Ernest Kreitzberg v. Myra Kreitzberg (Appeal from Baldwin Circuit Court: DR-09-900369)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 03/01/2013 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 Reporter o f Decisions, 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 2110920 and 2111066 Ernest Kreitzberg v. Myra K r e i t z b e r g Appeals from Baldwin C i r c u i t Court (DR-09-900369 and DR-09-900369.01) THOMAS, J u d g e . These the Baldwin c o n s o l i d a t e d appeals Circuit Court a r e taken dividing E r n e s t K r e i t z b e r g ("the husband") from judgments o f the marital property of and Myra K r e i t z b e r g w i f e " ) and r e e v a l u a t i n g t h e husband's alimony ("the o b l i g a t i o n on 2110920 and 2111066 remand f r o m t h i s c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n K r e i t z b e r g v. K r e i t z b e r g , 80 So. 3d 925 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) ( a p p e a l no. 2 1 1 0 9 2 0 ) , and f i n d i n g t h e h u s b a n d t o be i n c i v i l c o n t e m p t f o r h i s f a i l u r e t o p a y t h e w i f e any amount o f a l i m o n y d u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y o f t h e appeal in Kreitzberg (appeal no. 2111066). This court s u m m a r i z e d much o f t h e p e r t i n e n t f a c t u a l and l e g a l b a c k g r o u n d in K r e i t z b e r g , 80 So. 3d a t 926-30, as f o l l o w s : " A f t e r n e a r l y 35 y e a r s o f m a r r i a g e , t h e h u s b a n d f i l e d a complaint f o r a divorce i n the t r i a l court on July 9, 2009, claiming i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y of temperament and an i r r e t r i e v a b l e b r e a k d o w n o f t h e marriage. The w i f e answered the complaint and c o u n t e r c l a i m e d f o r a d i v o r c e on September 23, 2009. In her counterclaim, the wife a l l e g e d t h a t the h u s b a n d h a d p h y s i c a l l y and e m o t i o n a l l y a b u s e d h e r d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f t h e m a r r i a g e . On M a r c h 9, 2010, t h e h u s b a n d amended h i s c o m p l a i n t f o r a d i v o r c e t o i n c l u d e an a l l e g a t i o n t h a t t h e w i f e h a d p h y s i c a l l y and e m o t i o n a l l y a b u s e d h i m d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f t h e marriage. The w i f e a n s w e r e d t h e amended c o m p l a i n t and d e n i e d t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f a b u s e . The p a r t i e s conducted discovery. "On O c t o b e r 6 and 18, 2010, t h e t r i a l court conducted a t r i a l r e g a r d i n g the husband's d i v o r c e c o m p l a i n t and t h e w i f e ' s c o u n t e r c l a i m f o r a d i v o r c e . The h u s b a n d a n d t h e w i f e were t h e o n l y w i t n e s s e s t o t e s t i f y d u r i n g t h e two-day t r i a l . "The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l t h a t he h a d r e c e i v e d an i n h e r i t a n c e f r o m b o t h h i s m o t h e r a n d h i s aunt. Specifically, he testified that he had i n h e r i t e d 2,484 s h a r e s o f E x x o n M o b i l Corporation s t o c k f r o m h i s m o t h e r a f t e r h e r d e a t h on J a n u a r y 30, 1997. He s t a t e d t h a t t h o s e s h a r e s o f s t o c k h a d b e e n 2 2110920 and 2111066 transferred into h i s name alone. He further t e s t i f i e d t h a t a p r o g r a m c a l l e d 'Computer S h a r e ' manages t h e s t o c k a n d t h a t t h a t p r o g r a m c o n t i n u a l l y reinvests any dividend income that the stock p r o d u c e s . He s t a t e d t h a t t h e w i f e ' s name was n e v e r on h i s s t o c k a c c o u n t w i t h E x x o n M o b i l . "In a d d i t i o n to the ExxonMobil stock, the h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d i n h e r i t e d $99,712 i n c a s h f r o m h i s m o t h e r . He s t a t e d t h a t , upon r e c e i p t o f t h e c a s h , he i m m e d i a t e l y h a d t a k e n t h e money t o t h e bank, h a d s e n t $8,000 o f t h e money t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s T r e a s u r y t o p a y t a x e s on t h e i n h e r i t a n c e and had p l a c e d t h e r e m a i n i n g $91,712 i n t o a c e r t i f i c a t e of deposit ('CD'). He testified that he had p u r c h a s e d t h a t CD a t t h e S t a t e Bank o f C o u n t r y s i d e i n C o u n t r y s i d e , I l l i n o i s . He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e CD h a d b e e n p l a c e d i n h i s name o n l y . The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d c o n t i n u a l l y r e i n v e s t e d t h e money i n t h e CD, a l o n g w i t h any i n v e s t m e n t income f r o m t h e CD, i n t h e f o r m o f a CD u n t i l 2005. He t e s t i f i e d t h a t i n 2005 he h a d moved t h e CD f r o m t h e State Bank of Countryside to AmSouth Bank ('AmSouth') i n F a i r h o p e and t h a t t h e CD h a d r e m a i n e d i n t h e f o r m o f a CD w i t h AmSouth f r o m 2005 u n t i l 2008. The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e CD a t AmSouth was p l a c e d i n h i s name a l o n e and t h a t a l l t h e i n t e r e s t t h e CD a c c r u e d was i m m e d i a t e l y r e i n v e s t e d . "The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t i n 2008 he h a d w i t h d r a w n a l l t h e money i n t h e CD, w h i c h h a d grown t o $ 1 3 3 , 3 1 2 . 2 5 , and h a d p u r c h a s e d E x x o n M o b i l s t o c k w i t h i t . He a l s o s t a t e d t h a t any d i v i d e n d income d e r i v e d f r o m t h e s t o c k was i m m e d i a t e l y r e i n v e s t e d . " O t h e r t h a n t h e s t o c k s and c a s h , 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 h a d i n h e r i t e d $23,000 i n U n i t e d S t a t e s s a v i n g s b o n d s f r o m h i s m o t h e r . He s t a t e d t h a t t h a t money was h e l d i n t h e f o r m o f savings b o n d s i n h i s name u n t i l 2005, when he redeemed t h e s a v i n g s b o n d s a t AmSouth. The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a f t e r he redeemed t h e s a v i n g s b o n d s , 3 2110920 a n d 2111066 he p l a c e d t h e money i n t o a money-market a c c o u n t h e l d j o i n t l y i n h i s a n d t h e w i f e ' s names. He s t a t e d t h a t he h a d p l a c e d t h e money i n t h e j o i n t money-market a c c o u n t i n o r d e r t o p a y t a x e s on t h e i n v e s t m e n t income h i s i n h e r i t e d money a n d s t o c k s h a d g e n e r a t e d because the couple f i l e d j o i n t t a x r e t u r n s . "The husband a l s o testified that he h a d i n h e r i t e d a s s e t s f r o m h i s a u n t . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d d i e d i n 2008, t h a t he h a d i n h e r i t e d a t o t a l o f $87,000 f r o m h e r e s t a t e , a n d t h a t he h a d r e c e i v e d t h e money i n two s e p a r a t e p a y m e n t s -- $60,000 as an i n i t i a l payment a n d a n o t h e r $27,000 as t h e f i n a l payment. The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d d e p o s i t e d t h e $60,000 i n an a c c o u n t he h a d o p e n e d i n h i s name a t R o y a l Bank o f Canada ('RBC'). He t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a f t e r h a v i n g p l a c e d t h e money i n t h e RBC a c c o u n t , he i m m e d i a t e l y w r o t e a c h e c k f o r t h e e n t i r e $60,000 t o E x x o n M o b i l t o p u r c h a s e 827 s h a r e s o f s t o c k . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t a l l d i v i d e n d income d e r i v e d from t h a t s t o c k was a u t o m a t i c a l l y r e i n v e s t e d . "The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d r e c e i v e d t h e f i n a l payment o f $27,000 i n O c t o b e r 2009. He s t a t e d t h a t he h a d p l a c e d t h a t money i n a p e r s o n a l c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t a t RBC i n h i s name a n d t h a t he h a d t h e n t r a n s f e r r e d t h a t money t o E x x o n M o b i l t o p u r c h a s e a d d i t i o n a l s h a r e s o f s t o c k . He f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t all the dividend income f r o m that stock was a u t o m a t i c a l l y r e i n v e s t e d . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d n e v e r s o l d any o f h i s E x x o n M o b i l s t o c k o r w i t h d r a w n any money f r o m h i s s t o c k a c c o u n t w i t h E x x o n M o b i l . "The h u s b a n d a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e d i v i d e n d income f r o m t h e E x x o n M o b i l s t o c k was l i s t e d on t h e p a r t i e s ' j o i n t t a x r e t u r n s . He s t a t e d t h a t i n some y e a r s t h e p a r t i e s h a d a t a x l i a b i l i t y upon w h i c h t h e y p a i d t a x e s t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s g o v e r n m e n t . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e t o t a l amount o f t a x e s t h e p a r t i e s had p a i d on t h e E x x o n M o b i l d i v i d e n d s was $8,560 a n d t h a t t h e t o t a l taxes they had p a i d a f t e r redeeming t h e s a v i n g s bonds was $10,980. He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d 4 2110920 and 2111066 t h a t t h e t o t a l t a x e s t h e p a r t i e s had p a i d f r o m 1997 u n t i l 2009 on any income d e r i v e d f r o m i n h e r i t e d a s s e t s was $32,253. "He t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e a s s e t s o f t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e i n c l u d e d a 2003 S a t u r n a u t o m o b i l e , a s c o o t e r , a r o w b o a t w i t h a m o t o r w o r t h a p p r o x i m a t e l y $1,000, a 1978 Catalina sailboat worth approximately $2,000-$3,000, and items of p e r s o n a l property. A d d i t i o n a l l y , he t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s owned t h e i r home i n F a i r h o p e and t h a t i t d i d n o t have an o u t s t a n d i n g m o r t g a g e on i t . He o p i n e d t h a t t h e v a l u e o f t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e was $225,000. He stated that he had come to the $225,000 value by c o n s i d e r i n g a l a r g e number o f c o m p a r a b l e homes t h a t had b e e n s o l d i n t h e p a r t i e s ' n e i g h b o r h o o d . "The 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 an i n d i v i d u a l r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t ('IRA') w i t h a b a l a n c e o f a r o u n d $36,000 a t RBC and t h a t t h e w i f e a l s o had her own IRA and t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had a joint money-market a c c o u n t c o n t a i n i n g $210,000. He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had a j o i n t checking a c c o u n t w i t h a b a l a n c e o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y $1,300. He s t a t e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s l i v e d o f f o f t h e money i n t h e j o i n t c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e j o i n t checking a c c o u n t i s f u n d e d by h i s S o c i a l S e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s and h i s two r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , he s t a t e d t h a t he has a p e n s i o n w i t h JI Chase Company from which he receives a p p r o x i m a t e l y $363 p e r month and a p e n s i o n w i t h A l l i s C h a l m e r s M a n u f a c t u r i n g Company f r o m w h i c h he r e c e i v e s a p p r o x i m a t e l y $580 p e r month. A d d i t i o n a l l y , he s t a t e d t h a t h i s S o c i a l S e c u r i t y c h e c k o f $1,678 p e r month i s a l s o d e p o s i t e d i n t o t h e a c c o u n t , w h i l e the w i f e ' s S o c i a l S e c u r i t y check of a p p r o x i m a t e l y $598 i s d e p o s i t e d i n t o h e r own separate checking account. "The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had w i t h d r a w n a t o t a l o f $16,000 f r o m t h e p a r t i e s ' j o i n t checking a c c o u n t t o pay h i s a t t o r n e y s t h r o u g h o u t t h e d i v o r c e 5 2110920 and 2111066 a c t i o n . He s t a t e d t h a t he d i d n o t e x p e c t t h e w i f e t o pay f o r h i s a t t o r n e y f e e s b u t t h a t he f e l t the p a r t i e s s h o u l d s p l i t the c o s t of the a t t o r n e y fees i n t h e d i v o r c e a c t i o n . He a l s o a s k e d t h e c o u r t t o a w a r d e a c h p a r t y 50% o f t h e money-market a c c o u n t c o n t a i n i n g $210,000. A d d i t i o n a l l y , he s t a t e d t h a t he w o u l d l i k e t h e c o u r t t o a w a r d e a c h p a r t y 50% o f t h e p a r t i e s ' monthly j o i n t income, which c o m p r i s e s h i s J I Chase p e n s i o n , h i s A l l i s C h a l m e r s p e n s i o n , h i s Social Security check, and the wife's Social S e c u r i t y check. T h i s d i v i s i o n would p r o v i d e each p a r t y w i t h r o u g h l y $1,600 p e r month. He a l s o s t a t e d t h a t he d i d n o t m i n d i f t h e w i f e was a w a r d e d t h e 2003 S a t u r n a u t o m o b i l e b u t t h a t he w o u l d l i k e t h e p a r t i e s ' C a t a l i n a s a i l b o a t , t h e s c o o t e r , and the rowboat. "The husband testified that he had never c o m m i t t e d any a c t o f d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e a g a i n s t t h e wife. However, he testified t h a t the wife had c o m m i t t e d a c t s o f d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e a g a i n s t h i m on two s e p a r a t e o c c a s i o n s . He s t a t e d t h a t t h e w i f e had thrown a p l a t e t h a t s t r u c k h i s head, c a u s i n g the p o l i c e t o be c a l l e d , t h a t r e s u l t e d i n t h e wife's b e i n g a r r e s t e d f o r d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e on J u l y 4, 2009. He a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e w i f e had s t r u c k him i n t h e eye w h i l e he was d r i v i n g . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t n o t i f y t h e p o l i c e o f t h i s i n c i d e n t b u t t h a t he d i d go t o t h e h o s p i t a l t o s e e k m e d i c a l a t t e n t i o n as a r e s u l t o f t h e i n c i d e n t . He stated t h a t t h e w i f e had c a l l e d t h e p o l i c e r e g a r d i n g the p a r t i e s ' d i s a g r e e m e n t s , b u t , he s a i d , he had n e v e r been a r r e s t e d . "The husband testified that the wife's r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h h e r d a u g h t e r , M i c h e l l e K a i n z , and Kainz's grandchild had created problems i n the m a r r i a g e . He o p i n e d t h a t K a i n z does n o t l i k e him and t h a t she p l o t s a g a i n s t him. He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d allow the wife to have private telephone c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h K a i n z , b u t t h a t he had t o l d t h e wife t h a t he preferred t o be involved in any 6 2110920 and 2111066 t e l e p h o n e c o n v e r s a t i o n s she had. He a l s o s t a t e d t h a t he was n o t t r y i n g t o c o n t r o l t h e w i f e . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had r e q u e s t e d t h a t K a i n z s t o p s e n d i n g t h e w i f e p i c t u r e s of K a i n z ' s granddaughter because the p i c t u r e s upset the w i f e because they reminded her t h a t she was not a b l e t o v i s i t the c h i l d . The husband a l s o testified that he d i d not shout o b s c e n i t i e s a t t h e w i f e o r c a l l h e r names. "The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e had d e t e r i o r a t e d o v e r t h e y e a r s . She t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had s e r i o u s m a r i t a l p r o b l e m s , i n c l u d i n g v e r b a l a b u s e , e m o t i o n a l a b u s e , and p h y s i c a l a b u s e . The w i f e s t a t e d t h a t t h o s e p r o b l e m s had s t a r t e d i n t h e 1980s b u t had g o t t e n much more s e v e r e a f t e r t h e h u s b a n d r e t i r e d b e c a u s e t h e p a r t i e s s p e n t more t i m e t o g e t h e r . She t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had f i l e d f o r a d i v o r c e i n t h e m i d - 1 9 8 0 s b e c a u s e o f an i n c i d e n t i n w h i c h t h e h u s b a n d had c o r n e r e d h e r and t h r e a t e n e d t o kill her. She testified that the husband had t h r e a t e n e d t o k i l l h e r s e v e r a l o t h e r t i m e s , b u t , she s a i d , he d i d n o t t h r e a t e n t o k i l l h e r e v e r y t i m e t h e y had a d i s p u t e . She t e s t i f i e d t h a t he w o u l d t a l k t o h e r i n a d e m e a n i n g way and t h a t he had threatened to burn down t h e parties' home. She further t e s t i f i e d t h a t the husband would throw o b j e c t s at h e r . S p e c i f i c a l l y , she t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had t h r o w n a wooden s t o o l , p a i n t s , and a dog b o w l f u l l of w a t e r , w h i c h had h i t h e r i n t h e b a c k o f t h e h e a d . She a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d had h i t h e r w i t h a m a g a z i n e and a remote c o n t r o l . She t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had s p i t i n h e r f a c e . She a l s o s t a t e d t h a t he had a b u s e d h e r a p p r o x i m a t e l y once a month f r o m t h e y e a r 2000 u n t i l t h e p r e s e n t . "The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had t h r o w n a p l a t e a t t h e h u s b a n d on J u l y 4, 2009, and t h a t she had b e e n a r r e s t e d on a c h a r g e o f d o m e s t i c violence r e g a r d i n g t h a t i n c i d e n t . She s t a t e d t h a t t h e c h a r g e s had b e e n d r o p p e d and t h a t she had t h r o w n t h e p l a t e i n response t o the husband's c o n s t a n t emotional 7 2110920 and 2111066 a b u s e . The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h e h u s b a n d i n t h e eye. t h a t she had never struck "The wife testified that the