K.W.M. v. P.N.M.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/11/2013 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 2110699 K.W.M. v. P.N.M. Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court (DR-10-900296) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . P.N.M. ("the w i f e " ) from K.W.M. filed ("the h u s b a n d " ) . s o u g h t an a w a r d o f c u s t o d y marriage, a complaint seeking a divorce In her complaint, the wife o f t h e two m i n o r c h i l d r e n of the a d i v i s i o n o f t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s a n d d e b t s , an a w a r d 2110699 of alimony, complaint, and the an award wife of sought an a attorney divorce fee. on the In her ground of incompatibility. The p a r t i e s reached support. On May order i n c o r p o r a t i n g the terms of the p a r t i e s ' agreement; t h a t order provided joint the 2010, the husband trial deposit court entered lite an that 24, an a g r e e m e n t r e g a r d i n g p e n d e n t e into the parties' c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t t h e amount o f $3,500 e v e r y two weeks and the wife was to pay certain household expenses from that those funds. On M a r c h 9, 2011, for a divorce t h e h u s b a n d a n s w e r e d and seeking parties' children and an an award In h i s c o u n t e r c l a i m , wife committed that, during the the husband adultery during final hearing March requiring the 14, 2011, husband the to $16,000 t o c o m p e n s a t e h e r support. I n t h a t M a r c h 14, trial endorse f o r an 2011, 2 the in a l l e g e d a d u l t e r y on t h e p a r t o f t h e On joint custody equitable division assets. had of counterclaimed of the of the parties' alleged that the marriage. We note matter, the wife an order this husband. court to the arrearage entered wife a check i n pendente order, the t r i a l for lite court also 2110699 o r d e r e d t h e h u s b a n d t o c o m p l y w i t h d i s c o v e r y r e q u e s t s by M a r c h 24, 2011, and i t ordered s a n c t i o n f o r e v e r y day the h u s b a n d pay a f t e r M a r c h 24, f a i l e d to produce responses to The course trial of On 2011, per day t h a t the ore tenus h e a r i n g December 28, 2011, the trial a judgment i n which i t d i v o r c e d the p a r t i e s , custody of the award, and c h i l d r e n to the w i f e s u b j e c t to the rights, fashioned awarded the wife a husband over entered visitation as discovery. c o u r t c o n d u c t e d an four days. $100 a property an fee. court awarded husband's d i v i s i o n and attorney the alimony The husband f i l e d a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n and a r e q u e s t t h a t t h e t r i a l court stay court enforcement entered The at the divorce a postjudgment order husband t i m e l y 15 of time of c h i l d r e n , ages 17 of requests, and the the hearing, were b o r n in April that children. approximately 3 the husband would Thus, 540 the pages testimony of of 2010. wife would r e c e i v e primary c h i l d r e n and with tenus Two p a r t i e s separated custody the i n 1995. The agreed t h a t the and the ore parties witnesses trial and the p a r t i e s ' marriage. visitation denying those The appealed. p a r t i e s married the judgment. the The physical receive of the exhibits that 2110699 were admitted into divorce hearing evidence focused over the course of the 4-day on t h e p a r t i e s ' c l a i m s p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e d i v i s i o n o f m a r i t a l a s s e t s and d e b t , a l i m o n y , and attorney fees. The wife has anthropology, professor. and The a she in the has worked and started. wife was 17 diagnosed years The with ago, severe as wife a college testified, however, that worked multiple she that she and that she often testified that she was becomes at has not yet The fatigued wife in the s u f f e r s from m i g r a i n e s . willing to a sclerosis disease. of the 2009. although symptoms wife biological husband f o r s e v e r a l f r o m 2007 t h r o u g h experienced afternoons in past a s s i s t e d the he business approximately i n the she p r i v a t e s c h o o l as a t e a c h e r The degree w i f e l e f t h e r j o b as a p r o f e s s o r t o r e a r parties' children, years doctorate The s e e k employment but t h a t she n e e d e d a j o b t h a t w o u l d a l l o w h e r t o be home when t h e parties' children accommodate h e r were out f a t i g u e and of school migraines. and that would 1 The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t the p a r t i e s ' 15-year-old d a u g h t e r has s t r u g g l e d w i t h d e p r e s s i o n and was h o s p i t a l i z e d f o r a p e r i o d d u r i n g the pendency of t h i s a c t i o n . The w i f e 1 4 2110699 The divorce wife testified litigation, that, during she had a t t e m p t e d t h e pendency to locate of the employment from s e v e r a l s o u r c e s and had e i t h e r n o t been o f f e r e d t h e j o b or had d e c i d e d n o t t o a c c e p t an o f f e r o f employment. The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t one j o b i n w h i c h s h e h a d b e e n i n t e r e s t e d w o u l d have required unable her to t r a v e l , t o do t h a t because and she s t a t e d she needed that s h e was t o be home for the children. At worked times during part-time testified that t h e pendency for a friend, she s t o p p e d w o r k i n g of t h i s Robert action, Smith. the wife The f o r S m i t h a month wife before t h e d i v o r c e h e a r i n g b e c a u s e , she s a i d , he no l o n g e r n e e d e d h e r help. The w i f e a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t s h e h a d t e s t i f i e d d u r i n g h e r deposition commission. that Smith was t o p a y h e r $25 p e r h o u r However, a t t h e t i m e o f t h e d e p o s i t i o n , plus a although she h a d b e e n w o r k i n g f o r S m i t h f o r f o u r months, t h e w i f e h a d not y e t r e c e i v e d a paycheck. At the f i n a l hearing, the wife t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e h a d w o r k e d on a " b a r t e r s y s t e m " f o r S m i t h ; testified that, although the daughter's c o n d i t i o n has i m p r o v e d , she b e l i e v e d t h a t i t was n e c e s s a r y t h a t s h e be home t o s u p e r v i s e t h e d a u g h t e r when p o s s i b l e . 5 2110699 she e x p l a i n e d t h a t S m i t h had p u r c h a s e d g r o c e r i e s f o r h e r and the c h i l d r e n . The record personal indicates that the wife r e l a t i o n s h i p with Smith. h a d some sort of I n a d d i t i o n , t h e husband presented evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e w i f e had photographs o f a man naked and other photographs of p a r t i a l l y n a k e d on h e r c e l l u l a r t e l e p h o n e The evidence might support extramarital sister. herself at least a n d on h e r c o m p u t e r . a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e w i f e h a d an relationship with t h e husband o f t h e husband's When a s k e d b y t h e h u s b a n d w h e t h e r she h a d a sexual r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h S m i t h o r any o t h e r man, t h e w i f e r e f u s e d t o answer, c i t i n g t h e F i f t h The police Amendment. husband had worked f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y officer. bachelor's He met t h e w i f e while degree i n p h y s i c a l therapy. he was p u r s u i n g h i s I n 2003, t h e h u s b a n d S o l u t i o n s Therapy ("the b u s i n e s s " ) , p r o v i d e s p h y s i c a l - t h e r a p y and o c c u p a t i o n a l - t h e r a p y a contract basis. The business subchapter S c o r p o r a t i o n . 