J.D.H. v. A.M.H.

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 03/29/2013 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 2110017 J.D.H. v. A.M.H. Appeal from Winston C i r c u i t (DR-09-69) Court On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g PITTMAN, J u d g e . This and court's o p i n i o n o f J a n u a r y 18, 2 0 1 3 , i s w i t h d r a w n , the following i s s u b s t i t u t e d therefor. 2110017 J.D.H. ( " t h e husband") appeals W i n s t o n C i r c u i t C o u r t d i v o r c i n g him from a judgment f r o m A.M.H. ("the of the wife"), a w a r d i n g c u s t o d y o f t h e p a r t i e s ' two m i n o r c h i l d r e n , d i v i d i n g t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s , and a w a r d i n g t h e w i f e an a t t o r n e y f e e . We a f f i r m i n p a r t , r e v e r s e i n p a r t , and remand w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s . The p a r t i e s married year-old high-school child, and the g r a d u a t e , was i n M a r c h 2005. s e n i o r , was husband, The w i f e , then a pregnant w i t h the then a 23-year-old e m p l o y e d as a r e a l - e s t a t e a g e n t . marriage, the w i f e e x p e r i e n c e d a miscarriage, high on school, and embarked an c u r r i c u l u m at a nearby u n i v e r s i t y . marriage the f a t h e r , but the h u s b a n d was he left high-school Soon a f t e r t h e graduated The husband from some p o i n t d u r i n g the a company owned by his t h a t employment i n 2007 and real-estate field. husband's elementary-education At e m p l o y e d by 17- insisted on returned to paying the w i f e ' s c o l l e g e e x p e n s e s , d e s p i t e h e r s t a t i n g t h a t she had b e e n o f f e r e d s c h o l a r s h i p s i n h i g h s c h o o l and a s c h o l a r s h i p t o t h e u n i v e r s i t y she Initially, the husband. the parties lived was could probably attending. i n a small house owned I n June 2006, t h e h u s b a n d ' s p a r e n t s parties a four-acre deeded p a r c e l of l a n d near the p a r e n t s ' 2 obtain by the home i n 2110017 Double Springs, square-foot and the the h o u s e on children: parties built a 4-bedroom, 4,000- p a r c e l . The wife gave b i r t h to two a s o n , b o r n i n A u g u s t 2007, and a d a u g h t e r , b o r n i n December 2008. On J u l y 5, 2009, t h e w i f e l e f t t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e t h e two c h i l d r e n and days l a t e r , had she went t o a d o m e s t i c - a b u s e s h e l t e r . filed a complaint d i v o r c e and p e n d e n t e l i t e support, residence. a alleging t h a t the c o m m i t t e d a c t s o f p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e on h e r and child divorce ground and that threatened trial spousal The custody support, pendente wife lite was and custody the entered an ex immediate temporary custody seeking a marital counterclaimed, seeking of of the c h i l d r e n on behavior On order of the use erratic exhibiting parte husband the the s a f e t y of the c h i l d r e n . court Four o f t h e c h i l d r e n , as w e l l as h u s b a n d a n s w e r e d and the with J u l y 29, granting c h i l d r e n and that 2009, the the the husband stating that i t would s e t the matter f o r a h e a r i n g at the request of e i t h e r party. the the Two trial days l a t e r , court pendente l i t e the trial i n r e s p o n s e t o a m o t i o n by withdrew i t s July issues for a hearing. court entered 29 and Following that a pendente l i t e 3 order order wife, set the hearing, on A u g u s t 17, 2110017 2009, g r a n t i n g t h e p a r t i e s j o i n t l e g a l c u s t o d y , t h e w i f e s o l e physical custody, and the husband alternating weekend v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the c h i l d r e n . The h u s b a n d was $135 c h i l d s u p p o r t and t o m a i n t a i n p e r week i n p e n d e n t e l i t e h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e coverage On December pendente l i t e 7, 2009, f o r t h e w i f e and the husband o r d e r e d t o pay children. moved to modify o r d e r , a l l e g i n g ( a ) t h a t he h a d j u s t the graduated f r o m t h e S h e r i f f ' s Academy, t h a t he h a d begun employment as a sheriff's deputy, and t h a t h i s work s c h e d u l e d i d n o t permit h i m t o e x e r c i s e a l t e r n a t i n g weekend v i s i t a t i o n ; and ( b ) t h a t t h e w i f e had r e l o c a t e d t h e c h i l d r e n f r o m M a r i o n C o u n t y , she h a d b e e n l i v i n g Cullman County, At the husband's i n her deceased where she was time of the motion to modify, advised him that he January the 13, 2010, husband hearing had a municipality enforcement role. The company, where he was on the He e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e s h e r i f f was where he to resigned his not suited to "just p a p e r s " and w o u l d p r o