G. Scott Frazier v. Patricia Ann Curry

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 08/17/2012 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2012 2101221 G. S c o t t F r a z i e r v. P a t r i c i a Ann Curry Appeal from Tuscaloosa C i r c u i t (DR-08-902) Court THOMAS, J u d g e . G. S c o t t F r a z i e r ("the husband") a p p e a l s of t h e Tuscaloosa Circuit Court l e g a l l y Patricia Ann C u r r y ("the support, awarding the wife wife"), a s e p a r a t i n g him from awarding portion from a judgment the wife child o f t h e husband's 2101221 r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t , and a w a r d i n g t h e w i f e $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 i n a t t o r n e y f e e s , among o t h e r t h i n g s . and remand w i t h We a f f i r m i n part, reverse i n part, instructions. Facts and Procedural History The p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d on December 27, one child born separated seeking amended h e r 2008, t h e the the case. and, on complaint The O c t o b e r 3, On was parties filed 2008, the November 14, for recusal, alleging that C o u n t y d o m e s t i c - r e l a t i o n s j u d g e s were f a m i l i a r same day trial February the The trial filed a motion recused appointed to hear c o u r t conducted a pendente l i t e hearing 27, hearing. husband judge subsequently The on for a divorce. a motion a pendente l i t e h i m s e l f , and marriage. a d i v o r c e , and, p a r t i e s ; that requesting parties' There On S e p t e m b e r 26, 2008, t h e w i f e husband f i l e d the Tuscaloosa with the i n June 2008. a complaint wife of 1991. a n o t h e r j u d g e was 2009, entered a pendente lite order awarding the w i f e the r i g h t to r e s i d e i n the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e d u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y o f t h e a c t i o n and to use m a r i t a l assets to purchase pendency of the a c t i o n . 2 f o r b i d d i n g the p a r t i e s real property during the 2101221 On J u l y 27, 2010, the t r i a l court which i t heard ore tenus evidence. following. they had custody arrangement child. The wife several adulterous marriage, which, The adulterous agreed was at was working joint-custody and that that i n the b e s t i n t e r e s t of the p a r t i e s ' testified she to a trial The e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e d t h e 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 t h e arrangement issues. conducted that the husband had relationships s a i d , had husband a l s o throughout engaged i n the parties' r e s u l t e d i n her having testified r e l a t i o n s h i p s throughout that the he had anger engaged i n p a r t i e s ' marriage. The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d g r a d u a t e d f r o m t h e U n i v e r s i t y of Alabama w i t h a b u s i n e s s degree, t h a t she h a d w o r k e d as an o f f i c e manager and as a l e g a l s e c r e t a r y t h r o u g h o u t most o f t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e , and office gross attorney c u r r e n t l y w o r k i n g as an The husband testified that he had been an t h r o u g h o u t t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e and t h a t h i s y e a r l y had testified that she was manager and m a k i n g a p p r o x i m a t e l y $2,000 p e r month i n income. income that fluctuated over the years. t h a t h i s 2005 g r o s s r e p o r t e d h i s 2005 g r o s s reported income was 3 Specifically, income was $294,762, he $331,896, that his 2101221 2006 g r o s s r e p o r t e d reported income income was $ 7 0 , 6 0 2 , was $42,541, that t h a t h i s 2007 1 h i s 2008 gross gross reported income was $109,665, a n d t h a t h i s 2009 g r o s s r e p o r t e d income was court, $255,828. The h u s b a n d a l s o f i l e d , a CS-41 f o r m further $160,000 The that testified listed that with h i s m o n t h l y income as $9,350. he h a d a l r e a d y earned income a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l . parties that testified parties owned marital residence"), a home lake house"), property property"), they h a d numerous i n t h e Dunbrook a lake house neighborhood Samantha p r o p e r t y " ) , law o f f i c e property"), property"), and property property in the ("the on L a k e T u s c a l o o s a ("the l o c a t e d a t Gee's B e n d t h e husband's assets, Specifically, ("the Gee's B e n d ("the l a w o f f i c e " ) , S t r e e t a p a r t m e n t ("the a p a r t m e n t " ) , p r o p e r t y ("the He approximately a s 2010 employment including several parcels of real property. 