Maurice Underwood v. Rochella Benita Underwood

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 07/20/2012 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 2110204 Maurice Underwood v. R o c h e l l a B e n i t a Underwood Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t (DR-09-500653.00) Court THOMAS, J u d g e . Maurice Underwood Underwood ("the w i f e " ) ("the husband") were m a r r i e d and R o c h e l l a on J a n u a r y 3, 1 9 8 1 . On June 3, 2 0 0 9 , t h e h u s b a n d f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t from the wife and a d i s t r i b u t i o n Benita seeking a divorce of the assets and debts 2110204 accumulated complaint during the marriage. The wife answered the a n d f i l e d a c o u n t e r c l a i m i n w h i c h she a s s e r t e d t h a t she h a d b e e n p h y s i c a l l y a b u s e d b y t h e h u s b a n d . continuances, a trial was h e l d on A p r i l After several 14, 2 0 1 1 . On April 26, 2 0 1 1 , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s j u d g m e n t d i v o r c i n g t h e parties, dividing the p a r t i e s ' awarding the wife p e r i o d i c alimony, percentages of the husband's real two property and v e h i c l e s , and awarding the wife retirement accounts. Specifically, " [ w ] i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e husbands 2 p e n s i o n s , t h e w i f e s h a l l be a w a r d e d 2 5 % o f t h e U n i o n 119 p e n s i o n and 401k a n d r e t i r e m e n t i n M o b i l e , A l a b a m a , i f any. The w i f e s h a l l be a w a r d e d 50% o f t h e U n i o n 72 r e t i r e m e n t , p e n s i o n , a n d 401k, i n A t l a n t a , G e o r g i a , i f a n y . The w i f e ' s a t t o r n e y s h a l l p r e p a r e t h e p r o p e r Q u a l i f i e d D o m e s t i c R e l a t i o n s O r d e r s w i t h i n 60 d a y s to prepare same t r a n s f e r s a n d t h e h u s b a n d s h a l l cooperate i n g e t t i n g same p a p e r w o r k s i g n e d a n d t u r n e d i n , i f n e c e s s a r y . The v a l u e t o be d i v i d e d s h a l l be t h e v a l u e as o f t h e d a t e o f t h i s o r d e r a n d s h a l l i n c l u d e any f l u c t u a t i o n s i n m a r k e t p r i c e s a n d e x c l u d e any e m p l o y e e c o n t r i b u t i o n s made s i n c e t h i s date." The h u s b a n d f i l e d a m o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s judgment. The h u s b a n d c o n t e n d e d t h a t t h e w i f e had of the values offered accounts, no that evidence t h e husband marital residence should have of h i s retirement been awarded the " o u t r i g h t , " t h a t t h e w i f e was n o t e n t i t l e d 2 2110204 to an award of p e r i o d i c alimony, and that there was no e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e husband's a b i l i t y t o pay a l i m o n y t o the w i f e . He amended h i s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n t o c o n t e n d t h a t a 1979 F-100 t r u c k s h o u l d have b e e n a w a r d e d t o h i m . responded, opposing amended p o s t j u d g m e n t court entered t h e husband's motion. an o r d e r motion i n p a r t . On J u l y granting The c i r c u i t postjudgment The w i f e motion and 2 1 , 2011, t h e c i r c u i t t h e husband's postjudgment court s e t aside the wife's award o f 2 5 % o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s U n i o n 119 r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t a n d s e t a h e a r i n g f o r O c t o b e r , 11, 2011, t o r e c e i v e e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g t h e h u s b a n d ' s U n i o n 119 r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t . [Ms. 2101072, May 11, 2012] App. 2012)(A judgment is So. 3d nonfinal c o n t r o v e r s y have n o t b e e n c o m p l e t e l y See T i c e v . T i c e , when (Ala. Civ. a l l matters in adjudicated.). A t t h e h e a r i n g on O c t o b e r 11, 2011, t h e husband objected to the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s r e c e i v i n g a d d i t i o n a l evidence r e g a r d i n g his Union 119 r e t i r e m e n t account. concluded that i t lacked the a b i l i t y hear additional October evidence." 