Frederick Peace v. Verla Peace

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 10/19/2012 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, 2012-2013 2110355 F r e d e r i c k Peace v. V e r l a Peace Appeal from Baldwin C i r c u i t (DR-02-799.03) PITTMAN, Judge. Frederick ("the Court former Peace wife") ("the f o r m e r husband") a n d V e r l a P e a c e were divorced i n 2004. p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e d i v o r c e judgment p r o v i d e d : The p e r t i n e n t 2110355 "6. The W i f e s h a l l be a w a r d e d o n e - h a l f (1/2) o f t h e v a l u e o f t h e Husband's p e n s i o n f u n d , w h i c h i s t h r o u g h C y t e c I n d u s t r i e s . I t was r e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e C o u r t t h a t t h e H u s b a n d r e c e i v e s One T h o u s a n d S i x H u n d r e d S i x t y S i x D o l l a r s ($1,666.00) p e r month f r o m t h i s p e n s i o n , a n d , e f f e c t i v e A u g u s t 24, 2004, t h e W i f e s h a l l t h e r e a f t e r be a w a r d e d o n e - h a l f ( l / 2 ) o f t h i s p e n s i o n . The C o u r t r e s e r v e s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o i s s u e a Q u a l i f i e d Domestic R e l a t i o n s Order i n order to e f f e c t u a t e t h i s t r a n s f e r . U n t i l s a i d [('QDRO')] i s p l a c e d i n t o e f f e c t , h o w e v e r , t h e Husband s h a l l have a d u t y t o t u r n o v e r t o t h e W i f e h i m s e l f o n e h a l f (1/2) o f t h e amount he r e c e i v e s i n d i s p o s a b l e income f r o m s a i d p e n s i o n . " "8. U n t i l t h e r e a l e s t a t e a n d t h e m o b i l e home a r e s o l d , t h e Husband s h a l l p a y t o t h e W i f e t h e sum of Four Hundred D o l l a r s ($400.00) p e r month i n p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y , w h i c h s h a l l t e r m i n a t e upon t h e Wife's death, remarriage, or c o h a b i t a t i o n w i t h a member o f t h e o p p o s i t e s e x . T h i s f i g u r e s h a l l t h e n i n c r e a s e t o t h e sum o f One T h o u s a n d Two H u n d r e d D o l l a r s ($1,200.00) p e r month, once t h e s a i d r e a l e s t a t e a n d m o b i l e home a r e s o l d . " "10. The Husband i s o r d e r e d a n d d i r e c t e d t o p r o v i d e the Wife w i t h h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e , u n t i l such t i m e a s s h e c a n q u a l i f y f o r M e d i c a r e . The Husband s h a l l be s o l e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p a y i n g f o r s a i d insurance." In A p r i l a petition March 2011, t h e former husband, a c t i n g p r o s e , f i l e d alleging that the former w i f e h a d r e m a r r i e d on 12, 2 0 1 1 , a n d s e e k i n g t o t e r m i n a t e alimony o b l i g a t i o n ; (a) h i s p e r i o d i c - (b) h i s o b l i g a t i o n t o p r o v i d e t h e f o r m e r 2 2110355 wife with health-insurance domestic-relations wife be paid benefit order $833 of per month monthly wife former pension answered court. merits of was 1 remarried insurance c o v e r e d under her policy. been p a i d former was the of the and p e t i t i o n , t h e f o r m e r w i f e a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t she had t h a t she on his the husband's not hearing former that qualified former and a half the a f i n d i n g t h a t the former husband i n contempt of p r i o r o r d e r s At The seeking (c) ("QDRO") d i r e c t i n g $1,666. counterclaimed, c o v e r a g e ; and She half of $1, 666 husband's monthly p e n s i o n of the c u r r e n t husband's h e a l t h - s t a t e d t h a t f o r the past $833, o r d i v o r c e judgment the benefit the as y e a r she had amount o f the ordered in the b u t t h a t she had b e e n