6 as a The h u s b a n d h a d w o r k e d as an p h y s i c a l t h e r a p i s t f o r a p e r i o d . started a business, 13 y e a r s that s e r v i c e s on i s incorporated as a 2110699 For operated moved approximately the business the business employed the wife employees two to years, to and an office at least building. two other husband In addition The husband administrative I n a d d i t i o n , a t one t i m e , t h e h a d 60 t o 70 t h e r a p i s t s who w o r k e d contractors. the o u t o f t h e p a r t i e s ' home, a n d he l a t e r i n the business. business three to operating as i n d e p e n d e n t the business, the h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t he w o r k s as a p h y s i c a l t h e r a p i s t a n d an occupational t h e r a p i s t f o r the business. The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t , w h i l e t h e y were w o r k i n g to operate together t h e b u s i n e s s , t h e h u s b a n d o f t e n y e l l e d a t h e r ; she a l s o s t a t e d t h a t he f i r e d h e r a n d r e h i r e d h e r s e v e r a l times. Two wife's former employees who testified supported the t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e h u s b a n d h a d a q u i c k temper a n d o f t e n y e l l e d a t t h e w i f e a n d o t h e r e m p l o y e e s . I n a d d i t i o n , when q u e s t i o n e d as t o w h e t h e r he h a d e n g a g e d one o f h i s employees i n an e x t r a m a r i t a l a f f a i r with or independent c o n t r a c t o r s during the p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e , t h e husband r e f u s e d t o answer, c i t i n g t h e Fifth Amendment. The husband testified that time, the business at the divorce hearing had "a l o t fewer" c o n t r a c t s 7 t h a t , at pursuant 2110699 to which the companies or established business health-care that the contract client, husband, had business's his business accounted income. pending provide had lost a significant letter as contract. the to basis to the of portion the for the business from i t s patients i t s decision c l i e n t had a c t u a l l y h i r e d away f r o m t h e b u s i n e s s a number o f t h e r e f o r e , he for terminating accurate. s t a t e d , the the independent with the the contractors, r e a s o n o f f e r e d by contract that the business client was not H o w e v e r , t h e h u s b a n d a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had would continue with u s e d as testified to that and, husband former terminate t h e p e o p l e t h e b u s i n e s s had The one according the husband's d i s c u s s i o n w i t h divorce certain testimony only client, 2011 to Later that for A May services agencies. although that c l i e n t c i t e d of would t o d i s c u s s p e r s o n a l m a t t e r s s u c h as t h e his patients. c o n t r a c t s , the drastically With regard to the business's divorce remaining h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s b u s i n e s s had reduced because of 2009 changes to and been Medicare reimbursement. The the r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h e g r o s s income o f t h e b u s i n e s s f o r t a x y e a r s 2004 t h r o u g h 2009, w i t h 8 the exception of 2005, 2110699 for which the p a r t i e s could not l o c a t e r e c o r d s . had gross income $2,435,177 and o f $272,474 business i n 2 0 0 4 ; $1,515,367 i n 2007; $2,929,479 $1,048,120 The i n 2008; i n 2006; $2,201,874 i n 2009; i n 2010. B o n n i e Dawson, t h e a c c o u n t a n t h i r e d b y t h e b u s i n e s s prepare i t s t a x r e t u r n s , t e s t i f i e d that i n every year 2004 the business business had p o s t e d losses. h a d a $36,642 p r o f i t i n 2 0 0 4 . for the remaining She stated that corporation, personal The a p p r o x i m a t e l o s s e s because losses the business were income-tax returns was reported a on the S husband's and t h a t t h e y o p e r a t e d t o o f f s e t t e s t i f i e d t h a t she p r e p a r e d t h e b u s i n e s s ' s information Dawson subchapter t h e income p a i d t o t h e h u s b a n d f r o m t h e b u s i n e s s . and the y e a r s were $82,000 i n 2006, $93,000 i n 2007, the on t h e f i n a n c i a l except that $48,000 i n 2008, $85,000 i n 2009, and $75,278 i n 2 0 1 0 . testified to provided Dawson a l s o t a x returns based t o h e r by t h e h u s b a n d t h a t she d i d n o t a u d i t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d t o h e r by the husband t o determine i t s a c c u r a c y . The r e c o r d parties contains f o r the years personal 2008, 2009, income-tax returns and 2 0 1 0 . i n d i c a t e t h a t the p a r t i e s ' combined gross 9 Those income was f o r the returns $193,770 2110699 i n 2008 and filed by $209,568 i n 2 0 0 9 . the parties g r o s s income was received state an in The indicates income-tax r e t u r n that the I n a d d i t i o n , i n 2010, The refund husband's the and husband r e c e i v e d parties a and $5,000 retained refunds. husband attempted t o p r e s e n t evidence i n d i c a t i n g those f i g u r e s d i d not he personal f e d e r a l income-tax income-tax r e f u n d . those income-tax The 2010 $158,166. $18,000 2 stated, he made operational. business's accurately loans Dawson records to r e f l e c t h i s income b e c a u s e , the testified business that, as to of The keep then returned have funds w i t h the accumulated h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t he p a i d h i m s e l f so t h a t he w o u l d be t a x e d on t h a t income b u t he i t 2010, i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h o s e l o a n s had to a t o t a l of $112,742. that often that t h a t money t o t h e b u s i n e s s so t h a t i t w o u l d which to operate. We note that c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t the husband's t e s t i m o n y about t h a t the trial purported p r a c t i c e d i d n o t make s e n s e . The wife presented evidence to dispute the c l a i m t h a t t h e b u s i n e s s had begun t o d e t e r i o r a t e The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t the p r i v a t e school during those y e a r s . 2 10 wife was husband's financially. employed at a 2110699 The wife presented 2008 and January parties' joint evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t between 2011 $365,731 had checking account to been d e p o s i t e d pay t h a t amount a v e r a g e s t o a p p r o x i m a t e l y January into household the expenses; year. As t h e h u s b a n d p o i n t e d o u t , t h a t amount d o e s n o t r e f l e c t o n l y the parties' earnings through $121,000 p e r wages; i t includes amounts t r a n s f e r r e d to the p a r t i e s ' p e r s o n a l account from the business to personal cover account. In what a d d i t i o n , on that e-mail stated: were overdrafts on from the the wife, the husband t o l d the w i f e d u r i n g the pendency of the divorce he questioning would bankrupt a f t e r the d i v o r c e . 2010 stated 3 denied having action he from The the the business wife submitted husband to her and rebuild i t i n t o e v i d e n c e an i n which the " A f t e r [ S o l u t i o n s ] bankrupts, I w i l l s t a r t April husband Solutions The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e w i f e r o u t i n e l y c a u s e d t h e p a r t i e s ' p e r s o n a l b a n k a c c o u n t t o become o v e r d r a w n , and he t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h o s e o v e r d r a f t s e x c e e d e d $100,000 i n t h r e e years. As t h e t r i a l c o u r t n o t e d , t h e h u s b a n d was u n a b l e t o submit evidence to support t h a t c l a i m because of h i s f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h the c o u r t o r d e r r e q u i r i n g each p a r t y t o g i v e t o t h e o t h e r a l i s t o f p r o p o s e d w i t n e s s e s and e x h i b i t s . We a l s o note t h a t the w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t the husband o f t e n d i r e c t e d h e r t o w r i t e c h e c k s when i n s u f f i c i e n t f u n d s were i n t h e p a r t i e s ' a c c o u n t and t h a t , on t h o s e o c c a s i o n s , t h e h u s b a n d t o l d h e r t h a t he w o u l d " c o v e r i t . " 3 11 2110699 II a n d be b i g g e r admitted 2011 than t h a t he w r o t e e-mail encouraging Solutions ever that e-mail. the wife I am s i t t i n g The husband I n a d d i t i o n , i n a May to consider o f f e r , t h e husband s t a t e d : " P l e a s e until was." a settlement don't w a i t t o address i n a bankruptcy attorney's this o f f i c e " and " [ p ] l e a s e j u s t be done w i t h t h i s so we c a n a l l g e t on w i t h o u r lives a n d t h e h o u s e won't be i n v o l v e d w i t h t h e b a n k r u p t c y . " In addition to the business, marital assets. The p a r t i e s between $185,000 a n d $190,000. valued That m o r t g a g e i n d e b t e d n e s s o f $90,000. have a h o m e - e q u i t y l o a n b a l a n c e secured b y t h e m a r i t a l home w i t h $14,000. equity the p a r t i e s have the m a r i t a l home home a t i s subject to I n addition, the p a r t i e s o f $50,000 a n d a n o t h e r a balance of loan approximately The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t he u s e d t h e $50,000 home- loan t o meet v a r i o u s expenses of the business, n e e d e d , a n d t h a t he w o u l d be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h a t The other wife presented as debt. 