Cheri Denise Spuhl v. Robert Spuhl

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

rel: 01/11/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o 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 2111096 C h e r i Denise Spuhl v. Robert Spuhl Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t (DR-10-649.80) Court THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . This wife") i s t h e second and Robert Spuhl court i n connection time ("the that Cheri Denise husband") have b e e n b e f o r e 99 So. 3d 339 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) . opinion, this this w i t h t h e d i v i s i o n o f m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y and the award o f a l i m o n y i n t h e i r d i v o r c e judgment. Spuhl, S p u h l ("the See S p u h l v . In the e a r l i e r c o u r t f o u n d t h a t , b a s e d on a comment t h e t r i a l 2111096 c o u r t had made d u r i n g a d i s c u s s i o n w i t h t h e p a r t i e s ' at the e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g , mistakenly believed that military-retirement d i v i s i o n and source of prohibited as p e r i o d i c alimony. trial court Id. as assets, at remand J u l y 12, ("the provisions June 24, 2012 2011 the We original to as a reversed the division and in dividing Id. at trial i n the ("the subject trial the p a r t i e s military-retirement benefits, judgment") included treating remanded t h e c a u s e so t h a t t h e i n c l u d i n g the 2012, 341. court considered to the p r o p e r t y i n awarding p e r i o d i c alimony. On from a m a r i t a l asset could exercise i t s discretion marital and i t was benefits t h e a w a r d o f a l i m o n y and court i t appeared t h a t the t r i a l t h a t s u c h b e n e f i t s c o u l d o n l y be judgment of the attorneys 342. court entered reaffirming original divorce divorce a judgment the terms and judgment judgment"). dated The c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t , at the time i t e n t e r e d the o r i g i n a l on trial divorce j u d g m e n t , i t had b e e n m i n d f u l t h a t i t c o u l d " f a s h i o n t h e a w a r d [of m i l i t a r y - r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s ] as e i t h e r a p r o p e r t y or p e r i o d i c alimony." evidence entered presented the A f t e r considering i t s options in this original divorce case, the trial judgment, w h i c h 2 court award and the said, i t " i t determined 2111096 was the fairest explaining and most i t s decision equitable to r e a f f i r m to both the parties." amount o f In periodic a l i m o n y awarded t o the w i f e i n the o r i g i n a l d i v o r c e judgment, the t r i a l court wrote: "Quite f r a n k l y , t h i s c o u r t determined t h a t both the [ h ] u s b a n d and t h e [ w ] i f e s u b m i t t e d an u n r e a s o n a b l e and i n f l a t e d m o n t h l y e x p e n s e b u d g e t i n t o e v i d e n c e i n t h e t r i a l o f t h i s c a s e ; and h a d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e [ w ] i f e ' s r e a s o n a b l e and n e c e s s a r y m o n t h l y e x p e n s e s , and t h e r e f o r e , h e r n e e d f o r s u p p o r t f o r h e r s e l f f r o m t h e [ h ] u s b a n d ; h e r own a b i l i t y t o e a r n income w i t h w h i c h t o meet, a t l e a s t p a r t i a l l y , t h o s e r e a s o n a b l e and n e c e s s a r y m o n t h l y e x p e n s e s ; and t h e a b i l i t y o f the [h]usband t o c o n t r i b u t e t o her support, t a k i n g i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n the other s i g n i f i c a n t f i n a n c i a l o b l i g a t i o n s i m p o s e d on h i m i n t h e [ j u d g m e n t ] , as w e l l as h i s own r e a s o n a b l e and n e c e s s a r y m o n t h l y e x p e n s e s . ... " The wife timely appealed contending t h a t the t r i a l from the c o u r t had abused 2012 judgment, i t s discretion in d i v i d i n g t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y and i n a w a r d i n g h e r o n l y $2,250 a month i n p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y . She a l s o c l a i m s t h a t the trial c o u r t a p p l i e d an i n c o r r e c t s t a n d a r d i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e amount of p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y t o be In awarded. our p r e v i o u s o p i n i o n , t h i s c o u r t s e t out the c o n t a i n e d i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l as evidence follows: "The p a r t i e s m a r r i e d i n J a n u a r y 1993. Two c h i l d r e n ('the c h i l d r e n ' ) were b o r n o f t h e m a r r i a g e . The wife had two other children from a previous 3 2111096 marriage; t h e y were a d u l t s a t t h e t i m e o f