p a i d o n l y $147.13 as her share former husband's monthly p e n s i o n The former husband argued t h a t the divorce judgment benefit. had The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s a j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e f o r m e r w i f e e n t e r e d on F e b r u a r y 2, 2009, i n t h e amount o f $21,747, r e p r e s e n t i n g an a r r e a r a g e i n m o n t h l y p e r i o d i c - a l i m o n y payments o f $1,200 and m o n t h l y r e t i r e m e n t o b l i g a t i o n s o f $833 ( h a l f o f $1,666 f r o m June 1, 2007, t h r o u g h J a n u a r y 31, 2 0 0 9 ) . The f o r m e r h u s b a n d was o r d e r e d t o pay t h e j u d g m e n t as f o l l o w s : "$6,000 due and p a y a b l e i n 30 d a y s f r o m J a n u a r y 26, 2009, and t h e b a l a n c e p a i d a t t h e r a t e o f $300 p e r month t o be p a i d i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e $1,200 a l i m o n y and r e t i r e m e n t o b l i g a t i o n s r e f e r e n c e d above." 1 3 2110355 awarded t h e former w i f e h a l f h i s p e n s i o n , w i t h o u t the total divorce, $1,666; value of that pension; he h a d b e e n r e c e i v i n g and t h a t , that, a t the time a monthly pension when he h a d r e a c h e d specifying b e n e f i t of t h e age o f 62, e a c h p a r t y ' s share o f t h e m o n t h l y p e n s i o n b e n e f i t had been to $147.13. of the reduced He s t a t e d t h a t he h a d documents f r o m h i s e m p l o y e r to s u b s t a n t i a t e t h e r e d u c t i o n i n monthly p e n s i o n b e n e f i t s , b u t he d i d n o t s e e k t o i n t r o d u c e t h o s e documents i n t o e v i d e n c e o r to p r e s e n t any t e s t i m o n y At the conclusion announced i t s r u l i n g s concerning t h e i r of the hearing, contents. the trial court from t h e bench: "THE COURT: I am g o i n g t o t e r m i n a t e t h e a l i m o n y r e q u i r e m e n t b e c a u s e t h a t does b y l a w t e r m i n a t e upon r e m a r r i a g e a n d t h a t i s u n d i s p u t e d . T h a t w i l l be t e r m i n a t e d as o f t h e month [ t h e f o r m e r w i f e ] g o t m a r r i e d , w h i c h I b e l i e v e was M a r c h . " "The insurance i s s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t . The i n s u r a n c e does n o t s a y t h a t i t i s t o t e r m i n a t e upon the [former w i f e ' s ] remarriage o r c o h a b i t a t i o n . I t i s n o t t h e same as t h e a l i m o n y , so I am n o t g o i n g t o [ t e r m i n a t e ] t h a t b e c a u s e i t d o e s have a t i m e t a b l e f o r when i t e x p i r e s .... [ I ] t [ c a n n o t ] t e r m i n a t e a u t o m a t i c a l l y b e c a u s e i t s a y s so b y i t s own t e r m s , when i t e n d s . So [ t h e f o r m e r husband] w i l l have t o r e i n s t a t e the h e a l t h care insurance. " 4 2110355 " I c a n n o t t e r m i n a t e t h e ... r e t i r e m e n t . T h a t i s a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t . ... T h a t i s n o t t h e same as alimony. [Property settlements] e x i s t r e g a r d l e s s o f [the former w i f e ' s ] p r e s e n t m a r i t a l s t a t u s . " The trial court informed the former husband t h a t i t would n o t amend t h e QDRO b e c a u s e t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d h a d n o t p l e a d e d r e d u c t i o n i n h i s m o n t h l y b e n e f i t as a r e a s o n f o r t h e change. The t r i a l judgment e n t e r e d court memorialized its the requested rulings in a i n f a v o r o f t h e f o r m e r w i f e i n t h e amount o f $37,774 on J u l y 28, 2 0 1 1 . On A u g u s t 2 3 , 2011, counsel, t h e former husband, acting through f i l e d a postjudgment motion, arguing t h a t the w i f e ' s b e i