15th the t r i a l i nAlberta Tuscaloosa which had a mortgage r e c e i v a b l e a i n Samantha ("the A l b e r t a ("the Thigpen i n t h e amount o f T h e h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s 2006 income was l e s s t h a n t h e p r e v i o u s y e a r s ' i n c o m e s b e c a u s e he l o s t a c o n t r a c t w i t h the D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s ("DHR"). He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d i n i t i a t e d l i t i g a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e l o s s o f t h e DHR c o n t r a c t t h a t was s t i l l p e n d i n g a t t h e t i m e o f t h e trial. 1 4 2101221 $942 p e r month. The w i f e h a d i n h e r i t e d t h e l a k e house, the Samantha p r o p e r t y , a n d t h e a p a r t m e n t f r o m h e r m o t h e r , a n d s h e owned partial interests i n each o f those p r o p e r t y w i t h h e r s i s t e r and o t h e r r e l a t i v e s . also p u r c h a s e d t h e Gee's together with property listed Bend t h e husband's property parents, 2 of real The p a r t i e s h a d during the marriage and t h e deed a l l f o u r p a r t i e s as j o i n t right of survivorship. pieces tenants I t was a l s o u n d i s p u t e d to that with the that the wife had used a p o r t i o n o f h e r i n h e r i t a n c e t o pay o f f t h e e x i s t i n g m o r t g a g e s on t h e l a w o f f i c e a n d t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e i n 2006. None o f t h e a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d p a r c e l s o f r e a l p r o p e r t y h a d a n y associated property, residence, credit time debt, with the exception w h i c h h a d an e x i s t i n g w h i c h was encumbered of mortgage, t h e Gee's Bend and the m a r i t a l by a home-equity line of ("HELOC") w i t h an o u t s t a n d i n g b a l a n c e o f $60,000 a t t h e of t r i a l . Both p a r t i e s t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y h a d drawn money f r o m t h e HELOC w h i l e t h e a c t i o n was p e n d i n g , a n d i t i s undisputed t h a t t h e husband had been r e s p o n s i b l e f o r making The husband's mother had d i e d a t t h e time o f t r i a l ; t h u s , t h e h u s b a n d , t h e w i f e , a n d t h e h u s b a n d ' s f a t h e r were t h e o n l y p a r t i e s w i t h an i n t e r e s t i n t h e Gee's B e n d p r o p e r t y . 2 5 2101221 t h e m o n t h l y payment on t h e HELOC d u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y o f t h e action. In a d d i t i o n , the p a r t i e s t e s t i f i e d automobiles, had a a boat, retirement contained and a p e r s o n a l account. approximately The evidence wife's $217,000, approximately indicating on had two Each p a r t y retirement while that t h r e e months a f t e r they watercraft. retirement account contained approximately presented that the account husband's $ 4 1 0 , 0 0 0 . The w i f e March the p a r t i e s ' 31, 1992, marriage, the h u s b a n d ' s r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t h a d h a d a v a l u e o f $11,843.94 a n d t h a t on M a r c h 31, 2010, a p p r o x i m a t e l y had f i l e d the complaint trial of date, 22 months a f t e r t h e w i f e f o r a d i v o r c e a n d 4 months b e f o r e t h e the husband's r e t i r e m e n t account had had a v a l u e $409,091.78. The wife further indicated that worked f o r t h e husband and h i s law f i r m w i t h o u t s a l a r y or retirement b e n e f i t s f o r approximately Finally, the wife testified a t t o r n e y $11,068.25 b e f o r e t h e t r i a l . that she she had receiving a 11 y e a r s . had Her a t t o r n e y paid her testified t h a t t h e w i f e owed h i m $3,204.30 i n u n p a i d f e e s , an a d d i