Karon Clore v. Gregory Clore

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/28/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2110967 Karon C l o r e v. Gregory C l o r e Appeal from DeKalb C i r c u i t (DR-10-900081) Court PITTMAN, J u d g e . Karon Clore ("the w i f e " ) appeals from a judgment o f t h e DeKalb C i r c u i t Court d i s s o l v i n g h e r marriage t o Gregory C l o r e ("the h u s b a n d " ) , c h a l l e n g i n g t h e a l i m o n y a n d p r o p e r t y - d i v i s i o n a s p e c t s t h e r e o f , and a l s o seeks r e v i e w o f a postjudgment order 2110967 of that court requests that, f o r a new among trial other and We connection the wife's trial judge to the p a r t i e s ' affirm. I n S e p t e m b e r 2010, the husband i n i t i a t e d a d i v o r c e a c t i o n a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had separated, denied f o r r e c u s a l of the because of h i s s o c i a l - n e t w o r k i n g adult daughter. things, t h a t no married c h i l d r e n of the i n 1984, that they p a r t i e s remained had minors, and t h a t t h e m a r r i a g e s h o u l d be d i s s o l v e d on m u l t i p l e g r o u n d s , including i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y of breakdown of diverse the persons." counterclaim of wife's p a r t i e s r e a c h e d an court ordered "as ... a and with In $11,000 answered "adultery s e e k i n g a d i v o r c e s o l e l y on n o - f a u l t g r o u n d s . which the t r i a l wife the irretrievable a the The and p a r t i e s , an asserted O c t o b e r 2010, sum marriage, the agreement, p u r s u a n t t h e h u s b a n d t o pay portion of any the w i f e final to the property d i v i s i o n between the p a r t i e s " i n c i d e n t t o the p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e and a l s o ordered the h u s b a n d t o pay t h e w i f e $400 e v e r y two weeks. An o r e t e n u s p r o c e e d i n g 2012, i n t h e c a u s e was a f t e r which the t r i a l c o u r t entered the p a r t i e s , without h e l d on M a r c h 9, a judgment d i v o r c i n g s p e c i f y i n g a p a r t i c u l a r s t a t u t o r y ground 2 2110967 for granting that r e l i e f . p e r t i n e n t f i n d i n g s of The judgment c o n t a i n s t h e f o l l o w i n g fact: "The p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d on J u l y 21, 1984. At t h a t t i m e , t h e [ w i f e ] was e m p l o y e d as a t e a c h e r , t e a c h i n g t h e s u b j e c t s o f t y p i n g and s h o r t h a n d . She received her bachelor's degree from Radford U n i v e r s i t y and had b e e n t e a c h i n g f o r a b o u t one y e a r as o f t h e d a t e o f t h e m a r r i a g e . The [ h u s b a n d ] a l s o received his bachelor's degree from Radford University. He has been c o n t i n u o u s l y employed d u r i n g the marriage. "The p a r t i e s ' have one c h i l d who is now an adult. She was b o r n i n 1987. I n 1988, t h e p a r t i e s decided t h a t the [ w i f e ] should q u i t her job and r a i s e t h e i r c h i l d f u l l time. At t h a t time, the p a r t i e s moved f r o m V i r g i n i a t o A l a b a m a . The [ w i f e ] n e v e r r e c e i v e d t e n u r e as a t e a c h e r . She has no pension p l a n or r e t i r e m e n t fund. "The [ h u s b a n d ] t e s t i f i e d t h a t o v e r t h e y e a r s he had encouraged and/or asked the [ w i f e ] t o find employment. He s t a t e d t h a t she t o l d him t h a t she d i d n o t want t o work. The [ w i f e ] d e n i e d t h a t he had a s k e d h e r t o r e t u r n t o work. She s t a t e d t h a t h e r d e g r e e i s now o b s o l e t e and t h a t she w i l l have t o r e t u r n to c o l l e g e i n order to prepare to r e e n t e r the workforce. She s t a t e d r e p e a t e d l y a t t r i a l t h a t she had not sought employment since the parties s e p a r a t e d i n S e p t e m b e r 2010 b e c a u s e she w a n t s ' a c a r e e r , not a j o b . ' "Throughout the marriage, the [husband's] employment c a u s e d him t o t r a v e l . He was on t h e r o a d anywhere f r o m two t o f i v e d a y s p e r week. He still t r a v e l s f o r work, a v e r a g i n g a p p r o x i m a t e l y two d a y s per week. He earns a s a l a r y of