n g covered by her c u r r e n t husband's former health-insurance p o l i c y c o n s t i t u t e d a m a t e r i a l change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t has o c c u r r e d s i n c e the e n t r y o f the d i v o r c e judgment t h a t r e q u i r e d the t e r m i n a t i o n o f h i s o b l i g a t i o n t o p r o v i d e with health-insurance coverage. t h e former He a l s o a r g u e d t h a t t h e QDRO s h o u l d be amended t o r e f l e c t t h e f a c t t h a t t h e f o r m e r share o f h i s monthly pension $833. At a hearing husband's c o u n s e l wife wife's b e n e f i t was $147.13, r a t h e r t h a n on t h e p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , t h e former argued: " I know [ t h e f o r m e r husband] s t y l e d [ h i s p e t i t i o n ] t o t e r m i n a t e [ t h e QDRO r e q u i r i n g payment o f h a l f o f $1,666 i n m o n t h l y p e n s i o n b e n e f i t s t o t h e f o r m e r 5 2110355 w i f e , b u t ] what he w a n t e d was f o r t h e c o u r t t o m o d i f y [ t h e QDRO] t o be o n e - h a l f o f h i s r e t i r e m e n t benefit. H i s r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t , t h r o u g h no f a u l t o f h i s own, w h i c h was s e t up w h i l e t h e y were m a r r i e d when he t u r n e d 62, w h i c h was May 1 0 t h o f 2010, the r e t i r e m e n t one-half o f the r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t was r e d u c e d t o $147.13, w h i c h [ t h e f o r m e r w i f e ] i s ... r e c e i v i n g . A n d he was r e a l l y a s k i n g f o r an order t o r e f l e c t that, i n s t e a d of one-half of the $1,600 w h i c h he ... no l o n g e r r e c e i v e s a n d i s no l o n g e r h i s r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t . ... [ T ] h e way t h e o r d e r i s s e t up, [ t h e f o r m e r w i f e ] i s r e c e i v i n g e v e n more t h a n a hundred percent of h i s retirement b e n e f i t s . H i s r e t i r e m e n t i s b a s i c a l l y $300 a month. I d o n ' t know i f t h a t was made c l e a r t o t h e c o u r t through testimony. I read the t r a n s c r i p t of the t e s t i m o n y a n d I w a s n ' t s u r e my c l i e n t was m a k i n g that clear." (Emphasis added.) "THE The t r i a l COURT: A g a i n , court responded: he c h o s e t o r e p r e s e n t himself. "MR. ROBBINS [ t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s c o u n s e l ] : understand t h a t . I understand t h a t . Next "THE COURT: I c a n ' t I s o l v e t h a t one." Counsel f o r t h e former w i f e replied: "[Counsel f o r t h e f o r m e r husband] s a y s 'through n o - f a u l t o f h i s own t h e r e t i r e m e n t was r e d u c e d . ' T h a t ' s n o t t r u e . There's been e v i d e n c e i n prior h e a r i n g s t h a t t h e amount was r e d u c e d b e c a u s e [ t h e former husband] r a i s e d h i s r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t . " "The f a c t i s [ t h a t t h e f o r m e r husband] r e p r e s e n t e d to t h e c o u r t [at t h e time o f t h e d i v o r c e t h a t ] $1,666 w o u l d be t h e p e n s i o n . A f t e r [ t h e d i v o r c e ] , 6 2110355 t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ] went and c h a n g e d t h a t and now d o e s n ' t want t o be b o u n d by i t . " Following the d e n i a l of h i s postjudgment motion, husband f i l e d a t i m e l y appeal to t h i s he the former court. I. The refusing former husband argues t h a t the to terminate his trial court erred i n o b l i g a t i o n to provide wife with health-insurance the c o v e r a g e p u r s u a n t t o 5 10 former of the d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e , he s a y s , t h a t o b l i g a t i o n c o n s t i t u t e d spousal support terminated upon in the the nature former h u s b a n d ' s argument p r e s e n t s novo w i t h o u t trial a f f o r d i n g any of wife's periodic alimony remarriage. The a l e g a l i s s u e , w h i c h we that former review presumption of c o r r e c t n e s s to court's decision. "'A t r i a l c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n s on l e g a l i s s u e s c a r r y 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 on a p p e a l . Ex p a r t e C a s h , 624 So. 2d 576, 577 ( A l a . 