20, 2 0 1 1 , m o d i f i e d Instead, The circuit court then t o "reopen t h e case t o the c i r c u i t i t s judgment, setting court, aside on that p o r t i o n o f i t s judgment t h a t had awarded t h e w i f e a p e r c e n t a g e 3 2110204 o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s U n i o n 119 of retirement [its] reconsideration," ordering wife $25,000 in alimony in installments the court's the gross o f $375 f o r f i v e a c c o u n t and, to be paid t o pay in the monthly A l l other portions of judgment remained in h u s b a n d t i m e l y a p p e a l e d t o t h i s c o u r t on November 15, circuit April years. husband "in light 26, 2011, effect. The 2011. He s e e k s t h i s c o u r t ' s r e v i e w o f (1) w h e t h e r t h e circuit 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 50% o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s U n i o n 72 retirement by account, "substituting" j u d g m e n t , and an (2) whether award of the alimony (3) w h e t h e r t h e circuit i n gross circuit court erred i n i t s amended court's property and award and i t s award of p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y i s e x c e s s i v e improper due t o t h e h u s b a n d ' s a l l e g e d l a c k o f a b i l i t y t o pay t h e amount ordered. "In r e v i e w i n g a t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment i n a d i v o r c e c a s e where t h e t r i a l c o u r t has made f i n d i n g s o f f a c t b a s e d on o r a l t e s t i m o n y , we a r e g o v e r n e d by t h e o r e t e n u s r u l e . Under t h i s r u l e , t h e trial 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 w i l l be p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t and w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l u n l e s s i t i s p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y wrong. H a r t z e l l v. H a r t z e l l , 623 So. 2d 323 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1993) . Matters of alimony and property division are interrelated, and the entire j u d g m e n t must be c o n s i d e r e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether the t r i a l c o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n as t o e i t h e r o f t h o s e i s s u e s . 4 2110204 W i l l i n g v. W i l l i n g , 655 So. 2d 1064 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1995). Furthermore, a d i v i s i o n of m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y i n a d i v o r c e c a s e does n o t have t o be e q u a l , o n l y e q u i t a b l e , and a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f what i s e q u i t a b l e r e s t s w i t h i n the sound d i s c r e t i o n of the trial c o u r t . G o l d e n v. G o l d e n , 681 So. 2d 605 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996) . I n a d d i t i o n , the trial court can c o n s i d e r the conduct of the p a r t i e s w i t h r e g a r d t o the breakdown of the m a r r i a g e , e v e n where the parties are divorced on the basis of i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y . Ex p a r t e Drummond, 785 So. 2d 358 (Ala. 2 0 0 0 ) . M o r e o v e r , i n K l u e v e r v. K l u e v e r , 656 So. 2d 887 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 5 ) , t h i s c o u r t s t a t e d , '[a]lthough this court is not permitted to s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r t h a t of the t r i a l c o u r t , t h i s c o u r t i s p e r m i t t e d t o r e v i e w and r e v i s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t upon an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . ' Id. a t 889." Langley v. L a n g l e y , At the 895 So. time of the been m a r r i e d f o r 30 2d 971, trial, years. 973 the ( A l a . C i v . App. h u s b a n d and Their three the 2003) . wife c h i l d r e n are had adults. The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had s e p a r a t e d more t h a n once and 2008. The t h a t they had h u s b a n d and extramarital not lived together the w i f e admitted relationships. The since February to having 6, engaged i n husband t e s t i f i e d that the w i f e l i v e d w i t h George C r a i g ; however, the w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she l i v e d alone. the m a r i t a l residence sexual She s a i d t h a t C r a i g had i n 2006 b u t relationship with evidence e x h i b i t s intended Craig. that The s p e n t two she had husband n e v e r had offered t o p r o v e t h a t C r a i g had 5 nights at a into lived in 2110204 the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e the wife. The and had had exhibits include a sexual relationship with a Valentine's day card that t h e h u s b a n d c h a r a c t e r i z e d as a " l o v e n o t e " f r o m C r a i g t o w i f e , the w i f e ' s 2005 c a l e n d a r w i t h her h a n d w r i t t e n the notations o f m e e t i n g s w i t h "G," m a i l t h a t had b e e n d e l i v e r e d t o C r a i g the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e i n 2007, and t h e M o b i l e D i s t r i c t C o u r t had the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e The at a document i n d i c a t i n g t h a t a t t e m p t e d s e r v i c e upon C r a i g i n 2008 i n an u n r e