husband had 11,626.992 s h a r e s o f E x x o n M o b i l s t o c k w i t h a v a l u e of approximately $758,000. She t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had p a i d t a x e s on t h e s t o c k f r o m t h e i r j o i n t money-market a c c o u n t . However, she t e s t i f i e d t h a t the husband had placed only $23,000 of his inheritance i n the parties' joint money-market a c c o u n t and t h a t he had k e p t t h e r e s t o f t h e money and a s s e t s he had i n h e r i t e d s e p a r a t e . She stated t h a t , o t h e r t h a n t h e $23,000 d e p o s i t e d i n t o t h e joint money-market account, the husband's i n h e r i t a n c e had n e v e r b e e n 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 . "The wife t e s t i f i e d t h a t the value of the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e was $247,000. She s t a t e d t h a t she d i d n o t c a r e t o keep t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e b u t t h a t she w o u l d l i k e 50% o f t h e p a r t i e s ' e q u i t y i n t h e h o u s e . She a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t she w a n t e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o o r d e r t h a t t h e p a r t i e s ' IRA a c c o u n t s be e q u a l i z e d b e c a u s e h e r IRA c o n t a i n e d a b o u t $31,000 w h i l e t h e h u s b a n d ' s IRA c o n t a i n e d a b o u t $35,000. She a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t she w a n t e d h e r p e r s o n a l c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t , w i t h a v a l u e o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y $2,000, t o be awarded e n t i r e l y t o her. "In regard t o a d d i t i o n a l income, the wife testified that she had considered her monthly e x p e n s e s f o l l o w i n g t h e d i v o r c e . She t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e r m o n t h l y l i v i n g e x p e n s e s w o u l d be $2,845.74, w h i c h i n c l u d e d t h e c o s t o f p a y i n g r e n t b e c a u s e she was n o t a s k i n g f o r t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e . The w i f e d i d not d i s p u t e the husband's t e s t i m o n y regarding t h e p a r t i e s ' m o n t h l y i n c o m e , and she t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s ' m o n t h l y income i n c l u d e d a b o u t $300 f r o m t h e h u s b a n d ' s J I Chase p e n s i o n , a b o u t $500 f r o m t h e Allis Chalmers pension, about $1,600 f r o m the h u s b a n d ' s S o c i a l S e c u r i t y c h e c k , and a b o u t $600 f r o m h e r S o c i a l S e c u r i t y c h e c k . She t e s t i f i e d t h a t she 8 2110920 and 2111066 would l i k e the t r i a l c o u r t to s p l i t the p a r t i e s ' m o n t h l y income e v e n l y b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s , w h i c h w o u l d g i v e h e r a p p r o x i m a t e l y $1,600 p e r month. She f u r t h e r a s k e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o a w a r d h e r $1,500 i n monthly alimony i n order t o p r o v i d e her w i t h the a d d i t i o n a l money she w o u l d n e e d i n o r d e r t o pay f o r a l l of her expenses f o l l o w i n g the d i v o r c e . "The w i f e f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had had s e r i o u s h e a l t h i s s u e s throughout the marriage. She had had o p e n - h e a r t s u r g e r y i n 2005 and i n 2006. The w i f e a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had had a s t r o k e i n 2006 and t h a t she had had a p l a t e p l a c e d i n h e r f o o t i n 2008. She f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d h a d a hip r e p l a c e m e n t i n 2007 and t h a t she w i l l most l i k e l y r e q u i r e a n o t h e r s u r g e r y on h e r f o o t i n t h e future. " A f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g the ore tenus t e s t i m o n y and the trial exhibits, the trial court entered a j u d g m e n t on November 19, 2010, d i v o r c i n g t h e p a r t i e s on t h e g r o u n d s o f i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y and p h y s i c a l and emotional abuse by t h e h u s b a n d . P u r s u a n t t o i t s November 19, 2010, j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t o r d e r e d t h e d i v i s i o n o f t h e m a r t i a l a s s e t s as f o l l o w s : (1) t h e h u s b a n d was a w a r d e d 100% of the ExxonMobil stock; (2) t h e h u s b a n d was awarded the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e , w h i c h t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o u n d t o have a f a i r m a r k e t v a l u e o f $247, 000; (3) t h e w i f e was a w a r d e d 65% o f t h e e q u i t y i n t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e , and, a c c o r d i n g l y , t h e h u s b a n d was o r d e r e d t o pay t h e was w i f e $160,550; (4) t h e w i f e was a w a r d e d 50% o f t h e of the v a l u e o f t h e p a r t i e s ' j o i n t c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t p l us an a d d i t i o n a l $8,000 as r e i m b u r s e m e n t f o r t h e $16,000 t h e h u s b a n d had w i t h d r a w n f r o m t h e j o i n t a c c o u n t ; (5) t h e w i f e was a w a r d e d t h e 2003 S a t u r n automobile; (6) t h e h u s b a n d was a w a r d e d t h e p a r t i e s ' C a t a l i n a s a i l b o a t , t h e s c o o t e r , t h e r o w b o a t , and a t r a i l e r ; (7) t h e w i f e was a w a r d e d 50% o f t h e p a r t i e s ' j o i n t money-market a c c o u n t , p l u s an a d d i t i o n a l $5,000 as r e i m b u r s e m e n t f o r $10,000 t h e h u s b a n d had w i t h d r a w n f r o m t h e money-market a c c o u n t d u r i n g t r i a l ; (8) t h e 9 2110920 and 2111066 h u s b a n d was o r d e r e d t o p a y t h e w i f e $757.69 i n o r d e r t o e q u a l i z e t h e p a r t i e s ' IRA a c c o u n t s ; (9) t h e w i f e was a w a r d e d p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y i n t h e amount o f $2,500 p e r month; (10) t h e h u s b a n d was o r d e r e d t o p a y t h e w i f e ' s a t t o r n e y f e e s i n t h e amount o f $14,625; and (11) t h e p a r t i e s were a w a r d e d s p e c i f i c i t e m s o f personal property. "On December 20, 2010, t h e h u s b a n d f i l e d timely notice of appeal. The wife filed c r o s s - a p p e a l on December 30, 2010." (Footnote omitted.) I n K r e i t z b e r g , we c o n c l u d e d of $2,500 excessive income per month in light was $2,621 that the t r i a l in periodic of the and fact that alimony that reverse[d] the t r i a l court's to the d i v i s i o n of m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y , monthly was Thus, "we award because A l a . Code " b e c a u s e an a w a r d o f a l i m o n y must be c o n s i d e r e d was income I d . a t 934. periodic-alimony award the wife a l l of h i s monthly award v i o l a t e [ d ] § 3 0 - 2 - 5 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) , " 678 So. 2d 118, 120 court's the husband's d e r i v e d from h i s r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s . the a a 1975, together and with see A l b e r t s o n v. A l b e r t s o n , ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 5 ) , we a l s o reverse[d] t h e j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as i t d i v i d e d t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y , " and we the " i n s t r u c t e d [the t r i a l alimony award appropriate and in light the court, property on division of the p a r t i e s ' 10 remand,] to adjust as retirement i t considers i n c o m e s and 2110920 and the fact 2111066 that husband's the ExxonMobil separate K r e i t z b e r g was estate." This September requesting result of this opinion 2011, the regarding court's a m o t i o n f o r an a c c o u n t i n g during trial husband No. 2110920) filed a motion t h e i s s u e s t o be a d d r e s s e d as reversal of the trial court's of the p a r t i e s ' filed funds, alleging h a d removed moneys f r o m t h e p a r t i e s ' accounts the pendency of the appeal. On March 1, 2012, the c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t on remand d i v i d i n g t h e p a r t i e s ' marital property obligation provisions and r e c a l c u l a t i n g the i n accordance with Kreitzberg. The of judgment the this on November court's remand 19, husband's indicated 2010, court awarded the wife a l i m o n y and a w a r d e d t h e w i f e settlement. $1,310.50 that a l l judgment were that the i n monthly p e r i o d i c an a d d i t i o n a l $84,000 On M a r c h 7, 2012, t h e h u s b a n d f i l e d 11 alimony instructions in i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h a t judgment, w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n trial in court November 19, 2010, j u d g m e n t ; t h a t same d a y t h e h u s b a n d that the wife the o f j u d g m e n t on September 21, 2011. 