b a b l y be h a p p i e r i f he s o u g h t with house, c o h a b i t i n g w i t h a paramour. p o s i t i o n as a s h e r i f f ' s d e p u t y . had grandmother's where serving employment c o u l d have a more a c t i v e husband had working taken a j o b at a on a c o m m i s s i o n 4 law- realty b a s i s ; he had 2110017 not y e t earned any commissions. t e a c h e r i n c o l l e g e and expected The w i f e was a student- t o g r a d u a t e i n May 2010. The w i f e a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t , i n l a t e A u g u s t 2009, s h e h a d met D.H., a r e c e n t l y d i v o r c e d man, a n d h a d moved i n t o h i s home h a v i n g known h i m o n l y a few weeks. mornings she t y p i c a l l y took after She s t a t e d t h a t on w e e k day t h e p a r t i e s ' son t o a day-care c e n t e r a t 6:45 a.m. a n d t h e n d r o v e 45 m i n u t e s t o a n o t h e r city, where h e r s t u d e n t - t e a c h i n g p o s t was l o c a t e d a n d where s h e l e f t the p a r t i e s ' daughter a t t h e home o f a b a b y s i t t e r who was D.H.'s 2 2 - y e a r - o l d n i e c e . had not informed The w i f e a l s o a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t she t h e husband o f h e r and t h e c h i l d r e n ' s w h e r e a b o u t s when s h e h a d moved. F o l l o w i n g t h e h e a r i n g , t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an amended pendente custody lite order, awarding of the children, the p a r t i e s j o i n t rotating bearing the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o support or h e r c u s t o d i a l p e r i o d . next 15 months. A final M a r c h 11 a n d 25 a n d A p r i l By the time completed the t r i a l h e r degree weekly, with each party the c h i l d r e n during h i s That arrangement c o n t i n u e d h e a r i n g was h e l d o v e r 6 a n d 26, physical f o r the f o u r days 2011. began i n March 2011, t h e w i f e had requirements 5 a n d was employed as a 2110017 science teacher at a middle s c h o o l where she a l s o s e r v e d as a g i r l s ' b a s k e t b a l l c o a c h and a s s i s t a n t s o f t b a l l c o a c h . moved out of D.H.'s h o u s e grandmother's house in and was living Haleyville. The e m p l o y e d as a l a w - e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c e r , officer shifts for 3 a nearby times a husband t h i s time m u n i c i p a l i t y where week and earned i n her he $13.50 She deceased was again as a p a t r o l worked per had 12-hour hour. Both p a r t i e s d e p e n d e d upon t h e c h i l d r e n ' s r e t i r e d g r a n d p a r e n t s (the w i f e r e l y i n g on h e r f a t h e r , t h e h u s b a n d on h i s m o t h e r and, a lesser Before extent, the A p r i l his 2012 father) hearings, law-enforcement p o s i t i o n his to and father's three business with t h e h u s b a n d had had child resigned his e n t e r p r i s e s so t h a t , he c h i l d r e n at t h e i r preschools and said, and be a b l e t o p i c k up of he the s p e n d more t i m e w i t h them i n afternoons. The husband testified that, before the parties s e p a r a t e d , t h e w i f e had c o m m i t t e d a d u l t e r y w i t h a t l e a s t men, care. gone t o work i n a n o t h e r c o u l d have a more f l e x i b l e s c h e d u l e the assist to i n c l u d i n g one of her husband p r e s e n t e d evidence y e a r s t h a t t h e c a s e was former h i g h - s c h o o l demonstrating pending, 6 three teachers. The t h a t , d u r i n g the t h e w i f e had moved f i v e two times 2110017 and h a d c o h a b i t e d w i t h two d i f f e r e n t men. husband's that accusation she h a d The w i f e d e n i e d t h e of pre-separation n o t had sexual adultery relations with h u s b a n d b e f o r e she h a d f i l e d t h e c o m p l a i n t and anyone stated but the for a divorce. d e s c r i b e d t h e h u s b a n d as a p e r s o n who a l t e r n a t e s b e t w e e n charming jealous, and being controlling, and as i n s e c u r e , and p r o n e t o " r a g i n g being She being possessive, fits." The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d s e e n t h e h u s b a n d ' s first " r a g i n g f i t " s i x months a f t e r t h e p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d . w i f e was p a c k i n g newly came i n p r e p a r a t i o n f o r t h e p a r t i e s ' move t o t h e i r constructed home v e r y furniture, The house angry. i n Double S p r i n g s He began throwing p u n c h i n g w a l l s , and b r e a k i n g was f r i g h t e n e d , and she t e l e p h o n e d when t h e h u s b a n d things, pictures. kicking The wife t h e husband's p a r e n t s , soon a r r i v e d w i t h a bag c o n t a i n i n g p i l l s ; who they i n s t r u c t e d the w i f e t o see t h a t t h e h u s b a n d s w a l l o w e d a p i l l . As t h e h u s b a n d took the p i l l , he t o l d t h e w i f e : " I f you want t o , d i v o r c e now. to take I have episode, he had this t o keep me calm." t h e w i f e s a i d , t h e h u s b a n d h a d been v e r y bought her a dozen roses the that apologetic: f o l l o w i n g day C a d i l l a c CTS a u t o m o b i l e t h e f o l l o w i n g week. 7 After me The w i f e and a stated 2110017 that, before had t h e i n c i d e n t , she h a d n o t known t h a t t h e h u s b a n d b e e n t a k i n g any m e d i c a t i o n b u t t h a t she h a d l e a r n e d that the p i l l s lamotrigine disorder). prescriptions were e s c i t a l o p r a m (an a n t i - s e i z u r e The wife from later (an a n t i - a n x i e t y d r u g ) a n d drug obtained a the pharmacist prescribed list of for bipolar the and d i s c o v e r e d husband's that the h u s b a n d h a d a l s o b e e n p r e s c r i b e d human g r o w t h hormone ("HGH") and testosterone, inject HGH. a n d , she s a i d , The h u s b a n d w i t h low t e s t o s t e r o n e , stated she h a d s e e n that the husband he h a d b e e n diagnosed a n d he a d m i t t e d t h a t he h a d t a k e n that hormone s u p p l e m e n t , b u t he d e n i e d t h a t he h a d b e e n p r e s c r i b e d , o r t h a t he h a d t a k e n , The wife HGH. s t a t e d t h a t t h e husband's p a r e n t s had seen t h e husband's v i o l e n t temper d u r i n g a t h r e e - w e e k p e r i o d when t h e p a r t i e s had l i v e d w i t h t h e husband's p a r e n t s a f t e r a f i r e had damaged t h e m a r i t a l residence. According to the wife, the h u s b a n d ' s t e m p e r was s o o u t o f c o n t r o l d u r i n g that time that h i s p a r e n t s had asked the p a r t i e s t o l i v e elsewhere u n t i l they could return to the m a r i t a l The cursed wife testified that residence. t h e husband had screamed when t h e c h i l d r e n h a d c r i e d o r h a d h a d d i r t y 8 and diapers; 2110017 she s a i d he would "Shut the f the w i f e up" "get i n the children's or "stop the G d s a i d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d had son's b a b y - d e d i c a t i o n t o c h u r c h and outfit faces" crying." t a k e n a k n i f e and s a i d , the husband d i d not n o t m a s c u l i n e enough) b e c a u s e , he was and was cut (an o u t f i t t h a t t h e son had t h a t , the w i f e tight yell: In a d d i t i o n , b e c a u s e i t was too and choking the child. The the worn like thought, i t husband took i s s u e w i t h the w i f e ' s account of the i n c i d e n t , s t a t i n g t h a t was t r y i n g to c l e a n the used a knife unfasten The to cut c h i l d a f t e r a b o w e l movement and the the stated that away b e c a u s e he could had not buttons. wife garment he become more f r e q u e n t the h u s b a n d ' s r a g e s had gradually and more v i o l e n t , and she had become more f r i g h t e n e d of the husband. She stated: "I'm a v e r y s m a l l p e r s o n . He's v e r y b i g , o b v i o u s l y . He l i f t s w e i g h t s a l l t h e t i m e . He w o u l d j e r k me up by my w r i s t s . He'd d r a g me a l l o v e r t h e h o u s e . If I w o u l d n ' t c o n s e n t t o what he was w a n t i n g t o do he w a n t e d me t o be t h i s [sex] f r e a k , so c a l l e d he'd g r a b me up by t h e t h r o a t . The s e x u a l i n c i d e n t s g o t ... h o r r i b l e , and I d i d n o t want t o have sex a t a l l b e c a u s e i t was so p a i n f u l . " Describing the m a r i t a l residence abuse s h e l t e r , the incident that caused her i n J u l y 2009 t o s e e k r e f u g e wife stated 9 that the to leave the i n a domestic- h u s b a n d had become 2110017 enraged because streaming an I n t e r n e t f a s t enough. video he was w a t c h i n g was n o t She s a i d t h e h u s b a n d h a d p i c k e d up a c h a i r a n d h a d rammed i t on t h e t i l e floor, causing the chair to break skimming over t h e son's head. and sending a wood s h a r d When t h e w i f e p i c k e d up t h e s o n a n d t o o k h i m t o a n o t h e r room, t h e h u s b a n d s t o r m e d o u t s i d e a n d r e p e a t e d l y broken chair against t h e gas g r i l l ; slammed t h e t h e husband then came back i n s i d e , grabbed a p i c t u r e , and threw i t a g a i n s t t h e w a l l , causing glass to shatter a l l over t h e room. The h u s b a n d a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t he h a d become a n g r y on t h a t o c c a s i o n , b u t , he s a i d , h i s a n g e r h a d b e e n p r e c i p i t a t e d b y h i s d i s c o v e r y t h a t t h e w i f e h a d s e n t an i n s t a n t message t o an o l d b o y f r i e n d , one o f t h e t h r e e men w i t h whom, t h e h u s b a n d t h o u g h t , t h e w i f e h a d been unfaithful. The husband's mother, elementary education testified that husband's father, who has a master's a n d r e t i r e d a f t e r t e a c h i n g f o r 25 y e a