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 husband had a r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t w i t h a v a l u e o f $24,154, a n d a w h o l e life insurance cash value p o l i c y w i t h a d e a t h b e n e f i t o f $115,779 a n d a o f $15,879. The p a r t i e s e a c h have a v e h i c l e a n d 12 2110699 certain personal property, the values evidence regarding The wife but of that testified neither t h a t , during party property. the p a r t i e s ' marriage, she i n h e r i t e d f r o m h e r a u n t a n d u n c l e a t o t a l o f $125,000. The w i f e husband o f t h a t account trial joint court, that t h e money income-tax the wife was t h e i n t e r e s t from t h e held reported on t h e On q u e s t i o n i n g returns. testified approximately she h a d n o t i n f o r m e d t h e i n h e r i t a n c e , although i n which parties' testified presented was by the that she h a d n o t u s e d t h e i n h e r i t a n c e f o r t h e common b e n e f i t o f t h e m a r r i a g e . stated that inheritance for she during had used some of the p a r t i e s ' marriage t h e p a r t i e s ' son i n F e b r u a r y parties separated. parties' The she separation, wife had time approximately stated that of the divorce $89,000 often had purchased that that, used the a f t e r the money from the The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a t hearing, t o use t h a t children's college educations. parties 2010, s h o r t l y b e f o r e she of the i n h e r i t a n c e she i n t e n d e d from t o purchase a tuba testified i n h e r i t a n c e t o meet h e r e x p e n s e s . that t h e money The w i f e believed remained, that a n d she money t o p a y f o r t h e The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e Prepaid 13 Affordable College Tuition 2110699 ("PACT") p l a n s the wife musician f o r each o f t h e p a r t i e s ' c h i l d r e n . testified that the p a r t i e s ' who h o p e d t o a t t e n d a m u s i c a l son is a conservatory However, talented f o r which t h e PACT p l a n w i l l p a y o n l y a p o r t i o n o f t h e t u i t i o n . As appeal court's an i n i t i a l matter, we n o t e t h a t t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d on a l l p e r t a i n t o whether t h e evidence supports the t r i a l judgment. "When a t r i a l c o u r t r e c e i v e s o r e t e n u s e v i d e n c e , i t s j u d g m e n t b a s e d on t h a t e v i d e n c e i s e n t i t l e d t o a p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s on a p p e a l a n d w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d a b s e n t a s h o w i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n o r t h a t t h e judgment i s so u n s u p p o r t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e as t o be p l a i n l y a n d p a l p a b l y w r o n g . S c h o l l v . P a r s o n s , 655 So. 2d 1060, 1062 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 5 ) . This 'presumption o f c o r r e c t n e s s i s b a s e d i n p a r t on t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s unique a b i l i t y t o observe the p a r t i e s and t h e witnesses and t o e v a l u a t e t h e i r c r e d i b i l i t y and demeanor.' L i t t l e t o n v. L i t t l e t o n , 741 So. 2d 1083, 1085 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1999) . This court i s not p e r m i t t e d t o r e w e i g h t h e e v i d e n c e on a p p e a l a n d s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r t h a t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Somers v. McCoy, 777 So. 2d 141, 142 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 0) ." S t o n e v. S t o n e , 26 So. 3d 1232, 1235-36 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) . On a p p e a l , erred i n determining husband f i r s t the t h e husband f i r s t parties' argues t h a t the t r i a l h i s child-support obligation. court The argues t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n determining incomes f o r the purpose 14 of calculating the 2110699 husband's c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n . the trial court specifically In i t s divorce stated that i t was judgment, imputing income t o e a c h o f t h e p a r t i e s . A trial unemployed court may impute or underemployed income to a voluntarily parent. "If the court finds that either parent i s v o l u n t a r i l y unemployed o r underemployed, i t s h a l l e s t i m a t e t h e income t h a t p a r e n t w o u l d o t h e r w i s e have and s h a l l i m p u t e t o t h a t p a r e n t t h a t i n c o m e ; t h e c o u r t s h a l l c a l c u l a t e c h i l d s u p p o r t b a s e d on t h a t p a r e n t ' s imputed income. I n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e amount of income t o be i m p u t e d t o a p a r e n t who is unemployed or underemployed, the court should d e t e r m i n e t h e employment p o t e n t i a l and p r o b a b l e e a r n i n g l e v e l o f t h a t p a r e n t , b a s e d on t h a t p a r e n t ' s r e c e n t work h i s t o r y , e d u c a t i o n , and o c c u p a t i o n a l qualifications, and on the prevailing job o p p o r t u n i t i e s and e a r n i n g l e v e l s i n t h e community. The c o u r t may t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t t h e p r e s e n c e o f a young o r p h y s i c a l l y o r m e n t a l l y d i s a b l e d child n e c e s s i t a t i n g t h e p a r e n t ' s n e e d t o s t a y i n t h e home and t h e r e f o r e t h e i n a b i l i t y t o work." Rule 32(B) (5), A l a . R. J u d . Admin. A determination as to whether a p a r e n t i s v o l u n t a r i l y underemployed or unemployed i s w i t h i n the d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l court. 65 So. 3d 927, 933 ( A l a . C i v . App. C l e m e n t s , 990 So. 2d 383, 394 Houten 2004). v. Van Houten, 895 B i t t i n g e r v. Byrom, 2010); ( A l a . C i v . App. So. 2d 982, 986 Clements v. 2 0 0 7 ) ; a n d Van ( A l a . C i v . App. I n i m p u t i n g income t o a p a r e n t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s n o t 15 2110699 r e q u i r e d t o make an e x p r e s s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t the p a r e n t i s v o l u n t a r i l y unemployed or underemployed. B i t t i n g e r v. Byrom, 65 So. 3d a t Both 933-34. parties submitted to the trial a f f i d a v i t s r e q u i r e d by R u l e 32, A l a . R. represented gross that she was $2,032.73 p e r the Jud. Admin. income The that her was month. The trial u n e m p l o y e d and wife l a s t employer, the p r i v a t e s c h o o l , income f r o m h e r currently court court used that figure i m p u t e income t o t h e w i f e f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f c a l c u l a t i n g support. have The imputed husband that trial a argues she during husband had the contends greater that been level the pendency of of wife earning the trial income to presented $25 the that per divorce court the hour from should Robert litigation workweek in order to determine and the the instead wife been trial court also received wife's was never paid compensated on that a amount by "barter w h i c h S m i t h had p a i d f o r h e r g r o c e r i e s . 