t i o n a l $1,900 i n u n b i l l e d f e e s , a n d r o u g h l y $2,800 f o r f e e s i n c u r r e d for t h e J u l y 2010 t r i a l . The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d p a i d 6 2101221 a $5,000 r e t a i n e r w i t h HELOC. She money she further testified f u n d s she had u s e d t o pay had that drawn on she the parties' parties' unsure of what t h e a d d i t i o n a l a t t o r n e y f e e s she p a i d ; h o w e v e r , she i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t was used was the joint bank p o s s i b l e t h a t she account, s a l a r y funded, her p e r s o n a l checking which the had had husband's a c c o u n t , o r a n o t h e r draw f r o m t h e HELOC. On legally legal April 15, separating and 2011, the physical alternating trial parties; custody 3 court entered awarding of the the a judgment parties child with the husband custody pay $600 i n m o n t h l y c h i l d s u p p o r t ; o r d e r i n g t h e h u s b a n d t o pay 70% the a weekly b a s i s ; ordering joint to of on the f o l l o w i n g expenses school care; lunch money; summer related camp/day school and extracurricular/sporting to the camp; s c h o o l church activity trips fees child: fees and and "[a]fter and books; programs; equipment; t u t o r i n g ; camps; e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r l e s s o n s " ; awarding the the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e , the Thigpen p r o p e r t y , the wife l a k e house, A t t h e c l o s e o f t h e J u l y 27, 2010, t r i a l , t h e p a r t i e s a g r e e d t o amend t h e d i v o r c e c o m p l a i n t t o a c o m p l a i n t s e e k i n g a l e g a l s e p a r a t i o n p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, § 30-2-40, i n o r d e r t o a l l o w t h e w i f e t o r e m a i n on t h e h u s b a n d ' s h e a l t h insurance. 3 7 2101221 and the office, Samantha property; awarding the A l b e r t a p r o p e r t y , awarding the husband and the husband the t h e Gee's B e n d law property; an a u t o m o b i l e and t h e b o a t ; a w a r d i n g t h e w i f e an a u t o m o b i l e and t h e p e r s o n a l w a t e r c r a f t ; o r d e r i n g husband t o pay $10,000 o r d e r i n g t h e w i f e t o pay the wife parties $2,000 financial interest in husband's her "toward" wife's attorney periodic alimony; dividing a c c o u n t s ; and retirement awarding account account, among the and wife $85,000 other the husband filed a motion to a l t e r , the a l l the from the provisions not p e r t i n e n t t o the p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n or t h i s appeal. 2011, fees; $20,000 o f t h e HELOC d e b t ; a w a r d i n g i n monthly retirement the the On May 16, amend, o r v a c a t e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t and a m o t i o n t o s t a y e n f o r c e m e n t o f the judgment. 2011, The t r i a l c o u r t r e n d e r e d a j u d g m e n t on J u l y 26, g r a n t i n g the husband's postjudgment denying h i s postjudgment motion i n part motion i n p a r t and altering and the h u s b a n d ' s m o n t h l y c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n t o $500 p e r month, a l t e r i n g t h e amount o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y t h e h u s b a n d was t o p a y to pay t h e w i f e t o t h e amount o f $1,250, and r e q u i r i n g t h e w i f e t o f o r the e n t i r e debt associated with t h e HELOC; a l l t h e o t h e r p r o v i s i o n s o f the o r i g i n a l judgment remained i n e f f e c t . 8 2101221 On September court. 