r s , t h e husband a retired h a d no educator "anger issues." and f o o t b a l l acknowledged t h a t , d u r i n g t h e p a r t i e s ' marriage, confided The degree i n i n him about t h e husband's b e i n g coach, the wife had "high-tempered." h u s b a n d ' s f a t h e r a l s o s a i d t h a t he h a d e x p r e s s e d 10 The to the 2110017 wife his concern about the husband's "getting off [his medication]." Much of the testimony at trial centered on the issue w h e t h e r t h e w i f e had a c k n o w l e d g e d and had b e e n w i l l i n g t o s e e k the a p p r o p r i a t e a s s i s t a n c e f o r the son's s p e c i a l needs. wife that been concerned normally because, testified s p e e c h was not months o f age the son had phrases, she had developing the son had that she the p r e v i o u s l y b e e n p u t t i n g words t o g e t h e r in cessation to of normal h u s b a n d ' s r a g e and a speech abuse. certified The his practitioner, autistic. a psychologist. concluded After testing t h a t t h e son had ("PDD") and t h a t PDD was the who had sought r e f e r r e d the w i f e to child, the psychologist a pervasive developmental disorder recommended s p e e c h t h e r a p y . understanding l e s s severe the the taken L a t e r , the w i f e a s e c o n d o p i n i o n f r o m a p e d i a t r i c i a n , who and child's witnessed h u s b a n d ' s m o t h e r had registered-nurse d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e son was having 18 short he b e g a n t o s p e a k , i f a t a l l , o n l y s i n g l e w o r d s The w i f e a t t r i b u t e d t h e to at Whereas seemed t o want t o p l a y a l o n e . son son's said, suddenly stopped t a l k i n g . The "on the a u t i s m The s p e c t r u m " b u t was d i s a b i l i t y than f u l l - b l o w n autism. 11 wife stated She her a said that 2110017 the s o n was r e c e i v i n g speech therapy once p e r week inhis p r e s c h o o l t h r o u g h a s t a t e p r o g r a m known as " e a r l y - i n t e r v e n t i o n services." The husband and h i s mother presented testimony and d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e s o n was n o t r e c e i v i n g the l e v e l and c o n s i s t e n c y o f e a r l y - i n t e r v e n t i o n s e r v i c e s t h a t he n e e d e d , e i t h e r b e c a u s e t h e w i f e h a d moved and h a d c h a n g e d d a y - c a r e p r o v i d e r s and p r e s c h o o l s so o f t e n o r b e c a u s e t h e w i f e was " i n d e n i a l " a b o u t t h e s e v e r i t y o f t h e s o n ' s The h u s b a n d a l s o p r e s e n t e d best, disability. evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h e w i f e had u s e d poor judgment i n h e r c h o i c e companions and, a t w o r s t , interests at trial c u r r e n t l y d a t i n g D.R., o f male h a d been u n w i l l i n g t o p u t t h e b e s t o f h e r c h i l d r e n above h e r own d e s i r e s . acknowledged that, at on March a man who 25, 2011, lived that The she wife was i n S h e l b y C o u n t y and who s o m e t i m e s s p e n t t h e n i g h t w i t h h e r when t h e c h i l d r e n were there. She s t a t e d t h a t D.R. h a d r e v e a l e d t o h e r t h a t he h a d been c h a r g e d w i t h a d o m e s t i c - v i o l e n c e offense a r i s i n g out of an a l t e r c a t i o n w i t h h i s b r o t h e r b u t t h a t t h e c h a r g e h a d been dismissed. On c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , h a d a l s o known t h a t D.R. the wife admitted t h a t she h a d two d r i v i n g - u n d e r - t h e - i n f l u e n c e 12 2110017 convictions, license b u t she h a d b e e n unaware h a d been suspended. When that D.R.'s d r i v e r ' s confronted with that i n f o r m a t i o n , she s t a t e d t h a t she would n o t a l l o w h e r c h i l d r e n to be i n a c a r d r i v e n b y D.R. When a s k e d w h e t h e r s h e w o u l d c o n t i n u e h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h D.R. i f t h e t r i a l c o u r t a w a r d e d custody of the c h i l d r e n t o her, On May divorcing she s a i d : 23, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l court t h e p a r t i e s on t h e g r o u n d entered a judgment of i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y of temperament; a w a r d i n g t h e p a r t i e s j o i n t sole p h y s i c a l , custody " I d o n ' t know." legal, and t h e w i f e o f t h e c h i l d r e n ; g r a n t i n g t h e husband s t a n d a r d v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s ; o r d e r i n g t h e husband t o pay c h i l d support o f $166 p e r week; a w a r d i n g t h e w i f e a $25,000 lump-sum property settlement and dividing property; and awarding t h e w i f e the p a r t i e s ' a $5,300 a t t o r n e y personal fee. The h u s b a n d f i l e d a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n t h a t was d e n i e d , f o l l o w i n g