1993). This c o u r t r e v i e w s t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f law t o f a c t s de n o v o . A l l s t a t e [ I n s . Co. v. S k e l t o n ] , 675 So. 2d [377] a t 379 [ ( A l a . 1996)] ("[W]here t h e f a c t s b e f o r e the trial c o u r t are e s s e n t i a l l y undisputed and the c o n t r o v e r s y i n v o l v e s q u e s t i o n s o f law f o r t h e c o u r t t o c o n s i d e r , t h e [ t r i a l ] c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t c a r r i e s no presumption of c o r r e c t n e s s . " ) . ' " 7 de the 2110355 B o u d r e a u v. Slaton, 9 So. 3d 495, 498 ( A l a . C i v . App. ( q u o t i n g C i t y o f P r a t t v i l l e v. P o s t , 831 Civ. App. 2d 622, 628 (Ala. 2002)). Although provision support So. 2008) of this court has never e x p l i c i t l y health-insurance i n the nature coverage held that constitutes of p e r i o d i c alimony, we the spousal have p r e v i o u s l y r e c o g n i z e d t h a t the p r o v i s i o n of h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e coverage may constitute 795 So. 2d trial p e r i o d i c alimony. 729, 731 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001) h u s b a n d pay 36 m o n t h s " ) ; P a r k e r v. P a r k e r , Civ. month App. 1994) plus alimony"); Civ. R o b i n s o n v. Robinson, (observing that the c o u r t "awarded t h e w i f e p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y i n t h e f o r m o f a requirement t h a t the for See App. $215 (noting that per month and E l l i o t t v. E l l i o t t , 1991) 639 "the for So. health insurance 2d 1376, w i f e was 1380 (Ala. a w a r d e d $500 COBRA coverage 579 So. 2d 1383, periodic 1384 (Ala. "$125.00 p e r week a l i m o n y as l o n g as t h e h u s b a n d m a i n t a i n s a specific hospital wife, medical should that insurance $150.00 p e r w e e k " ) . award t o the w i f e as per of and ( a f f i r m i n g an f o r her insurance benefit for the c e a s e , t h e a l i m o n y payments i n c r e a s e but to N o t a b l y , we have a l s o r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n of h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e c o v e r a g e i s an o b l i g a t i o n t h a t 8 2110355 is modifiable. Civ. App. terminated See 1994) a B r i n k l e y v. B r i n k l e y , 646 (affirming a former husband's wife's health-insurance We intended living nature to 2d 49 (Ala. judgment pay the that former premiums). of h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e support i n the court's o b l i g a t i o n to conclude t h a t , i n the present former w i f e was trial So. case, the award t o coverage c o n s t i t u t e d spousal of p e r i o d i c alimony because the compensate e x p e n s e and t h e r e b y the former wife for to e q u a l i z e the apparent a award routine disparity i n the p a r t i e s ' incomes, not t o award her p r o p e r t y . See v. 2006), Smith, which t h i s 959 So. court 2d 1146, 1151 (Ala. Civ. App. Smith stated: "Given the d i s p a r i t y i n the p a r t i e s ' incomes, the wife's health problems, her need for medical treatment, and her inability to obtain health i n s u r a n c e t h r o u g h h e r e m p l o y e r , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g