16 testimony T h e r e was the for a gross support. indicating Smith system" Smith that m o n t h l y income f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f c a l c u l a t i n g c h i l d However, t h e The indicating c o u r t s h o u l d have i m p u t e d t h a t h o u r l y r a t e t o h e r 40-hour that child wife. evidence to and pursuant no had to evidence 2110699 regarding the value of those groceries. F u r t h e r , the wife t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e r employment w i t h S m i t h had b e e n p a r t - t i m e . The w i f e p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e t h a t w o u l d s u p p o r t a d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t she i s n o t c a p a b l e o f f u l l - t i m e employment b e c a u s e o f h e r h e a l t h and that i t i s necessary or a d v i s a b l e f o r a parent be home i n t h e a f t e r n o o n s t o s u p e r v i s e t h e p a r t i e s ' because court of the parties' i s i n the witnesses Sys., and Given Green, the h u s b a n d has 612 facts f a v o r of the t r i a l circumstances. position to assess I n c . v. 1992) . best unique to observe their credibility." So. 2d 1209, of t h i s case 1211 and c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t , we demonstrated the t h a t the trial to children "The trial demeanor of Yellow Freight (Ala. Civ. the presumption cannot App. in say t h a t the court erred i n not i m p u t i n g a g r e a t e r l e v e l o f g r o s s m o n t h l y income t o t h e w i f e for the purpose obligation. Mitchell, 69 So. Rule 32 3d 904, v. the husband's c h i l d - s u p p o r t Clements, 906-07 supra; ( A l a . C i v . App. Mitchell v. 2011); and supra. regard t h a t the t r i a l calculating Clements S t o n e v. S t o n e , With of to c h i l d support, the husband also c o u r t e r r e d i n i m p u t i n g income t o him. income a f f i d a v i t , t h e 17 husband represented argues On h i s that his 2110699 g r o s s m o n t h l y income was $4,521.49, w h i c h i s e q u i v a l e n t t o a gross annual s a l a r y of approximately judgment, husband however, trial determined and the his $54,000. court gross i m p u t e d income monthly $23,571.85, w h i c h i s e q u i v a l e n t t o a g r o s s approximately $282,800. judgment i t based i t s determination gross that The In i t s divorce trial income to the to annual s a l a r y of court stated of the in i t s husband's m o n t h l y income on t h e amount s t a t e d on t h e Form issued t o t h e h u s b a n d by determining the business the business's 2010 income be 1099 f o r the purpose of taxes. The husband c o n t e n d 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 u s i n g t h e income o f t h e business to determine calculating child On appeal, his income for the purpose of support. the wife reflected on the Form determine the husband's agrees 1099 that should income not the business have been for child-support However, t h e w i f e c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l income used to purposes. court could validly have i m p u t e d t h a t l e v e l o f income t o t h e h u s b a n d b a s e d upon a d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was m i s r e p r e s e n t i n g h i s income and t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was those of the business. commingling h i s personal The record 18 funds w i t h indicates that between 2110699 J a n u a r y 2008 and December 2010 t h e h u s b a n d d e p o s i t e d more t h a n $363,0000, parties' or approximately joint account tax to return $121,000 meet per year, household 2010 $158,166. Tax r e t u r n s f r o m e a r l i e r y e a r s d e m o n s t r a t e husband's income been income he r e c e i v e d i n In addition, as annual the expenses. husband's had reflects into gross g r e a t e r i n those The income of t h a t the years than the 2010. the w i f e notes, the evidence indicates t h a t the husband commingled h i s p e r s o n a l f i n a n c e s w i t h those of t h e b u s i n e s s and t h a t he o f t e n u s e d money f r o m t h e b u s i n e s s to pay p e r s o n a l e x p e n s e s . The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a t t h e time of the d i v o r c e h e a r i n g , the b u s i n e s s p a i d almost a l l of his expenses. h u s b a n d was bankrupt The A l s o , the r e c o r d supports a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t the attempting to minimize t h e b u s i n e s s ' s income or the b u s i n e s s d u r i n g the d i v o r c e proceedings. trial court correctly s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t h a t the from the [ b u s i n e s s ] and that i t is difficult income." In a d d i t i o n , indicates that the to the concluded that [husband] has family's determine "[t]here co-mingled was funds personal accounts, the [husband's] so actual our r e v i e w of the husband's t e s t i m o n y record f u l l y 19 supports the trial court's 2110699 determination that t h e husband "came t o [ t h e t r i a l u n p r e p a r e d a n d e v a s i v e as t o many f a c t s . " 810 So. 2d 631, 636 trial court demeanor credibility, a superior [an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ' s judgment u n l e s s as t o be clearly of observing opportunity court] cannot '[b]ecause Fann, the the witnesses' t o assess their alter trial the i t i s so u n s u p p o r t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e and p a l p a b l y wrong.'" D W W , 717 So. 2d 793, 795 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) ) ) . . . . that the t r i a l See Ex p a r t e ( A l a . 2001) ("Moreover, has t h e advantage and has 4 court] (quoting Ex parte I t i s apparent c o u r t d i s b e l i e v e d t h e husband's c l a i m t h a t h i s a c t u a l income h a d d e c r e a s e d f r o m e a r l i e r l e v e l s t o a p r o j e c t e d income i n 2011 o f o n l y $4,500 p e r month, o r $54,000 a n n u a l l y . We n o t e t h a t t h e h u s b a n d ' s e s t i m a t e , purposes, of h i s gross monthly made f o r c h i l d - s u p p o r t income as b e i n g $4,500 p e r month does n o t i n c l u d e t h e amounts t h e h u s b a n d u s e d f r o m t h e T h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r s p e c i f y i n g t h a t t h e h u s b a n d be f i n e d $100 p e r d a y i f he c o n t i n u e d t o f a i l t o respond t o d i s c o v e r y r e q u e s t s by a c e r t a i n date. L a t e r , t h e husband f a i l e d t o comply w i t h a t r i a l c o u r t o r d e r r e q u i r i n g t h e p a r t i e s t o submit t o each other a l i s t o f e x h i b i t s each p l a n n e d t o i n t r o d u c e d u r i n g t h e t r i a l of t h i s matter. Therefore, the t r i a l court sustained t h e w i f e ' s o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e h u s b a n d ' s a t t e m p t s t o have c e r t a i n documents a d m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e . The h u s b a n d h a s n o t appealed that r u l i n g . 4 20 2110699 business t o pay knowing the his personal amounts he had intended trial court's trial c o u r t was the not the the husband. monthly The record on Form concedes that incorrect, and, i s a subchapter S corporation, that form on that the wife f o r m was r e l a t e d t o income a c t u a l l y r e c e i v e d i s not the the the was amount required income supports husband's t e s t i m o n y trial evasive. the husband, that the 21 of to level the f i n d i n g , i m p l i c i t i n the t r i a l income t o testimony. the redetermining determination the income on I n so h o l d i n g , h o w e v e r , we income, the credibility, husband's husband's gross reliance a p p e a r t o be in the f o r income-tax purposes; because the business court, of with required to believe that of court's does n o t and p e r s o n a l money, t o g e t h e r conclude t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n b a s i n g determination trial However, g i v e n t h e h u s b a n d ' s h i s t o r y perception However, we issued denied expenses of commingling b u s i n e s s 1099 he his personal t o r e p a y t h o s e amounts. u s e d t o pay Although a c c o u n t s , t h e h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t he from b u s i n e s s its expenses. note t h a t the the base husband's its The trial gross child-support a d v a n c e d by court's by the husband. finding that evidence also the supports c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t o impute h u s b a n d was not truthfully 2110699 r e p r e s e n t i n g h i s income a n d / o r was v o l u n t a r i l y u n d e r e m p l o y e d . Accordingly, although f i n d i n g imputing we are reversing the trial court's a s p e c i f i c amount o f income t o t h e h u s b a n d , we a g r e e w i t h t h e w i f e a n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h a t some l e v e l o f income t h a n t h e h u s b a n d c l a i m e d greater i s t o be i m p u t e d t o t h e h u s b a n d on remand. We trial the n o t e t h a t , as p a r t o f h i s argument p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e court's husband determination also of h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t contends that the trial obligation, court erred f a i l i n g t o i n c l u d e i n i t s c a l c u l a t i o n t h e amount t h e pays f o r the f a m i l y ' s h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e concedes t h a t the b u s i n e s s in i t s entirety, business's b u t he contends t h a t , The h u s b a n d because premium he be c r e d i t e d on t h e of that The h u s b a n d has c i t e d no a u t h o r i t y argument, 28(a) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . R. App. P. in contravention of review and p r e c l u d e s Rule The h u s b a n d ' s f a i l u r e t o p r o p e r l y s u p p o r t h i s argument on a p p e a l l e a v e s t h i s c o u r t w i t h to i s the o f h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n as i f he was t h e one m a k i n g t h a t payment. support business pays the h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e " p r i m a r y e m p l o y e e , " he s h o u l d determination in coverage. in our c o n s i d e r a t i o n Jimmy Day P l u m b i n g & H e a t i n g , of the I n c . v. S m i t h , 22 nothing argument. 