l a t e d lawsuit. she had " p a i d somebody $50 t o s i g n " t h e h u s b a n d ' s name on a m o r t g a g e - l o a n document on the marital the loan to w i f e a d m i t t e d t h a t i n 1991 at residence "pay and bills." husband's s i g n a t u r e was eventually The on had u s e d $16,000 i n p r o c e e d s She also a loan r e p o s s e s s e d by husband said that, the The marital $60,800. The to forging f o r a b o a t i n 1992. the at r e s i d e d i n the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e apartment. admitted from the The boat sellers. the and time of the hearing, t h e w i f e was renting he an c i r c u i t court heard testimony i n d i c a t i n g that residence was valued husband t e s t i f i e d t h a t two lots adjoining the the lots a t $ 5 , 0 0 0 ; no at between the m a r i t a l residence. one t e s t i f i e d as 6 $50,000 parties also He to the valued value and owned one of of the 2110204 second l o t . lot") at The husband v a l u e d at $10,000. The 1 time wife valued property i s undisputed of the trial. that The the first testified w i t h S a a d ' s , b u t she with Saad's and $16,000, w h i c h , s a i d she had to her The stroke, ("the Mauvilla on D o n a l d and she later was not Street testified Inc. employed at that she d i d not said, 2008, she she had had years. used a 401K "cashed t o pay plan plan i t " for bills. She 2 the trial problems. testified that the wife had had suffered had a heart-bypass surgery, and The wife been d i a g n o s e d high the been have a r e t i r e m e n t s t a t e d t h a t she had had in had ( " S a a d ' s " ) , f o r 15 been unemployed f o r f o u r y e a r s b e f o r e husband procedure. diabetes she health had that that, wife wife e m p l o y e d a t Saad's H e a l t h c a r e , due lot "25." It She a third added t h a t blood pressure she and had that she had was a a stent with slightly The wife's exhibit E i s a Mobile County Revenue Commission t a x n o t i c e t h a t l i s t s the v a l u e of the M a u v i l l a l o t a t $8,500. 1 T h e r e was f u r t h e r testimony concerning the wife's f i n a n c e s b e t w e e n 1991 and 1996, i n c l u d i n g p r o c e e d s f r o m two s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t s t h a t may have amounted t o $26,000 and an i n h e r i t a n c e o f $ 1 3 , 0 0 0 . The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had filed f o r b a n k r u p t c y i n e i t h e r 1994 o r 1995. 2 7 2110204 disabled by qualified the she qualified amount o f $943 p e r income i n t h e homeowner's testimony as wife was i n March to that She she said She testified amount o f $425 p e r that The he on that prescription abused the that she had incurred that she was to alimony. collects tenant 3 She she and month i n a l i m o n y ; t h e entitled she s a i d she p a y s $386 property. monthly expenses, provided requested an husband agreed that addition, the wife property from y e a r s o l d and that In residence. husband t e s t i f i e d suffered had month f r o m a r e q u e s t e d an a w a r d o f c e r t a i n i t e m s o f p e r s o n a l the m a r i t a l she but 2010 on D o n a l d S t r e e t ; she her that r e c e i v i n g S o c i a l S e c u r i t y income i n t h e insurance a w a r d o f $600 p e r the testified f o r Medicare. month. r e n t i n g the p r o p e r t y in wife i n unpaid medical b i l l s u n a b l e t o w o r k and was rental The f o r Medicare b e n e f i t s owed $43,863 before stroke. from high blood medication. wife. He t h a t he was said He 54 pressure, denied that he that had for which he had been c o n s t r u c t i o n w o r k e r f o r 25 y e a r s by L o c a l 119 he physically employed 8 as i n M o b i l e and T h e w i f e d i d n o t i n d i c a t e w h e t h e r she p a i d t h e homeowner's i n s u r a n c e o b l i g a t i o n m o n t h l y o r a n n u a l l y . 3 took a as $386 2110204 a p i p e f i t t e r f o r 10 y e a r s by L o c a l 72 i n A t l a n t a , G e o r g i a . the time of the t r i a l , millwright Mobile. t h e h u s b a n d h a d been f o r four He years s a i d he at earned the Alabama b e t w e e n $40,000 e m p l o y e d as State eligible Docks and $45,000 y e a r and h a d a n e t income o f $2,600 p e r month. he h a d two r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t s At a in per He s a i d t h a t b u t t h a t he was n o t c u r r e n t l y t o draw any r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s . The parties husband's offered retirement vague accounts. testimony According concerning to a the document o f f e r e d i n t o e v i d e n c e by t h e w i f e , t h e husband's s t a t u s i n t h e Local 119 account r e t i r e m e n t account became a c t i v e He