23, 2011, the husband t i m e l y appealed to this 4 Issues The husband r a i s e s t h r e e i s s u e s f o r t h i s on a p p e a l : ( 1 ) w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l husband t o cover 70% of the review c o u r t e r r e d i n r e q u i r i n g the child's expenses i n a d d i t i o n t o his $500 m o n t h l y c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n ; was i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence of court's to support (2) w h e t h e r the t r i a l $85,000 o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s r e t i r e m e n t there court's award account to the wife; T h i s c o u r t requested t h a t the p a r t i e s f i l e l e t t e r b r i e f s regarding the timeliness of the husband's appeal. S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h i s c o u r t q u e s t i o n e d w h e t h e r t h e h u s b a n d had t i m e l y a p p e a l e d due t o t h e n o t a t i o n i n t h e S t a t e J u d i c i a l I n f o r m a t i o n S y s t e m ("SJIS") r e g a r d i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s J u l y 26, 2011, order a m e n d i n g t h e j u d g m e n t and granting the husband's postjudgment motion i n p a r t . Subsequently, the h u s b a n d f i l e d a R u l e 7 7 ( d ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., m o t i o n . After c o n s i d e r i n g the p a r t i e s ' l e t t e r b r i e f s , t h i s c o u r t r e i n v e s t e d the t r i a l c o u r t w i t h j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n s i d e r the husband's R u l e 77(d) m o t i o n p u r s u a n t t o E t h e r t o n v. C i t y o f Homewood, 700 So. 2d 1374, 1378 ( A l a . 1997) . 4 On F e b r u a r y 22, 2012, t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e h u s b a n d ' s R u l e 77(d) m o t i o n and c o n t a i n i n g a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s J u l y 26, 2011, o r d e r was not e n t e r e d i n t o t h e S J I S u n t i l S e p t e m b e r 8, 2011. Pursuant to R u l e 5 8 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., an o r d e r o r j u d g m e n t i s " e n t e r e d " "as of the a c t u a l date of the i n p u t of the o r d e r or judgment i n t o the S t a t e J u d i c i a l I n f o r m a t i o n System." Thus, t h e h u s b a n d ' s a p p e a l was t i m e l y f i l e d . 9 2101221 and (3) w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l $10,000 i n attorney court erred i n awarding the wife fees. Standard of Review "This court's standard of reviewing a d i v i s i o n of p r o p e r t y p u r s u a n t t o a judgment o f d i v o r c e f o l l o w i n g ore tenus proceedings i s w e l l s e t t l e d : "'"'[W]hen a t r i a l c o u r t h e a r s o r e t e n u s t e s t i m o n y , i t s f i n d i n g s on d i s p u t e d f a c t s a r e p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t and i t s j u d g m e n t based on those findings w i l l not be r e v e r s e d u n l e s s t h e judgment i s p a l p a b l y e r r o n e o u s o r m a n i f e s t l y u n j u s t . ' " ' Water Works & S a n i t a r y Sewer Bd. v. P a r k s , 97 7 So. 2d 440, 443 ( A l a . 2007) (quoting F a d a l l a v. F a d a l l a , 929 So. 2d 429, 433 (Ala. 2 0 0 5 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n P h i l p o t v. S t a t e , 843 So. 2d 122, 125 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ) . '"The p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s , h o w e v e r , i s r e b u t t a b l e and may be overcome where there i s i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence presented to the t r i a l c o u r t t o s u s t a i n i t s judgment."' Waltman v. R o w e l l , 913 So. 2d 1083, 1086 (Ala. 2005) ( q u o t i n g D e n n i s v. Dobbs, 474 So. 2d 77, 79 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ) . ' A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e o r e t e n u s r u l e does n o t e x t e n d t o c l o a k with a presumption of correctness a t r i a l judge's c o n c l u s i o n s of law or the i n c o r r e c t a p p l i c a t i o n o f l a w t o t h e f a c t s . ' Waltman v. R o w e l l , 913 So. 2d a t 1086." " R e t a i l D e v e l o p e r s o f A l a b a m a , LLC v. E a s t Gadsden G o l f C l u b , I n c . , 985 So. 2d 924, 929 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) . " B l a s d e l v. B l a s d e l , 65 So. 3d 428, 431 Analysis 10 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010). 