a hearing, on on A u g u s t 24, 2 0 1 1 . September evidence did determination; The h u s b a n d t i m e l y 30, 2 0 1 1 , r a i s i n g not support the three trial issues: appealed that the court's that the evidence d i d not support t h e $25,000 lump-sum p r o p e r t y a w a r d t o t h e w i f e ; a n d t h a t t h e t r i a l 13 custody court 2110017 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 awarding the w i f e a $5,300 a t t o r n e y f e e . I. " B e c a u s e t h i s was an i n i t i a l c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n , where t h e p a r t i e s a r e on e q u a l f o o t i n g a n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t must b a s e its decision on what i t determines would be i n the best i n t e r e s t of the c h i l d , our review i s very l i m i t e d . " v. Headrick, (citation 845 So. 2d 823, 825 Headrick ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) omitted). "When [an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ] r e v i e w s a t r i a l c o u r t ' s child-custody determination t h a t was b a s e d upon evidence p r e s e n t e d o r e tenus, [ i t ] presume[s] t h e trial c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i s c o r r e c t : '"A custody d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d upon o r a l testimony i s accorded a presumption of correctness on a p p e a l , a n d we w i l l not reverse unless the e v i d e n c e so f a i l s t o s u p p o r t t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t i t i s p l a i n l y a n d p a l p a b l y w r o n g . . . . " ' Ex p a r t e P e r k i n s , 646 So. 2d 46, 47 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) , q u o t i n g P h i l l i p s v. P h i l l i p s , 622 So. 2d 410, 412 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1993) ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . T h i s p r e s u m p t i o n i s b a s e d on t h e t r i a l court's unique p o s i t i o n t o d i r e c t l y observe t h e w i t n e s s e s and t o assess t h e i r demeanor and c r e d i b i l i t y . This opportunity to observe witnesses i s especially important in child-custody cases. 'In c h i l d custody cases e s p e c i a l l y , t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f an a t t e n t i v e t r i a l judge i s of great importance.' Williams v. W i l l i a m s , 402 So. 2d 1029, 1032 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1981). I n r e g a r d t o custody d e t e r m i n a t i o n s , [our supreme c o u r t ] h a s a l s o s t a t e d : ' I t i s a l s o w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t i n t h e absence o f s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s w i l l 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 14 2110017 e r r o n e o u s . ' Ex p a r t e B r y o w s k y , 676 So. 2d 1322, (Ala. 1996)." Ex p a r t e Fann, 810 The So. evidence in 2d 631, this 633 case 1324 ( A l a . 2001). was highly disputed. The u n d i s p u t e d e v i d e n c e , h o w e v e r , i n d i c a t e s t h a t n e i t h e r p a r t y was a model p a r e n t . of the trial Under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , i t was court to observe the witnesses, the p r o v i n c e to sift the e v i d e n c e , and t o d e t e r m i n e w h i c h p a r e n t w o u l d b e t t e r s e r v e t h e best interests determined specific "'those such 810 1324 of the Because the trial court t h a t i s s u e i n f a v o r of the w i f e w i t h o u t s e t t i n g findings, findings we must assume t h a t t h e t r i a l necessary f i n d i n g s w o u l d be husband had temperament temper accounted h i s repeated f a t h e r ' s companies. with evidence trial from which t h a t t h e w i f e , who court i t reasonably volatile that employment and The erroneous.'" unless 1322, from which clearly i t s judgment, Fann, 1996)). a support c o u r t made ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e B r y o w s k y , 676 So. 2d So. 2d a t 633 (Ala. to out Ex p a r t e evidence his children. The was presented c o u l d have f o u n d and for overly frequent that the aggressive changes in r e t u r n s t o employment a t one of trial his an with c o u r t was also i t r e a s o n a b l y c o u l d have presented determined had b e e n t h e c h i l d r e n ' s p r i m a r y c a r e t a k e r , 15 2110017 had d e a l t w i t h c h a l l e n g e s effective manner separation, education, the than wife i n a more p a t i e n t , r e s o u r c e f u l , and the husband. obtained a Pell After grant g r a d u a t e d f r o m c o l l e g e on t i m e , f i n d i n g a t e a c h i n g j o b i n t h e a r e a , and employed. some The extent, by a s s i g n m e n t and graduation. wife's the was remained parties' continue successful in continuously location respect to of her o f summer j o b s a f t e r her two paramours, college the dating criterion as a and k i d s . " There is evidence "good to to me indicate that good to my to student-teaching c a n d i d l y d e s c r i b e d her man her numerous moves were n e c e s s i t a t e d , the a v a i l a b i l i t y With to the follows: e i t h e r p a r a m o u r had not wife whether was met no that criterion. Although the w i f e was evidence supported the conclusion that l e s s d i l i g e n t t h a n t h e h u s b a n d and the h i s mother about e n s u r i n g t h a t t h e son r e c e i v e d a l l a v a i l a b l e s e r v i c e s f o r h i s d i s a b i l i t y , the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment a p p r o p r i a t e l y p r o v i d e d : "[T]he [wife] shall use a l l due diligence in i n v e s t i g a t i n g the l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t y / d e v e l o p m e n t a l d e l a y / a u t i s m o f t h e male c h i l d . She s h a l l c o n s u l t d i r e c t l y w i t h t h e [ h u s b a n d ' s m o t h e r ] on t h i s i s s u e and t h e [ h u s b a n d ' s m o t h e r ] s h a l l have t h e r i g h t t o a t t e n d any and a l l v i s i t s t o h e a l t h - c a r e p r o v i d e r s r e l a t e d to t h i s i s s u e . " 16 2110017 In sum, we c a n n o t s a y t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s c u s t o d y a w a r d u n s u p p o r t e d by the evidence so as t o be p l a i n l y and was palpably wrong. II. The h u s b a n d a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n a w a r d i n g t h e w i f e a lump-sum p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t o f $25,000 b e c a u s e , he says, the c o u r t made no represented or how factual i t was finding as calculated, t o what t h a t and there was sum no evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e h u s b a n d had a s s e t s f r o m w h i c h t o pay award. the represented marital The wife approximately residence. argues half In order arguments, i t i s n e c e s s a r y that the to the $25,000 parties' equity understand the award in the parties' t o o u t l i n e the sequence of events w i t h r e s p e c t to the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e . In parcel parties June 2006, t h e h u s b a n d ' s p a r e n t s of undeveloped obtained a land to the construction conveyed a f o u r - a c r e parties, loan $202,490.75 f r o m a l o c a l bank, e x e c u t e d experience d e c l i n e d and financial problems as in which the the amount of a n o t e and m o r t g a g e t o t h e bank, and b u i l t t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e . to after the The p a r t i e s began r e a l - e s t a t e market the husband's r e a l - e s t a t e commissions 17 dwindled. 2110017 I n June 2007, when t h e y c o u l d payments to the bank, the no l o n g e r parties make t h e i r sold $215,000 t o a l i m i t e d - l i a b i l i t y company the mortgage property for ("LLC") owned b y t h e h u s b a n d ' s f a t h e r and u s e d t h o s e f u n d s t o s a t i s f y t h e m o r t g a g e i n d e b t e d n e s s t o the bank. estate the market c o l l a p s e d , parties. The I n November 2008, when t h e r e a l - 1 t h e LLC r e c o n v e y e d t h e p r o p e r t y husband's father testified that he to had e x p e c t e d t o be r e p a i d $215,000 f o r t h e L L C ' s 2007 p u r c h a s e o f the property, loan of only b u t , he s a i d , t h e p a r t i e s h a d q u a l i f i e d $151, 956. On November e x e c u t e d a n o t e and m o r t g a g e i n t h a t 21, 2008, for a the p a r t i e s amount t o t h e b a n k and p a i d t h e l o a n p r o c e e d s t o t h e h u s b a n d ' s f a t h e r , who made a l l the mortgage payments u n t i l f u r t h e r payments. June 2010, a f t e r w h i c h he made no I n J a n u a r y 2011, t h e bank f o r e c l o s e d on t h e m o r t g a g e and t h e h u s b a n d ' s f a t h e r p u r c h a s e d t h e p r o p e r t y the foreclosure sale f o r $151,961. 2 The husband's at father The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d n o t known t h a t t h e p a r t i e s ' m o r t g a g e p a y m e n t s h a d n o t been made. She s a i d t h e husband had t o l d her o n l y t h a t "they" had " p a i d o f f t h e m o r t g a g e " when, i n f a c t , t h e p a r t i e s h a d c o n v e y e d t h e p r o p e r t y t o t h e LLC and t h e LLC, a c t i n g t h r o u g h t h e h u s b a n d ' s f a t h e r , had p a i d o f f t h e m o r t g a g e n o t e . The w i f e s t a t e d t h a t she r e a l i z e d t h a t she h a d b e e n "hoodooed t h e w h o l e m a r r i a g e . " 1 T h e e v i d e n c e was u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e w i f e h a d n o t i c e o f foreclosure proceedings. 