Vested" and h i s on M a r c h 1, 1975 -- a p p r o x i m a t e l y s i x years before the marriage. not i s "Terminated The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was aware o f t h e v a l u e o f t h e L o c a l 119 r e t i r e m e n t account. s a i d : " I know a b o u t i t . I have a r e t i r e m e n t , b u t I d o n ' t know how much." I t i s undisputed m a r r i e d f o r a p e r i o d o f more t h a n t h a t t h e p a r t i e s h a d been 10 y e a r s , d u r i n g w h i c h h u s b a n d ' s L o c a l 72 r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s were b e i n g the accumulated. When a s k e d f o r t h e " b a l l p a r k " v a l u e o f h i s L o c a l 72 r e t i r e m e n t account, the husband a n s w e r e d : "$10,000 9 maybe." The wife 2110204 testified Local that she d i d n o t know t h e v a l u e s 119 o r L o c a l In 72 r e t i r e m e n t of the husband's accounts. i t s judgment, the c i r c u i t court awarded t h e husband the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e ; however, i t o r d e r e d t h e husband e i t h e r to pay the wife residence $20,000 or t o s e l l interest i n the t h e house and pay t h e w i f e the proceeds of the s a l e . lots f o r her 4 marital $20,000 from I t a w a r d e d t h e h u s b a n d one o f t h e adjacent to the m a r i t a l residence, 5 the M a u v i l l a l o t , a 1996 F o r d E x p l o r e r s p o r t - u t i l i t y v e h i c l e , t h e 1979 P a r k Avenue a u t o m o b i l e , and t h e 2001 M u s t a n g a u t o m o b i l e . wife $500 p e r month Donald S t r e e t , automobile. 6 in periodic alimony, t h e 1979 F o r d F-100 truck, I t awarded t h e the property on and a 2002 V o l v o I t awarded t h e w i f e 50% o f t h e husband's L o c a l 72 T h e p a r t i e s a g r e e d t h a t t h e m o r t g a g e on t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e and t h e two a d j o i n i n g v a c a n t l o t s h a d been p a i d i n f u l l i n 2004. 4 The c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s judgement awarded t h e husband "the lot at H a i g S t r e e t , " w h i c h i s one l o t a d j o i n i n g t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e ; h o w e v e r , t h e h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t he owns two a d j o i n i n g l o t s . The w i f e has n o t a p p e a l e d t o t h i s c o u r t , and we n o t e t h a t , when a j u d g m e n t f a i l s t o d i s p o s e o f c e r t a i n p r o p e r t y , t h e o w n e r s h i p o f t h e p r o p e r t y i s n o t a l t e r e d . "When t h e t r i a l j u d g e d [ o e s ] n o t a l t e r o w n e r s h i p , t h a t , i n and o f i t s e l f , d i s p o s e [ s ] o f t h e i s s u e . " C o f f e l t v. C o f f e l t , 390 So. 2d 652, 653 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 0 ) . 5 The w i f e s a i d t h a t the l o a n S t r e e t had been p a i d i n f u l l . 6 10 on t h e p r o p e r t y on Donald 2110204 retirement retirement account and account, but 25% of the husband's Local i n i t s m o d i f i e d judgment the 119 circuit c o u r t s e t a s i d e i t s award t o the w i f e of 25% of the L o c a l retirement evidence account had been because, i t presented determined, regarding account accumulated during the added i n alimony an award of $25,000 the marriage. insufficient value The A l a b a m a Code 1975, of retirement accounts divorce actions. of circuit i n gross because of i t s " r e c o n s i d e r [ a t i o n ] of the o t h e r I . The 119 to the that court wife equities." Retirement Accounts § 30-2-51(b)&(c), govern the f o r purposes of d i v i d i n g Those s u b s e c t i o n s treatment property read: "(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 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 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 . for the "(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 . 11 in 2110204 "(3) The total amount of the retirement benefits payable to the n o n - c o v e r e d s p o u s e s h a l l n o t e x c e e d 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 . "(c) I f the court f i n d s i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n t h a t any o f t h e c o v e r e d s p o u s e ' s r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s s h o u l d be d i s t r i b u t e d t o t h e n o n - c o v e r e d s p o u s e , t h e amount i s n o t p a y a b l e t o t h e n o n - c o v e r e d spouse u n t i l the c o v e r e d spouse b e g i n s t o r e c e i v e h i s or h e r r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s o r r e a c h e s t h e age o f 65 y e a r s , u n l e s s b o t h p a r t i e s a g r e e t o a lump sum s e t t l e m e n t of the