Mohammad Heyat v. Anahita Rahnemaei

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/17/2013 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 2120256 Mohammad Heyat v. A n a h i t a Rahnemaei A n a h i t a Rahnemaei v. Mohammad Heyat Appeals from Shelby C i r c u i t (DR-10-900375) PER CURIAM. Court 2120256 This before i s the second this court. time these parties have See H e y a t v. R a h n e m a e i, I n Heyat, 107 So. 3d 216 (Ala. C i v . App. 2012) . filed b y Mohammad H e y a t ( " t h e h u s b a n d " ) a n d a filed by A n a h i t a Rahnemaei we d i s m i s s e d ("the w i f e " ) appeared an appeal cross-appeal from a judgment d i v o r c i n g the p a r t i e s because the t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t was not The t r i a l final. since Heyat, rendered 107 So. 3 d a t 218. c o u r t has a f i n a l j u d g m e n t , a n d t h e p a r t i e s have again sought a p p e l l a t e review. The h u s b a n d a n d t h e w i f e were m a r r i e d At the time, t h e h u s b a n d was a s t u d e n t i n 1985 i n I r a n . i n the United States. He h a d r e c e i v e d h i s b a c h e l o r ' s d e g r e e i n c i v i l e n g i n e e r i n g a n d planned he t o s e e k a m a s t e r ' s d e g r e e i n t h e same s u b j e c t worked as a w a i t e r back to Iran I r a n i a n woman. t o support f o r the purpose After f a m i l y and t h e w i f e ' s himself. of meeting a mutual f r i e n d matter; He h a d t r a v e l e d and m a r r y i n g of both an t h e husband's f a m i l y m e n t i o n e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was s e e k i n g a w i f e a n d t h a t t h e w i f e was o f t h e a p p r o p r i a t e a g e , t h e f a m i l i e s met. A f t e r a few months, t h e h u s b a n d a s k e d t h e w i f e t o marry h i m ; she s a i d t h a t h e r p a r e n t s the i d e a , so she a g r e e d marriage, had approved o f t o marry t h e husband. i t t o o k n e a r l y two y e a r s 2 After their f o r t h e husband t o secure 2120256 a v i s a f o r thewife t o enter the United States. all in During nearly o f t h a t two-year p e r i o d , the w i f e l i v e d w i t h h e r parents I r a n and t h e husband l i v e d i n Birmingham. When t h e w i f e j o i n e d t h e h u s b a n d i n B i r m i n g h a m i n 1987, she c o u l d n o t speak E n g l i s h . learn the language, nuclear-medicine 1990, while parties' a home a n d , i n 1989, she b e g a n technology at a local she was a s t u d e n t , first parties f i r s t She t o o k c l a s s e s a t c h u r c h e s t o child, a junior the wife daughter classes i n college. gave b i r t h i n Southside ("the S o u t h s i d e The purchased house"). completed her b a c h e l o r ' s degree i n nuclear-medicine at to the ("the d a u g h t e r " ) . l i v e d i n an a p a r t m e n t , b u t t h e y l a t e r In The wife technology t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f A l a b a m a a t B i r m i n g h a m i n 1995. The w i f e began w o r k i n g i n 1995. some p e r i o d b u t t h e n b e g a n w o r k i n g She w o r k e d f u l l t i m e f o r only p a r t time, presumably when s h e g a v e b i r t h t o t h e p a r t i e s ' s e c o n d c h i l d , a s o n ("the son"), time, i n 1998. b u t she has worked s i n c e 2004. 2011, per The w i f e A t t h e time has c o n t i n u e d only three t o work s i n c e or four days p e r week of the t r i a l i n t h i s matter t h e w i f e was e a r n i n g $5,100 p e r month w o r k i n g week. 3 that i nJuly f o u r days 2120256 During college, began the first working first lot, years as a and then Eventually, house as a b u i l d e r . superintendent f o r two i n 1992, t h e h u s b a n d b u i l t He s a i d c o n s t r u c t i o n was c o m p l e t e d . business as B r o o k f i e l d built second that he p u r c h a s e d a a house sell, and the a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1995. The The h u s b a n d t h e n b e g a n d o i n g Company. ("the R i d g e w o o d house") The husband i n t h e same That second house, however, d i d parties moved They t h e n r e n t e d into that house in t h e S o u t h s i d e house. h u s b a n d n e x t t o o k on as a p r o j e c t t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f custom-built According He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he made Construction n e i g h b o r h o o d as t h e f i r s t . that attended construction a $31,000 " p r o f i t " on t h a t home. a that s e c u r e d a c o n s t r u c t i o n l o a n , b u i l t t h e house, and s o l d i t before not the wife w o r k i n g as a w a i t e r the husband c o n t i n u e d separate contractors. his few home in a neighborhood called Weatherly. t o t h e h u s b a n d , he e a r n e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y $90,000 on project, with which he p a i d o f f t h e mortgage on t h e Ridgewood house. A f t e r completing the p r o j e c t i n Weatherly, the 13 " s p e c h o u s e s " i n a n e i g h b o r h o o d husband b u i l t Eagle Point however, one ("the E a g l e homeowner Point houses"). sued the husband concerning the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e house. 4 Those h o u s e s over some called sold; issues That l a w s u i t was 2120256 s e t t l e d , b u t i t c o s t t h e husband and legal fees. $100,000 i n s e t t l e m e n t f u n d s The w i f e p r o v i d e d t h e h u s b a n d t h e $100,000 f r o m money s h e h a d s a v e d f o r t h e d a u g h t e r ' s c o l l e g e e d u c a t i o n . After t h e husband completed the Eagle P o i n t houses, he b e g a n c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e l a r g e s t home he h a d e v e r b u i l t i n t h e Greystone neighborhood, Greystone money house"). located in Shelby County A c c o r d i n g t o t h e husband, he h a d e a r n e d from h i s other projects ("the he u s e d t h e t o fund the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e G r e y s t o n e h o u s e a n d t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n was not funded husband by t h e proceeds t e s t i f i e d that construction loan. The a l l o f h i s money was t i e d up i n t h e G r e y s t o n e house and t h a t , c o m p l e t i n g t h e house. of a i n fact, he r a n o u t o f money w h i l e When t h e G r e y s t o n e h o u s e d i d n o t s e l l i m m e d i a t e l y , t h e w i f e c o n v i n c e d t h e husband that they should move f r o m t h e R i d g e w o o d house t o t h e G r e y s t o n e h o u s e , which t h e y d i d i n December 2006. The h u s b a n d order to s e l l in t h e n began t o r e m o d e l t h e R i d g e w o o d house i n i t . He e x p l a i n e d t h a t he r e m o d e l e d t h e k i t c h e n t h e R i d g e w o o d house b y t i l i n g t h e f l o o r , p u t t i n g i n m a r b l e countertops, changing cabinet doors, "updating the plumbing," and replacing husband, the f i x t u r e s and s i n k . According to the t h e r e m o d e l i n g p r o j e c t c o s t a p p r o x i m a t e l y $55,000 a n d 5 2120256 t o o k more t h a n a y e a r t o c o m p l e t e b e c a u s e he d i d n o t have t h e money t o c o m p l e t e t h e p r o j e c t a l l a t one t i m e . h o u s e s o l d i n 2010 f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y The R i d g e w o o d $203,000. The G r e y s t o n e house was t h e l a s t h o u s e t h e h u s b a n d b u i l t . After the p a r t i e s moved i n t o the Greystone began h a v i n g i s s u e s w i t h t h e h u s b a n d ' s employment. house, the w i f e lack of remunerative She s a i d t h a t she h a d u r g e d h i m t o g e t a j o b o f some k i n d t o p r o v i d e s u p p o r t f o r t h e f a m i l y b u t t h a t , instead, t h e h u s b a n d became more " f e r v e n t " i n h i s r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s a n d i n h i s attendance a t a mosque. with the tenets of their although they had not s t r i c t l y b o t h he and she were M u s l i m , She e x p l a i n e d t h a t , complied religion. However, the wife t e s t i f i e d t h a t , b e g i n n i n g i n 2006 o r 2007, t h e h u s b a n d began to a t t e n d mosque much more than frequently, once p e r d a y , a n d t h a t , i n doing sometimes e v e n more s o , he n e g l e c t e d h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s