964 So. 2d 1, 9 2110699 (Ala. 20 0 7 ) ; see a l s o L o c k e t t v. A.L. So. 2d 889, 890 (Ala. Civ. App. 1991) ("This issues presented 588 court a d d r e s s on appeal supporting and will a u t h o r i t i e s have b e e n c i t e d t o t h e c o u r t . " ) . The only those S a n d l i n Lumber Co., f o r which husband next r a i s e s s e v e r a l i s s u e s p e r t a i n i n g t o t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i v i s i o n o f p r o p e r t y and a l i m o n y award. o f h i s a r g u m e n t s on t h e s e trial court erred As the part i s s u e s , the husband argues t h a t i n r e q u i r i n g him t o name t h e b e n e f i c i a r y on a t e r m l i f e - i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y . wife as the the In h i s b r i e f on a p p e a l , t h e h u s b a n d c i t e s t o a u t h o r i t y s u p p o r t i n g h i s argument that that Thomas, 54 the wife policy So. 3d contends is not 346 a marital asset. ( A l a . C i v . App. that a w a r d r e q u i r i n g t h a t she although be the named as 2009) . See 5 husband In Thomas v. response, contested the the b e n e f i c i a r y of the t e r m - l i f e insurance p o l i c y i n h i s postjudgment motion f i l e d i n the trial court, the husband d i d not contend to the trial c o u r t , as p a r t o f h i s a r g u m e n t p e r t a i n i n g t o t h a t award, t h a t t h e l i f e - i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y was not a m a r i t a l a s s e t . t h e w i f e a r g u e s , t h e h u s b a n d has i m p e r m i s s i b l y r a i s e d f o r the We make no d e t e r m i n a t i o n r e g a r d i n g h u s b a n d ' s argument on t h i s i s s u e . 5 23 Therefore, the merits of the 2110699 f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r t h e t e r m l i f e - i n s u r a n c e policy was a marital incident to asserted by t h e h u s b a n d agree w i t h the the asset policy has raises d i d not property divorce. the wife husband Hollander to We reviewed on appeal that a marital Accordingly, that asset issue and 888 So. 2d 1275, 1278-79 by t h e t r i a l to we that to a an argument the evidence review. ( A l a . C i v . App. t i m e on a p p e a l has n o t been p r e s e r v e d restricted that subject for appellate first considered argument we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e h u s b a n d ("It i s a x i o m a t i c is the the term l i f e - i n s u r a n c e 2004) review division t h a t i t does n o t p r e s e r v e t h e i s s u e preserve v. Nance, have to a property i n h i s postjudgment motion, constitute division. failed subject presented f o r the f o r review; and the our arguments court."). The h u s b a n d a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l court's division and a l i m o n y a w a r d were property d i v i s i o n and a l i m o n y a r e i n t e r r e l a t e d , and t h e y must on a p p e a l . inequitable. be c o n s i d e r e d together 2d 1036, 1038 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) . issues of P a r r i s h v. P a r r i s h , 617 So. Accordingly, t h e h u s b a n d ' s a r g u m e n t s on t h e s e i s s u e s 24 The property together. we consider 2110699 A trial court's determination d i v i s i o n and an a w a r d o f a l i m o n y of correctness on appeal and 2d 230 ( A l a . C i v . App. will not and an a w a r d o f a l i m o n y , s u c h as the prospects; length of earning their the be Roberts marriage; absent 802 Stone, supra; and In f a s h i o n i n g a p r o p e r t y division t h e t r i a l c o u r t must c o n s i d e r f a c t o r s health, and and source, the their stations in value, R o b i n s o n v. R o b i n s o n , 795 Civ. and i t s alimony conduct w i t h award, a t r i a l regard to the c o u r t may breakdown of the when t h e p a r t i e s a r e d i v o r c e d on t h e b a s i s o f Nichols v. Although Nichols, 824 So. a property division 2d 797 i s not 2d 729 consider the type Also, i n fashioning i t s property 2001). So. future life; and marital property. App. In wife division a party's marriage, even incompatibility. ( A l a . C i v . App. r e q u i r e d t o be 2001) . equal, i t of Id. i t s property the of (Ala. must be e q u i t a b l e i n l i g h t o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s the case. a v. R o b e r t s , c a p a c i t i e s of the p a r t i e s ; ages, property reversed 2 0 0 1 ) ; S t o n e v. P a r r i s h v. P a r r i s h , s u p r a . a i s e n t i t l e d to a presumption s h o w i n g o f p l a i n and p a l p a b l e e r r o r . So. regarding marital division, home valued 25 the at trial court approximately awarded the $190,000, 2110699 s u b j e c t t o t h e $90,000 f i r s t m o r t g a g e on t h e home. 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 t h e $50,000 h o m e - e q u i t y line o f c r e d i t s e c u r e d b y t h e m a r i t a l home a n d u s e d b y t h e h u s b a n d i n h i s b u s i n e s s , and f o r which t h e husband conceded d u r i n g t h e divorce hearing was also certain t h a t he s h o u l d be r e s p o n s i b l e . ordered t o pay a improvements $14,000 t o t h e home, loan regarding indebtedness. individual the The trial retirement t o make the p a r t i e s presented amount court obtained and t o pay t h e p a r t i e s ' unsecured c r e d i t - c a r d indebtedness; evidence The h u s b a n d of awarded account valued that no credit-card t h e husband h i s a t $41,862, an a n n u i t y v a l u e d a t $24,154, t h e b u s i n e s s , a n d t h e p r o p e r t y on w h i c h t h e business was l o c a t e d . In a d d i t i o n , the t r i a l court ordered t h e h u s b a n d t o p a y t h e w i f e $6,000 p e r month i n r e h a b i l i t a t i v e alimony for a total o f 60 months a n d "$11,325.20, w h i c h i s one-half of the cost of musical instruments purchased" f o r the parties' son. The t r i a l accounts i n her name, court which awarded included the wife an award t h e bank of the i n h e r i t a n c e she r e c e i v e d f r o m h e r a u n t a n d u n c l e . The h u s b a n d f i r s t m a i n t a i n 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 awarding the wife the i n h e r i t a n c e . 