2 the 18 2110017 a l l o w e d the husband to l i v e but he d i d not reconvey i n the the former m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e , property h u s b a n d ' s f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was the p a r t i e s ' The to the s a v i n g the p r o p e r t y f o r w i f e argues t h a t the p a r t i e s ' a p p r o x i m a t e l y $50,000 e q u i t y i n the m a r i t a l the d i f f e r e n c e between $202,490.75 ( w h i c h amount, t h e w i f e s a y s , was residence construction $151,961 loan (the as determined that price was paid f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e i n 2011). to h a l f paid by the She by the off in the v a l u e of the parties' full husband's in The a s s e r t s t h a t she was had no 2007) equity i n the property only lives in the the a statutory See which provides: "The s t a t u t o r y r i g h t s of redemption g i v e n or conferred by this article are mere personal p r i v i l e g e s and n o t p r o p e r t y o r p r o p e r t y r i g h t s . The p r i v i l e g e s must be e x e r c i s e d i n t h e mode and manner p r e s c r i b e d by s t a t u t e and may n o t be w a i v e d i n a d e e d o f t r u s t , j u d g m e n t , o r m o r t g a g e , o r i n any agreement b e f o r e f o r e c l o s u r e or e x e c u t i o n s a l e . The r i g h t o [ r ] p r i v i l e g e c o n f e r r e d under t h i s a r t i c l e i s 19 the entitled 23, 2011, r i g h t o f r e d e m p t i o n , see § 6-5-248, A l a . Code 1975. § 6-5-250, A l a . Code 1975, and at w i f e ' s argument i s i n c o r r e c t , b e c a u s e , a t t i m e o f 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 on May parties original father of t h a t " e q u i t y " because the husband s t i l l the house. The children. r e s i d e n c e was marital husband. also 2110017 n o t s u b j e c t t o l e v y and s a l e u n d e r e x e c u t i o n o r attachment nor i s i t s u b j e c t t o a l i e n a t i o n e x c e p t i n the cases p r o v i d e d f o r i n t h i s a r t i c l e ; but i f the r i g h t o r p r i v i l e g e i s p e r f e c t e d by r e d e m p t i o n as p r o v i d e d i n t h i s a r t i c l e , t h e n , and n o t u n t i l t h e n , i t becomes p r o p e r t y o r r i g h t s o f p r o p e r t y s u b j e c t t o l e v y , s a l e , a l i e n a t i o n , or other d i s p o s i t i o n , except as i s e x p r e s s l y a u t h o r i z e d by s t a t u t e . " 3 If, as t h e w i f e c o n t e n d s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n t e n d e d i t s $25,000 lump-sum award "equity" in to the represent marital right" t h e r e i n , the If trial the the w i f e ' s the residence a w a r d was court intended e q u i t a b l e share wife's or any e r r o n e o u s as a vehicles, division of furniture, most evidence least does not perceived other "property a matter o f any of of law. represent other m a r i t a l asset, their The personal f u r n i s h i n g s , and d i s c l o s e any then p a r t i e s agreed property equipment. c o u r t d i v i d e d the p r o p e r t y about which they The of i t s lump-sum a w a r d t o t h e a w a r d i s u n s u p p o r t e d by any e v i d e n c e . upon share The trial c o u l d not agree. m a r i t a l asset worth $25,000 f r o m w h i c h a lump-sum a w a r d t o t h e w i f e at could have b e e n d e r i v e d . S e c t i o n 6 - 5 - 2 4 8 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l whose r e a l p r o p e r t y i s s o l d a t a f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e by v i r t u e o f t h e f o r e c l o s u r e o f a m o r t g a g e t h e r e o n "may e x e r c i s e t h e r i g h t o f r e d e m p t i o n ... w i t h i n one y e a r f r o m t h e date of the [ f o r e c l o s u r e ] s a l e . " 3 20 2110017 III. The the husband m a i n t a i n s limits t h a t the t r i a l of i t s d i s c r e t i o n an a t t o r n e y fee of court acted i n o r d e r i n g him t o pay outside the wife $5,300. " I t i s w i t h o u t q u e s t i o n t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t has wide d i s c r e t i o n i n awarding a t t o r n e y fees to p a r t i e s i n a d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g . Hansen v. Hansen, 401 So. 2d 105, 107 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 1 ) . "'Whether t o a w a r d an a t t o r n e y f e e i n a domestic r e l a t i o n s case i s w i t h i n the s o u n d d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t and, 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 ruling on that question will not 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 r e s u l t s of the litigation, and, where a p p r o p r i a t e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s k n o w l e d g e 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. 1993) . A d d i t i o n a l l y , a t r i a l c o u r t i s p r e s u m e d t o have k n o w l e d g e f r o m w h i c h i t may s e t a r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e e v e n when t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e as t o the reasonableness of the a t t o r n e y fee. T a y l o r v. T a y l o r , 486 So. 2d 1294 (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 8 6 ) . ' " Martin v. Martin, 85 So. ( q u o t i n g G l o v e r v. G l o v e r , 3d 678 414, So. 1996)). 