2101221 On erred appeal, in the husband f i r s t argues t h a t the t r i a l r e q u i r i n g the husband to pay 70% of the court child's e x p e n s e s r e l a t e d t o t h e " [ a ] f t e r s c h o o l c a r e ; summer camp/day camp; s c h o o l f e e s and books; l u n c h money; s c h o o l and church t r i p s and p r o g r a m s ; e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r / s p o r t i n g a c t i v i t y f e e s e q u i p m e n t ; t u t o r i n g ; camps; e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r l e s s o n s , " which are and a l l of expenses i n a d d i t i o n to h i s monthly c h i l d - s u p p o r t obligation. Specifically, he contends t h a t the e r r e d t o r e v e r s a l i n i t s a w a r d as e x p e n s e s b e c a u s e , he a r g u e s , to the trial court additional no e v i d e n c e t h e r e was child's indicating t h a t t h e " e x p e n s e s were r e a s o n a b l y r e l a t e d t o t h e needs o f t h e minor child or [whether the expenses] p l a c e d an undue f i n a n c i a l b u r d e n on" In this adjusted gross child-support Jud. Admin., f i l e d her child i t was schedule as i n the the appendix f o r a d i v o r c e , and, Dyas, left 683 to the So. 11 2d We that the 32, of the Ala. R. 2008 when t h e 973 wife " t h e amount o f discretion 971, parties' levels to Rule thus, and disagree. uppermost i t e x i s t e d i n September s h o u l d be Dyas v. him. undisputed income e x c e e d e d complaint support court." case, were e x t r a v a g a n t of the (Ala. Civ. trial App. 2101221 1995) (citing well settled Rule 32(C)(1), A l a . R. Jud. Admin.). It is 5 that "[w]hen t h e combined a d j u s t e d g r o s s income exceeds t h e uppermost l i m i t of the c h i l d s u p p o r t s c h e d u l e , t h e amount o f c h i l d s u p p o r t a w a r d e d must r a t i o n a l l y r e l a t e t o t h e r e a s o n a b l e and n e c e s s a r y needs of the c h i l d , taking into account the l i f e s t y l e t o w h i c h t h e c h i l d was a c c u s t o m e d and t h e standard of l i v i n g the c h i l d enjoyed before the d i v o r c e , and must r e a s o n a b l y r e l a t e t o t h e o b l i g o r ' s a b i l i t y t o p a y f o r t h o s e n e e d s . ... To a v o i d a f i n d i n g o f an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n on a p p e a l , a t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t o f c h i l d s u p p o r t must s a t i s f y b o t h prongs." Dyas, 683 So. 2d a t 973-74 Relying trial court on Dyas, erred (footnote supra, omitted). the husband i n obligating him contends that t o pay the f o r 70% of the c h i l d ' s a d d i t i o n a l e x p e n s e s b e c a u s e , he s a y s , t h e e v i d e n c e was insufficient to show that those additional expenses were r e l a t e d t o t h e needs o f t h e c h i l d a n d t h a t he h a d t h e a b i l i t y t o pay those expenses. ability I n i t i a l l y , we n o t e t h a t t h e h u s b a n d ' s t o pay h i s monthly c h i l d - s u p p o r t obligation i n the amount o f $500 was n o t i n d i s p u t e ; t h e e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e d the husband had a m o n t h l y income of approximately that $9,350, R u l e 32, A l a . R. J u d . Admin., was amended on November 18, 2008, and t h e amendments t o t h e r u l e became e f f e c t i v e on 5 12 2101221 w h i l e t h e w i f e h a d a m o n t h l y income o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y $2,000. We f u r t h e r n o t e t h a t t h e p a r t i e s d i d n o t p r e s e n t much evidence regarding the c h i l d o r h i s needs. However, a l t h o u g h was n o t an abundance o f e v i d e n c e regarding c h i l d ' s n e e d s , we c a n n o t c o n c l u d e that the t r i a l to r e v e r s a l by r e q u i r i n g t h e husband expenses r e l a t e d t o the c h i l d ' s the c h i l d t o pay "[a]fter there or the court erred 70% of the school care; summer camp/day camp; s c h o o l f e e s a n d b o o k s ; l u n c h money; s c h o o l a n d church trips and programs; e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r / s p o r t i n g activity f e e s a n d e q u i p m e n t ; t u t o r i n g ; camps; e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r l e s s o n s . " The inherent nature of the l i s t e d r e l a t e d t o the "reasonable Id. a t 973. Additionally, expenses and n e c e s s a r y i s undisputedly needs o f t h e c h i l d . " u n l i k e a f i x e d m o n t h l y award f o r f u t u r e p o t e n t i a l expenses o f t h e c h i l d l i k e