22, a hearing of asset court's The P r o p e r t y - D i v i s i o n A p p e a l ( A p p e a l On a Id. i s an r e l e a s e d on September 2, 2011, and t h i s issued a c e r t i f i c a t e I. stock property a motion t o 2110920 and 2111066 a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t ; t h a t same day t h e h u s b a n d f i l e d an amended p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . 14, 2012, the trial husband's motion court denied the f o r an March entered accounting; an order denying t h a t same day husband's postjudgment motion postjudgment motion. court's court 1, The 2012, to this the and husband t i m e l y appealed judgment On court on May the trial amended the trial June 19, 2012. In court this erred awarding trial the appeal, the in dividing wife alimony husband the contends parties' on that marital remand b e c a u s e , court's property d i v i s i o n the trial property and he the i s i n e q u i t a b l e and says, the trial court improperly considered h i s separate estate i n f a s h i o n i n g i t s p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n and a w a r d o f a l i m o n y . argues that indicate the "determining division" his and separate comments trial both contained court the considered amount t h a t he w o u l d be e s t a t e t o pay in of the Specifically, record h i s separate alimony and the on he appeal estate in property forced to l i q u i d a t e assets of t h e amounts a w a r d e d t o t h e w i f e . "Our s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w r e g a r d i n g a p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n and an a w a r d o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y i s w e l l settled. 12 2110920 and 2111066 "'When t h e t r i a l c o u r t f a s h i o n s a p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n f o l l o w i n g the p r e s e n t a t i o n of ore t e n u s e v i d e n c e , i t s j u d g m e n t as t o t h a t e v i d e n c e i s p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t on a p p e a l and 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 the t r i a l c o u r t exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n or t h a t i t s d e c i s i o n i s p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y w r o n g . R o b e r t s v. R o b e r t s , 802 So. 2d 230, 235 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2001); P a r r i s h v. P a r r i s h , 617 So. 2d 1036, 1038 (Ala. Civ. App. 1 9 9 3 ) ; and H a l l v. Mazzone , 486 So. 2d 408, 410 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . A p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n i s r e q u i r e d t o be e q u i t a b l e , n o t e q u a l , and a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f what i s e q u i t a b l e r e s t s w i t h i n the broad d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t . P a r r i s h , 617 So. 2d a t 1038.' " S t o n e v. S t o n e , App. 2 0 0 9 ) . 26 So. 3d 1232, 1236 (Ala. Civ. "'The i s s u e s of p r o p e r t y division 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 be considered together. Albertson v. A l b e r t s o n , 678 So. 2d 118 ( A l a . C i v . App. 199[5]). A property division is not r e q u i r e d t o be equal, but i t must be e q u i t a b l e . G o l d e n v. G o l d e n , 681 So. 2d 605 (Ala. C i v . App. 1996) . I n f a s h i o n i n g a p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n and an a w a r d o f a l i m o n y , 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 s u c h as t h e e a r n i n g c a p a c i t i e s o f t h e p a r t i e s ; their future prospects; t h e i r ages and health; the length of the parties' m a r r i a g e ; and t h e s o u r c e , v a l u e , and t y p e o f m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y . R o b i n s o n v. R o b i n s o n , [795 So. 2d 729 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2001)]; L u t z v. L u t z , 485 So. 2d 1174 (Ala. Civ. App. 1 9 8 6 ) . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t may also consider the conduct of the p a r t i e s w i t h r e g a r d t o the breakdown of the m a r r i a g e .... Ex p a r t e Drummond, 785 So. 2d 358 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ; M y r i c k v. M y r i c k , 714 So. 13 2110920 and 2111066 2d 311 ( A l a . C i v . App. supra.' " P a t e v. 2002). " Spuhl v. Pate, Spuhl, , 849 [Ms. So. remand. 976 in (Ala. Civ. 11, App. 2013], So. dividing the trial parties' court exceeded i t s marital property S p e c i f i c a l l y , he a s s e r t s t h a t t h e a d d i t i o n a l renders b e c a u s e , he he separate says, estate $1,310.50 the p r o p e r t y w o u l d have t o to pay the tenus liquidate additional evidence property consisted of personal property, a with a 2003 indicated assets $84,000 We that the the Saturn a automobile, his and the marital parties' scooter, C a t a l i n a s a i l b o a t worth approximately $2,000-$3,000, a joint money-market a c c o u n t w i t h a value of $210,000, joint checking balance of approximately a 14 $1,000, a 1978 with approximately of disagree. m a r i t a l residence, worth $84,000 a account motor the on division inequitable m o n t h l y p e r i o d i c - a l i m o n y award. ore 3d 2013). award t o the w i f e rowboat 972, husband contends t h a t the discretion The 2d 2111096, J a n u a r y ( A l a . C i v . App. The 1 9 9 8 ) ; L u t z v. L u t z , and a $1,300. 2110920 and Moreover, 2111066 each p a r t y ("IRA") v a l u e d In this had an individual at approximately case, the $36,000. husband was retirement account 1 awarded h i s IRA, the s c o o t e r , t h e r o w b o a t , t h e 1978 C a t a l i n a s a i l b o a t , h a l f o f t h e f u n d s i n t h e p a r t i e s ' j o i n t money-market account, h a l f of the funds i n t h e p a r t i e s ' j o i n t - c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t , and t h e m a r i t a l residence. parties' regarding B a s e d on t h e t e s t i m o n y marital property the value and regarding the value of the the trial court's of the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e , r e c e i v e d a n e t award o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y $392, 650. 3 2 findings the husband The w i f e was a w a r d e d $160,550, as h e r p o r t i o n o f t h e e q u i t y i n t h e m a r i t a l residence, Saturn her IRA, automobile, money-market the $84,000 property h a l f of the funds award, the i n the p a r t i e s ' 2003 joint a c c o u n t , and h a l f o f t h e f u n d s i n t h e p a r t i e s ' We note t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t ' s November 19, 2010, j u d g m e n 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 w i f e $757.69 i n o r d e r to e q u a l i z e the p a r t i e s ' r e t i r e m e n t accounts. This p r o v i s i o n was i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e M a r c h 1, 2012, j u d g m e n t , and, t h u s , t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t b o t h t h e h u s b a n d and t h e w i f e h a d r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t s w i t h an a p p r o x i m a t e v a l u e o f $36,000. 1 T h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s November 19, 2010, j u d g m e n t c o n t a i n e d a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e h a d a v a l u e o f $247,000. The t r i a l c o u r t ' s M a r c h 1, 2012, j u d g m e n t i n c o r p o r a t e d t h i s finding. 2 T h i s amount d o e s n o t i n c l u d e t h e h u s b a n d ' s estate valued at approximately $1,000,000. 3 15 separate 2110920 and 2111066 joint-checking account. Therefore, 4 the w i f e award of a p p r o x i m a t e l y $386,000. division i n e q u i t a b l e on i s not w h o l l y A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e h u s b a n d was marital residence, collateral award to separate liquid to which secure the wife, estate. assets, a he without The such Accordingly, to again composed h i s residence. either having the to sell or as half of the having estate Moreover, the to or liquidate trial funds use any resort to court as in the of to the sell parties' assets the reduced the his several c o u l d have p a i d t h e having the a d d i t i o n a l $84,000 husband's award a l s o c o n t a i n e d without separate property i t s face. pay money-market a c c o u n t , f r o m w h i c h he $84,000, the net a w a r d e d a s s e t s , s u c h as could loan received a wife that marital husband's a l i m o n y a w a r d as i n s t r u c t e d by t h i s c o u r t i n K r e i t z b e r g , w h i c h l e f t t h e h u s b a n d w i t h a m o n t h l y income o f $1,310.50 f r o m w h i c h to pay h i s monthly expenses. husband's c o n t e n t i o n Thus, we t h a t the p r o p e r t y cannot agree w i t h division contained the in A s t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s November 19, 2010, j u d g m e n t n o t e s , i t a w a r d e d t h e w i f e a d d i t i o n a l sums as c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r h e r h a l f o f moneys t h a t t h e h u s b a n d h a d removed f r o m t h e p a r t i e s ' j o i n t accounts. Those sums a r e n o t c o n t a i n e d i n t h e t o t a l b e c a u s e b o t h t h e h u s b a n d and t h e w i f e r e c e i v e d e q u a l amounts o f t h o s e moneys. 