to h i s family. The wife, testified that sentiments. that her friend, husband had Rogers, and t h e d a u g h t e r expressed anti-American As examples, t h e w i f e and t h e d a u g h t e r t h e husband terrorist the Shahin had c e l e b r a t e d t h e September testified 11, 2 0 0 1 , a t t a c k s and t h a t he a l s o w o u l d s a y , i n h i s n a t i v e I r a n i a n language, Farsi, "God i s g o o d , " when he h e a r d o f t h e 6 2120256 death of American soldiers daughter t e s t i f i e d America" around t h a t the the The the husband t a k i n g the had a and be however, at that the cross-examination by that had said he desired America husband and testified would that that like to the husband the volunteer He also of to the can do i n t h e at terrorist." stop overheard he to discussing return Under s a i d at s a i d t h a t he 7 like further living She times North Korean in also that he or the America. expressed had not, testified Iran. other fight against ever Rogers not to did anti-American time. did f o r e i t h e r the having and the p r o p r i e t y of American that that him the husband to husband's c o u n s e l , could husband d e n i e d sentiments. t o ask home had h u s b a n d had A f g h a n army so t h a t he The you t o become a had her she from the result M i d d l e E a s t became h e a t e d ; she testify sentiments "death t a u g h t t h i n g s I d o n ' t want t h a t she had party i n the a i s nothing p o l i t i c s when a d i s c u s s i o n r e g a r d i n g involvement as The t o t h e mosque s e v e r a l t i m e s a week T h i n g s t h a t a r e p a r t o f how attending news. begun c h a n t i n g presumably to her, " t h e r e Rogers t e s t i f i e d others television w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she d i d n o t want son mosque, j u s t s i t t h e r e to l e a r n . the son house, husband's i n f l u e n c e . because, according on grieved anti-American the September 2120256 11, 2001, t e r r o r i s t attacks and t h a t he a n d h i s f a m i l y h a d attended a c a n d l e l i g h t v i g i l f o r the v i c t i m s of those a t t a c k s . He s a i d t h a t he l o v e d A m e r i c a , did not support " t h e war." t h a t he w o u l d The wife supervised ("the He d e n i e d t h a t he h a d e v e r said to return to Iran to l i v e . testified that t h e husband had f i n a n c e d t h e b u i l d i n g o f two " f l a t s " o r a p a r t m e n t s Iranian interest like a l t h o u g h he d i d a d m i t t h a t he apartments"). i n those and i n Iran The h u s b a n d d e n i e d h a v i n g any apartments, a l t h o u g h he a d m i t t e d that he " t h o u g h t " t h a t he h a d " l o a n e d " money t o h i s f a m i l y t o a s s i s t with the contains construction two sets of of those apartments. documents purporting ownership i n t e r e s t s i n those apartments. The to record show the One s e t o f d o c u m e n t s i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e h u s b a n d owned b o t h o f t h e a p a r t m e n t s , t h e o t h e r s e t i n d i c a t e s t h a t , as o f t h e t i m e o f t r i a l , while neither was owned b y t h e h u s b a n d . The husband admitted that he had not sought other employment a f t e r h i s a b i l i t y t o make a l i v i n g a s a b u i l d e r h a d ended. support said He blamed h i s family that t h e economy through f o r ending his ability to business. He h i s home-building he h a d n o t a d v e r t i s e d h i s business a t any t i m e . When q u e s t i o n e d , he a d m i t t e d t h a t he h a d h a d a few j o b s d o i n g 8 2120256 work l i k e a d d i n g a p o r c h o r p a i n t i n g , b u t not it. actively s o u g h t s u c h work d e s p i t e Upon f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n i n g was b u i l d i n g houses, the the income he had followed "the reported he s a i d t h a t he his ability regarding to had perform h i s income w h i l e husband appeared c o n f u s e d on h i s t a x r e t u r n s ; he he regarding stated that he book o f t h e I [ n t e r n a l R [ e v e n u e ] S [ e r v i c e ] " when c o m p u t i n g h i s income and filling out his tax returns. N o t a b l y , t h e h u s b a n d ' s t a x r e t u r n s do n o t show t h a t he significant business. The h u s b a n d was $800 p e r living income f r o m h i s c o n s t r u c t i o n income. a l s o q u e s t i o n e d about h i s a b i l i t y to month i n r e n t expenses The earned when f o r h i s a p a r t m e n t and he claimed that he meet h i s did not pay other earn any h u s b a n d ' s r e n t a l a p p l i c a t i o n l i s t s h i s income $13,330 p e r m o n t h ; t h e h u s b a n d s t a t e d t h a t he had as not written t h a t amount as h i s income on t h e r e n t a l a p p l i c a t i o n . Despite the f a c t t h a t the husband c l a i m e d t h a t he had no income, h u s b a n d a d m i t t e d t h a t he was c u r r e n t on h i s $800 m o n t h l y payments. he admitted When having asked how taken a c o n s t r u c t i n g a p o r c h and had l e n t him money. The few paid small his rent, jobs like the the rent husband painting or a l s o s a i d t h a t f r i e n d s a t h i s mosque h u s b a n d f u r t h e r e x p l a i n e d t h a t he t a k e n some money o u t o f an a c c o u n t and had 9 had k e p t i t h i d d e n away 2120256 b e c a u s e a l l o f h i s a c c o u n t s were f r o z e n b y c o u r t the w i f e i n s t i t u t e d the divorce had used withdraw t h e $500 p e r month f r o m one a c c o u n t when a c t i o n ; he s a i d he u s e d some o f t h a t money when n e e d e d t o p a y e x p e n s e s . he order that He a l s o s a i d t h a t he was p e r m i t t e d t o pay h i s r e n t ; counsel to f o r the w i f e r e m i n d e d h i m t h a t t h a t a c c o u n t h a d b e e n e x h a u s t e d i n May 2011. The h u s b a n d a d m i t t e d console, which providing cost over any s u p p o r t pendency o f t h e d i v o r c e The t h a t he h a d p u r c h a s e d a v i d e o - g a m e $400, f o r the son, i n s t e a d f o r the wife and t h e son d u r i n g t h e action. i n c i d e n t that provoked the wife a c t i o n took place of to f i l e i n l a t e J u l y 2010. According t h e h u s b a n d became i r a t e a t a d i n n e r . m o t h e r - i n - l a w " ) was v i s i t i n g the divorce to the wife, The w i f e ' s m o t h e r ( " t h e a t the time, a n d she h a d b e e n s t a y i n g a t t h e p a r t i e s ' home f o r a few m o n t h s . The w i f e said t h a t t h e husband began b e i n g d i s r e s p e c t f u l t o w a r d t h e m o t h e r in-law The and t h r e a t e n e d wife said that t o have h e r a r r e s t e d t h e h u s b a n d began y e l l i n g G r e y s t o n e house had been b u i l t mother-in-law should wife testified, and h a n d c u f f e d . a b o u t how t h e f o r f o u r p e o p l e and t h a t t h e n o t be l i v i n g there. I n a d d i t i o n , the t h e h u s b a n d s a i d t h a t he w o u l d n o t l e a v e t h e house f o r t h e w i f e and t h e m o t h e r - i n - l a w t o l i v e 10 i n and t h a t 2120256 he w o u l d b u r n down t h e h o u s e . h u s b a n d t h a t he s h o u l d disrespect, wife When t h e w i f e b e g a n t e l l i n g t h e not t r e a t the mother-in-law with she s a i d t h a t t h e husband t h r e a t e n e d t o t h e b a c k y a r d and c u t o f f h e r h e a d . such t o take the During this same argument, the w i f e t e s t i f i e d , the husband c a l l e d the d a u g h t e r , who was a t l e a s t 21 y e a r s o l d a t t h e t i m e , and late began c o m p l a i n i n g at night t h a t s h e c a l l e d " b o y s " on t h e t e l e p h o n e and t h a t she d r e s s e d Rogers and t h e daughter t e s t i f i e d The inappropriately. Both s i m i l a r l y to the w i f e . h u s b a n d remembered c e r t a i n d e t a i l s differently. a whore i n F a r s i of that incident He s a i d t h a t he h a d b e e n f a s t i n g as p a r t o f h i s observance of observance, when Ramadan, a the wife month-long had c a l l e d Muslim religious him t o the t a b l e . B e c a u s e he was f a s t i n g a n d t h e t i m e t o b r e a k h i s f a s t h a d n o t y e t come, t h e h u s b a n d s a i d , he went t o t h e t a b