26 We n o t e that, i n their 2110699 b r i e f s submitted trial For that reason, t h e husband contends, p r o p e r t y spouse property is estate. we a d d r e s s t h e i s s u e framed by t h e p a r t i e s . As one c o u r t , b o t h p a r t i e s assume t h a t t h e c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e i n h e r i t a n c e was a p a r t o f t h e wife's separate as to this by i n h e r i t a n c e or g i f t o r money a c q u i r e d may be c o n s i d e r e d d i v i s i o n o r a l i m o n y award i f t h a t p r o p e r t y r e g u l a r l y used f o r t h e common b e n e f i t by in a o r money of the p a r t i e s . C u r r i e v . C u r r i e , 550 So. 2d 423, 425 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 9 ) . Section 3 0 - 2 - 5 1 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s : "(a) I f e i t h e r s p o u s e h a s no s e p a r a t e e s t a t e o r i f i t i s i n s u f f i c i e n t f o r the maintenance of a s p o u s e , t h e j u d g e , upon g r a n t i n g a d i v o r c e , a t h i s or h e r d i s c r e t i o n , may o r d e r t o a s p o u s e an a l l o w a n c e out o f t h e e s t a t e o f t h e other spouse, t a k i n g i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e v a l u e t h e r e o f and t h e c o n d i t i o n o f the spouse's f a m i l y . Notwithstanding the foregoing, t h e judge may not take into c o n s i d e r a t i o n any p r o p e r t y a c q u i r e d p r i o r t o t h e m a r r i a g e o f t h e p a r t i e s o r by i n h e r i t a n c e o r g i f t u n l e s s t h e judge f i n d s from t h e evidence t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y , o r income p r o d u c e d b y t h e p r o p e r t y , h a s b e e n u s e d r e g u l a r l y f o r t h e common b e n e f i t o f t h e p a r t i e s during t h e i r marriage." The husband inheritance points her asserts briefly that f o r t h e common b e n e f i t out, the wife inheritance testified shortly before 27 that the wife used her of the marriage. As he s h e u s e d t h e money the parties separated from to 2110699 p u r c h a s e a t u b a f o r t h e p a r t i e s ' s o n . On q u e s t i o n i n g f r o m t h e trial c o u r t , t h e w i f e s t a t e d t h a t s h e h a d u s e d money f r o m t h e inheritance instrument only t h e one time to purchase the musical f o r t h e p a r t i e s ' son and t h a t she had n o t o t h e r w i s e u s e d h e r i n h e r i t a n c e f o r t h e common b e n e f i t o f t h e p a r t i e s during the marriage. A o n e - t i m e o r l i m i t e d u s e o f i n h e r i t e d p r o p e r t y does n o t require that subject to a property this the property be division considered as p a r t marital property of a divorce action; c o u r t has e x p l a i n e d : "The t r i a l j u d g e i s g r a n t e d b r o a d d i s c r e t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether p r o p e r t y purchased b e f o r e t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e o r r e c e i v e d by g i f t o r i n h e r i t a n c e was u s e d ' r e g u l a r l y f o r t h e common b e n e f i t o f t h e p a r t i e s during the marriage.' See § 3 0 - 2 - 5 1 , A l a . Code 1975. Even i f t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s t h a t s u c h p r o p e r t y was r e g u l a r l y u s e d f o r t h e common b e n e f i t of the p a r t i e s during the marriage, the d e t e r m i n a t i o n whether t o i n c l u d e such p r o p e r t y i n t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s t o be d i v i d e d b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s l i e s within the d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l court." N i c h o l s v. N i c h o l s , 824 So. 2d a t 802. In t h i s money from separated. to case, the wife her inheritance testified one time that she h a d u s e d t h e before the p a r t i e s The h u s b a n d h a s n o t a s s e r t e d an argument tending i n d i c a t e o t h e r i n s t a n c e s i n w h i c h t h e i n h e r i t a n c e was u s e d 28 2110699 for t h e common b e n e f i t o f t h e m a r r i a g e . N i c h o l s v. N i c h o l s , s u p r a , t h e t r i a l to U n d e r § 30-2-51 a n d court had the d i s c r e t i o n d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e w i f e ' s l i m i t e d u s e o f t h e money f r o m h e r i n h e r i t a n c e during the marriage benefit of the p a r t i e s . " failed to demonstrate We c o n c l u d e that d i s c r e t i o n i n determining a m a r i t a l asset was n o t made f o r t h e "common that the t r i a l t h e husband has court abused i t s t h a t t h e w i f e ' s i n h e r i t a n c e was n o t subject to inclusion i n i t s division of the parties' marital property. The h u s b a n d a l s o c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n was i n e q u i t a b l e . I n t h e d i v o r c e judgment, t h e t r i a l c o u r t a w a r d e d t h e w i f e t h e m a r i t a l home, s u b j e c t t o i t s f i r s t mortgage indebtedness, approximately the wife $100,000. the expected so that asset has In a d d i t i o n , the t r i a l proceeds of a term equity of c o u r t awarded life-insurance p o l i c y , a whole l i f e - i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y w i t h a c u r r e n t v a l u e o f approximately $14,000, c e r t a i n p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , p e r month i n a l i m o n y for five years. 6 a n d $6,000 The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s no The p a r t i e s d i d n o t p r e s e n t evidence r e g a r d i n g t h e v a l u e of p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y a l l o c a t e d i n t h e d i v o r c e judgment. 6 29 2110699 accurate and v a l u a t i o n of the business the husband t e s t i f i e d t h a t he awarded t o the d i d not t h e p r o p e r t y on w h i c h t h e b u s i n e s s is clear that, u n t i l business had lifestyle. know t h e v a l u e located. 7 of However, i t the pendency of the d i v o r c e a c t i o n , the enabled Given was husband, the parties to the l a c k of evidence lead a comfortable on t h e s p e c i f i c value o f t h e b u s i n e s s , among o t h e r a s s e t s , i t i s i m p o s s i b l e f o r t h i s court to marital determine assets t h e h u s b a n d , as the total relative awarded t o each p a r t y . the valuations I t was to warrant the the burden a p p e l l a n t , to ensure t h a t the appeal contained s u f f i c i e n t evidence of record of on a r e v e r s a l on t h i s i s s u e , K i m b r o u g h v. K i m b r o u g h , 963 So. 2d 662, 665 (Ala. C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) ; G o r e e v. So. 2d 662 (Ala. C i v . App. 2 0 0 0 ) ; t h e h u s b a n d has The trial 765 n o t met 661, t h a t burden. husband a l s o contends t h a t , i n awarding alimony, court failed p a r t e Drummond, 785 may Shirley, to consider So. 2d 358, the 363 wife's conduct. ( A l a . 2000) (a t r i a l the See Ex court c o n s i d e r a p a r t y ' s conduct w i t h r e g a r d t o the breakdown of T h e h u s b a n d ' s a c c o u n t a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t a t a x document p u r p o r t i n g t o e s t a b l i s h a $340,000 v a l u a t i o n o f t h e b u s i n e s s was n o t an a c c u r a t e r e f l e c t i o n o f t h e b u s i n e s s ' s t r u e v a l u e f o r a number o f r e a s o n s . 7 30 2110699 the marriage i n fashioning a property division a w a r d , e v e n when t h e p a r t i e s a r e d i v o r c e d incompatibility). The because she r e f u s e d hearing regarding fact, committed husband f a i l s husband argues t o answer possible adultery, adultery. on t h e g r o u n d o f that questions and a l i m o n y i t is during that had, i n t o a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t he a l s o a s s e r t e d t h e F i f t h attorney e n g a g e d i n an e x t r a m a r i t a l a f f a i r . Also, the wife indicating that during t h e i r marriage. the marriage, w h e t h e r he h a d presented t h e husband had a v o l a t i l e The e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s t h a t b o t h p a r t i e s were a t f a u l t w i t h r e g a r d of final argument, t h e Amendment when a s k e d b y t h e w i f e ' s evidence the the wife In a s s e r t i n g that clear, and t h e t r i a l court's a temper determination t o t h e breakdown finding that the p a r t i e s were t o be d i v o r c e d on t h e g r o u n d o f i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y t e n d s t o i n d i c a t e t h a t i t f o u n d t h a t n e i t h e r p a r t y was more a t f a u l t than the other. As part o f h i s argument on t h e i s s u e of alimony, the h u s b a n d a l s o c o n t e n d s t h a t , e v e n a s s u m i n g t h e i n h e r i t a n c e was a part of the wife's separate be considered alimony. e s t a t e , t h a t s e p a r a t e e s t a t e may i n determining Lewis v. L e w i s , whether to award the wife 416 So. 2d 755, 758 ( A l a . C i v . App. 31 2110699 1982). Even c o n s i d e r i n g t h e v a l u e as h e r has separate d e m o n s t r a t e d on property of e s t a t e , we his court erred i n i t s The h u s b a n d b a s e s most the award of greater i n c o m e was, than t h a t opinion, determination had t o w h i c h he this of or court the the and testified. has reversed husband's gross We the on a p a r t i c u l a r f o r m ; t h i s c o u r t has court n e c e s s a r i l y w o u l d be level of income to r e v e r s i n g the t r i a l husband's the in error by husband. in court's the court's reliance fact a that trial similar we are c o u r t ' s judgment f o r a r e d e t e r m i n a t i o n gross monthly