t h e award a t i s s u e i n Dyas, s u p r a , t h e award i n t h i s to c o n t r i b u t e t o those contingent case r e q u i r e s both p a r t i e s e x p e n s e s a n d t h e amount o f the award i s n o t f i x e d b u t i n e v i t a b l y w i l l f l u c t u a t e depending o n l y on t h e needs o f t h e c h i l d . Moreover, support award due t o t h e c o n t i n g e n t at issue i n this case, p r o v i s i o n i s analogous t o a requirement 13 nature the of the child- child-support that the p a r t i e s to a 2101221 divorce s p l i t noncovered medical the parties' respective expenses of a c h i l d based incomes, which this c o n s i s t e n t l y u p h e l d . See West v. Rambo, 786 (Ala. C i v . App. o r d e r i n g the expenses the obligation"); support see same also (Ala. Civ. parties' ( f i n d i n g "no f a t h e r t o pay at 1248-49 2000) indicated that approximately 82% the the of v. In his this and husband's 841 and So. case, parties' joint dental 2d 1246, although of the documentary income court's child-support uppermost l i m i t s testimony the as Daniel, 2002). income e x c e e d e d t h e guidelines, 1143 the noncovered medical Daniel App. has 2d 1138, So. court e r r o r i n the t r i a l percentage on the child- evidence accounted income, for while the w i f e ' s income a c c o u n t e d f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y 18% o f t h e p a r t i e s ' joint e r r o r i n the monthly court's income. judgment T h u s , we ordering the c h i l d ' s a d d i t i o n a l expenses. find no 70% trial husband to pay of Therefore, we a f f i r m the the trial c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as i t d e t e r m i n e d t h e h u s b a n d ' s c h i l d support o b l i g a t i o n . Next, awarding account. the the He husband argues t h a t wife $85,000 contends from that the 14 the the wife trial court husband's failed erred in retirement to present 2101221 s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o s u p p o r t an a w a r d o f r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s u n d e r A l a . Code 1975, § 30-2-51(b). Specifically, t h a t the w i f e to present evidence failed any he argues indicating the p o r t i o n of the husband's r e t i r e m e n t account a c c r u e d d u r i n g the p a r t i e s ' marriage awarding the and, wife a thus, t h a t the t r i a l portion of the b e n e f i t s i s i n e r r o r because the t r i a l for court's husband's judgment retirement c o u r t d i d not account what p o r t i o n o f b e n e f i t s were a c q u i r e d b e f o r e t h e p a r t i e s ' marriage and the applicable interest or appreciation a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e p r e m a r i t a l r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s . We agree. S e c t i o n 30-2-51(b), w h i c h governs the award of r e t i r e m e n t benefits, states: "(b) The j u d g e , a t h i s o r h e r d i s c r e t i o n , may i n c l u d e i n the e s t a t e of e i t h e r spouse the p r e s e n t v a l u e o f any f u t u r e o r c u r r e n t r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s , t h a t a s p o u s e may have a v e s t e d i n t e r e s t i n o r may be r e c e i v i n g on t h e d a t e t h e a c t i o n f o r d i v o r c e i s f i l e d , p r o v i d e d t h a t the f o l l o w i n g c o n d i t i o n s are met: "(1) The p a r t i e s have b e e n m a r r i e d f o r a p e r i o d o f 10 y e a r s d u r i n g w h i c h the r e t i r e m e n t was b e i n g a c c u m u l a t e d . "(2) The c o u r t s h a l l n o t i n c l u d e i n t h e e s t a t e t h e v a l u e o f any retirement b e n e f i t s a c q u i r e d p r i o r to the marriage i n c l u d i n g any i n t e r e s t o r a p p r e c i a t i o n o f the b e n e f i t s . 