approximately $104,000.00 p e r y e a r . I n a d d i t i o n , he receives q u a r t e r l y c o m m i s s i o n s t h a t a v e r a g e anywhere f r o m $3,000.00 t o as h i g h as $10,000.00 p e r q u a r t e r . He 3 2110967 s t a t e d t h a t h i s 2010 c o m p e n s a t i o n was a p p r o x i m a t e l y $115,000.00 t o $118,000.00. He was u n a b l e t o g i v e an accurate s a l a r y range f o r other years. Itis u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e [ w i f e ] does n o t have a j o b a n d has n o t h a d a j o b f o r a number o f y e a r s . "The p a r t i e s ' a s s e t s c o n s i s t o f : a h o u s e t h e y b u i l t 11 y e a r s ago, t h e f u r n i s h i n g s o f t h a t h o u s e , a r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t i n t h e [ h u s b a n d ' s ] name 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 $520,000.00, a n d a 2004 Toyota Sequoia [ a u t o m o b i l e ] t h a t the [ w i f e ] d r i v e s . The [ h u s b a n d ] does n o t own a v e h i c l e a s he i s provided a c a r by h i s employer. The [ h u s b a n d ] testified that a t the time of the p a r t i e s ' s e p a r a t i o n , h i s retirement account had a balance of a p p r o x i m a t e l y $450,000.00. "The p a r t i e s have two d e b t s : t h e f i r s t m o r t g a g e on t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e i n t h e a p p r o x i m a t e amount o f $278,000.00 a n d a s e c o n d m o r t g a g e on t h e h o u s e , t a k e n o u t as a h o m e - e q u i t y l i n e o f c r e d i t , i n t h e a p p r o x i m a t e amount o f $95,000.00. "The [ h u s b a n d ] l a y s t h e blame f o r t h e b r e a k d o w n o f t h e m a r r i a g e p r i m a r i l y on t h e [ w i f e ] . He a l l e g e d , a n d she a d m i t t e d , t h a t t h e [ w i f e had] h a d an a f f a i r i n 2010 t h a t , when he f o u n d o u t f o r certain that such had occurred, caused the separation and caused him t o f i l e f o r divorce. Despite h e r a d m i s s i o n t o h a v i n g an a f f a i r with a n o t h e r man, t h e [ w i f e ] l a y s t h e blame p r i m a r i l y on t h e [ h u s b a n d ] , c l a i m i n g t h a t he was m e n t a l l y a n d p h y s i c a l l y a b u s i v e t o h e r d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e . The [husband] d e n i e s a n y s u c h a b u s e . Other than t h e [ w i f e ' s ] t e s t i m o n y t o s a i d abuse, t h e [ t r i a l c o u r t ] was p r e s e n t e d w i t h no e v i d e n c e t o s u b s t a n t i a t e i t . "The [husband] s t a t e s t h a t t h e m a r i t a l home w o u l d n o t s e l l on t h e r e a l e s t a t e m a r k e t f o r more than the combined mortgages, a total of a p p r o x i m a t e l y $373,000.00. He s t a t e d t h a t t h e house a t one t i m e a p p r a i s e d f o r $450,000.00 b u t t h a t i t 4 2110967 w o u l d n o t b r i n g t h a t sum i n t h e c u r r e n t m a r k e t . The house has been f o r s a l e , w i t h o u t a real estate company o r a g e n t c o n t r a c t e d t o s e l l i t , f o r two and one-half years. The [husband] testified that c u r r e n t l y t h e r e i s no one l o o k i n g a t t h e house and t h a t t h e r e have been no c a l l s a b o u t t h e house i n some t i m e . The house i s 5,972 s q u a r e f e e t w i t h f i v e bedrooms and f i v e and o n e - h a l f b a t h s . The [ w i f e ] claims that t h e house i s worth approximately $650,000.00. "The [ w i f e ] c l a i m s t h a t she has l o s t $917,000.00 d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e by n o t b e i n g employed. She stated that a t a minimum i t would cost her $74,000.00 t o o b t a i n a d e g r e e t h a t w o u l d a l l o w h e r to reenter the workforce. She c a u s e d t o be a d m i t t e d [her] E x h i b i t '5' w h i c h i s a l i s t o f h e r e s t i m a t e d monthly expenses. She e s t i m a t e s t h a t h e r e x p e n s e s a r e $4,070.00 p e r month. T h i s f i g u r e i n c l u d e s an estimate o f $1,200.00 p e r month f o r r e n t . Her c u r r e n t r e n t i s $710.00 p e r month, w i t h h e r w a t e r service included. However, she wants t o move t o a n i c e r a p a r t m e n t and s p e c u l a t e s t h a t i t w i l l cost $1,200.00 p e r month. "Pursuant to [the