t h i s action. At t r i a l , the wife contended t h a t the h u s b a n d h a d an a f f a i r , w h i c h was c o n t i n u i n g a t t h e t i m e o f t h e t r i a l , a n d t h a t t h e a f f a i r was what h a d caused t h e breakdown o f t h e m a r r i a g e . The h u s b a n d , on t h e o t h e r hand, t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d a s k e d t h e w i f e f o r a d i v o r c e as e a r l y as 2004. The e v i d e n c e indicated that the p a r t i e s frequently argued, y e l l i n g a t each o t h e r and c a l l i n g each o t h e r v u l g a r names. A t times, t h e arguments t u r n e d p h y s i c a l . The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t o an i n c i d e n t i n w h i c h he a n d t h e w i f e were a r g u i n g a n d t h e w i f e ' g r a b b e d ' h i s g e n i t a l s and then s c r a t c h e d him. "When t h e p a r t i e s m a r r i e d , t h e h u s b a n d was i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Army. He h a d b e e n i n t h e army s i n c e December 1983. The h u s b a n d r e t i r e d f r o m t h e army as a l i e u t e n a n t c o l o n e l i n 2005, a n d t h e f a m i l y moved t o H u n t s v i l l e , where t h e h u s b a n d w o r k e d as a civilian. A t t h e time t h e husband f i l e d this a c t i o n , h i s g r o s s m o n t h l y s a l a r y was $8,993.81. From h i s e m p l o y e r , t h e h u s b a n d a l s o e a r n e d b o n u s e s , h i s c e l l u l a r - t e l e p h o n e phone b i l l was p a i d , a n d , i n 2010, he r e c e i v e d a $4,800 d i s t r i b u t i o n f r o m h i s e m p l o y e r ' s 'SAR a c c o u n t . ' I n a d d i t i o n , t h e husband r e c e i v e d m i l i t a r y - r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s o f $3,802 e a c h month, w h i c h i n c l u d e d a V e t e r a n s A f f a i r s ' w a i v e r o f $376. The h u s b a n d ' s g r o s s m o n t h l y income a t t h e time of t h e t r i a l was $14,951.14; h i s a v e r a g e m o n t h l y n e t income was $9,390. "The w i f e d i d n o t work o u t s i d e t h e home d u r i n g the marriage. She t e s t i f i e d t h a t , b e c a u s e o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s d e p l o y m e n t s , s h e was o f t e n t h e o n l y p e r s o n a v a i l a b l e t o c a r e f o r t h e c h i l d r e n . The w i f e s a i d that between running the household and h e r responsibilities as a m i l i t a r y spouse, which i n c l u d e d a s s i s t i n g o t h e r m i l i t a r y s p o u s e s w i t h any number o f d i f f i c u l t i e s t h e y may e n c o u n t e r , she f o u n d i t i m p o s s i b l e t o have a c a r e e r o u t s i d e t h e home. A t the time o f t h e t r i a l , t h e w i f e w o r k e d as a receptionist i n a doctor's office earning $11 4 2111096 hourly. She e a c h week. worked approximately 30 t o 32 hours "The p a r t i e s d i d n o t own any r e a l p r o p e r t y a t the time of the t r i a l . They t e s t i f i e d as t o t h e i r p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y ; t h e v a l u e o f t h e i r v a r i o u s bank accounts, retirement accounts, and insurance p o l i c i e s ; t h e i r t h r e e v e h i c l e s ; and t h e i r d e b t . " A f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g the evidence, the t r i a l court e n t e r e d a judgment d i v i d i n g t h e p a r t i e s ' p e r s o n a l property, their vehicles, and their various i n s u r a n c e p o l i c i e s , bank a c c o u n t s , and r e t i r e m e n t accounts, excluding the husband's militaryr e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s . The 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 $2,250 e a c h month i n p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y . The t r i a l c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t t h e amount o f t h e w i f e ' s p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y was t o be e q u a l t o 28% o f t h e husband's g r o s s n o n d i s a b i l i t y m i l i t a r y r e t i r e m e n t benefits." 99 So. 3d a t 340-41. In failure as this appeal, court's t o d i v i d e the husband's m i l i t a r y - r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s a m a r i t a l asset marital the wife a s s e r t s that the t r i a l r e s u l t e d i n an inequitable division of property. 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 well settled. "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 tenus evidence, 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 court 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 wrong. 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. 