l e t o s p e a k w i t h t h e g u e s t s i n h i s home b u t n o t t o e a t d i n n e r . the i n c i d e n t a s an "ambush." He r e f e r r e d t o He s a i d t h a t he was questioned r e g a r d i n g h i s t h o u g h t s a b o u t women a n d t h a t t h e w i f e a n n o u n c e d t h a t she w a n t e d a d i v o r c e a n d t h a t she s h o u l d G r e y s t o n e house i n t h e d i v o r c e . very upset including, and t h a t he The h u s b a n d s a i d he became had s a i d some q u i t e p o s s i b l y , t h a t he c o u l d 11 be a w a r d e d t h e things i n anger, cut o f fthe wife's 2120256 h e a d ; h o w e v e r , he t e s t i f i e d do s u c h a t h i n g . t h a t i t was not i n h i s nature to He d e n i e d s a y i n g t h a t he w o u l d b u r n down t h e G r e y s t o n e h o u s e ; i n s t e a d , he s a i d , he h a d b e e n s a y i n g t h a t w o u l d n o t a c t l i k e someone on t h e news who he h a d b u r n e d down h i s house. When q u e s t i o n e d r e g a r d i n g the allegation that he had c a l l e d t h e d a u g h t e r a whore, t h e h u s b a n d d e n i e d h a v i n g c a l l e d the daughter concerns "such about a thing." He the daughter's admitted that b e h a v i o r and he dress. t h a t he h a d n e v e r a d d r e s s e d h i s c o n c e r n s o v e r t h e behavior always or dress w i t h gone her t o t h e w i f e and model f o r the daughter, modestly. directly. To urged He her, said as the to l e a d the daughter have a d d r e s s e d such things had had He said daughter's that he had female role t o b e h a v e more directly with the d a u g h t e r , s a i d t h e h u s b a n d , w o u l d have e m b a r r a s s e d h e r o r made her u n c o m f o r t a b l e . A l t h o u g h the w i f e had t e s t i f i e d that the h u s b a n d h a d s a i d t h a t he h o p e d t h e d a u g h t e r w o u l d g e t b r e a s t cancer because the she wore c l o t h i n g t h a t r e v e a l e d h e r c l e a v a g e , h u s b a n d d e n i e d h a v i n g e v e r made s u c h a s t a t e m e n t . The son t e s t i f i e d i n camera. p r e f e r to l i v e w i t h the husband. had expressed He t e s t i f i e d would He d e n i e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d anti-American sentiments 12 t h a t he or that the husband 2120256 wanted to return to Iran husband wanted to v i s i t with him; t h e son a s k e d why he explained that needed fatherly a to live. Iran and that s a i d t h a t he had would p r e f e r he was The the years influence old at said son that the and his the wanted to v i s i t e d Iran before. to l i v e with 13 son go When husband, the that age. he son thought The son he also t e s t i f i e d t h a t he l i k e d l i v i n g w i t h t h e w i f e ; he s a i d t h a t worst thing a n g r y she he was "lost The parties' i n math yelled. f i l e d a complaint son, child parties' joint support, property, and an t o be attorney of residence August marital s u p p o r t ; the 27, counterclaim. The 2010. trial The seeking alimony, when she son became testified Bowl, and that Science a divorce on August an award of the a l l the h e l d harmless of a l l debts fee. pendente l i t e child that the w i f e r e q u e s t e d custody of s o u g h t ex p a r t e the was team, S c h o l a r ' s I n her complaint, the p a r t i e s , her school. wife 2010. l i v i n g with c o n t r o l " and involved Olympiad at 26, about the The w i f e , by m o t i o n , custody of the pendente court lite, g r a n t e d the husband filed son, and an possession lite motion answer I n h i s answer, the husband s p e c i f i c a l l y and on a stated t h a t he d i d n o t want a d i v o r c e ; h o w e v e r , i n t h e e v e n t one 13 also pendente wife's of was 2120256 g r a n t e d , the husband sought c u s t o d y of the p a r t i e s ' son, support, alimony, property, t o be h e l d h a r m l e s s f r o m a l l d e b t s o f t h e and an a t t o r n e y an equitable division of the child parties' parties, fee. On t h e h u s b a n d ' s m o t i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t s e t a s i d e t h e parte custody lite order, and agreement, which concerning custody the p a r t i e s e n t e r e d the trial of the son court and ex i n t o a pendente adopted i n an order, payment o f c e r t a i n of the p a r t i e s ' e x p e n s e s and d e b t s ; t h e a g r e e m e n t d i d n o t r e q u i r e t h e h u s b a n d t o pay child support. In a d d i t i o n , three accounts owned by t h e p a r t i e s were " f r o z e n " by t h e p e n d e n t e l i t e As noted above, the parties agreed to an arrangement p e r m i t t i n g t h e h u s b a n d t o w i t h d r a w $500 p e r month f o r expenses and Southside $450 per month to pay the i n J u l y 2011, the trial trial judgment d i v o r c i n g the p a r t i e s . the son to the wife and v i s i t a t i o n ; t h e h u s b a n d was in child mortgage living on the house. A f t e r the of order. support. court entered The j u d g m e n t a w a r d e d specified a l s o o r d e r e d t o pay $991 p e r month to the the custody husband Pursuant awarded a judgment, the wife awarded e x c l u s i v e p o s s e s s i o n of the G r e y s t o n e house, w h i c h t o be s o l d and t h e p r o c e e d s d i v i d e d e q u a l l y , a f t e r a 14 was was deduction 2120256 from the proceeds of $100,000, a g r e e d he owed t h e w i f e . an amount The w i f e was that given the husband the option of purchasing t h e husband's i n t e r e s t i n t h e G r e y s t o n e house f o r $150,000. The h u s b a n d was awarded the Southside house and o r d e r e d t o assume t h e i n d e b t e d n e s s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h a t h o u s e . Finally, the t r i a l court a w a r d e d t h e w i f e " a one h a l f ( 1 / 2 ) i n t e r e s t i n and t o any r e a l e s t a t e owned b y t h e [ h u s b a n d ] i n I r a n , should such ownership e x i s t . " the paid attorney f o r the p a r t i e s ' out of a p a r t i c u l a r remaining wife fees The j u d g m e n t o r d e r e d bank respective The motion. attorneys account of the p a r t i e s . be The f u n d s i n t h a t a c c o u n t were t o be d i v i d e d , w i t h t h e r e c e i v i n g 75% of the remaining receiving that f u n d s and the husband 25%. husband The and trial the court wife each filed a postjudgment amended i t s j u d g m e n t b y p e r m i t t i n g the husband the o p p o r t u n i t y t o purchase the w i f e ' s i n t e r e s t i n the G r e y s t o n e house exercise within her right for $250,000 i f the wife to purchase h i s i n t e r e s t 18 months o f t h e e n t r y o f t h e d i v o r c e h u s b a n d t i m e l y a p p e a l e d , and t h e w i f e t i m e l y chose i n the judgment. not house The cross-appealed. As n o t e d a b o v e , we d i s m i s s e d t h e p a r t i e s ' a p p e a l s b e c a u s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment f a i l e d t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e husband 15 2120256 owned r e a l e s t a t e i n I r a n and, t h u s , was n o n f i n a l . So. 3d a t 218. The t r i a l H e y a t , 107 c o u r t e n t e r e d an amended j u d g m e n t on December 6, 2012, i n w h i c h i t s t a t e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d a n d t h e w i f e " a r e each awarded and v e s t e d w i t h a l l r i g h t , i n t e r e s t i n and t o a o n e - h a l f ( 1 / 2 ) u n d i v i d e d real estate and t h e w i f e requested that previous they this appeals, submitted court incorporate appeals joint court's on t h e b r i e f s as w e l l . He first f a n a t i c and a " t e r r o r i s t . " custody discretion. court's failure o f t h e s o n was The h u s b a n d n e x t husband argues t h a t t h e t r i a l that The t o award an abuse of the challenges t r i a l court's d i v i s i o n of the p a r t i e s ' property. calculating from t h e court erred i n admitting testimony husband then argues t h a t t h e t r i a l trial the record t h e husband r a i s e s s e v e r a l i s s u e s . h u s b a n d was a r e l i g i o u s at least husband The p a r t i e s w h i c h we d i d , a n d b o t h r e l y argues t h a t the t r i a l him The a cross-appeal. i n the previous On a p p e a l , the filed and interest i n a l l owned b y t h