4 16 2110920 and 2111066 t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s M a r c h 1, 2012, to judgment r e q u i r e d the husband l i q u i d a t e a s s e t s of h i s separate estate. M o r e o v e r , b a s e d on t h e o r e t e n u s t e s t i m o n y trial c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was breakdown of the abuse of the m a r r i a g e due wife. The the at f a u l t t o h i s p h y s i c a l and testimony also and retirement. presented that the emotional the had each Accordingly, regarding for indicated that from s e r i o u s h e a l t h i s s u e s i n the divorce, the f o r o v e r 30 y e a r s , t h a t t h e w i f e p a r t i e s had b e e n m a r r i e d suffered presented, the party based had on factors the the years reached ore proceeding the tenus trial age of evidence court was to c o n s i d e r i n d i v i d i n g t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y , see G o l d e n v. Golden, 681 So. w i t h the testimony h u s b a n d ' s and the trial 2d 605, 608 i n d i c a t i n g the the w i f e ' s net court ( A l a . C i v . App. exceeded 1996), r e l a t i v e value a w a r d s , we of b o t h cannot conclude i t s discretion in along the that dividing the parties' m a r i t a l property. Next, the husband argues t h a t the trial court erred r e v e r s a l i n f a s h i o n i n g i t s p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n b e c a u s e , he the record considered indicates the that husband's the separate 17 trial court estate. The to says, impermissibly trial court 2110920 and 2111066 d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d ' s E x x o n M o b i l s t o c k and any o f h i s i n h e r i t a n c e was p a r t o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s s e p a r a t e to § 30-2-51(a), A l a . Code 1975, i n both estate pursuant i t s November 2010, j u d g m e n t and i t s M a r c h 1, 2012, j u d g m e n t . trial Moreover, the c o u r t s t a t e d on t h e r e c o r d t h a t i t d i d n o t c o n s i d e r husband's separate estate as an asset that 19, i t was able the to award t o t h e w i f e b u t , i n s t e a d , t h a t i t b a l a n c e d t h e e q u i t i e s between reversal the p a r t i e s of Specifically, on remand i t s original the t r i a l as a r e s u l t o f t h i s award court of alimony to the court's wife. stated: "While I u n d e r s t a n d t h a t [the husband]'s Exxon s t o c k i s c o m p l e t e l y owned by h i m and I c a n ' t t a k e t h a t i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n a t a l l i n t h e a w a r d and I am n o t and I have n o t , t h e f a c t t h a t t h a t may be t h e o n l y way he c a n p a y [ t h e w i f e ] b e c a u s e he e i t h e r d o e s n ' t want t o s e l l t h e h o u s e o r w h a t e v e r r e a s o n , t o me i s i r r e l e v a n t . B e c a u s e my a w a r d i s b a s e d s t r i c t l y out of t h e a s s e t s t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had a t t h e t i m e o f t h e d i v o r c e . The v a l u e o f t h e home, t h e money i n t h e j o i n t money m a r k e t a c c o u n t , t h e money i n t h e c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t . So anyway w i t h t h a t s a i d when I r e a d t h e when I r e a d t h e r u l i n g o f t h e A p p e l l a t e C o u r t I r e a d i t t o mean t h a t w h i l e I b a s e d my p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n t h e a w a r d t o [ t h e w i f e ] a c e r t a i n amount o f money i n t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e b a s e d on h e r h a v i n g a s u f f i c i e n t amount p e r month t o l i v e on, t h a t i f I t a k e away some o f t h a t t h e n I have t h e a b i l i t y t o r e s t r u c t u r e the property settlement i n a way t h a t I b e l i e v e accommodates t h e i n t e n t o f my o r d e r . Not c i r c u m v e n t i n g or not t r y i n g t o s k i r t around t h e a l i m o n y the r u l e s r e g a r d i n g the Exxon stock or the r e t i r e m e n t . But c e r t a i n l y i f I b e l i e v e d 18 2110920 and 2111066 t h a t [ t h e w i f e ] b a s e d on t h e f a c t s and circumstances i n t h i s c a s e s h o u l d be p r o v i d e d f r o m t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s s u f f i c i e n t money t o meet h e r n e e d s b a s e d on the circumstance, t h e n I b e l i e v e t h e y have get s p e c i f i c a l l y i n s t r u c t e d me t h a t t h a t i s my duty t o d a y i s t o r e a d j u s t t h o s e e q u i t i e s t o make s u r e that occurs. II "I'm going t o make h e r an a d d i t i o n a l a w a r d o f p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t t h a t may come f r o m t h e s a l e o f t h e home o r f r o m t h e f u n d s i n money m a r k e t and c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t i n t h e amount o f $84,000." Additionally, at the hearing regarding the husband's p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n and amended p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , t h e court trial further stated: " I d i d h o u r s and h o u r s o f f i n a n c i a l c a l c u l a t i o n s i n t h i s c a s e , and I came up w i t h an amount t h a t I f e l t was e q u i t a b l e t o [the w i f e ] , t h a t d i d not invade the separate p r o p e r t y i n the separate e s t a t e o f [ t h e husband] t h a t w o u l d e n s u r e t h a t she was cared f o r , at l e a s t , s u f f i c i e n t l y . I s t i l l don't b e l i e v e i t was enough t o p r o v i d e her the same q u a l i t y o f l i f e , b u t I t r i e d my b e s t t o do what I c o u l d u n d e r t h e p a r a m e t e r s t h a t I was g i v e n by t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s . And t h a t i s t h e number t h a t I f e l t c r e a t e d an e q u i t a b l e d i v i s i o n o f p r o p e r t y i n t h i s c a s e . And I l i m i t e d my a l i m o n y a w a r d t o e x a c t l y what t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s t o l d me t h a t I c o u l d , so t h a t w i l l s t a n d . " Thus, i n c o n t r a s t t o t h e h u s b a n d ' s a s s e r t i o n s i n h i s a p p e l l a t e brief, the considered trial the court husband's explicitly separate 19 stated estate that in i t had not fashioning i t s 2110920 and 2111066 p r o p e r t y award. that i t was account appeal allowed for Therefore, A d d i t i o n a l l y , the t r i a l c o u r t c o r r e c t l y noted the due to lower to balance the e q u i t i e s on periodic-alimony the comments award contained in remand to the the d i v i d i n g the p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y we cannot conclude t h a t the t r i a l be reversed considered a w a r d on on the the separate remand b e c a u s e t h e trial awarding court estate on court i n alimony, c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t i s due b a s i s t h a t the husband's and wife. record along w i t h the d i s c r e t i o n a f f o r d e d the t r i a l to to impermissibly in fashioning i t s r e c o r d does not support such an assertion. Accordingly, have to be equal because in "'[a] order to p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s of each case,'" 295, 298 So. 2d ( A l a . C i v . App. 556, 559 determination of (Ala. what d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l the trial parties' court property be equitable App. i s equitable marital property 2003)), remand u n d e r t h e f a c t s p r e s e n t e d 20 on the based and So. because rests within awarding the 2d 855 "'a sound cannot conclude t h a t i t s discretion and not B a g g e t t v. B a g g e t t , c o u r t , ' " i d . , we exceeded does Harmon v. Harmon, 928 2005)(quoting Civ. division the in dividing wife i n t h i s case. the alimony on Therefore, we 2110920 and 2111066 a f f i r m t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s M a r c h 1, 2012, divided the parties' marital property $1,310.50 i n m o n t h l y p e r i o d i c II. The Contempt A p p e a l a petition (Appeal f o r c o n t e m p t on t h a t t h e h u s b a n d had trial petition, the wife also responsible for paying a result of the filed a counterclaim periodic alimony, The 2011, he as recuse." a she to was the w i f e f i l e d had 2011, The contempt held incurred the as husband husband a l s o unable stay I n t h a t m o t i o n , he to pay the discovery. a motion to On A p r i l 20, 2011, Subsequently, "motion alleging h u s b a n d be wife i n i t i a t e d a m o t i o n t o compel answers t o her styled fees the F e b r u a r y 2, that the husband's c o u n t e r c l a i m . contempt a c t i o n . 