t r i a l court's order] of O c t o b e r 26, 2010, t h e [husband] has p a i d $800.00 p e r month t o t h e [ w i f e ] i n t e m p o r a r y s p o u s a l support. That Order a l s o r e q u i r e d him t o pay t o t h e [wife] $11,000.00 as a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t , t h e amount o f w h i c h i s t o be c o n s i d e r e d by t h e [ t r i a l court] during i t s f i n a l property d i v i s i o n . "The [husband] c a u s e d t o be a d m i t t e d [ h i s ] E x h i b i t '1' w h i c h i s a l i s t o f h i s m o n t h l y e x p e n s e s , s h o w i n g $5,276.94 i n e x p e n s e s . T h a t same E x h i b i t shows a m o n t h l y n e t income o f $5,118.82. The [husband] a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t t h i s income f i g u r e d i d n o t i n c l u d e t h e q u a r t e r l y c o m m i s s i o n s t h a t he i s paid. The e x p e n s e s i n c l u d e t h e t e m p o r a r y s p o u s a l support as w e l l as payments on both of the 5 2110967 mortgages. p e r month. The m o r t g a g e p a y m e n t s total $2,720.00 "[The h u s b a n d ' s ] E x h i b i t '2' i s a l i s t o f home furnishings s t i l l i n the m a r i t a l residence. That E x h i b i t shows t h a t t h e i t e m s a r e w o r t h a t o t a l o f $55,145.00. [ H i s ] E x h i b i t '3' i s a l i s t o f i t e m s t h a t [he] c l a i m s t h e [ w i f e ] removed f r o m t h e m a r i t a l residence, t o t a l i n g $13,828.00. [The w i f e ] stated t h a t s h e d i d n o t remove a n y f u r n i s h i n g s f r o m t h e home upon t h e s e p a r a t i o n . However, s h e d i d a d m i t t o t a k i n g a $3,800.00 p a i n t i n g o f h e r d a u g h t e r b e c a u s e [ t h e w i f e ' s ] m o t h e r p a i d f o r i t . She gave i t b a c k to h e r mother. She a l s o t o o k a c o u p l e o f w r e a t h s [and] a t e l e v i s i o n t h a t h a d been g i v e n to the p a r t i e s ' daughter f o r graduation, which the [wife] t h e n gave t o h e r m o t h e r . She s t a t e d t h a t s h e d i d not t a k e any o f h e r d a u g h t e r ' s c l o t h e s . "[The husband's] Exhibit '2' a l s o lists $2,283.36 i n e x p e n s e s p a i d b y t h e [ w i f e ] f o r h o t e l s t a y s a n d m e a l s t h a t t h e [husband] a l l e g e d were f o r ' a f f a i r t r i p expenses.' The t e s t i m o n y a t t r i a l was t h a t t h e [husband] f o u n d c r e d i t c a r d c h a r g e s f o r m u l t i p l e h o t e l s t a y s , as w e l l as m e a l s , t h a t he a l l e g e d were f o r t h e [ w i f e ] a n d h e r p a r a m o u r . The [ w i f e ] t e s t i f i e d t h a t she met h e r p a r a m o u r i n a h o t e l o n l y one t i m e . "[The husband's] E x h i b i t '3' a l s o displays e x p e n s e s r e l a t e d t o home r e p a i r s , u t i l i t y c o s t s a n d t o t h e [ w i f e ' s ] m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s i n t h e amount o f $5,164.00. "The [ w i f e ] c a u s e d t o be a d m i t t e d [her] E x h i b i t '4' w h i c h i s two l i s t s s h e c o m p i l e d o f t h e h o u s e h o l d furnishings. She r e q u e s t e d t h e [ t r i a l c o u r t ] t o a w a r d t h e c o n t e n t s o f one l i s t t o h e r a n d t h e o t h e r to t h e [husband]. She s t a t e d t h a t t h e c o n t e n t s o f both l i s t s are approximately equal i n value. The [husband] does n o t want t h e [ t r i a l c o u r t ] t o d i v i d e t h e f u r n i s h i n g s i n t h i s manner. 6 2110967 "The [husband] i n i t i a l l y s t a t e d t h a t t h e [ w i f e ] s h o u l d r e c e i v e no v a l u e f r o m t h e h o u s e . E v e n t u a l l y , he s t a t e d t h a t t h e [ w i f e ] s h o u l d be e n t i t l e d t o some o f t h e e q u i t y i n t h e home, i f any e x i s t s , b u t t h a t the division should n o t be e q u a l between t h e parties. He s t a t e d t h a t t h e [ w i f e ] s h o u l d n o t be p r o v i d e d any o f t h e f u n d s he h a s i n r e t i r e m e n t . H i s r e a s o n f o r h i s p o s i t i o n on t h e s e a s s e t s i s t h a t t h e [ w i f e ] h a d an a f f a i r a n d c a u s e d t h e b r e a k d o w n o f t h e marriage. "The [ w i f e ] w a n t s a s h a r e o f t h e e q u i t y i n t h e home, a s h a r e o f t h e [ h u s b a n d ' s ] r e t i r e m e n t fund, and a l i m o n y . The [husband] i s 53 y e a r s o l d . The [ w i f e ] i s 50 y e a r s o l d . The [ w i f e ] t e s t i f i e d t h a t she w o r k e d i n t h e home f o r t h e v a s t m a j o r i t y o f t h e m a r r i a g e so t h a t t h e [husband] c o u l d a d v a n c e i n h i s employment. She i s h e a l t h y a n d i s p h y s i c a l l y a b l e t o work. She h a s n o t a p p l i e d t o any s c h o o l s , o r f o r any employment, s i n c e t h e p a r t i e s ' s e p a r a t i o n . She has been w a i t i n g f o r t h e d i v o r c e t o be made f i n a l . She s t a t e d t h a t she i s w i l l i n g t o p a y h e r own l i v i n g e x p e n s e s once she c o m p l e t e s h e r r e - e d u c a t i o n . "The [ w i f e ] s t a t e d t h a t t h e [husband] s h o u l d be a l l o w e d t o l i v e i n t h e m a r i t a l home, b u t t h a t i t s h o u l d be l i s t e d f o r s a l e w i t h a r e a l e s t a t e a g e n t . She s t a t e d t h a t t h e [husband] s h o u l d p a y a l l t h e payments on t h e h o u s e , as he h a s b e e n d o i n g , u n t i l i t i s sold. She h a s no i n t e n t i o n s t o r e t u r n t o DeKalb County. "The p a r t i e s b o u g h t a [ L e x u s ] SUV [automobile] i n 2007. The [husband] s t a t e d t h a t t h i s was b o u g h t f o r t h e i r d a u g h t e r a n d t h a t he s o l d i t once she moved t o L o n d o n , UK, w i t h h e r h u s b a n d . The [ w i f e ] s t a t e d t h a t she d i d n o t know, u n t i l i t was s a i d i n c o u r t , t h a t t h e [ L e x u s ] was s o l d . She w a n t e d t h e [ t r i a l c o u r t ] t o a w a r d i t t o h e r . I n s t e a d , she wants t h e [ t r i a l c o u r t ] t o c o n s i d e r t h e f a c t t h a t t h a t v e h i c l e h a s been s o l d when i t makes a p r o p e r t y 7 2110967 division. The [ t r i a l sale of that v e h i c l e . court] does so c o n s i d e r the "The p a r t i e s b o t h t e s t i f i e d t h a t , o t h e r t h a n t h e retirement a c c o u n t , t h e y have no o t h e r i n v e s t m e n t accounts. The [husband] s t a t e d t h a t he h a d a checking account with a balance of approximately $646.00. He s t a t e d t h a t he h a d no c a s h . He s t a t e d t h a t i f he h a d t o p a y more t h a n $800.00 p e r month i n a l i m o n y , t h e n he w o u l d n o t be a b l e t o make t h e m o r t g a g e p a y m e n t s on t h e m a r i t a l residence." (Emphasis The added.) trial court's of property incident to i t s the parties judgment d i v o r c i n g division i s expressly stated t o have been d e t e r m i n e d a f t e r t h e t r i a l relevant fault had " c o n s i d e r [ e d ] a l l f a c t o r s under Alabama l a w , i n c l u d i n g t h e r e s p e c t i v e of the p a r t i e s (emphasis added). f o r t h e breakdown a real-estate t h a t , i f t h e home does n o t s e l l may seek of the marriage" The j u d g m e n t d i r e c t s t h e m a r i t a l home t o be placed for sale with parties court a judicial judgment, a t w o - t h i r d s agency w i t h i n 30 d a y s a n d w i t h i n 1 year t h e r e a f t e r , the sale o f t h e home; u n d e r t h e s h a r e o f t h e n e t p r o c e e d s o f any s a l e r e m a i n i n g a f t e r s a t i s f a c t i o n o f o u t s t a n d i n g m o r t g a g e s i s t o be a l l o c a t e d t o t h e husband and a o n e - t h i r d is t o be awarded allocated $150,000 to the wife. o f t h e husband's 8 share o f the proceeds The w i f e retirement was similarly account, an 2110967 amount t h a t r e p r e s e n t s one-third of the value as o f t h e p a r t i e s ' s e p a r a t i o n . of that account The w i f e f u r t h e r r e c e i v e d t h e 2004-model T o y o t a S e q u o i a a u t o m o b i l e a n d a l l p e r s o n a l e f f e c t s in her apartment; the husband received a l l household f u r n i s h i n g s i n t h e m a r i t a l home, t h e p a i n t i n g o f t h e p a r t i e s ' d a u g h t e r t h a t h a d b e e n removed f r o m t h e home, c e r t a i n v a s e s , a n d t h e r i g h t t o o c c u p y t h e home u n t i l the corresponding The trial rehabilitative having also standard of living after months of of l i v i n g during the potential f o r