e [ h u s b a n d ] i n I r a n . " appealed, title, the F i n a l l y , the c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n when i t imputed t o t h e h u s b a n d a m o n t h l y income o f $5,000 d e s p i t e t h e r e b e i n g a l a c k of evidence t o support t h a t amount and i n l i g h t fact a w a r d o f t h e G r e y s t o n e house t o that the t r i a l court's 16 of the 2120256 the wife " e l i m i n a t e d " t h e husband's cross-appeal, the wife challenges her of an apartments, undivided arguing t o earn. the t r i a l c o u r t ' s award t o in t h e husband no the longer I r a n i a n a p a r t m e n t s a n d t h a t she w o u l d be u n a b l e , to the On interest one-half that ability enforce that property r i g h t i n Iran. We w i l l Iranian owns the as a woman, first address i s s u e r a i s e d by t h e w i f e i n h e r c r o s s - a p p e a l . The The w i f e h a s f i l e d Wife's Cross-Appeal a cross-appeal i n w h i c h she c h a l l e n g e s o n l y t h a t a s p e c t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t a w a r d i n g h e r an undivided trial, two one-half interest i n the I r a n i a n apartments. At t h e w i f e a t t e m p t e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e h u s b a n d owned apartments purporting to in Iran. show that apartments; those The the wife husband presented owned documents the Iranian d o c u m e n t s , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e w i f e , show t h a t the husband s t i l l owned one a p a r t m e n t on December 18, 2010, and t h a t he s t i l l owned t h e o t h e r 2011. However, similar apartment documents d a t e d on J a n u a r y 3 1 , April 6, 2 0 1 1 , a n d A p r i l 9, 2011, show t h a t t h e I r a n i a n a p a r t m e n t s w e r e , on t h o s e d a t e s , e a c h owned b y someone o t h e r t h a n t h e h u s b a n d . complains that the t r i a l one-half The w i f e c o u r t ' s a w a r d t o h e r o f an u n d i v i d e d i n t e r e s t i n the I r a n i a n apartments i s unenforceable 17 2120256 b e c a u s e ( 1 ) t h e u n d i s p u t e d e v i d e n c e p r o v e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d no l o n g e r owns t h e I r a n i a n a p a r t m e n t s b e c a u s e he h a s t r a n s f e r r e d ownership t o other people still owns enforce Iran, the Iranian any p r o p e r t y because signatories Divorces and ( 2 ) t h a t , even i f t h e husband apartments, rights neither awarded the United t o t h e Hague C o n v e n t i o n and L e g a l S e p a r a t i o n s Convention on t h e Law she w i l l be unable to her i n the divorce i n States nor Iran are on t h e R e c o g n i t i o n of o f June 1, 1970, o r t h e Hague Applicable to Matrimonial Property Regimes o f M a r c h 14, 1978. A c c o r d i n g t o t h e w i f e , b e c a u s e t h e trial c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t she was e n t i t l e d t o an u n d i v i d e d one-half interest testified i n the I r a n i a n apartments, at t r i a l property d i v i s i o n were worth $500,000, which she h a d the t r i a l court's i s i n e q u i t a b l e t o h e r b e c a u s e she w i l l n o t be a b l e t o r e a l i z e $250,000 o f t h e p r o p e r t y a w a r d e d t o h e r i n the d i v o r c e In judgment. g e n e r a l , when r e v i e w i n g any d i v i s i o n must be m i n d f u l t h a t t h e t r i a l the division are reasonable property. App. of property c o u r t has wide d i s c r e t i o n and n e c e s s a r y The t r i a l we over a n d t h a t i t may u s e w h a t e v e r means to equitably d i v i d e the p a r t i e s ' G r i m s l e y v. G r i m s l e y , 1989). of property, court's 18 545 So. 2d 75, 77 ( A l a . C i v . judgment i s presumed t o be 2120256 c o r r e c t and w i l l by t h e e v i d e n c e 545 So. court n o t be In making a p r o p e r t y consider respective present and i t i s so health, their several factors, and 1174, 1176 division, the future earning capacities, 1986). parties' their the case b e i n g 623 ( A l a . C i v . App. Because the reviewed. and f a c t s and So. facts this and court circumstances Murphy v. Murphy, 624 So. 2d of 620, 1993). The w i f e does n o t m e r e l y a r g u e t h a t , as a f a c t u a l property ages L u t z v. L u t z , 485 of each d i v o r c e case are d i f f e r e n t , must a l s o c o n s i d e r t h e p a r t i c u l a r the trial conduct, the d u r a t i o n of the marriage, ( A l a . C i v . App. circumstances Grimsley, i n c l u d i n g the t h 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 . 2d unsupported as t o be u n j u s t and p a l p a b l y wrong. 2d a t 76. may reversed unless division i s i n e q u i t a b l e , however. matter, She argues t h a t t h e l e g a l and p r a c t i c a l r e s u l t o f t h e a w a r d t o h e r o f undivided one-half i n t e r e s t i n the I r a n i a n apartments i s t h a t she w i l l n o t r e a l i z e a p o r t i o n o f t h e p r o p e r t y t h e t r i a l d e c i d e d t o award t o her. Although tending the to apartments, prove the apartments are husband. The an that other husband evidence c u r r e n t l y owned wife the w i f e presented testified, 19 at had trial by when owned court evidence the Iranian indicated that persons other confronted than with the the those 2120256 d o c u m e n t s , t h a t t h e h u s b a n d must have t r a n s f e r r e d o w n e r s h i p o f the Iranian action, apartments during the pendency of the divorce commenting t h a t i t was e a s y t o do so i n I r a n . As t h e w i f e p o i n t s o u t , t h e t r i a l determine c o u r t was p e r m i t t e d t o t h a t the I r a n i a n apartments were m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y and t h a t any t r a n s f e r o f t h e a p a r t m e n t s d u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y o f t h e d i v o r c e was v o i d a b l e . See P a t t i l l o v. P a t t i l l o , 414 2d 915, 916 ( A l a . 1 9 8 2 ) ( d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t have s e t a s i d e t r a n s f e r s o f c a s h a n d c e r t i f i c a t e s from a husband to his daughters because So. should of deposit the evidence e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e t r a n s f e r o f t h o s e a s s e t s were made w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o d e f e a t t h e w i f e ' s r i g h t s and o r d e r i n g t h e t r i a l court to set aside those t r a n s f e r s and assets i n i t sproperty d i v i s i o n ) . the trial court could not will have apartments. no way We The e x h i b i t s of r e a l i z i n g that, her an interest those contends, i n the Thus, t h e w i f e e x p l a i n s , she her i n t e r e s t i n the I r a n i a n agree. r e g a r d i n g the I r a n i a n apartments and t h e t e s t i m o n y a t t r i a l conclusion consider However, t h e w i f e award p r o p e r t y owned by t h i r d p a r t i e s . to f u r t h e r supports, at the time of the t r i a l , l o n g e r owned t h e I r a n i a n a p a r t m e n t s . 20 the indicate, inescapable the husband no By v i r t u e o f i t s award 2120256 to the wife, the t r i a l court i m p l i c i t l y determined that the h u s b a n d h a d owned t h e I r a n i a n a p a r t m e n t s d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e and that the wife was entitled t o an u n d i v i d e d one-half i n t e r e s t i n t h e a p a r t m e n t s , which t h e w i f e v a l u e d a t $500,000. The t r i a l c o u r t must have a l s o d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e t r a n s f e r o f t h e I r a n i a n a p a r t m e n t s was done f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f d e f e a t i n g the wife's should be rights i n that property considered marital P r e s t w o o d , 523 So. 2d 1071, and t h a t property. the apartments See P r e s t w o o d v. 1074 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1988) ( n o t i n g t h a t t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r a t r a n s f e r i s made t o d e f e a t a s p o u s e ' s property rights i s a question of fact) . We note that the h u s b a n d does n o t c h a l l e n g e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s i m p l i c i t f i n d i n g s on these matters. Despite f i n d i n g s , however, t h e t r i