2011, In her f o r contempt. alleging F e b r u a r y 11, 3, wife r e q u e s t i n g a r e d u c t i o n i n t h e amount o f $2,500 m o n t h l y amount. On 2111066) i n K r e i t z b e r g , the that the a t t o r n e y On No. judgment. requested answered the w i f e ' s p e t i t i o n wife a l i m o n y as r e q u i r e d i n t h e 2010, petition. awarded the January f a i l e d t o pay c o u r t ' s November 19, and alimony. During the pendency of the appeal filed j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as i t discovery dismiss the w i f e requests filed in the husband filed a and/or f o r the trial court requested 21 t h a t the trial the motion to judge 2110920 and 2111066 r e c u s e h e r s e l f b e c a u s e , he a l l e g e d , she had shown b i a s a g a i n s t t h e h u s b a n d i n t h e d i v o r c e a c t i o n , and he a l s o r e q u e s t e d that t h e c o n t e m p t a c t i o n be s t a y e d u n t i l t h i s c o u r t i s s u e d a r u l i n g regarding the husband's p e n d i n g appeal November 19, 2010, again requested judgment. an award the husband's an for was The h u s b a n d and As attorney On fees June 13, incurred 2011, June 13, as the the w i f e ' s motion to On 5 regarding t w i c e due 2011, the w i f e ' s to c o n f l i c t s , a trial dismiss the contempt and trial to petition on a c c o u n t o f b o t h the the w i f e . mentioned above, r e l e a s e d K r e i t z b e r g , 80 on So. c o u r t ' s November 19, 2010, the w i f e court's t h e h u s b a n d ' s m o t i o n t o s t a y and m o t i o n hearing continued denying counterclaim. court also denied recuse. order trial The w i f e o p p o s e d t h a t m o t i o n r e s u l t of the contempt p e t i t i o n . court entered of the September 3d 925, 2, 2011, this court which r e v e r s e d the trial j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as i t had $2,500 i n m o n t h l y p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y and had awarded divided I n i t s June 13, 2011, o r d e r , t h e t r i a l c o u r t n o t e d t h a t , a l t h o u g h i t had d e n i e d t h e w i f e ' s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s the husband's counterclaim, i t had moved the husband's c o u n t e r c l a i m to the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e docket because i t " l a c k [ e d ] j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r u l e on a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e p r e v i o u s o r d e r w h i l e t h e o r d e r i s on a p p e a l . " 5 22 2110920 a n d 2111066 the parties' court marital property; issued i t s c e r t i f i c a t e on September 21, 2011, t h i s o f judgment i n K r e i t z b e r g . On September 22, 2 0 1 1 , t h e h u s b a n d f i l e d a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e wife's c o n t e m p t p e t i t i o n b e c a u s e , he a r g u e d , he c o u l d n o t be found i n contempt f o r f a i l i n g court had reversed. t o f o l l o w a judgment t h a t On O c t o b e r 11, 2 0 1 1 , t h e w i f e this filed a m o t i o n f o r s a n c t i o n s b a s e d on t h e h u s b a n d ' s a l l e g e d f a i l u r e t o respond t o d i s c o v e r y requests. filed an a n s w e r reduction order." On O c t o b e r 27, 2 0 1 1 , t h e w i f e t o t h e husband's of p e r i o d i c alimony "counterclaim, and clarification motion f o r of court The t r i a l c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g on t h e p e n d i n g m o t i o n s i n t h e c o n t e m p t a c t i o n on O c t o b e r 28, 2 0 1 1 . On M a r c h 1, 2012, the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d o r d e r s d e n y i n g t h e husband's motion t o d i s m i s s t h e w i f e ' s contempt p e t i t i o n and t h e w i f e ' s m o t i o n f o r sanctions. Additionally, entered order an finding on M a r c h 1, 2012, t h e t r i a l t h e husband t o be c a l c u l a t i n g t h e husband's a l i m o n y a r r e a r a g e , court i n contempt, and a w a r d i n g t h e w i f e an $8,500 a t t o r n e y f e e . On M a r c h 7, 2012, t h e h u s b a n d f i l e d amend, o r v a c a t e 2012, t h e w i f e the t r i a l filed court's judgment. a motion t o a l t e r , 23 a motion t o a l t e r , On M a r c h 27, amend, o r v a c a t e t h e 2110920 and trial a 2111066 c o u r t ' s judgment. response 2012, to the w i f e ' s the trial postjudgment entered On A p r i l 10, 2012, t h e h u s b a n d court motions, an o r d e r postjudgment held and, a that motion. hearing same day, denying the w i f e ' s on On May the the filed parties' trial postjudgment 14, court motion and g r a n t i n g t h e h u s b a n d ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n i n p a r t and d e n y i n g it 14, i n part. 2012, B o t h p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d on t h e r e c o r d o f t h e hearing t o a l l o w the t r i a l d a y s t o e n t e r a judgment court May an a d d i t i o n a l a d j u d i c a t i n g a l l the p a r t i e s ' 90 claims i n the contempt a c t i o n because a t the time of the e n t r y of the May 14, 2012, o r d e r s t h e t r i a l c o u r t had y e t t o d e t e r m i n e the i s s u e o f an a t t o r n e y - f e e award t o t h e w i f e . g r a n t i n g the husband's Specifically, postjudgment motion i n p a r t , the in trial c o u r t h a d s e t a s i d e i t s a t t o r n e y - f e e award and h a d o r d e r e d t h e wife's attorney to provide documentation, P e e b l e s v. M i l e y , 439 So. 2d 137 reasonable attorney-fee On June 7, 2012, as required by ( A l a . 1983), t o e s t a b l i s h a award. the wife filed the affidavit a t t o r n e y , D a v i d Shepherd, w i t h the t r i a l c o u r t . The of affidavit stated: "My name i s D a v i d P. S h e p h e r d . I am l i c e n s e d t o p r a c t i c e l a w i n t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a and have b e e n 24 her 2110920 and 2111066 so l i c e n s e d f o r more t h a n 33 y e a r s . A t t a c h e d as E x h i b i t 'A' t o t h i s A f f i d a v i t i s t h e t i m e I s p e n t r e g a r d i n g t h e above c a s e w h i c h b e g a n on December 21, 2010. A t t r i a l , t h e f e e o f [ t h e w i f e ] was estimated t o be E i g h t y F i v e H u n d r e d D o l l a r s ($8500) . The h o u r l y r a t e on t h i s c a s e was Two Hundred F i f t y Dollars ($250.00) p e r h o u r . The time c a l c u l a t e d t h r o u g h J a n u a r y 23, 2012, the date of the Final H e a r i n g was 13.6 h o u r s f o r a t o t a l f e e o f $10,325. The t i m e c a l c u l a t e d t h r o u g h t h e R u l e 59 m o t i o n s (5-16-12) was 46.8 hours for a total fee of $11,700." On June attorney-fee spent on consider 2012, the the 22, 2012, the affidavit, case was husband alleging t h a t the excessive issue without filed and holding a response urging the Shepherd time to had the a hearing. court June On to 27, t h e t r i a l c o u r t a f f i r m e d i t s p r e v i o u s a w a r d o f an $8,500 attorney claims fee to the w i f e , thus a d j u d i c a t i n g a l l the regarding the contempt husband appealed the t r i a l action. That parties' same c o u r t ' s judgment t o t h i s day court. On a p p e a l , t h e 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 the a u t h o r i t y to c o n s i d e r the w i f e ' s p e t i t i o n the lacked seeking to hold him i n c o n t e m p t f o r h i s f a i l u r e t o pay h e r $2,500 p e r month i n alimony pending the appeal contends t h a t the t r i a l the divorce judgment. c o u r t c o u l d n o t h o l d him o f t h e o r i g i n a l November 19, t h a t j u d g m e n t had of 2010, been r e v e r s e d 25 and i n contempt j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e , he was no longer He says, effective. 2110920 and 2111066 He f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d n o t have h e l d in c o n t e m p t f o r f a i l i n g t o pay in t h e j u d g m e n t on remand b e c a u s e , he s a y s , t h a t j u d g m e n t was n o t i n e x i s t e n c e u n t i l t h e same d a t e t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o u n d him in contempt. First, The we the him husband i s i n c o r r e c t . note that the husband supersedeas bond w h i l e h i s appeal j u d g m e n t was Although requested trial 8, that the trial denied court request Rule pending. that that this Ala. amount o f a l i m o n y a w a r d e d court R. App. of the record set a request. P. to secure November 19, the court set failed reflects 2010, that he s u p e r s e d e a s bond, failed to to Because s u p e r s e d e a s b o n d , t h e h u s b a n d was he husband the supersedeas bond p u r s u a n t a The had not r e q u i r e d t o pay secured the 704 See Ryan v. Ryan, 267 (1958). trial His failure court, w i l l f u l We so was, 104 So. 2d 700, as d e t e r m i n e d by the contempt. a judgment, or a p a r t t h e r e o f , w h o l l y a n n u l s i t , or the p a r t of as rendered with t o do 682, the of it, agree A l a . 677, a $2,500 m o n t h l y a l i m o n y payment t o t h e w i f e d u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y o f appeal. a i f i t never the husband existed," that and "[t]he that reversal "[a]nother judgment by a c o u r t w i t h j u r i s d i c t i o n must t h e r e a f t e r r e p l a c e 26 2110920 and 2111066 [the r e v e r s e d judgment]." 