maintaining the divorce, ages and their health, t o t h e cause o f t h e d i v o r c e " (emphasis The t r i a l c o u r t e x p r e s s l y r e s e r v e d t h e r i g h t t o a w a r d p e r i o d i c alimony" that such a necessary to preserve f o r future reservation might consideration have to the formerly been t h e power t o make s u c h an a w a r d upon a proper m o d i f i c a t i o n request 15, 18 l e n g t h o f m a r r i a g e , s o u r c e o f common p r o p e r t y a n d conduct w i t h reference extent the wife "the p a r t i e s ' standard future prospects, "further awarded a l i m o n y i n t h e amount o f $800 p e r month a f t e r marriage, added). i t s sale (with d u t y t o make a l l m o r t g a g e p a y m e n t s ) . court considered education, antique (but s e e E n z o r v. E n z o r , 98 So. 3d 22 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) ( h o l d i n g t h a t a 9 time-delineated 2110967 award of rehabilitative alimony, a subclass of p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y , p r e s e r v e s j u d i c i a l power t o c o n s i d e r g r a n t i n g f u r t h e r periodic before " a t any t i m e , t h e award The that, alimony on p e t i t i o n of either party, expires")). w i f e f i l e d a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n s e e k i n g a new among o t h e r things, assailed trial the equity of the 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 and alimony award and a s s e r t e d , f o r the of a first connection time, trial the existence between t h e p a r t i e s ' judge warranted the that the grant judge. The a d u l t daughter and t h e t r i a l o f a new t r i a l trial social-networking court, and t h e r e c u s a l o f in i t s subsequent d i s p o s i t i v e o r d e r , made c e r t a i n a d j u s t m e n t s t o t h e m e c h a n i c s of t h e s a l e o f t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e , b u t otherwise the w i f e ' s The i t denied motion. f i r s t i s s u e r a i s e d by t h e w i f e concerns t h e p r o p r i e t y of t h e alimony and p r o p e r t y - d i v i s i o n p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t , as t o w h i c h t h e f o l l o w i n g r e v i e w p r i n c i p l e s apply: " G e n e r a l l y , t h e t r i a l c o u r t has wide d i s c r e t i o n over t h ee a w a r d o f a l i m o n y th and t h e d i v i s i o n o f d property, a n d i t may use whatever means a r e reasonable and n e c e s s a r y to d i v i d e the p a r t i e s ' property equitably. In d i v i d i n g p r o p e r t y and awarding alimony, the t r i a l c o u r t may consider several factors, i n c l u d i n g the p a r t i e s ' respective p r e s e n t a n d f u t u r e e a r n i n g c a p a c i t i e s , t h e i r ages 10 2110967 and t h e i r h e a l t h , t h e i r c o n d u c t , t h e d u r a t i o n o f t h e marriage, and t h e v a l u e and type of m a r i t a l property. T h i s c o u r t must c o n s i d e r t h e i s s u e s o f property division and alimony together when r e v i e w i n g t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . The 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 and a l i m o n y award w i l l n o t be s e t a s i d e on a p p e a l a b s e n t an abuse o f discretion." D a n i e l v. D a n i e l , 841 So. 2d 1246, 1249 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) (emphasis added; c i t a t i o n s omitted). In t h i s case, b o t h p a r t i e s a r e c o l l e g e - e d u c a t e d their early fifties a n d i n r e l a t i v e l y good h e a l t h . adults i n Although the w i f e had n o t been i n v o l v e d i n t h e w o r k f o r c e s i n c e 1988, during child, the infancy continues to hold previous experience of the p a r t i e s ' a business-education teaching keyboarding at the postsecondary l e v e l ; the t r i a l c r e d i t e d t h e husband's t e s t i m o n y could refresh her teaching taking enter degree she a n d she h a s s k i l l s and a c c o u n t i n g court c o u l d w e l l have to the e f f e c t that the wife c r e d e n t i a l s w i t h r e l a t i v e ease by teacher-certification additional education, now-adult classes or could, with some some d i f f e r e n t p r o f e s s i o n . The p r i n c i p a l p r o p e r t i e s o f