a l having made those court i n the present implicit case could n o t have gone f u r t h e r a n d d e c l a r e d t h e t r a n s f e r v o i d b e c a u s e the present to owners o f t h e I r a n i a n a p a r t m e n t s were n o t p a r t i e s the divorce (Ala. action. C i v . App. 1997) See Capps v . C a p p s , 699 So. 2d 183, (reversing that portion of a trial c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t s e t t i n g a s i d e as f r a u d u l e n t a t r a n s f e r o f an undivided one-half interest i n property from a husband t o h i s m o t h e r b e c a u s e t h e m o t h e r was n o t a p a r t y t o t h e a c t i o n ) ; s e e also Prestwood, 523 So. 2d a t 1074 21 (affirming a judgment 2120256 d e c l a r i n g c e r t a i n p r o p e r t y t h a t the husband had t r a n s f e r r e d t o d e f e a t t h e w i f e ' s p r o p e r t y r i g h t s t o be m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y and n o t i n g t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n t o whom t h e f a t h e r h a d t r a n s f e r r e d t h e o w n e r s h i p i n t e r e s t s i n a m a r i t a l a s s e t were d e f e n d a n t s i n the action). located In l i g h t i n Iran and, Iranian citizens, parties their to the being of the f a c t s presumably, t h a t the apartments that the the p o s s i b i l i t y of making divorce parties, a c t i o n i s remote the trial court new owners t h o s e new at best. cannot are are owners Without set aside the t r a n s f e r o f t h e I r a n i a n a p a r t m e n t s , and t h e t r i a l c o u r t c a n n o t award t h e w i f e any i n t e r e s t i n t h o s e a p a r t m e n t s b e c a u s e a r e no l o n g e r owned by t h e they husband. We t h e r e f o r e r e v e r s e t h e p r o p e r t y - d i v i s i o n a s p e c t s o f t h e j u d g m e n t o f d i v o r c e , and we remand t h e c a u s e c o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e an a p p r o p r i a t e the parties' property. Because f o r the trial and e q u i t a b l e d i v i s i o n the t r i a l court cannot of set aside the t r a n s f e r of ownership of the I r a n i a n apartments, the trial c o u r t ' s award t o t h e w i f e must be a d j u s t e d t o award assets equal apartments that the to the the t r i a l trial court one-half c o u r t has d i d not I r a n i a n a p a r t m e n t s , and, interest in the a t t e m p t e d t o award. determine the value t h u s , on remand, t h e t r i a l 22 her Iranian We of note the court i s 2120256 f r e e t o s e t t h a t v a l u e b a s e d upon t h e e v i d e n c e a d d u c e d a t t h e July 2011 trial. The The husband f i r s t Husband's argues Appeal t h a t the trial court erred i n admitting testimony concerning h i s being a r e l i g i o u s fanatic, his being alleged "terrorist." anti-American sentiments, and his a 1 "Two f u n d a m e n t a l p r i n c i p l e s g o v e r n t h e s t a n d a r d by w h i c h t h i s C o u r t r e v i e w s a t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g s on the admission of evidence. Middleton v. L i g h t f o o t , 885 So. 2d 111, 113 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . '"'The f i r s t g r a n t s t r i a l judges wide d i s c r e t i o n t o e x c l u d e o r a d m i t e v i d e n c e . ' " ' 885 So. 2d a t 113 (quoting Mock v. A l l e n , 783 So. 2d 828, 835 ( A l a . 2000), q u o t i n g i n t u r n W a l - M a r t S t o r e s , I n c . v. Thompson, 726 So. 2d 651, 655 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) ) . However, 'a t r i a l court exceeds i t s discretion where i t admits p r e j u d i c i a l e v i d e n c e t h a t has no p r o b a t i v e v a l u e . ' 885 So. 2d a t 113 ( c i t i n g P o w e l l v. S t a t e , 796 So. 2d 404, 419 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) , a f f ' d , 796 So. 2d 434 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ) . A l t h o u g h the husband argues throughout h i s b r i e f t h a t the w i f e p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he was a t e r r o r i s t , t h e w i f e ' s r e f e r e n c e t o t e r r o r i s t s was i n r e g a r d t o members o f on t h e mosque, whom she f e a r e d w o u l d t e a c h t h e son how t o be a t e r r o r i s t , and was n o t an a c c u s a t i o n t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was o r i s a t e r r o r i s t . The r e c o r d does n o t r e f l e c t t h a t t h e w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was "a member o f a p a r a - m i l i t a r y t e r r o r i s t c e l l , " t h a t he was a " t e r r o r i s t - i n - t r a i n i n g , " o r t h a t he i s "some t y p e o f t e r r o r i s t s o l d i e r d e t e r m i n e d t o r u i n t h e A m e r i c a n way o f l i f e , " and we a r e d i s a p p o i n t e d by t h e use o f s u c h h y p e r b o l e and i n f l a m m a t o r y s t a t e m e n t s i n t h e h u s b a n d ' s brief. 1 23 2120256 "'"'The s e c o n d p r i n c i p l e " i s t h a t a j u d g m e n t c a n n o t be r e v e r s e d on a p p e a l f o r an e r r o r [ i n t h e i m p r o p e r a d m i s s i o n o f e v i d e n c e ] u n l e s s ... i t s h o u l d a p p e a r t h a t t h e e r r o r c o m p l a i n e d o f has probably injuriously affected s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of the p a r t i e s . " ' " ' M i d d l e t o n , 885 So. 2d a t 113 (quoting Mock, 783 So. 2d a t 835, q u o t i n g i n t u r n W a l - M a r t S t o r e s , 726 So. 2d a t 6 5 5 ) . See a l s o R u l e 45, A l a . R. App. P. '"The b u r d e n o f e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t an erroneous ruling was prejudicial is on the appellant."' Middleton, 885 So. 2d at 113-14 ( q u o t i n g P r e f e r r e d R i s k Mut. I n s . Co. v. Ryan, 589 So. 2d 165, 167 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ) . " B a l d w i n C n t y . E l e c . M e m b e r s h i p C o r p . v. C i t y o f F a i r h o p e , So. 2d 448, We 453 note regarding divorce and ( A l a . 2008). that, the despite this regarding seven-page p l e a charged country a t t a c k s o f S e p t e m b e r 11, authority a emotionally of in 2001, the 401 Charles (2d ed. W. to the wake of trial court's too court both a terrorist to general exclude prejudicial. Gamble, Gamble's A l a b a m a R u l e s o f E v i d e n c e 2002). The wife contends that American sentiment was e s p e c i a l l y b e c a u s e she relevant his to alleged that and move t o I r a n . waived the ability t h e h u s b a n d ' s r e l i g i o u s p r a c t i c e s and husband of the husband c i t e s o n l y regarding t a k e t h e son this atmospheres r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e b e c a u s e i t s e f f e c t w i l l be See 99 9 objection The to 24 the the the testimony alleged issue § of anti- custody, husband i n t e n d e d to wife a l s o argues t h a t the such testimony because he 2120256 objected o n l y once t o t e s t i m o n y American sentiments, other testimony because husband had expressed anti- t h e husband d i d n o t o b j e c t t o of a s i m i l a r because h i s counsel e l i c i t e d t h a t he h a d e x p r e s s e d nature during the t r i a l , f u r t h e r testimony such sentiments practices from on w h e t h e r t h e and the and regarding same and the husband's religious other witnesses. We a g r e e w i t h t h e w i f e t h a t t h e h u s b a n d w a i v e d h i s objection to the testimony. The husband concerning first objected what she h a d o v e r h e a r d to Rogers's t h e husband testimony s a y when she i n t e r r u p t e d h i s c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h two o t h e r men w i t h whom he had been discussing the A f g h a n i s t a n , I r a q , and I r a n . United States' involvement in The f o l l o w i n g e x c h a n g e o c c u r r e d : "Q. A n d c o u l d you h e a r any o f t h e words t h a t [ t h e husband] was s a y i n g t o t h i s o t h e r g e n t l e m a n on t h a t occasion? "A. Y e s , I d i d . "Q. A n d what d i d you h e a r ? "A. He was -- he s a i d t h a t he -- i f he was i n I r a n , he w o u l d have h i m a r r e s t e d a n d have h i m k i l l e d . "[Counsel f o r the husband]: Your Honor, I o b j e c t . I t h i n k t h i s i s s i m p l y a p o i s o n t o r e l e v a n c e [ s i c ] . I t has n o