non-covered spouse's benefits p a y a b l e i n one o r more i n s t a l l m e n t s . " A. The Husband's U n i o n 72 R e t i r e m e n t A c c o u n t The h u s b a n d c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t i s due to reversed because i t awarded the wife 50% of the h u s b a n d ' s U n i o n 72 r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t " i n t h e t o t a l a b s e n c e o f proof of the p r e s e n t v a l u e of cites Brattmiller App. the b e n e f i t s . " v. B r a t t m i l l e r , 975 So. The 2d 359 husband (Ala. Civ. 2 0 0 7 ) ; W i l s o n v. W i l s o n , 941 So. 2d 967 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ; A p p l e g a t e v. A p p l e g a t e , 863 So 2d 1123 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003); 438 App. and M c A l p i n e v. M c A l p i n e , 865 2002). In that line of So. 2d cases, spouses (Ala. Civ. had failed to produce s u f f i c i e n t evidence of the p r e s e n t v a l u e of the o t h e r spouse's retirement benefits and 12 this court consistently 2110204 remanded the judgments. causes to the t r i a l In B r a t t m i l l e r t h i s courts court to amend their explained: " I n W i l s o n v . W i l s o n , 941 So. 2d 967 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ; A p p l e g a t e v. A p p l e g a t e , 863 So. 2d 1123 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) ; and M c A l p i n e v. M c A l p i n e , 865 So. 2d 438, 440 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) , t h i s c o u r t h e l d t h a t , i n o r d e r t o s u p p o r t an a w a r d t o one spouse o f a p o r t i o n o f t h e o t h e r spouse's r e t i r e m e n t benefits pursuant t o § 30-2-51(b), t h e spouse seeking s u c h an a w a r d must i n t r o d u c e evidence e s t a b l i s h i n g the 'present value' of the r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s . Moreover, t h i s c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t ' " [ t ] h e f a i l u r e t o present the necessary evidence of the present valuation of retirement benefits ... p r e v e n t s t h e t r i a l c o u r t f r o m e x e r c i s i n g i t s ... d i s c r e t i o n t o a w a r d one s p o u s e a n y p o r t i o n o f t h e r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s o f t h e o t h e r s p o u s e . M c A l p i n e v. M c A l p i n e , 865 So. 2d 438 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) . " ' W i l s o n , 941 So. 2d a t 970 ( q u o t i n g A p p l e g a t e , 863 So. 2d a t 1 1 2 4 ) . R e v e r s i n g t h e awards o f r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s i n W i l s o n , A p p l e g a t e , and M c A l p i n e , this c o u r t remanded t h o s e c a s e s w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r t h e p e r t i n e n t t r i a l c o u r t s t o amend t h e i r j u d g m e n t s t o e l i m i n a t e t h e awards o f r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s a n d t o r e c o n s i d e r d i v i s i o n s o f m a r i t a l a s s e t s on t h e b a s i s of evidence t h a t had a l r e a d y been i n t r o d u c e d a t trial." 975 So. 2d a t 362-63. In this case, the c i r c u i t court heard the husband's t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e " b a l l p a r k " v a l u e o f h i s U n i o n 72 r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t was $10,000 a n 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 h a d b e e n married f o r a p e r i o d o f more t h a n b e n e f i t was b e i n g accumulated. 13 10 y e a r s , d u r i n g w h i c h t h e Therefore, the c i r c u i t court 2110204 r e c e i v e d some e v i d e n c e retirement account, of t h e v a l u e of t h e husband's Union but, i n Wilson, the evidence 72 adduced a t t r i a l r e g a r d i n g the v a l u e of the husband's r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s was the husband's retirement benefit. on A p p l e g a t e own testimony, estimating 941 So. 2d a t 970. and M c A l p i n e , determined h i s monthly This court, relying that a party's estimate is insufficient evidence of the present value of a retirement benefit. In t h i s the Id. presented to c o u r t as t o t h e v a l u e o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s U n i o n circuit case, 72 retirement account was failed present the only evidence evidence to husband's Union the husband's of the estimate. present 72 r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t ; court l a c k e d the d i s c r e t i o n award account, and judgment to to the w i f e we instruct eliminate r e t i r e m e n t account of judgment the t h e r e f o r e , the c i r c u i t We r e v e r s e t h e c i r c u i t the Union circuit award of 119 R e t i r e