15 2101221 "(3) The total amount of the retirement benefits payable to the non-covered spouse s h a l l not exceed 50 p e r c e n t o f t h e r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s t h a t may be c o n s i d e r e d by t h e c o u r t . " The Civ. h u s b a n d c i t e s D u B o i s v. D u B o i s , 714 App. 1998), DuBois, this awarding the because the i n support court wife held 50% trial 2d 308 o f h i s argument on that the of the court had a c q u i r e d p r i o r to the marriage" 2 - 5 1 ( b ) . I d . a t 310. So. trial court husband's failed appeal. had erred retirement to deduct this In in account "benefits as r e q u i r e d p u r s u a n t Specifically, (Ala. to § 30- court stated that § 30-2-51(b)(2) " p r o h i b i t s the t r i a l c o u r t from i n c l u d i n g i n the e s t a t e t h e v a l u e o f b e n e f i t s t h a t had b e e n a c q u i r e d b e f o r e marriage." In Id. the evidence account. 31, 1992, marriage, present regarding a c c o u n t was testimony the minimal, regarding case, the the value record of the indicates husband's that retirement and t h e w i f e f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t any the issue of the The w i f e p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e approximately three husband's expert retirement i n d i c a t i n g t h a t on M a r c h months after the parties' t h e h u s b a n d ' s r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t had had a v a l u e $11,843.94 and t h a t on M a r c h 31, 2010, 16 the approximately of 22 months 2101221 after the wife had f i l e d the complaint f o r a d i v o r c e and 4 months b e f o r e t h e t r i a l d a t e , t h e h u s b a n d ' s r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t had h a d a v a l u e o f $409,091.78. of the evidence retirement present regarding account. Thus, action failed This c o n s t i t u t e d the t o t a l i t y the like value of i n DuBois, to present the husband's the wife testimony i n the indicating what amount o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s h a d b e e n a c q u i r e d before the p a r t i e s ' marriage attributable Accordingly, sufficient account to we benefits conclude evidence that was and what amount o f i n t e r e s t acquired that before the wife the failed was marriage. to present o f the p o r t i o n o f the husband's r e t i r e m e n t divisible pursuant to § 30-2-51(b), and, t h u s , t h e w i f e ' s a w a r d o f $85,000 o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s retirement b e n e f i t s i s due t o be r e v e r s e d . See P i a t t v. P i a t t , 736 So. 2d 632, 632-33 891, 2d 895 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 9 ) ; Dunn v. Dunn, 891 So. 2d ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 4 ) ; M c A l p i n e v. M c A l p i n e , 438, 441 (Ala. Civ. Applegate, 863 So. 2d 1123 we the t r i a l reverse App. 2002)); and Applegate ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) . court's judgment i n s o f a r 865 So. Therefore, as i t a w a r d e d the w i f e a p o r t i o n of the husband's r e t i r e m e n t account, remand t h e c a u s e t o t h e t r i a l court to enter 17 v. and we a judgment n o t 2101221 awarding the wife any portion of the husband's account. A c c o r d i n g l y , because the t r i a l retirement court considered the h u s b a n d ' s r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t t o have been d i v i s i b l e property and b e c a u s e t h a t award was a s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t o f t h e p r o p e r t y division, we also marital property reverse that the husband's p r o p e r t y and, t h u s , division. is trial court's division and remand t h e c a u s e t o t h e t r i a l reconsider i t s division fact the court to of the m a r i t a l assets i n l i g h t of the retirement account i s not m a r i t a l s h o u l d n o t be c o n s i d e r e d i n the property F u r t h e r m o r e , because t h e award o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y considered i n conjunction with the d i v i s i o n of the m a r i t a l a s s e t s , H e n d e r s o n v. H e n d e r s o n , 800 So. 2d 595, 597 App. of 2 0 0 0 ) , we must a l s o r e v e r s e the t r i a l (Ala. Civ. c o u r t ' s award o f p e r i o d i c alimony to the wife i n order f o r the t r i a l court to reconsider and property together. i t s award of alimony marital 6 I n h i s a p p e l l a t e b r i e f , t h e h u s b a n d makes v a r i o u s o t h e r a r g u m e n t s r e g a r d i n g t h e ways i n w h i c h t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n a w a r d i n g t h e w i f e a p o r t i o n o f h i s r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t . Due t o our d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t w i f e f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t sufficient e v i d e n c e of the p o r t i o n o f t h e husband's r e t i r e m e n t account t h a t was d i v i s i b l e p u r s u a n t t o § 3 0 - 2 - 5 1 ( b ) , we p r e t e r m i t d i s c u s s i o n of the husband's a d d i t i o n a l arguments r e g a r d i n g t h i s i s s u e on a p p e a l . 