any w o r t h h e l d b y t h e p a r t i e s are the marital home, which i s subject to significant i n d e b t e d n e s s and, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e husband's t e s t i m o n y , not yield significant net proceeds, 11 and the would husband's 2110967 r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t , w h i c h as we have s t a t e d was at the time of the p a r t i e s ' s e p a r a t i o n same month d u r i n g w i f e was of the which the divorce one-third of the the t r i a l i n h e r b r i e f on representing retirement is t o be the a c t i o n was The sale To t h e e x t e n t So. 1975, of wife $70,000, account a f t e r the f i l i n g of the d i v o r c e complaint, the e q u i t y of the 2d 663, 669 ( A l a . C i v . App. See 2005) property S m i t h v. Smith, (under A l a . Code § 30-2-51(b), a r e t i r e m e n t - b e n e f i t s award i n c i d e n t t o a divorce may benefits[] the t h a t the husband's i n determining value within the considered in d i v i s i o n , our c a s e l a w i s t o the c o n t r a r y . 964 benefits appeal that approximately appreciation (the filed). retirement court's consideration. intimates i n September 2010 net proceeds from the a w a r d e d o n e - t h i r d o f any home and w o r t h $450,000 not and properly income and inclusion furnishings, estate and of and the include a appreciation thereon"). sports-utility a previous inclusion husband's e s t a t e has a f f e c t e d the court's trial "postcomplaint not o n e - t h i r d of the p a r t i e s ' vehicle, retirement Further, apartment payment o f $11,000 i n t h e of marital-home been shown t o furnishings in have apparent design divisible 12 wife's assets. the substantially t o award the wife 2110967 The which wife to a determined we points number to be of cases inequitable i n her awards brief of in marital p r o p e r t y t o d i v o r c i n g s p o u s e s o f b e t w e e n 19 and 29 p e r c e n t the m a r i t a l a s s e t s for division. court i s also permitted However, as we to a v a i l a b l e t o be have n o t e d , considered the t r i a l of take i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n , i n d i v i d i n g m a r i t a l property, the conduct of the p a r t i e s w i t h r e s p e c t to the d i s s o l u t i o n of the marriage. Daniel, 841 So. 2d at c o u r t d i d not s t a t e t h a t i t was basis wife's of support the a determination where ... regard the t r i a l to the 972, 976 is a ... breakdown of respective marriage" court's fault had of been that the will should be the marriage, the even c o u r t f a i l e d t o s p e c i f y t h e g r o u n d s upon ( A l a . C i v . App. trial ground c o n s i d e r the conduct of 2002) P a t e v. P a t e , (affirming than h a l f of m a r i t a l a s s e t s to a d u l t e r o u s The trial § 3 0 - 2 - 1 ( a ) ( 2 ) , we have s q u a r e l y which i t based i t s d i v o r c e judgment." 2d the that p a r t i e s to a marriage h e l d t h a t " t h e t r i a l c o u r t may with Although d i v o r c i n g t h e p a r t i e s on a d u l t e r y , which d i v o r c e d , see A l a . Code 1975, parties 1249. judgment, the parties taken into 13 before for the 849 award of divorcing noting less spouse). that breakdown c o n s i d e r a t i o n by So. the of "the the trial 2110967 court, refers specifically regarding liaison his with had) and the discovery multiple the both the the wife's (which husband's having liaison she alleged, hotel stays the and a sexual admitted having suggestions misconduct i n the it." We meals w i t h her was that the conclude that w i t h no the trial determined t h a t the w i f e , having S i m i l a r l y , we fruits guilty of noting [the substantiate could properly engaged i n the in disbelief t o s a i d abuse, p r e c i p i t a t e d the d i s s o l u t i o n of the marriage, a s m a l l e r p r o p o r t i o n of the was evidence to court for paramour; p h y s i c a l abuse, [wife's] testimony presented detailing, charges court's husband f o r m o f m e n t a l and t h a t " [ o ] t h e r than the court] shared credit-card judgment i n d i c a t e s the t r i a l wife's trial wife's testimony had the p r e s e n t a t i o n of documentary evidence c o n t r a s t , the of of a n o t h e r man husband to conduct