21 423 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2d 174, 176 (Ala. Civ. 2011) App. 2110017 This divorce l i t i g a t i o n but, p r o t r a c t e d and u n l i k e i n B r a s f i e l d v. B r a s f i e l d , (Ala. in was C i v . App. awarding 1996) 2d 1091, 1095 court acted w i t h i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n and contentious divorce l i t i g a t i o n i n v o l v i n g assets exceeding $2.3 insists the that $100,000 So. protracted million), a (trial 679 contentious, attorney p a r t i e s had the wife's t h a n h i s , as e v i d e n c e d , few in marital assets. financial he fee s a y s , by circumstances the The are decided to have elective breast-augmentation c o s t i n g $2,900 t h e week b e f o r e t h e M a r c h 25, 2011, The husband a l s o i n s i s t s , motion, t h a t the t r i a l as he trial an During free, insurance-refund the p a r t i e s ' paying only the that the surgery trial date. postjudgment and handing over to the c h e c k i n t h e amount o f utility bills on the wife $2,298. s e p a r a t i o n , the husband l i v e d r e s i d e n c e owned by h i s f a t h e r . the w i f e l i v e d in his gross c o u r t ' s judgment f a i l e d t o a c k n o w l e d g e or t o c r e d i t him w i t h e n d o r s i n g at argued better f a c t s t h a t her m o n t h l y income i s $3,156 and h i s i s o n l y $2,340 and wife husband 4 rent- former m a r i t a l D u r i n g most o f t h a t t i m e , when i n h e r d e c e a s e d g r a n d m o t h e r ' s house i n M a r i o n The evidence e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t the check r e p r e s e n t e d a r e t u r n premium f o r f o r c e - p l a c e d i n s u r a n c e on t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e d u r i n g the pendency of the f o r e c l o s u r e p r o c e e d i n g s . 4 22 2110017 C o u n t y and w i t h a p a r a m o u r i n C u l l m a n C o u n t y , she a l s o p a i d no housing the expense o t h e r April 26, than u t i l i t i e s . 2011, apartment i n Jasper; trial date, however, S e v e r a l months the wife she p r o v i d e d moved The t r i a l c o u l d p r o p e r l y have i n f e r r e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d w o u l d to l i v e continue to i n c u r a housing As p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d , t h e d i v o r c e specific findings of fact, divorced t h e p a r t i e s on but, the ground of awarded t h e w i f e s o l e p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y lump-sum p r o p e r t y settlement, the husband's adultery with probably three men the includes trial that before court o f t h e c h i l d r e n and a the wife the no i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y and we assume t h a t t h e t r i a l testimony the expense. judgment because an court r e n t - f r e e i n h i s f a t h e r ' s house, w h i l e w i f e would probably found into no e v i d e n c e as t o her monthly r e n t a l expense a t t h a t l o c a t i o n . continue before had parties' court committed separation u n w o r t h y o f b e l i e f and d e t e r m i n e d , i n s t e a d , t h a t t h e h u s b a n d ' s v o l a t i l e and a g g r e s s i v e temperament for marriage. the breakup of the Accordingly, outside the l i m i t s attorney fee. we cannot f i n d was p r i m a r i l y r e s p o n s i b l e that the t r i a l court acted of i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n awarding the wife That s a i d , the husband's 23 argument t h a t he an had 2110017 not been c r e d i t e d w i t h d e l i v e r i n g t o t h e w i f e t h e i n s u r a n c e refund check instruct with i n t h e amount o f $2,298 i s w e l l - t a k e n , the t r i a l that court, on remand, t o c r e d i t amount, t h u s m a k i n g payment o f h e r a t t o r n e y t h e sum a n d we the husband due t o t h e w i f e f o r f e e $3,002. Conclusion That p o r t i o n o f t h e d i v o r c e sole physical custody judgment a w a r d i n g t h e w i f e of the c h i l d r e n i s affirmed. That p o r t i o n o f t h e j u d g m e n t a w a r d i n g t h e w i f e a lump-sum p r o p e r t y settlement affirmed, o f $25,000 i s r e v e r s e d . but the t r i a l court The a t t o r n e y - f e e a w a r d i s i s instructed to credit h u s b a n d w i t h $2,298 t o w a r d t h e payment o f t h a t f e e . is the The c a u s e remanded f o r t h e e n t r y o f a j u d g m e n t c o n s i s t e n t w i t h this opinion. APPLICATION OVERRULED; OPINION OF JANUARY 18, 2013; WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , a n d Thomas a n d D o n a l d s o n , 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 , w i t h o u t 24 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.