591 ( A l a . C i v . App. husband ends S h i r l e y v. S h i r l e y , 361 So. 2d 590, 1978). there. However, our agreement w i t h t h e I n K r e i t z b e r g , we reversed the trial c o u r t ' s November 19, 2010, j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as i t a w a r d e d t h e w i f e $2,500 p e r month i n a l i m o n y , court, on remand, a n d we i n s t r u c t e d t h e t r i a l t o r e d u c e t h e amount o f a l i m o n y a w a r d e d t o t h e w i f e and t o a d j u s t t h e p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n as i t saw f i t t o balance 935. the e q u i t i e s of the p a r t i e s . Our o p i n i o n , w h i c h r e p l a c e d t h e t r i a l insofar as i t a w a r d e d t h e w i f e r e q u i r e d the t r i a l to the K r e i t z b e r g , 80 So. 3d a t court t o redetermine be a w a r d e d t h e w i f e . husband $2,500 court's judgment p e r month i n alimony, t h e amount o f a l i m o n y Our o p i n i o n d i d n o t e n t i r e l y of h i s o b l i g a t i o n t o pay the wife absolve alimony, i t m e r e l y r e q u i r e d t h a t t h e amount o f t h a t o b l i g a t i o n be r e d u c e d . Thus, o u r r e v e r s a l o f t h e $2,500 m o n t h l y a l i m o n y o b l i g a t i o n i n K r e i t z b e r g d i d n o t , as t h e h u s b a n d c o n t e n d s , s e r v e t o remove the b a s i s f o r h o l d i n g him i n contempt. Furthermore, trial i n s o f a r as the husband contends c o u r t l o s t a u t h o r i t y t o c o n s i d e r t h e contempt due t o t h e t i m i n g o f t h e h e a r i n g , we d i s a g r e e . timing of a t r i a l court's hearing 27 regarding that the petition To a l l o w t h e a petition for 2110920 and 2111066 contempt t o impact a t r i a l j u d g m e n t w o u l d be file trial 'and a motion the t o make s u c h to Morgan, 515 So. 15 2d 1249, So. law issue settled 1254 that party that "[a] i t s judgments as may be Dial v. 1994)." Goetsch ( A l a . C i v . App. may to 1 9 8 7 ) ; see a l s o K i n g ( A l a . C i v . App. 413 right effective.' ( A l a . C i v . App. a a party's such process judgments] 2d 403, settled and power t o e n f o r c e and [the 2d 14, v. G o e t s c h , 990 well orders a u t h o r i t y to enforce i t s It is well inherent render So. v. K i n g , 636 also c o n t r a r y to the f o r contempt. c o u r t has necessary court's file 2008). a It is petition for c o n t e m p t d u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y o f an a p p e a l b e c a u s e by f i l i n g petition for contempt a independent proceeding'" party initiates from the 381 C i v . App. So. 2d 58, 2005) 59 a 907 (quoting Opinion (Ala. 1980)). hearing regarding contempt court's a u t h o r i t y to decide So. Allowing petition to and action that i s 2d 447, of the petition the "'separate underlying b e i n g a p p e a l e d . W i l c o x e n v. W i l c o x e n , (Ala. a a the 449 n.1 C l e r k No. 25, timing dictate w o u l d be a of a trial arbitrary and w o u l d p r o v i d e an i n c e n t i v e f o r a p a r t y t o d e l a y a c o n t e m p t h e a r i n g s h o u l d i t be t o h i s o r h e r p o t e n t i a l a d v a n t a g e . we conclude t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t had the a u t h o r i t y t o 28 Thus, consider 2110920 and 2111066 the w i f e ' s contempt p e t i t i o n d e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t the was h e l d a f t e r our S e p t e m b e r 21, c o u r t ' s November 19, S i m i l a r l y , we the ability based 2012, on 2010, r e v e r s a l of the cannot conclude t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t amount o f trial judgment. t o c a l c u l a t e the the 2011, hearing husband's a r r e a r a g e alimony i t awarded of i n the lacked alimony March 1, j u d g m e n t , w h i c h i t e n t e r e d i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h our remand instructions. The t r i a l c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d in contempt for failing The trial court could arrearage based that this c o u r t had compliance on with t o pay not the have calculated $2,500-per-month reversed. our alimony pending Instead, remand the the was appeal. husband's alimony o b l i g a t i o n the instructions, trial court, determined in an a p p r o p r i a t e amount o f m o n t h l y a l i m o n y -- $1,310.50. Based that properly reduced amount of alimony, computed t h e h u s b a n d ' s a r r e a r a g e . the trial Although court our i n s t r u c t i o n s on remand i n K r e i t z b e r g d i d n o t c o n t e m p l a t e c a l c u l a t i o n o f alimony arrearage, nature that the we think i t implicit judgment on remand i n r e v e r s a l s of instituting an should be applied retroactively 29 to the date an this alimony o b l i g a t i o n i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e remand i n s t r u c t i o n s o f court on of this the 2110920 and 2111066 judgment t h i s 2d 454, court reversed. 455 (Ala. child-support order Civ. See F o s t e r v. F o s t e r , App. entered 1999) in (holding compliance 733 So. that with a remand i n s t r u c t i o n s f r o m t h i s c o u r t s h o u l d be r e t r o a c t i v e t o t h e d a t e of the divorce McWhorter, see judgment reversed 716 So. 2d 720, 722 by this c o u r t ) ; Ex ( A l a . C i v . App. a l s o S m i t h v. S m i t h , 928 So. 2d 287, 294 2005) 1998) (same); ( A l a . C i v . App. ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t a p a r t y who p a y s a l i m o n y p u r s u a n t t o j u d g m e n t t h a t i s l a t e r r e v e r s e d on t h a t i s s u e may be to parte entitled r e i m b u r s e m e n t f o r t h e o v e r p a y m e n t ) ; W o o l w i n e v. W o o l w i n e , 549 So. 2d 512, 514 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1989) (same). We find no e r r o r on t h e p a r t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n h o l d i n g t h e h u s b a n d i n contempt f o r f a i l i n g calculating the t o pay a l i m o n y p e n d i n g t h e a p p e a l or i n husband's arrearage amount o f a l i m o n y the t r i a l 2012, j u d g m e n t on court based awarded on the reduced i n i t s March 1, remand. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , t h e husband argues t h a t , even i f t h e t r i a l court had November that the 19, authority 2010, judgment, to judgment the t r i a l find him i n contempt after this court's court 30 of the r e v e r s a l of exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n in 2110920 and 2111066 finding husband 2 010, the to be i n contempt of the November 19, judgment. We review under the the trial court's finding of civil contempt following w e l l - s e t t l e d standard of review. "The i s s u e w h e t h e r t o h o l d a p a r t y i n c o n t e m p t i s s o l e l y w i t h i n the d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t , and a t r i a l c o u r t ' s c o n t e m p t d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d on a p p e a l 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 a c t e d o u t s i d e i t s d i s c r e t i o n or t h a t i t s j u d g m e n t i s n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e . Brown v. Brown, 960 So. 2d 712, 716 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006) ( a f f i r m i n g a t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n not to h o l d a p a r e n t i n c o n t e m p t f o r f a i l u r e t o pay c h i l d s u p p o r t when t h e p a r e n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had d e d u c t e d f r o m h i s m o n t h l y c h i l d - s u p p o r t payment t h e amount he had e x p e n d e d t o buy c l o t h e s f o r t h e c h i l d r e n ) . " Poh v. Poh, 64 So. 3d 49, 61 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010). " R u l e 70A, A l a . R. C i v . P., has g o v e r n e d c o n t e m p t proceedings i n c i v i l a c t i o n s s i n c e J u l y 11, 1994. Rule 70A(a)(2)(D) defines ' c i v i l c o n t e m p t ' as a 'willful, continuing failure or r e f u s a l of any person to comply w i t h a court's lawful writ, s u b p o e n a , p r o c e s s , o r d e r , r u l e , o r command t h a t by its nature is still capable of b e i n g complied with.'" Stamm v. Moreover, Stamm, 922 in 70A(a)(2)(D), order the So. to 2d hold trial 920, 924 ( A l a . C i v . App. a party court i n contempt must find 2004). under that the w i l l f u l l y f a i l e d or r e f u s e d t o comply w i t h a c o u r t o r d e r . T.L.D. v. C.G., 849 So. 2d 200, 31 205 ( A l a . C i v . App. Rule party See 2002). 