t h e w i f e ' s to the t r i a l regain basis c l a i m of the for use the of her left trial disability. " ' I t was w i t h i n t h e p r o v i n c e o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t to c o n s i d e r the c r e d i b i l i t y of the w i t n e s s e s , t o draw r e a s o n a b l e inferences from their testimony and from the documentary evidence i n t r o d u c e d at t r i a l , and to assign such weight to various a s p e c t s o f t h e e v i d e n c e as i t r e a s o n a b l y may have deemed a p p r o p r i a t e . ... I n o r d e r t o r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ... , we w o u l d have to make our own credibility d e t e r m i n a t i o n s and we w o u l d have t o r e w e i g h the evidence, n e i t h e r o f w h i c h we are a l l o w e d t o do.'" 11 the hand, court to 2110119 Vestlake 367 Cmtys. P r o p . Owners' A s s ' n v. ( A l a . C i v . App. Land Corp., 941 Moreover, h u s b a n d had 2011) So. in 2d t h a t t h e w i f e was on 990 to which 359, Gulf (Ala. Civ. evidence debts r e l a t i n g to a f i r s t f a m i l y members, and card 982, 3d v. A s s o c i a t e d (quoting M i l l e r contrast the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e , Moon, 86 App. and was loans expenses, the evidence a balance of that the second mortgage v i r t u a l l y debt-free, having there 2005)). indicating a truck loan, personal medical So. from h i s indicated o n l y one approximately credit $1,000. F u r t h e r , upon t h e e n t r y o f t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t , t h e w i f e to receive her $24,000, and equity upon t h e interest s a l e of her r e c e i v e a minimum o f $95,000. relatively marital residence m o t h e r ' s h o u s e , she Notwithstanding would husband's c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e h u s b a n d s i m p l y d i d n o t have t h e a b i l i t y to than $500 per month in c o u r t was the of to more income, the t r i a l was authorized pay healthy i n the on alimony, given his debt obligations. It appears that the award to wife's alimony period corresponds to trial 52 the court may months b e c a u s e date when the have the limited end husband of the that would be e l i g i b l e t o r e t i r e , a t w h i c h p o i n t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d have 12 2110119 determined, t h e h u s b a n d w o u l d have f e w e r a v a i l a b l e t o him. wife's physical financial resources As we have p r e v i o u s l y p o i n t e d o u t , i f t h e condition deteriorates or the husband's f i n a n c i a l c o n d i t i o n i m p r o v e s b e f o r e O c t o b e r 2016, t h e w i f e may seek t o modify or extend the alimony award. circumstances t h a t e x i s t e d a t the time of t r i a l , Given the h o w e v e r , we c a n n o t f i n d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t was u n s u p p o r t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e so as t o be p l a i n l y The j u d g m e n t o f t h e E l m o r e The w i f e ' s r e q u e s t a n d p a l p a b l y wrong. Circuit Court i s a f f i r m e d . f o r an a t t o r n e y ' s f e e on a p p e a l i s denied. AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d B r y a n a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r , Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , 13 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.