should have that receive thereof. f i n d no e r r o r w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e $800-per- month a w a r d o f r e h a b i l i t a t i v e p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y f o r 18 months. Although t h e w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she e x p e c t e d t o i n c u r m o n t h l y e x p e n s e s o f o v e r $4,000, t h e those trial c o u r t n o t e d t h a t some e x p e n s e s were somewhat i n f l a t e d by relocation from her her expectation of of c u r r e n t apartment i n Tennessee; f u r t h e r , 14 2110967 the w i f e of d e c l i n e d t o s e e k o r o b t a i n work d u r i n g the action, i n d i c a t i n g her a b i l i t y $800-per-month pendente lite monthly of the alimony monetary judgment. to subsist a l i m o n y award background award adultery leading supports the t r i a l i n the relative final health a l s o make h e r a c a n d i d a t e t o r e - t h e work f o r c e s o as t o s u p p o r t h e r s e l f . wife's upon t h e t h a t matched t h e A l s o , as we have n o t e d , t h e w i f e ' s and e d u c a t i o n a l enter level t h e pendency F i n a l l y , the to the d i s s o l u t i o n of the marriage court's j u d g m e n t as t o t h i s issue, given t h a t u n d e r A l a b a m a l a w m i s c o n d u c t o f a r e c i p i e n t s p o u s e may be considered as a b r i d g i n g t h a t s p o u s e ' s a l i m o n y c l a i m even when that misconduct Plaskett 1977). its i s n o t r e c i t e d as a g r o u n d v. P l a s k e t t , f o r the divorce. 348 So. 2d 784, 788 We c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l court ( A l a . C i v . App. d i d not a c t outside d i s c r e t i o n awarding p e r i o d i c alimony t o the w i f e . The court's second issue r a i s e d by t h e w i f e denial of the wife's that concerns the t r i a l n e w - t r i a l motion the t r i a l judge's asserting, i n pertinent part, connection t o the p a r t i e s ' a d u l t daughter warranted the grant o f a new t r i a l a n d t h e r e c u s a l o f t h e t r i a l reveals that, at the hearing on t h e w i f e ' s 15 social-networking judge. motion The r e c o r d f o r a new 2110967 trial, counsel f o r the wife, f o r the f i r s t time, i n t r o d u c e d a photocopy on o f an I n t e r n e t Web page t a k e n f r o m h i s own t h e s o c i a l - n e t w o r k i n g Web site facebook.com t h a t account showed t h a t t h e p a r t i e s ' d a u g h t e r , who grew up i n t h e t r i a l venue b u t who now lives "Facebook i n London, friends." England, The d e c i s i o n t o deny t h e m o t i o n , trial and the t r i a l court, judge are i n explaining his stated, i n pertinent part: " T h i s [Facebook] i s a s o c i a l n e t w o r k i n g s i t e where t h e w o r d ' f r i e n d ' i s u s e d [ i n a way] t h a t d o e s n ' t have a n y t h i n g t o do w i t h t h e way b e f o r e t h i s F a c e b o o k . c o m e v e r e x i s t e d -- t h e way we u s e d t h e word ' f r i e n d . ' "So j u s t b e c a u s e a p e r s o n i s c o n n e c t e d t o me on h e r e i n t h i s manner d o e s n ' t have a n y t h i n g t o do w i t h a personal relationship. I d o n ' t have a p e r s o n a l relationship with this friend. We a l l l i v e i n a s m a l l town. I have h e a r d b o t h o f you a l l ' s names. I've h e a r d [ t h e d a u g h t e r ' s ] name b e f o r e we came i n here today. "And i n f a c t , i n t h e c o u r s e o f l i v i n g h e r e , we have a l l r u n i n t o e a c h o t h e r b e f o r e . I t -- and I can s a y t h e same f o r [ t h e d a u g h t e r ] . I can't remember a s p e c i f i c t i m e when t h a t h a p p e n e d . "But t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f an e l e c t r o n i c f r i e n d o v e r F a c e b o o k has a b s o l u t e l y no i m p a c t on what I have done and what I'm g o i n g t o do." The parties, considerable assessing in argument their to appellate various the a b s t r a c t p r o p r i e t y 16 briefs, secondary o f a "Facebook devote authorities friendship" 2110967 b e t w e e n , f o r e x a m p l e , a t r i a l j u d g e and a p r a c t i c i n g However, t h e h u s b a n d p o i n t s o u t hearing the wife the p a r t i e s ' the record