to r e q u i r e the husband t o pay t h e w i f e ' s h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e premiums f o r a t l e a s t t h e 36 months she was e n t i t l e d t o c o v e r a g e under the husband's h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y p u r s u a n t t o COBRA. C f . W i l k i n s o n v. W i l k i n s o n , 828 So. 2d 924, 928 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2001) ( h o l d i n g t h a t the t r i a l court erred i n f a i l i n g to require a wife, at a minimum, t o pay t h e h u s b a n d ' s health-insurance premiums f o r t h e 36 months he was entitled to coverage under the wife's p o l i c y pursuant to COBRA)." 9 the in 2110355 An alimony Enzor, award o f s p o u s a l s u p p o r t may be l i m i t e d i n the nature to a specific period, [Ms. 2100105, December 30, 2011] C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) , as i t was i n t h i s case of p e r i o d i c see Enzor So. 3d v. (Ala. ( " u n t i l s u c h t i m e as [ t h e f o r m e r w i f e ] c a n q u a l i f y f o r M e d i c a r e " ) , o r i t may e x t e n d into the i n d e f i n i t e S e p t e m b e r 28, 2012] future, s e e F r y e v. F r y e , So. 3d , [Ms. 2110024, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) , b u t i n e i t h e r c a s e s u c h an a w a r d i s i n t h e n a t u r e o f p e r i o d i c alimony and, t h u s , i s s u b j e c t t o t h e mandatory l i m i t a t i o n s o f § 30-2-55, A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "Any d e c r e e o f d i v o r c e p r o v i d i n g f o r p e r i o d i c p a y m e n t s o f a l i m o n y s h a l l be m o d i f i e d b y t h e c o u r t t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f s u c h a l i m o n y upon p e t i t i o n o f a p a r t y t o t h e decree and p r o o f t h a t t h e spouse r e c e i v i n g such a l i m o n y has r e m a r r i e d o r t h a t such spouse i s l i v i n g o p e n l y o r c o h a b i t i n g w i t h a member o f t h e o p p o s i t e s e x . " (Emphasis added.) "'By adoption of amendment 390 to the c o n s t i t u t i o n a n d e n a c t m e n t o f § 30-2-55, i t h a s become t h e l a w a n d t h u s t h e p u b l i c p o l i c y o f t h i s s t a t e t h a t p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y d e c r e e d by t h e c o u r t , w h i c h a l w a y s h a s b e e n m o d i f i a b l e upon a s h o w i n g o f c h a n g e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s , S a n d e r s v . S a n d e r s , 342 So. 2d 380 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 7 7 ) , i s now t o be t e r m i n a t e d upon r e m a r r i a g e o f t h e s p o u s e r e c e i v i n g i t . Such l a w a n d p u b l i c p o l i c y i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h o u r j u r i s p r u d e n c e . D i v o r c e was n o t a common l a w r i g h t . I t i s p u r e l y s t a t u t o r y . The power t o a w a r d a l i m o n y i s a l s o p u r e l y s t a t u t o r y . I v e y v. I v e y , 378 10 2110355 So. 2d 1151 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1979). Alimony i s d e r i v e d o n l y t h r o u g h t h e a u t h o r i t y o f s t a t u t e and the e x e r c i s e of the d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l judge. T h e r e f o r e , what t h e l e g i s l a t u r e has g r a n t e d i t may t a k e away. I t has c h o s e n t o l i m i t t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e c o u r t by d i r e c t i n g t h a t an a w a r d o f a l i m o n y i n a p r i o r d e c r e e be t e r m i n a t e d by t h e c o u r t upon p r o o f t h a t t h e r e c e i v i n g s p o u s e has r e m a r r i e d . I t i s w e l l w i t h i n t h e power o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e t o do s o . ' " Ex p a r t e Murphy, 886 So. 2d 90, 94 v. O l i v e r , 431 So. 2d 1271, ( A l a . 