income reversal the p r o p e r t y - d i v i s i o n and the trial far that, note imputing The child-support that court be, not h e l d t h a t the his basis alimony m o n t h l y income f o r determining of his concluded that p o t e n t i a l to p u r p o s e s o f c h i l d s u p p o r t b a s e d on t h e t r i a l the the on As d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r i n t h i s o p i n i o n , t h e t r i a l husband's this alimony t h a t he l a c k s s u f f i c i e n t income t o pay a p p e a r s t o have d i s b e l i e v e d t h a t t e s t i m o n y the husband trial a l i m o n y award. argument p e r t a i n i n g t o award. inheritance are u n a b l e t o say t h a t the appeal t h a t the d i v i s i o n and contention of the w i f e ' s trial court for the purpose o b l i g a t i o n does n o t has 32 not alimony of of mandate a w a r d on made a s p e c i f i c a the finding 2110699 r e g a r d i n g t h e husband's income. a trial court division, and t h i s property those make such a T h e r e i s no r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t finding as p a r t of a property c o u r t may presume t h a t , i n f a s h i o n i n g i t s division and a l i m o n y f i n d i n g s necessary award, t o support the t r i a l court i t s judgment. made Ex p a r t e B r y o w s k y , 676 So. 2d 1322, 1324 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) . The e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e h u s b a n d ' s income f r o m h i s business h a s b e e n much g r e a t e r i n y e a r s he s t a t e d he w o u l d r e c e i v e i n 2011. i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l threatened and ended. conclusion paying In a d d i t i o n , the evidence a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e husband Thus, we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e r e c o r d that t h e husband was financially by t h e t r i a l husband f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t evidence c o n c e r n i n g whether i n bankruptcy i n i t s place after the divorce t h e a l i m o n y award f a s h i o n e d business, t h a n t h e amount with p l a c i n g the business s t a r t i n g another business proceedings a the wife supports past and, t h e r e f o r e , t h i s the t r i a l court's court award supports capable court. of The the value of the i s unable t o determine of m a r i t a l property and a l i m o n y was i n e q u i t a b l e . The spouse purpose to begin of r e h a b i l i t a t i v e o r resume alimony supporting 33 i s to allow himself or a herself. 2110699 A l r e d v. A l r e d , 89 so. 3d 786 E n z o r , 98 So. the wife has 3d 15, 21 several ( A l a . C i v . App. health ability t o work. to employment t h a t find ( A l a . C i v . App. issues I n a d d i t i o n , she supervise the parties' daughter, after school. The t h a t the husband's b u s i n e s s d i v o r c e a c t i o n was 2011). that her may wanted a v a i l a b l e to a conclusion f i l e d , t h e income f r o m t h e b u s i n e s s lifestyle. enabled I t appears from the language used i n the d i v o r c e judgment t h a t the t r i a l not b e l i e v e the husband's t e s t i m o n y income present to be evidence Therefore, of the reduced drastically. regarding property circumstances division, court of t h i s case. d i v i s i o n and cannot say the award f i n d i n g s i n the d i v o r c e of p r o p e r t y this the t h a t he The value expected h i s husband of court his failed to business. t h i s court i s unable to determine whether, i n l i g h t rehabilitative-alimony the the s u c c e s s f u l and t h a t , u n t i l t h e the p a r t i e s to enjoy a comfortable did her particularly supports v. case, restrict t o be children, evidence was In t h i s t e s t i f i e d t h a t she would a l l o w minor 2012); Enzor was trial court's inequitable 60-month under Given the f a c t s of t h i s case j u d g m e n t , and noting that a l i m o n y must be c o n s i d e r e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d has 34 the and issues together, demonstrated that 2110699 the trial alimony husband l a s t in awarding a t t o r n e y , who hearing. was a r g u e s on the wife appeal an 2d 1292 trial court first an a w a r d o f an a t t o r n e y f e e (Ala. Civ. w h e t h e r t o a w a r d an the court f o r her fee trial d i s b a r r e d d u r i n g the pendency of the d i v o r c e "This court reviews 1286, t h a t the attorney an a b u s e - o f - d i s c r e t i o n s t a n d a r d . " So. i t s p r o p e r t y - d i v i s i o n and awards. The erred court erred i n reaching M a h a f f e y v. M a h a f f e y , App. 2001). a t t o r n e y f e e and must consider on the factors In determining amount o f t h e such as 806 the fee, earning c a p a c i t i e s of the p a r t i e s , the r e s u l t s of the l i t i g a t i o n , the parties' financial of the parties. K o r n v. circumstances, Korn, 2 0 0 3 ) ; G l o v e r v. G l o v e r , 867 and the conduct So. 2d 338, 347 (Ala. Civ. App. So. 2d 174, 176 (Ala. Civ. App. 678 1996). The p o r t i o n of t h a t t h e h u s b a n d pay the final hearing an the divorce judgment t h e a t t o r n e y who attorney at issue represented f e e o f $18,160. provides the w i f e In at addition, t h e 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 pay t h e w i f e $12,250.11 35 2110699 "as r e i m b u r s e m e n t o f h e r o t h e r l e g a l e x p e n s e s , " w h i c h i n c l u d e d the $5,000 r e t a i n e r The fee the w i f e p a i d her initial h u s b a n d does n o t a r g u e on a p p e a l t h a t t h e t r i a l e r r e d i n awarding the w i f e ' s c u r r e n t counsel Rather, he argues that the s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e . award The of p a i d h e r i n i t i a l a t t o r n e y , who $5,000 and $2,466.11. that Thus, she i s due court to and, t o be redetermine i f so, With She and whether to the that, at legal least the that attorney, part the of expenses to the to the award husband's wife's she such an evidence, h u s b a n d c o n t e n d s t h a t he trial attorney fee fee. argument attorney of extent c a s e remanded f o r t h e c o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n o r d e r i n g him for not later disbarred, a retainer t h e p r o p e r amount o f t h a t regard is contends t h a t a w a r d i s n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e reversed court t h e $18,160 f e e . $12,250.12 additional i t i s clear t h a t the a t t o r n e y - f e e it was had 8 w i f e concedes t h a t t h a t award i s n o t f u l l y s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e . of attorney. fee that t o be for the trial responsible her cannot a f f o r d initial to pay We n o t e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t a l s o o r d e r e d t h a t , " [ i ] n t h e e v e n t t h a t t h e [ w i f e ] i s r e i m b u r s e d by t h e A l a b a m a S t a t e B a r A s s o c i a t i o n , the [wife] s h a l l r e t u r n these funds to the [husband]." 8 36 2110699 t h a t amount. Given our r e v e r s a l of a p o r t i o n of the a t t o r n e y - f e e award, we p r e t e r m i t discussion of t h i s issue. AFFIRMED I N PART; REVERSED I N PART; AND REMANDED. Pittman, J . , concurs. Bryan a n d Thomas, J J . , concur i n the r e s u l t , without writings. Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n part, concurs and c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t i n p a r t . 37 s p e c i a l l y i n part, 2110699 MOORE, J u d g e , part, concurring and c o n c u r r i n g i n part, concurring specially i n i n the result i n part. I c o n c u r i n a l l a s p e c t s o f t h e main o p i n i o n part pertaining t o r e h a b i l i t a t i v e alimony, concur i n the r e s u l t . fully why this Jefferson cannot Court reverse ("the t r i a l i n s o f a r as i t d i v i d e s t h e m a r i t a l In a divorce equitable proceeding bear t h e burden o f p r e s e n t i n g Civ. speculate court") court i n which both S m i t h , 682 S.W.2d 834, a trial speculative cannot i s left fail jointly 1261 ( A l a . to present largely such t o guess division. 