showing necessary "offered nothing d a u g h t e r as a reveals with t h a t at the that respect the to wife the to warrant the of the second the pertinent discovered after t r i a l the two trial indicating elements b a s e d upon bias that before Ex p a r t e K e n n e t h So. issue c o n t r i b u t i o n to t r i a l because d i s c l o s e d months b e f o r e 2d 271, D. (holding t h a t d e n i a l of n e w - t r i a l motion r a i s i n g proper 725 was (Ala. c a m p a i g n was XV, of 273 of p a r t y ' s f i n a n c i a l been sort judge's p o t e n t i a l b i a s : diligence." McLeod, S r . , F a m i l y L t d . P ' s h i p 1998) of Notably, " c o u l d n o t have b e e n d i s c o v e r e d t r i a l by t h e e x e r c i s e o f due of make any g r a n t i n g o f a new evidence bare s t a t u s judge." d i d not newly d i s c o v e r e d evidence of a t r i a l that new-trial-motion beyond the 'friend' attorney. judge's c o n t r i b u t i o n had trial and political been "unquestionably publicly c o u l d have detected"). For existence a l l that of the d a u g h t e r and appears record e l e c t r o n i c connection the t r i a l acquaintanceship i n the as the judge trial between the case, the parties' w h e t h e r i n d i c a t i v e o f a mere judge 17 in this noted on the record or 2110967 s o m e t h i n g more p r i v a t e and was and discoverable does n o t work o f t h e by s i n i s t e r as i n s i n u a t e d by t h e the amount t o a b a s i s trial court, presumed." Duncan v. counsel w e l l before t h a t under the the p a r t of a judge s h o u l d Sherrill, ( s t a t i n g p r i n c i p l e and trial f o r r e t r o a c t i v e l y undoing e s p e c i a l l y given o f A l a b a m a " [ p ] r e j u d i c e on 1977) wife's wife 341 So. 2d 946, affirming denial of law not 947 the be (Ala. new-trial m o t i o n b a s e d upon a l l e g a t i o n o f b i a s stemming s o l e l y f r o m f a c t that the plaintiff, the judge's a f i r s t - g r a d e schoolteacher, daughter). We thus decline j u d g m e n t u n d e r r e v i e w b a s e d upon t h e r a i s e d by the s e c o n d and taught reverse the final issue f a c t s and a u t h o r i t i e s , t h e trial wife. B a s e d upon t h e f o r e g o i n g c o u r t ' s judgment i s a f f i r m e d . o f an to had attorney's f e e on The w i f e ' s r e q u e s t f o r an a w a r d appeal i s denied. AFFIRMED. Thomas, Moore, and Thompson, P . J . , Donaldson, J J . , concur. dissents, with w r i t i n g . 18 2110967 THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g . I do n o t condone t h e c o n d u c t o f t h e w i f e However, t h e conduct factors the t r i a l property of the p a r t i e s court and f a s h i o n i n g must an Slaughter, 587 So. 2d 1215, fashioning a property trial c o u r t must i s only consider alimony i n this one o f many i n dividing award. marital Slaughter 1216 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 1 ) . division case. v. "In a n d an a w a r d o f a l i m o n y , t h e [ a l s o ] 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 ; t h e i r f u t u r e p r o s p e c t s ; t h e i r ages, health, and s t a t i o n marriage; property." App. (Ala. 2009) and the in life; source, value, and of the parties' type marital ( c i t i n g R o b i n s o n v. R o b i n s o n , 795 So. 2d 729, 734 f o r 26 y e a r s . In t h i s During case, t h e p a r t i e s had been most o f t h e m a r r i a g e , w o r k e d i n t h e home a n d r a i s e d t h e p a r t i e s ' c h i l d . college of S t o n e v . S t o n e , 26 So. 3d 1232, 1236 ( A l a . C i v . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) ) . married the length degree i n v o c a t i o n a l education t y p i n g and shorthand, enabled the wife The w i f e ' s her t o teach and, as she p o i n t e d o u t , t h a t degree i s now v i r t u a l l y o b s o l e t e . Even c o n s i d e r i n g t h e w i f e ' s conduct, I b e l i e v e t h a t t h e d i s p a r i t y between t h e p a r t i e s ' incomes and future prospects i n this c a s e i s s o s i g n i f i c a n t as t o r e n d e r 19 2110967 the trial inequitable. court's For property that division and reason, I r e s p e c t f u l l y 20 alimony dissent. award

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.