t h i n g t o do w i t h t h e i r d o m e s t i c m a t t e r s h e r e . A n d by -- as f a r as h i m b e i n g I r a n i a n , I t h i n k i t i s s i m p l y t o t r y t o p o i s o n any o p i n i o n 25 2120256 t h e C o u r t may have o f t h i s g e n t l e m a n a n d i t i s v a r i e d upon v e r y s t i p u l a t i o n s [ s i c ] . "THE COURT: relevance of i t ? Want to speak to the "[Counsel f o r the w i f e ] : Yes, s i r , i t does. One o f t h e a l l e g a t i o n s , t h e r e ' s a r e q u e s t t h a t c u s t o d y -- c u r r e n t l y , c u s t o d y i s v e s t e d i n my c l i e n t , a n d t h e r e ' s a r e q u e s t o f c u s t o d y t o be c h a n g e d t o [ t h e husband] a n d p a r t o f t h e theme o f o u r c a s e i s t h a t [ t h e husband] i s somewhat o f a -¬ and I'm n o t s u r e how t o s a y i t -- r e l i g i o u s or I r a n i a n f a n a t i c , a n t i - A m e r i c a n , and t h a t I think t h i s i sa foundation or a predicate t o be l a i d f o r l a t e r t e s t i m o n y f o r t h e C o u r t t o c o n s i d e r as t o w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e c h i l d who was b o r n a n d l i v e d i n A m e r i c a f o r 13 y e a r s as p a r t o f t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n as t o w h e t h e r i t o u g h t t o be t u r n e d o v e r t o [ t h e husband]. "[Counsel f o r t h e husband]: Your Honor, I t h i n k i t ' s j u s t t h r o w i n g -- i t ' s l i k e p l a y i n g a race car[d] i n a case. I t ' s c e r t a i n l y t o defame t h i s g e n t l e m a n a n d h a s no b e a r i n g on t h i s c a s e . "THE COURT: W e l l , I can see t h e r e l e v a n c e where y o u ' r e c o m i n g f r o m , so I'm g o i n g t o have t o o v e r r u l e i t . I'm g o i n g t o have t o a l l o w i t i n . Okay." Later, Rogers, during t h e husband's counsel's cross-examination of t h e f o l l o w i n g t e s t i m o n y was e l i c i t e d : "Q. So t h e a r g u m e n t -- y o u h e a r d Mr. Gordon s a y t h a t [ t h e h u s b a n d i s ] a n t i - A m e r i c a n . A n d t h a t -- i s t h a t what you g a t h e r e d o u t o f t h a t a r g u m e n t ? 26 2120256 "A. Out o f t h a t argument, no, I d i d n ' t . "Q. Has [ t h e husband] no, b e c a u s e I was t h e -¬ lived here longer t h a n you? "A. I'm n o t s u r e . "Q. Okay. Y o u ' r e n o t a n t i - A m e r i c a n , a r e you? "A. No. "Q. You d o n ' t have t o a l w a y s a g r e e w i t h t h e p o l i t i c s o f o u r g o v e r n m e n t , do we, i n A m e r i c a ? "A. No. "Q. T h a t d o e s n ' t mean -- does anti-American, i n your opinion? that make you "A. No. "Q. So a r e y o u t e l l i n g t h e C o u r t t h a t h i m t o be a n t i - A m e r i c a n ? you b e l i e v e "A. I t ' s o t h e r c o n v e r s a t i o n t h a t I've had, I've h e a r d h i m s a y d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s , t h a t he d o e s n ' t l i k e t o l i v e i n A m e r i c a , he w a n t s t o go home. A n d s e v e r a l y e a r s ago, he w a n t e d t o move t o I r a n , a n d [ t h e w i f e ] d i d n ' t want t o . A n d I was t h e r e , t h a t I t o l d h i m , you know, y o u d o n ' t n e e d t o go t h e r e , y o u ' r e g o i n g t o have t o b u y a h o u s e , a n d he a c t u a l l y s a i d t h a t he -- he went up t h e r e a n d b u i l t a h o u s e on h i s m o t h e r ' s -- what -- what he e x p l a i n e d -"Q. T h a t he d i d o r he w i l l ? "A. T h a t he d i d . T h a t know, two f l a t s . " he d i d b u i l d 27 a house, you 2120256 On r e d i r e c t , regarding counsel for the wife e l i c i t e d t h e husband's a n t i - A m e r i c a n further sentiment testimony from Rogers without objection. "Q. A l s o , you -- he a s k e d y o u q u e s t i o n s a b o u t [ t h e h u s b a n d ] , whether o r n o t you h a d e v e r h e a r d o r been a r o u n d i n a n y c o n v e r s a t i o n s where he was -- t a l k e d a b o u t a n t i - A m e r i c a n c i n e m a [ s i c ] . Do y o u remember that? "A. Y e s . "Q. Do you r e c a l l , s p e c i f i c a l l y , a n y c o n v e r s a t i o n s t h a t you've h a d o r b e e n a r o u n d , o t h e r t h a n ones you've testified t o , where [ t h e husband] has expressed anything anti-American? "A. W e l l , t h i s i s d u r i n g t h e B u s h e r a . When we were -- we w o u l d be a t o u r h o u s e a n d have a c o n v e r s a t i o n , and he h a d s a i d t h a t he w a n t e d t o go t o N o r t h -¬ you know, v o l u n t e e r f o r North Korea and f i g h t a g a i n s t A m e r i c a a n d t h a t he want t o go home a n d f i g h t a g a i n s t A m e r i c a o r go t o A f g h a n i s t a n . B u t I d o n ' t remember t h e p a r t i c u l a r -- " The husband's f i r s t o b j e c t i o n t o Rogers's t e s t i m o n y a f t e r t h e answer t o t h e q u e s t i o n was g i v e n . the o b j e c t i o n i n s u f f i c i e n t t o preserve Inc. v. R e i d , "[o]ne T h a t a l o n e makes error. Crowne Invs., 740 So. 2d 400, 408 ( A l a . 1999) ( s t a t i n g cannot preserve came e r r o r by o b j e c t i n g t o a q u e s t i o n that after the w i t n e s s has g i v e n a r e s p o n s i v e answer" and n o t i n g t h a t , i n order t o preserve objection should error i n such a situation, be a c c o m p a n i e d b y a m o t i o n 28 the belated to strike or a 2120256 motion t o e x c l u d e t h e q u e s t i o n and answer). this However, e v e n i f c o u r t were t o c o n s i d e r t h e h u s b a n d ' s c o u n s e l ' s b e l a t e d objection sufficient, t h e f a c t t h a t o t h e r t e s t i m o n y about t h e h u s b a n d ' s a n t i - A m e r i c a n s e n t i m e n t s was e l i c i t e d a n d g i v e n b y both Rogers and other witnesses p r e c l u d e r e v e r s a l on t h i s 376 issue. without objection would B & M Homes, I n c . v. Hogan, So. 2d 667, 673 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) ( " I n A l a b a m a t h e r u l e i s t h a t p r e j u d i c i a l e r r o r may n o t be p r e d i c a t e d upon t h e a d m i s s i o n o f evidence trial which without h a s b e e n a d m i t t e d a t some o t h e r s t a g e objection or motion t o e x c l u d e . " ) ; see a l s o B a l d w i n Cnty. E l e c . Membership Corp., The husband next argues of the 999 So. 2d a t 453. that the t r i a l court erred i n f a i l i n g t o award him s o l e c u s t o d y o r j o i n t c u s t o d y o f t h e son. The h u s b a n d c o r r e c t l y o b s e r v e s t h a t a t r i a l the issue interest of custody of the c h i l d . should have However, as court considering i t s focus he a r g u e s the best that the trial c o u r t e r r e d by n o t awarding him s o l e c u s t o d y d e s p i t e t h e son's s t a t e d p r e f e r e n c e t h a t he l i v e w i t h t h e husband and d e s p i t e t e s t i m o n y from t h e son t h a t t h e w i f e l o s e s c o n t r o l and y e l l s a l o t when pursuant she i s angry. Furthermore, he argues that, t o A l a . Code 1975, § 30-3-150 e t s e q . , t h e A l a b a m a joint-custody statute, joint c u s t o d y i s p r e f e r r e d i n Alabama 29 2120256 and t h a t the t r i a l was not awarded i n t h i s case. the scope trial for of the c o u r t f a i l e d t o e x p l a i n why The joint custody husband misapprehends joint-custody preference court i s required give to a c h i l d ' s and the both weight a stated preference custody. An appellate court's review of a trial d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s l i m i t e d by t h e o r e t e n u s court's custody s t a n d a r d of review. "'"A custody determination of the t r i a l c o u r t entered upon oral testimony is accorded a p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s on a p p e a l , and we w i l l n o t r e v e r s e u n l e s s t h e e v i d e n c e so f a i l s t o s u p p o r t t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t i t i s p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y w r o n g . . . . " ' Ex p a r t e P e r k i n s , 646 So. 2d 46, 47 (Ala. 1 9 9 4 ) , q u o t i n g P h i l l i p s v. P h i l l i p s , 622 So. 2d 410, 412 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1993) (citations omitted). This presumption i s b a s e d on t h e trial c o u r t ' s unique p o s i t i o n to d i r e c t l y observe the witnesses and to assess their demeanor and c r e d i b i l i t y . This o p p o r t u n i t y to observe witnesses i s e s p e c i a l l y i m p o r t a n t i n c h i l d - c u s t o d y c a s e s . 