2003) ( q u o t i n g O l i v e r 1275-76 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1983), and h o l d i n g t h a t a former w i f e ' s r i g h t to r e c e i v e p e r i o d i c alimony was t e r m i n a t e d by h e r r e m a r r i a g e , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e p a r t i e s ' agreement t h a t the former husband would continue r e d u c e d p e r i o d i c - a l i m o n y payment t o t h e f o r m e r w i f e her a following remarriage). The trial obligation court under 5 determined 10 of t e r m i n a t e upon t h e f o r m e r its t o make own the divorce former judgment wife's remarriage husband's did not b e c a u s e 5 10 has " t i m e t a b l e f o r when [ t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s o b l i g a t i o n ] expires" [former the that and "does n o t wife's] s a y t h a t i t i s t o t e r m i n a t e upon remarriage or cohabitation." An award the of p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y need not e x p r e s s l y s p e c i f y , however, t h a t the obligation recipient ceases spouse upon because the death "the 11 term or remarriage of ' p e r i o d i c alimony,' the by 2110355 definition, means a payment t o a s p o u s e t h a t w i l l death, remarriage, So. 2d 629, 635 495 So. 1123, 2d or c o h a b i t a t i o n . " ( A l a . C i v . App. 1127 c e a s e upon W h e e l e r v. W h e e l e r , 2002). See ( A l a . C i v . App. 831 a l s o Lowe v. Lowe, 1986) (stating that a w i f e ' s " c o n t e n t i o n t h a t § 30-2-55 i s n o t s e l f - e f f e c t u a t i n g and that the she was thus entitled to receive 'alimony' until h u s b a n d p e t i t i o n e d t h e c o u r t u n d e r t h e s t a t u t e and p r o v e d f a c t of her r e m a r r i a g e it was "implicit a l i m o n y w o u l d be spouse's the with the i n the o f l i t t l e m e r i t " and o p i n i n g language of terminable as that § 30-2-55 t h a t p e r i o d i c of the date of the receiving remarriage"). B a s e d on t h e trial [was] the foregoing a u t h o r i t i e s , we c o u r t e r r e d as a m a t t e r o f l a w former husband's in failing o b l i g a t i o n to provide health-insurance former w i f e ' s conclude that to the c o v e r a g e , e f f e c t i v e as of the terminate former the wife date of remarriage. II. C i t i n g Rose v. R o s e , 70 So. 3d 429 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011), the former husband contends t h a t the former w i f e ' s award of a share of h i s p e n s i o n b e n e f i t s c o n s t i t u t e s p e r i o d i c rather than a property settlement 12 or alimony alimony, i n gross, and 2110355 that i t was, t h e r e f o r e , remarriage. trial t e r m i n a b l e upon t h e former wife's T h a t a r g u m e n t , h o w e v e r , was n o t p r e s e n t e d t o t h e c o u r t a n d c a n n o t be r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l . See W h i t e Sands Group, L.L.C. v . PRS I I , LLC, 998 So. 2 d 1042, 1057 ( A l a . 2008). In trial the a l t e r n a t i v e , t h e former husband contends t h a t t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o m o d i f y t h e QDRO o r d e r i n g t h e payment t o t h e f o r m e r w i f e o f $833 p e r month f r o m h i s p e n s i o n fund. court The f o r m e r never husband m a i n t a i n s t h a t because established the value of h i s pension i n s t e a d , m e r e l y awarded the former w i f e a monthly from t h a t fund based upon t h e m o n t h l y the t r i a l fund and, distribution distribution that the former husband had been r e c e i v i n g a t t h e time o f t h e d i v o r c e judgment, there i s no i m p e d i m e n t r e