5 2111096 2 0 0 1 ) ; P a r r i s h v . P a r r i s h , 617 So. 2d 1036, 1038 (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) ; a n d 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 required t o be equitable, not equal, 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 t h e broad d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l court. P a r r i s h , 617 So. 2d a t 1038." S t o n e v. S t o n e , 26 So. 3d 1232, 1236 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . "The i s s u e s o f p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n and alimony a r e i n t e r r e l a t e d , a n d t h e y must be c o n s i d e r e d t o g e t h e r . A l b e r t s o n v. A l b e r t s o n , 678 So. 2d 118 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 [ 5 ] ) . A property d i v i s i o n i s not r e q u i r e d t o be e q u a l , b u t 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 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) . In 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 a n d 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 f u t u r e p r o s p e c t s ; t h e i r ages a n d h e a l t h ; t h e l e n g t h of t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e ; and t h e s o u r c e , v a l u e , and type of 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. 2 0 0 1 ) ] ; L u t z v . L u t z , 485 So. 2d 1174 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1986) . In a d d i t i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t may a l s o c o n s i d e r t h e conduct o f t h e p a r t i e s w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e breakdown o f t h e m a r r i a g e , e v e n where t h e p a r t i e s a r e d i v o r c e d on t h e b a s i s o f i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y , o r , as h e r e , where t h e t r i a l 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 w h i c h i t based i t s d i v o r c e judgment. 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. 2d 311 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 8 ) ; L u t z v. L u t z , s u p r a . " Pate v. P a t e , In this retirement 849 So. 2d 972, 976 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) . case, when t h e v a l u e benefits i s excluded o f t h e husband's from the c a l c u l a t i o n , d i v i s i o n o f m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y i s r e l a t i v e l y even. 6 militarythe The p a r t i e s 2111096 agree t h a t the value wife of the m a r i t a l property awarded t o t h e $87,830 a n d t h e v a l u e of the m a r i t a l i s approximately p r o p e r t y awarded t o t h e husband i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y $80,158. The w i f e ' s share o f t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y , e x c l u d i n g t h e husband's military-retirement husband's share i s approximately marital asset the accrued during approximately its entirety. calculation share 48%. 52%, and t h e However, the l a r g e s t m i l i t a r y - r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s t h e husband the course of the marriage had a value of $434,500, a n d i t was a w a r d e d t o t h e h u s b a n d i n 1 When the of the d i v i s i o n of the t o t a l than b e n e f i t s , i s approximately value $434, 500 i s included of m a r i t a l property, of m a r i t a l assets 15%; t h e h u s b a n d ' s s h a r e i n the the wife's i s slightly i s s l i g h t l y more t h a n 8 5 % . The p u r p o s e o f a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t less 2 i n a divorce action i s t o g i v e "each spouse t h e v a l u e o f [ h i s o r her] i n t e r e s t i n The w i f e acknowledges t h a t o n l y a p o r t i o n of the h u s b a n d ' s m i l i t a r y - r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s were a c c r u e d d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e a n d s u b j e c t t o d i v i s i o n as m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y . The t o t a l v a l u e o f t h e husband's m i l i t a r y - r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s i s more t h a n $750,000. 1 A s t o d e b t , t h e j u d g m e n t made e a c h p a r t y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e d e b t i n h i s o r h e r name. A t t h e t i m e t h e o r i g i n a l d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d , t h e w i f e owed a t o t a l o f $15,824 a n d t h e h u s b a n d owed a t o t a l o f $27,124. 2 7 2111096 the marriage." (Ala. 1982). periodic Pattillo v. Pattillo, M o r e o v e r , we alimony, note a division 414 2d 915, 917 unlike that, So. an award of of m a r i t a l property m o d i f i e d upon a s h o w i n g o f c h a n g e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s . Kahn, 682 So. 2d 1377 c a n n o t be See Kahn v. ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) . In H e n d e r s o n v. H e n d e r s o n , 800 So. 2d 595 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2000), t h i s c o u r t r e v e r s e d a t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i v i s i o n of m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y , h o l d i n g t h a t " [ i ] t i s i n e q u i t a b l e t o deny t h e w i f e [who was u n e m p l o y e d and who d i d n o t have a r e t i r e m e n t p l a n o f h e r own] a p o r t i o n of the husband's r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s a f t e r 34 y e a r s of marriage." So. 2d 825 I d . a t 599. ( A l a . C i v . App. I n Adams v. Adams, 2000), 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 was s i m i l a r t o t h e d i v i s i o n i n t h i s c a s e . c o u r t had awarded t h e w i f e a s s e t s o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 16% of assets the m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y , property. holding had approximately $385,000, or I d . a t 826. of and This "that the court property award 778 The trial $64,000, o r awarded the husband 84% the marital of reversed to the the judgment, wife is so d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e as t o be i n e q u i t a b l e and t h a t i t c o n s t i t u t e s an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . " I d . a t 827. 8 2111096 The r e c o r d i n t h i s blameless parties before i n causing case i n d i c a t e s t h a t n e i t h e r p a r t y i s t h e breakdown of the a p p e a r t o have h a d an a c r i m o n i o u s marriage--the r e l a t i o n s h i p even t h e h u s b a n d began t h e a f f a i r he was h a v i n g of t h e t r i a l . As t o t h e 1 8 - y e a r m a r r i a g e i t s e l f , a t the time thewife d i d n o t work o u t s i d e o f t h e home b e c a u s e o f t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s placed on h e r a s a r e s u l t o f t h e husband's p a r t i e s both t e s t i f i e d that the wife played in f u r t h e r i n g t h e husband's m i l i t a r y wife an i n t e g r a l career. The role Moreover, the s a i d t h a t when t h e h u s b a n d was r e q u i r e d t o be away f r o m home f o r l o n g p e r i o d s , keep career. the household caretaker. We s h e o v e r s a w a l l t h a t was n e c e s s a r y t o running, conclude and that s h e was the t r i a l the children's court's failure to award t h e w i f e any p a r t o f t h e husband's m i l i t a r y - r e t i r e m e n t benefits--by f a r the p a r t i e s ' l a r g e s t m a r i t a l a s s e t - - r e s u l t e d i n an i n e q u i t a b l e d i v i s i o n o f m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y . the Accordingly, j u d g m e n t i s due t o be r e v e r s e d . As h a s o f t e n been s a i d , t h e award o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y i s considered assets. the award i n conjunction with the d i v i s i o n of the m a r i t a l H e n d e r s o n v . H e n d e r s o n , 800 So. 2d a t 597. of p e r i o d i c alimony 9 i s considered Because i n conjunction 2111096 with the the d i v i s i o n trial that court's the t r i a l alimony of marital property, we must a l s o award o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y court can r e c o n s i d e r and m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y t o g e t h e r . reverse t o t h e w i f e so i t s award of periodic In doing s o , we n o t e t h a t , i n t h e case o f m i l i t a r y - r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s , " [ a ] l t h o u g h r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s may be d i v i d e d a s p r o p e r t y , s u c h b e n e f i t s a r e e q u a l l y a v a i l a b l e as a s o u r c e periodic Civ. alimony." Rose v . R o s e , App. 2 0 1 1 ) . benefits, source "[T]here i n the event of alimony o f income f r o m w h i c h t o p a y i s no r e q u i r e m e n t that military o f a d i v o r c e , be t r e a t e d o n l y i n gross equitable division. 70 So. 3d 429, 432 ( A l a . ..." o r as m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y Id. as a subject to ( e m p h a s i s added.) F o r t h e r e a s o n s s e t f o r t h a b o v e , we r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t of t h e t r i a l to c o u r t a n d remand t h i s cause f o r t h e t r i a l court e q u i t a b l y d i v i d e t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s and t o r e c o n s i d e r i t s award o f p e r i o d i c The wife's alimony. request f o r an a t t o r n e y f e e on a p p e a l i s denied. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Pittman, Bryan, Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , without 10 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.