'In c h i l d c u s t o d y c a s e s e s p e c i a l l y , t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f an attentive t r i a l judge i s of g r e a t importance.' W i l l i a m s v. W i l l i a m s , 402 So. 2d 1029, 1032 ( A l a . Civ. App. 1981) . In regard to custody d e t e r m i n a t i o n s , t h i s C o u r t has a l s o s t a t e d : ' I t i s also well e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t i n the absence of s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s of f a c t , a p p e l l a t e courts w i l l assume t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t made t h o s e f i n d i n g s necessary to support i t s judgment, u n l e s s such f i n d i n g s w o u l d be c l e a r l y erroneous.' Ex parte B r y o w s k y , 676 So. 2d 1322, 1324 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) . " Ex p a r t e Fann, 810 So. Alabama priority in 2d 631, 633 ( A l a . 2001). law g i v e s n e i t h e r p a r e n t an initial custody 30 2120256 d e t e r m i n a t i o n . Ex p a r t e Couch, 521 So. 2d 987 (Ala. 1988) . The controlling c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n such a case i s the best i n t e r e s t o f t h e c h i l d . I d . I n any c a s e i n w h i c h t h e c o u r t makes f i n d i n g s o f fact b a s e d on e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d o r e t e n u s , an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t w i l l presume t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t b a s e d on t h o s e f i n d i n g s i s c o r r e c t , and i t w i l l r e v e r s e t h a t j u d g m e n t o n l y i f i t i s f o u n d t o be p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y w r o n g . Ex p a r t e P e r k i n s , 646 So. 2d 46 ( A l a . 1994) . The presumption of correctness accorded the trial court's j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d a f t e r t h e c o u r t has h e a r d evidence p r e s e n t e d ore tenus i s e s p e c i a l l y s t r o n g i n a c h i l d - c u s t o d y case. I d . ' " Martin v. Martin, 85 So. ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e B y a r s , The trial 3d 794 414, So. 419 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2d 345, 347 (Ala. 2011) 2001)). a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s have o f t e n e x p l a i n e d what f a c t o r s a court facing a question of custody should " ' I n Ex p a r t e D e v i n e , 398 So. 696-97 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) , t h e A l a b a m a Court s e t f o r t h a l i s t of f a c t o r s c o u r t may c o n s i d e r i n m a k i n g an a w a r d o f c u s t o d y b a s e d on t h e b e s t of the c h i l d r e n , i n c l u d i n g 2d 686, Supreme a trial initial interest "'"[t]he sex and age of the chi ldren ...; ... the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and needs o f e a c h c h i l d , i n c l u d i n g t h e i r emotional, social, moral, material and e d u c a t i o n a l needs; the r e s p e c t i v e home e n v i r o n m e n t s o f f e r e d by t h e p a r t i e s ; the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of those seeking custody, i n c l u d i n g age, c h a r a c t e r , s t a b i l i t y , m e n t a l and p h y s i c a l h e a l t h ; t h e c a p a c i t y 31 consider. 2120256 and i n t e r e s t o f e a c h p a r e n t t o provide for the emotional, social, moral, material and educational needs of the children; the interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p between each c h i l d and eac h pa r e n t ; the i nterpers onal r e lationsh i p between the c h i l d r e n ; the e f f e c t on t h e c h i l d o f d i s r u p t i n g or c o n t i n u i n g an e x i s t i n g c u s t o d i a l s t a t u s ; the p r e f e r e n c e of each child, i f the child is of s u f f i c i e n t age and m a t u r i t y ; t h e r e p o r t and r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f any expert witnesses or other i ndepe ndent i nve s t i ga t o r ; a v a i l a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s ; and any other relevant matter the e v i d e n c e may disclose."'" M a r t i n , 85 So. 3d a t 420 3d 132, 139 ( q u o t i n g W i l l i a m s v. W i l l i a m s , 75 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011)). Although the So. stated p r e f e r e n c e o f a c h i l d r e g a r d i n g c u s t o d y i s t o be c o n s i d e r e d by a t r i a l c o u r t , the c h i l d ' s d e s i r e s are not c o n t r o l l i n g . v. Ragland, 666 So. H a t t r i c k v. H a t t r i c k , Additionally, "[i]t is the 2d 539, 541 52 A l a . App. the policy Alabama of this (Ala. 539, Civ. App. 1995); 295 So. 2d 260 (1974). legislature state Terry to has assure stated that that minor c h i l d r e n have f r e q u e n t and c o n t i n u i n g c o n t a c t w i t h p a r e n t s have shown t h e children and ability to a c t i n the best t o encourage parents 32 to share interest of who their i n the r i g h t s and 2120256 r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of r e a r i n g t h e i r c h i l d r e n a f t e r the parents have s e p a r a t e d o r d i s s o l v e d t h e i r m a r r i a g e . " A l a . Code § is 30-3-150. consider To that awarding end, joint custody, custody t h a t i s i n the b e s t (Ala. see a trial a l s o C l e v e l a n d v. C i v . App. 2009). trial custody child's 152; but a court i n every 1975, required to involving a case c o u r t must a w a r d t h a t f o r m interest of the c h i l d . C l e v e l a n d , 18 Pursuant So. 3d of § 30-3¬ 950, to § 30-3-152(a), 952-53 a trial c o u r t s h o u l d c o n s i d e r t h e f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s when d e t e r m i n i n g whether j o i n t custody i s i n the b e s t i n t e r e s t of the "(1) The a g r e e m e n t o r l a c k o f a g r e e m e n t o f p a r e n t s on j o i n t c u s t o d y . child: the "(2) The p a s t and p r e s e n t a b i l i t y o f t h e p a r e n t s to c o o p e r a t e w i t h e a c h o t h e r and make d e c i s i o n s jointly. "(3) The a b i l i t y o f t h e p a r e n t s t o e n c o u r a g e t h e s h a r i n g o f l o v e , a f f e c t i o n , and c o n t a c t b e t w e e n t h e c h i l d and t h e o t h e r p a r e n t . "(4) Any h i s t o r y o f o r p o t e n t i a l abuse, spouse abuse, or k i d n a p p i n g . for child "(5) The g e o g r a p h i c p r o x i m i t y o f t h e p a r e n t s t o each other as this relates to the practical c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of j o i n t p h y s i c a l custody." Although the husband t h e son and said testified that the t h a t he wife d e s i r e d to l i v e would sometimes u p s e t and y e l l and t h a t he d i d n o t l i k e t h a t , t h e t r i a l 33 with become court 2120256 was not required custody. husband The f a c t custody consider that Nor t o accede that t o t h e son's the t r i a l i s not proof that t h e son's p r e f e r e n c e i t must consider joint consider custody when m a k i n g the factors proof d i d n o t award t h e the t r i a l court a custody court that chose n o t t o award t h e the t r i a l court evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e husband expressed a desire t o return t o Iran t o l i v e had desired have convinced physical cannot wife custody conclude t h e son w i t h the t r i a l court that the t r i a l This evidence awarding court best erred a n d t h a t he the wife interest. could sole We by awarding t h e sole p h y s i c a l custody of the son. The husband next argues that d i v i d i n g the p a r t i e s ' property. favors the wife wife him. w o u l d be i n t h e s o n ' s that d i d not As t h e w i f e had t o take d i d not determination. s e t o u t i n § 30-3-152. p o i n t s o u t , she p r e s e n t e d as t o when w e i g h i n g t h e many f a c t o r s i s the fact that the t r i a l parties court preference was the t r i a l court erred i n He c o m p l a i n s t h a t t h e a w a r d a n d i s g r o s s l y i n e q u i t a b l e . He s a y s t h a t t h e awarded the Greystone house, a l l the household f u r n i s h