f l e c t a reduced monthly t o m o d i f y i n g t h e QDRO t o distribution. We r e j e c t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s a r g u m e n t f o r two r e a s o n s . First, the former husband presented no evidence to s u b s t a n t i a t e h i s c l a i m t h a t the d i s t r i b u t i o n s from h i s p e n s i o n f u n d h a d been rather attorney than reduced by h i s employer a t h i s own d i r e c t i o n , stated. Second, o r t h e f u n d manager, as t h e former t h e former 13 husband wife's cites no 2110355 a u t h o r i t y i n s u p p o r t o f h i s argument t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f 5 6 of the divorce judgment a r e m o d i f i a b l e . " R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . R. App. P., r e q u i r e s t h a t a r g u m e n t s i n an a p p e l l a n t ' s b r i e f c o n t a i n ' c i t a t i o n s t o t h e cases, s t a t u t e s , o t h e r a u t h o r i t i e s , and p a r t s of t h e r e c o r d r e l i e d on.' F u r t h e r , ' i t i s well settled that a failure t o comply with the requirements of Rule 28(a)(10) r e q u i r i n g c i t a t i o n of a u t h o r i t y i n s u p p o r t o f t h e arguments presented provides t h i s Court with a b a s i s f o r d i s r e g a r d i n g t h o s e a r g u m e n t s . ' S t a t e Farm Mut. A u t o . I n s . Co. v. M o t l e y , 909 So. 2d 806, 822 ( A l a . 2005) ( c i t i n g Ex p a r t e Showers, 812 So. 2d 277, 281 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ) . This i s so, because ' " i t i s not the f u n c t i o n o f t h i s C o u r t t o do a p a r t y ' s l e g a l r e s e a r c h o r t o make a n d address legal arguments f o r a party b a s e d on u n d e l i n e a t e d g e n e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n s n o t s u p p o r t e d by s u f f i c i e n t a u t h o r i t y o r a r g u m e n t . " ' B u t l e r v . Town o f A r g o , 871 So. 2d 1, 20 ( A l a . 2003) ( q u o t i n g Dykes v. Lane T r u c k i n g , I n c . , 652 So. 2d 248, 251 ( A l a . 1994))." Jimmy Day P l u m b i n g & H e a t i n g , (Ala. I n c . v. S m i t h , 964 So. 2d 1, 9 2007). III. The former husband insists that the trial court m i s c a l c u l a t e d t h e amount o f t h e $37,774 j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f the former w i f e . erroneously added He a p p a r e n t l y $685.87 contends t h a t the t r i a l (the d i f f e r e n c e between court $833 a n d $147.13) t o h i s p r e e x i s t i n g a l i m o n y a n d r e t i r e m e n t - o b l i g a t i o n arrearage f o r e a c h month a f t e r May 10, 2010, when he r e a c h e d 14 2110355 t h e age o f 62 and, he s a y s , t h e m o n t h l y d i s t r i b u t i o n s t o e a c h p a r t y from h i s pension f u n d were r e d u c e d f r o m $833 t o $147.13. T h a t argument i s f o r e c l o s e d by our d i s p o s i t i o n of the former h u s b a n d ' s argument i n P a r t I I , s u p r a . Conclusion The trial court erred i n f a i l i n g to terminate husband's o b l i g a t i o n t o p r o v i d e insurance of the support remarriage. r e q u i r i n g the and terminated Accordingly, that upon portion f o r the remanded for opinion. The former w i f e entry of remaining a i s reversed, judgment in P.J., nature wife's the judgment health-insurance and the compliance cause with is this p o r t i o n s of the judgment are a f f i r m e d . AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND Thompson, of i n the former the former husband t o r e i n s t i t u t e coverage former former w i f e w i t h h e a l t h - c o v e r a g e b e c a u s e t h a t o b l i g a t i o n was spousal the and Bryan, concur. 15 Thomas, REMANDED. and Moore, JJ.,

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.