836 (Mo. C t . App. 1 9 8 4 ) . be p u t i n e r r o r determination s e e k an e v i d e n c e as t o t h e v a l u a t i o n o f f o r making or Smith However, such a t h a t was d u e , a t l e a s t i n p a r t , t o the f a u l t of the appealing 121 I l l . App. 3 d 86, 90, 458 N.E.2d 1360, 560, parties theparties as t o t h e f a i r n e s s o f i t s p r o p e r t y v. case property. I f the parties the t r i a l court I of the i n this Edwards v . E d w a r d s , 26 So. 3 d 1254, App. 2 0 0 9 ) . evidence, as t o w h i c h t h e judgment d i s t r i b u t i o n of marital assets, those assets. that I a l s o w r i t e s p e c i a l l y t o e x p l a i n more court Circuit except party. 563 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . 38 In re Marriage of M u l l i n s , 1 3 6 3 , 76 I l l . Dec. 2110699 In t h i s that the case, the husband provided operated a owned GPS building to an option S corporation that clients. its and Some e x h i b i t s That business to equipment purchase, would the due since According the d i s c l a i m e d the husband, the net came f r o m a $50,000 l i n e o f c r e d i t s e c u r e d by once b e e n v a l u e d document i n d i c a t e d at $340,000, b u t the that the and by the not trial court providing any business business's a c c u r a c y o f t h a t document a t t h e providing information, operated at a for One to the had capital home. By expenses the business 2004. the business indicated which and that, although to i t s operating marital subchapter indicating had g e n e r a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t income o v e r t h e y e a r s , business loss a devices with m a t u r e i n 2020. court heard evidence services therapeutic corporation leased trial only direct had accountant trial. this general e v i d e n c e as to the s p e c i f i c v a l u e of the c o r p o r a t i o n , the husband e s s e n t i a l l y p l a c e d t h e b u r d e n on t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o a s c e r t a i n t h e v a l u e his business interest. The trial court g r e a t d e a l o f r e s e a r c h and d e t e r m i n e d how in a closely research, held subchapter ascertained S from the 39 could t o v a l u e an corporation scant have and, done of a interest from evidence before that i t that 2110699 the corporation probably the p a s s - t h r o u g h nature Hill had little independent value of such business (explaining credits flow its that income, individual shareholders). The 513 deductions, and S corporation trial directly considered certain personal assets continued income o f r e t a i n e d by operation should value. See In 820-21, 874 N.E.2d 916, (explaining trial the how to considered of 919, value h u s b a n d and corporation be re M a r r i a g e the Joynt, and should that vital only to i t s i n determining 375 I l l . App. 314 I l l . Dec. subchapter S 551, its 3d 554 817, (2007) corporations). The c o u r t a l s o c o u l d have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e l e a s e w i t h o p t i o n t o buy was with little 668, 673-74 assets Keff, options o r no estate, 757 So. value. (Ala. Civ. should marital merely a contingent not be but 2d 450 See App. included should a s s e t of the G r e l i e r v. 2010) be in (Ala. Civ. App. So. 3d contingent value of separately); Keff v. 2000) of (treating t h a t have m a t u r e d as m a r i t a l a s s e t s ) ; and 40 63 that computation an corporation Grelier, (holding treated to c o u r t a l s o c o u l d have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e income g e n e r a t e d f r o m t h e b u s i n e s s be See T.C.M. (CCH) losses, through a subchapter to organizations. v. C o m m i s s i o n e r o f I n t e r n a l Revenue, 100 (2010) due Dew v. only Dew, 2110699 [No. CA App. 2012) had 11-12, Feb. 8, (financial no v a l u e , 2012] experts so f a i l u r e harmless). such the burden on testified of t r i a l m a r i t a l e s t a t e was a S.W.3d trial , that (Ark. similar Ct. option court to include option However, t h e l a w does n o t courts of this state; in place the law p l a c e s the burden of p r o v i n g the v a l u a t i o n of m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y squarely on the p a r t i e s . A l t h o u g h i t a p p e a r s t o me that the not e q u i t a b l e , I agree t h a t the property d i v i s i o n probably was trial i n error for concluding court under these As for c a n n o t be put otherwise circumstances. the alimony award, although the husband "bases most o f h i s argument p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e a w a r d o f a l i m o n y on h i s contention award," t h a t he l a c k s s u f f i c i e n t income t o pay So. 3d a t , and a l t h o u g h the h u s b a n d ' s argument on the main o p i n i o n . this point I do not to provide find an the persuasive. husband c o r r e c t l y argues t h a t r e h a b i l i t a t i v e intended failed e v i d e n c e of her need f o r r e h a b i l i t a t i v e a l i m o n y , argument u n a d d r e s s e d by The trial ability the award, the husband a l s o argues t h a t the w i f e to present is alimony I agree t h a t the c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n f i n d i n g t h a t t h e h u s b a n d had t o pay the alimony support f o r a dependent spouse f o r a 41 2110699 limited period of reeducation or retraining d i v o r c e so t h a t t h e d e p e n d e n t s p o u s e may self-sufficient. See Civ. In t h i s App. 2011). master's, and a E n z o r v. E n z o r , case, doctorate a g a i n s k i l l s t o become 98 So. 3d 15, t h e w i f e has degree following that 23 (Ala. a bachelor's, qualify her a for reemployment w i t h o u t a d d i t i o n a l t r a i n i n g or r e e d u c a t i o n , which the w i f e admitted at t r i a l . The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s no evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e w i f e needs income o r t i m e t o be r e t r a i n e d or t o o t h e r w i s e However, r e e s t a b l i s h her working c r e d e n t i a l s . "'rehabilitative alimony['] ... generally c o n n o t e s an a t t e m p t t o e n c o u r a g e a d e p e n d e n t s p o u s e t o become s e l f - s u p p o r t i n g by p r o v i d i n g a l i m o n y f o r a l i m i t e d p e r i o d of t i m e d u r i n g w h i c h g a i n f u l employment can be o b t a i n e d . " v. M o l n a r , 173 this case, the t r i a l t h e w i f e has w h i c h was W.Va. 200, 202, 314 S.E.2d 73, court r e c e i v e d evidence l o n g c a r e d f o r h e r two 76 Molnar (1984) . indicating In that c h i l d r e n , the youngest of 15 a t t h e t i m e o f t h e t r i a l . The trial court could marketable labor have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t , a l t h o u g h t h e w i f e has skills, f o r t h e w i f e t o r e m a i n a t home to care i t w o u l d be r e a s o n a b l e for the children, especially considering that the y o u n g e s t c h i l d s u f f e r s f r o m p s y c h i a t r i c p r o b l e m s , and t h a t t h e 42 2110699 w i f e needs s u p p o r t and the wife r e e n t e r the The has u n t i l t h e c h i l d r e n become more i n d e p e n d e n t had opportunity t h e r e a f t e r to l a b o r market. h u s b a n d c o m p l a i n s t h a t t h e w i f e d i d n o t n e e d $360,000 in rehabilitative she a reasonable a l r e a d y has testified alimony spread out over f i v e years $86,000 s a v e d f r o m h e r i n h e r i t a n c e . that she had earmarked her funds f o r the p o s t s e c o n d a r y education remaining of the because The wife inheritance children. The p a r t i e s had p u r c h a s e d P r e p a i d A f f o r d a b l e C o l l e g e T u i t i o n p l a n s f o r t h e c h i l d r e n , b u t t h e o l d e s t c h i l d was attending extra a funding. determined providing being conservatory The that the out of trial those s t a t e , which would court funds would children postminority consumed by t h e w i f e t o m a i n t a i n over the next f i v e years. already planning Thus, t h e reasonably be support require could better have served rather on than in in her standard of trial reasonably court living c o u l d have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e w i f e had e s t a b l i s h e d a n e e d f o r t h e amount o f r e h a b i l i t a t i v e S h e w b a r t v. 2010) Shewbart, 64 So. a l i m o n y awarded. 3d 1080, 1087 See generally (Ala. Civ. App. ( e x p l a i n i n g t h a t r e c i p i e n t s p o u s e must p r o v e n e e d f o r 43 2110699 p e r i o d i c alimony and t h e t r i a l court should consider e s t a t e o f s p o u s e i n c a l c u l a t i n g amount o f 44 need). separate

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.