i n g s , $100,000 t o be p a i d b y t h e h u s b a n d , o v e r $200,000 in " f r o z e n " b a n k a c c o u n t s , two m o t o r v e h i c l e s , a n d a t t o r n e y s 34 2120256 f e e s , w h i c h , he s a y s , i s an a w a r d o f "no l e s s t h a n Although we a r e n o t c o n v i n c e d $800,000." t h a t the award t o t h e w i f e 2 was i n e q u i t a b l e under the f a c t s of t h i s case, i n l i g h t of the f a c t t h a t we have r e v e r s e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t on t h e w i f e ' s cross-appeal award so t h a t i t may the wife Iranian the value apartments, the r e a d j u s t the p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n to of her trial one-half court interest i s free on i n the remand a d j u s t t h e e q u i t i e s as i t s e e s f i t b a s e d on t h e t e s t i m o n y evidence i t r e c e i v e d a t t h e J u l y 2011 to and trial. F i n a l l y , the husband argues t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n determining his child-support obligation. The trial court i m p u t e d $5,000 p e r month i n income t o t h e h u s b a n d i n o r d e r t o calculate his child-support obligation. that the evidence the a b i l i t y does n o t s u p p o r t t o earn The h u s b a n d complains t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t he has $5,000 p e r month. N o t a b l y , t h e h u s b a n d does n o t i n c l u d e i n h i s argument on t h e p r o p e r t y - d i v i s i o n a s p e c t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t any s t a t e m e n t r e g a r d i n g t h e v a l u e o f t h e a w a r d o f t h e u n d i v i d e d one-half i n t e r e s t i n the I r a n i a n apartments t o the wife. T h i s i s u n d e r s t a n d a b l e i f one c o n s i d e r s t h e f a c t t h a t t h e h u s b a n d has s u b m i t t e d unchanged h i s b r i e f from the o r i g i n a l a p p e a l , i n w h i c h t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment awarded the w i f e a one-half i n t e r e s t i n those apartments " i f " they were owned by t h e h u s b a n d . However, t h e t r i a l c o u r t has s i n c e d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d owned t h o s e a p a r t m e n t s , a r u l i n g t h a t t h e h u s b a n d has n o t c h a l l e n g e d on a p p e a l . 2 35 2120256 " R u l e 32(B) ( 5 ) , A l a . R. pertinent part: Jud. Admin., p r o v i d e s , in " ' I f the c o u r t f i n d s t h a t e i t h e r parent i s v o l u n t a r i l y unemployed or underemployed, i t s h a l l e s t i m a t e t h e income t h a t p a r e n t w o u l d o t h e r w i s e have and s h a l l i m p u t e t o t h a t parent that income; the court shall calculate c h i l d support b a s e d on that p a r e n t ' s imputed income. In d e t e r m i n i n g the amount o f income t o be i m p u t e d t o a p a r e n t who i s unemployed or underemployed, the court should determine the employment p o t e n t i a l and p r o b a b l e e a r n i n g l e v e l o f t h a t p a r e n t , b a s e d on t h a t p a r e n t ' s r e c e n t work h i s t o r y , e d u c a t i o n , and o c c u p a t i o n a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , and on t h e p r e v a i l i n g j o b o p p o r t u n i t i e s and e a r n i n g l e v e l s i n t h e community.' " I n c a s e s o f v o l u n t a r y u n d e r e m p l o y m e n t , t h e amount o f income t o be i m p u t e d t o t h e p a r e n t i s a q u e s t i o n of fact t o be decided based on the evidence p r e s e n t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t . See G.B. v. J.H., [915 So. 2d 570 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ] ; see a l s o C l e m e n t s v. C l e m e n t s , 990 So. 2d 383, 394 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) ( q u o t i n g W i n f r e y v. W i n f r e y , 602 So. 2d 904, 905 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1992)) ('The t r i a l court i s a f f o r d e d t h e d i s c r e t i o n t o i m p u t e income t o a p a r e n t f o r the purpose of d e t e r m i n i n g c h i l d support, and the d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t a parent is voluntarily u n e m p l o y e d o r u n d e r e m p l o y e d " i s t o be made f r o m t h e f a c t s p r e s e n t e d a c c o r d i n g to the j u d i c i a l 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 . " ' ) . We may r e v e r s e a j u d g m e n t imputing income t o a v o l u n t a r i l y underemployed p a r e n t t h a t i s b a s e d on o r e t e n u s e v i d e n c e o n l y i f t h a t j u d g m e n t i s so u n s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e as t o be p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y w r o n g . G.B. v. J.H., 915 So. 2d a t 575." S t o n e v. S t o n e , (footnote 26 So. 3d 1228, omitted). 36 1230-31 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) 2120256 Although we understand the trial court's implicit d e c i s i o n t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was v o l u n t a r i l y u n e m p l o y e d , we agree the with impute the husband $5,000 p e r that month trial court's i n income t o the must decision h u s b a n d does not I n f a c t , b a s e d on a p p e a r t o be s u p p o r t e d by any e v i d e n c e . the e v i d e n c e a d d u c e d by t h e w i f e , t h e h u s b a n d n e v e r made any profit from from h i s b u s i n e s s , one sale project. civil had to fund Although engineering, never h e l d the He has not h o u s e he b u i l t he trial husband of has at using y e a r s o l d , and he has houses. purchase testimony the a job p e r h a p s b e c a u s e he the that to a used the l o t for a bachelor's trial degree. large profit the next degree in indicated that he The 58 husband i s spent the m a j o r i t y of h i s l i f e b u i l d i n g built a house s i n c e c o u l d not sell. 2006, and A l t h o u g h we last agree w i t h c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e h u s b a n d can and some s o r t o r r e m u n e r a t i v e employment, we the should the seek cannot agree t h a t the e v i d e n c e r e f l e c t e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d i s a b l e t o e a r n $5,000 p e r month. We award, and trial therefore we court reverse remand July cause recalculate child i m p u t e d income f o r t h e the the the 2011 trial trial with court's i n s t r u c t i o n s that s u p p o r t b a s e d on h u s b a n d s u p p o r t e d by or child-support from 37 new evidence the an the amount of evidence at concerning the 2120256 husband's present income that the p a r t i e s may present on remand. Conclusion B a s e d on o u r r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d and t h e c o n t e n t i o n s t h e p a r t i e s on a p p e a l , we have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e t r i a l did n o t e r r by f a i l i n g to exclude the husband's a n t i - A m e r i c a n f u r t h e r concluded p h y s i c a l custody wife w i l l Iranian trial that the evidence supports o f t h e son t o t h e w i f e . apartments h u s b a n d , we that awarded reverse the property interest longer division owned by so t h a t t h e make a d j u s t m e n t s t o t h e a w a r d t o p r o v i d e the of that portion c o u r t has c o n c l u d e d does n o t s u p p o r t earning judgment of the m a r i t a l e s t a t e she s h o u l d r e c e i v e . we on trial the wife the trial Because the evidence also reverse i n s o f a r as i t computed remand, amount o f income t o be the t r i a l the t r i a l t h e husband's court at the the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t the husband i s capable $5,000 p e r month, obligation; i n the the evidence c o u r t may value have However, b e c a u s e t h e t o her because i s no We t h e award o f s o l e the one-half the property court regarding leanings or sentiments. be u n a b l e t o r e a l i z e proves c e r t a i n evidence of of court's child-support i s to determine the i m p u t e d t o t h e h u s b a n d b a s e d on t h e evidence. 38 2120256 APPEAL -- AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. CROSS-APPEAL -- REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, Donaldson, J J . , concur. 39 Thomas, Moore, and

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.