6 18 2101221 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 awarding the w i f e $10,000 i n a t t o r n e y fees. ""Whether t o a w a r d an a t t o r n e y f e e i n a d o m e s t i c r e l a t i o n s case i s w i t h i n the sound d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t and, a b s e n t an abuse o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n , i t s r u l i n g on t h a t q u e s t i o n w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d . Thompson v. Thompson, 650 So. 2d 928 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 4 ) . ' F a c t o r s t o be c o n s i d e r e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t when a w a r d i n g such fees include the financial circumstances of the p a r t i e s , the p a r t i e s ' conduct, the results of the litigation, and, where appropriate, the trial court's knowledge and e x p e r i e n c e as t o t h e v a l u e o f t h e s e r v i c e s p e r f o r m e d by t h e a t t o r n e y . ' F i g u r e s v. F i g u r e s , 624 So. 2d 188, 191 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1993). A d d i t i o n a l l y , a t r i a l c o u r t i s p r e s u m e d t o have k n o w l e d g e f r o m w h i c h i t may s e t a r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e e v e n when t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e as t o t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s of the a t t o r n e y f e e . T a y l o r v. T a y l o r , 486 So. 2d 1294 ( A l a . C i v . App. 198 6 ) . " Glover v. G l o v e r , We as undetermined property So. 2d 174, 176 ( A l a . C i v . App. p r e t e r m i t d i s c u s s i o n of the w i f e ' s f e e award. parties 678 In t h i s well case, as the because division the we and financial results have of $10,000 the award their in remanded t h e c a s e f o r f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . reverse the a t t o r n e y - f e e further consider the a w a r d and i s s u e on Conclusion 19 trial the are court's entirety Accordingly, d i r e c t the t r i a l remand. of litigation reversed alimony attorney- circumstances the 1996). court and we to 2101221 Accordingly, insofar we a f f i r m as i t o r d e r e d t h e judgment of the t r i a l court t h e husband t o pay 70% o f a d d i t i o n a l e x p e n s e s r e g a r d i n g t h e c h i l d ; we r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e trial court award of insofar $10,000 as i t awarded the wife and the remand an a t t o r n e y - f e e cause for further c o n s i d e r a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e a t t o r n e y - f e e a w a r d ; we r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s award o f any p o r t i o n o f t h e husband's retirement a c c o u n t t o t h e w i f e a n d remand t h e c a u s e t o t h e t r i a l e l i m i n a t e t h e award o f a p o r t i o n o f t h e husband's account; a n d we r e v e r s e property division trial the t r i a l i n their retirement court's alimony entirety so t h a t , c o u r t c a n f a s h i o n a new p r o p e r t y court t o award and on remand, t h e division and alimony award w i t h o u t c o n s i d e r i n g t h e husband's r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t as a divisible asset. The w i f e ' s r e q u e s t f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s on a p p e a l i s d e n i e d . AFFIRMED I N PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Pittman, J . , concurs. Thompson, P . J . , a n d B r y a n a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r i n t h e r e s u l t , without writings. 20

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.