2110920 and The 2111066 husband contends t h a t the discretion i n h o l d i n g him testimony indicated trial court exceeded i t s i n c o n t e m p t b e c a u s e , he t h a t the w i f e had says, removed and the garnished funds from the p a r t i e s ' j o i n t accounts d u r i n g the pendency of the appeal joint and, t h u s , he funds " o f f s e t should serve admitted to asserts, h i s alimony prevent failure to the w i f e ' s a pay obligation" finding joint funds, accounts, and on wife what had dates what f u n d s t h e contempt In alimony. what f u n d s t h e and, of court considered extensive testimony regarding t a k i n g of this therefore, despite case, the and a r g u m e n t s o f removed f r o m t h e the w i f e had wife had those his trial counsel parties' removed those been awarded p u r s u a n t to the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgments b e f o r e c o n c l u d i n g t h a t , even under the reduced monthly p e r i o d i c - a l i m o n y h u s b a n d was amount o f i n arrears $1,258.82. as a w a r d o f $1,310.50, to h i s alimony obligation In making i t s c a l c u l a t i o n s , in the the the trial c o u r t d i d o f f s e t t h e h u s b a n d ' s a l i m o n y a r r e a r a g e by t h e amount of certain accounts. arrearage on funds The the wife husband or the t r i a l had does not removed from contest the the amount o f c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t he was appeal. 32 parties' the i n arrears 2110920 and We 2111066 c a n n o t a g r e e t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was failing t o pay the w i f e the $2,500 p e r month i n a l i m o n y owed u n d e r t h e November 19, 2010, indicates that t h e w i f e was remove funds living expenses. argument from that contemptuous the joint persuaded not wife's actions failure t o pay accounts taken alimony Moreover, by funds to the and fund her husband's i n response s h o u l d excuse the t r i a l he the record compelled to garnish are b e i n g found i n contempt. the judgment because parties' We the not i n contempt f o r to h i s him from court stated on r e c o r d t h a t i t found the husband's a c t i o n s i n f a i l i n g t o p a y t h e w i f e any amount o f a l i m o n y d u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y o f t h e a p p e a l t o be b o t h c o n t e m p t u o u s and Thus, the husband's argument that "almost unconscionable." the wife's taking and g a r n i s h m e n t of j o i n t funds a b s o l v e d h i s w i l l f u l f a i l u r e t o pay her alimony l a c k s m e r i t or support i n law. A c c o r d i n g l y , we c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l its c o u r t exceeded d i s c r e t i o n by d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t t h e h u s b a n d h a d w i l l f u l l y f a i l e d or r e f u s e d t o pay the w i f e a l i m o n y d u r i n g the pendency of the 2010, a p p e a l as judgment. ordered i n the The trial c o u r t ' s November 19, h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d n o t paid any amount o f a l i m o n y b e c a u s e , he s a i d , he d i d n o t t h i n k that 33 2110920 and 2111066 the trial court's Moreover, although November 19, 2010, order the husband had r e q u e s t e d c o u r t s e t a s u p e r s e d e a s b o n d and t h e t r i a l was that the this court or request bond p u r s u a n t t o R u l e was that this o b l i g a t e d t o pay t h e w i f e November 19, 2010, court 8, A l a . R. App. judgment alimony during trial court denied r e q u e s t , the husband d i d not appeal the d e n i a l of t h a t to legal. set a P. that request supersedeas Thus, t h e h u s b a n d as o r d e r e d the pendency under the of that appeal. Therefore, the ore tenus evidence supports the t r i a l court's conclusion t h a t the husband had w i l l f u l l y failed p a y t h e w i f e a l i m o n y as o r d e r e d 19, 2010, Kreitzberg. judgment during the i n the t r i a l pendency to c o u r t ' s November of the appeal in 6 We n o t e t h a t , a l t h o u g h t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s June 13, 2011, o r d e r s t a t e d t h a t i t h a d moved t h e h u s b a n d ' s c o u n t e r c l a i m seeking a modification of h i s alimony award to the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d o c k e t due t o t h e t r i a l court's l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m a t t h a t t i m e (see n o t e 5, s u p r a ) , the t r i a l c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d the husband's c o u n t e r c l a i m a t t h e May 14, 2012, h e a r i n g b e c a u s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a d b e e n r e i n v e s t e d w i t h j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e a c t i o n due t o t h i s c o u r t ' s i s s u a n c e o f i t s c e r t i f i c a t e o f judgment i n K r e i t z b e r g on September 21, 2011. On remand, t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e d u c e d t h e h u s b a n d ' s a l i m o n y award, and, t h u s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t is effectively a final judgment a d j u d i c a t i n g a l l c l a i m s b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s i n t h e u n d e r l y i n g c o n t e m p t a c t i o n . See, e.g., F a u l k v. Rhodes, 43 So. 3d 624, 625 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) ("A j u d g m e n t i s g e n e r a l l y n o t f i n a l u n l e s s a l l c l a i m s , 6 34 2110920 a n d 2111066 F i n a l l y , t h e husband argues 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 an $8,500 a t t o r n e y the t r i a l says, fee. He c o n t e n d s that c o u r t ' s a t t o r n e y - f e e a w a r d was i n e r r o r b e c a u s e , he " t h e amount o r d e r e d as a t t o r n e y s f e e s was i n e q u i t a b l e and i m p r o p e r u n d e r t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f P e e b l e s v . M i l e y , 439 So. 2d 137 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) . " Pursuant has t o § 30-2-54, A l a . Code 1975, a u t h o r i t y t o award brought t o recover unpaid attorney alimony. fees 7 the t r i a l i n contempt I t i swell court actions settled that "[w]hether t o a w a r d an a t t o r n e y fee i n a domestic relations case i s within t h e sound 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 a n d , a b s e n t an a b u s e o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n , i t s r u l i n g on t h a t q u e s t i o n w i l l n o t 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 s u c h f e e s i n c l u d e or t h e r i g h t s or l i a b i l i t i e s o f a l l p a r t i e s , have b e e n d e c i d e d . " ) ; a n d K e l l e y v . U.S.A. O i l C o r p . , 363 So. 2d 758, 759 ( A l a . 1978) ("To s u p p o r t an a p p e a l , t h e o r d e r appealed f r o m must be a f i n a l j u d g m e n t . " ) . 7 S e c t i o n 30-2-54, p r o v i d e s : "In a l l a c t i o n s f o r d i v o r c e o r f o r t h e r e c o v e r y of alimony, maintenance, or support i n which a judgment o f d i v o r c e has been i s s u e d o r i s p e n d i n g and a c o n t e m p t o f c o u r t c i t a t i o n h a s b e e n made b y t h e c o u r t a g a i n s t e i t h e r p a r t y , t h e c o u r t may, o f i t s d i s c r e t i o n , upon a p p l i c a t i o n t h e r e f o r , a w a r d a reasonable sum a s f e e s o r c o m p e n s a t i o n o f t h e attorney or attorneys r e p r e s e n t i n g both p a r t i e s . " 35 2110920 and 2111066 the f i n a n c i a l 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. 1 9 9 3 ) . 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 t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f t h e a t t o r n e y f e e . T a y l o r v. T a y l o r , 486 So. 2d 1294 ( A l a . C i v . App. 198 6 ) . " Glover v. Glover, 678 So. 2d 174, 176 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). Therefore, we must determine whether the trial court e x c e e d e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n a w a r d i n g an $8,500 a t t o r n e y f e e the wife case, according the t r i a l the record "almost 2010, that attorney-fee had o r d e r , and t h e t r i a l i t found the above. commencement o f the with end the this of court also stated the conduct wife to be testified fees at the time of Furthermore, the w i f e f i l e d an the $11,700 drafting In i n contempt husband's Additionally, hearing. affidavit incurred through outlined i n c u r r e d $8,500 i n a t t o r n e y t h e O c t o b e r 28, 2011, 2010 factors unconscionable." t h a t she h a d wife the c o u r t f o u n d t h e h u s b a n d t o be i t s November 19, on to to in trial court attorney that stated the fees from the contempt p e t i t i o n of postjudgment h e a r i n g s 36 in December i n May 2012, 2110920 and along 2111066 with a detailed A c c o r d i n g l y , we its itemization of cannot conclude t h a t the t r i a l the court exceeded d i s c r e t i o n i n 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 t h e amount o f expenses. award i n $8,500. Conclusion F o r t h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d a b o v e , we the t r i a l a f f i r m the judgments of court. 2110920 -- AFFIRMED. 2111066 -- AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e 37 and Donaldson, J J . , concur. r e s u l t , without writing.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.