m e n t Gross husband of court 50% of 72 retirement to amend i t s the Union 72 to the w i f e . B. The Husband's U n i o n The 50% the the value wife t o award h e r any p o r t i o n o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s U n i o n 72 r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t . court's The argues improperly Award that awarded Account/Alimony-in- the circuit the w i f e 14 court's $25,000 amended i n alimony in 2110204 gross as a " s u b s t i t u t e " f o r i t s o r i g i n a l h u s b a n d ' s U n i o n 119 retirement a w a r d o f 25% of the account. "An a w a r d o f a l i m o n y i n g r o s s i s i n t e n d e d t o e f f e c t a f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n of p r o p e r t y r i g h t s of t h e p a r t i e s and t o a t t e m p t t o c o m p e n s a t e t h e w i f e f o r the l o s s of inchoate p r o p e r t y r i g h t s i n her h u s b a n d ' s e s t a t e . B o l e y v. B o l e y , 589 So. 2d 1297 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 1 ) . " Bunn v. Bunn, 628 So. 2d 695, 697 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1993) . h u s b a n d c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e amended j u d g m e n t s h o u l d be for two 620 reasons. (Ala. Civ. award of a App. alimony indirectly After First, what citing 1993), i n gross caselaw careful review says allowed that the the the record, court doing we So. 2d "substituted" circuit p r o h i b i t s i t from of reversed Murphy v. Murphy, 624 he The are to do directly. unable to conclude the c i r c u i t c o u r t exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n because, determine, the c i r c u i t c o u r t p r o p e r l y attempted to balance equities between the husband and the wife in we the i t s amended judgment. I n Murphy, a t r i a l c o u r t a w a r d e d t h e h u s b a n d ' s account, valued The husband a t $4,267, t o t h e filed h e a r i n g , the t r i a l and, a postjudgment wife. 624 motion, So. and, retirement 2d at 622. following a c o u r t d e l e t e d t h a t p o r t i o n of i t s judgment instead, ordered t h e h u s b a n d t o pay 15 t h e w i f e $20,000 i n 2110204 alimony in beginning added). gross on This "'paid the at the Husband's court rate 55th reversed of $500.00 birthday.'" the award of per Id. month (emphasis alimony in gross, stating: "The t r i a l c o u r t , on i t s own, d e t e r m i n e d t h a t i t s i n i t i a l d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e r e t i r e m e n t f u n d s was in e r r o r . We agree w i t h t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n . It a p p e a r s , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e amended d i s p o s i t i o n was an e f f o r t t o i n d i r e c t l y do what t h e e x i s t i n g law p r o h i b i t s . This c o u r t r e c o g n i z e s the heinous conduct o f t h e h u s b a n d . However, s u c h c o n d u c t does not change t h e l a w o f m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y . I t i s r e q u i r e d t h a t we r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s a w a r d o f a l i m o n y i n g r o s s . Thompson v. Thompson, 532 So. 2d 1027 (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 8 8 ) . " Id. at 623. modification We determine in Murphy that, is although similar the to the postjudgment postjudgment m o d i f i c a t i o n i n t h i s case, i t i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e . j u d g m e n t i n Murphy r e q u i r e d t h e begin to judgment pay the wife was entered $500 -- then per once he 44-year-old month was 11 years eligible r e d u c e d amount" o f h i s r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s . t h i s case, the c i r c u i t c o u r t , l i k e the t r i a l The amended husband to after the to draw I d . a t 622. "a In c o u r t i n Murphy, d e t e r m i n e d t h a t i t s i n i t i a l d i s p o s i t i o n of the husband's L o c a l 119 retirement determination. a c c o u n t was i n error, and we agree w i t h i t s However, i n t h i s c a s e , i t does n o t a p p e a r t h a t 16 2110204 the circuit circumvent the allocation circuit court's of law of court's the was parties, an attempt We conclude awarded i t s effort rather to regarding which judgment, i n gross, was property benefits. amended between judgment marital retirement $25,000 i n a l i m o n y equities amended the that the the wife to balance than an the effort to i n d i r e c t l y award the w i f e a p o r t i o n of the husband's Union 119 retirement benefits. Second, the husband amended j u d g m e n t i s due indicates argues t o be that h i s present that the estate court's because the reversed circuit evidence is insufficient a w a r d o f $25,000 i n a l i m o n y i n g r o s s t o t h e w i f e . cites Ex p a r t e Dickson, Redden, 44 So. 3d 508 Zimmerman, 803 So. our supreme court 3d 159 from trial court's The an husband ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) ; Redden v. 2 0 0 9 ) ; and ( A l a . C i v . App. quoted p a r t i e s ' p r o p e r t y was 2001). Redden and Zimmerman v. In Dickson, Zimmerman and judgment t h a t d i v i d e d the e r r o n e o u s b e c a u s e t h e amount o f a l i m o n y " g r e a t l y exceeded" the v a l u e of the husband's e s t a t e at the time the 162. So. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2d 569 determined t h a t the i n gross 29 t o pay j u d g m e n t was In Dickson, the entered. Dickson, 29 So. 3d c o u r t agreed w i t h the husband t h a t 17 at "an 2110204 award o f a l i m o n y i n g r o s s must be made b a s e d on t h e v a l u e o f the m a r i t a l e s t a t e and t h e p a r t i e s ' on t h e a n t i c i p a t e d f u t u r e e a r n i n g s trial separate of the payor." c o u r t had c a l c u l a t e d t h e husband's had c o n s i d e r e d h i s other supreme c o u r t c o n c l u d e d financial e s t a t e s and n o t I d . The c u r r e n t income a n d circumstances. that "the alimony-in-gross I d . The award made by t h e t r i a l c o u r t s u b s t a n t i a l l y e x c e e d e d a n y v a l u e t h a t c o u l d be drawn f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e the time r e g a r d i n g t h e husband's e s t a t e a t of the divorce." I d . We e x p r e s s no o p i n i o n as t o award i n t h i s case exceeds t h e whether t h e a l i m o n y - i n - g r o s s husband's court ability t o pay. to eliminate husband's Union We have i t s award 72 r e t i r e m e n t of i n s t r u c t e d the c i r c u i t any percentage of the benefits to the wife r e c o n s i d e r i t s judgment r e g a r d i n g p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n . concerning alimony 2d property d i v i s i o n , alimony are a l l interrelated. Issues i n g r o s s , and p e r i o d i c See Newton v. Newton, reverse t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s amended j u d g m e n t a w a r d i n g t h e w i f e $25,000 alimony i n gross and instruct r e c o n s i d e r i t s award o f a l i m o n y II. Therefore, 655 So. we in 1033, 1034 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 5 ) . and t o the c i r c u i t i n gross. The A w a r d o f P e r i o d i c A l i m o n y 18 court to 2110204 The h u s b a n d c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e a w a r d o f $500 i n p e r i o d i c alimony the i s e x c e s s i v e and i m p r o p e r f o r two r e a s o n s : circuit court failed to consider misconduct i n i t s determination the (1) b e c a u s e wife's alleged of p e r i o d i c alimony and (2) b e c a u s e i t f a i l e d t o c o n s i d e r h i s a b i l i t y t o p a y t h e amount o f support court awarded. exceeded alimony; We express i t s discretion however, as we said property d i v i s i o n , alimony all no o p i n i o n w h e t h e r t h e interrelated; in i t s award above, of the issues circuit periodic concerning i n g r o s s , and p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y thus, because the circuit court are is i n s t r u c t e d t o r e c o n s i d e r i t s p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n and i t s award of alimony i n g r o s s , we r e v e r s e t h e c i r c u i t $500 i n p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y and i n s t r u c t r e c o n s i d e r i t s award o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y . c o u r t ' s award o f the c i r c u i t court to See Newton, 655 So. 2d a t 1034. III. We reverse awarded the Conclusion the c i r c u i t wife a court's portion of judgment the i n s o f a r as i t husband's Union 72 r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s , and we remand t h e c a u s e w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s to amend the judgment to eliminate B r a t t m i l l e r , Wilson, Applegate, 19 that and M c A l p i n e . award. See Additionally, 2110204 we r e v e r s e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r a s i t a w a r d e d t h e w i f e $25,000 i n alimony i n gross. On remand, t h e c i r c u i t court i s i n s t r u c t e d to reconsider i t s d i v i s i o n of the m a r i t a l assets i n l i g h t of i t s determination t h a t i t c a n n o t award a n y p o r t i o n o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s U n i o n 119 r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s a n d o u r determination husband's t h a t i t c a n n o t award t h e w i f e a n y p o r t i o n o f t h e Union F u r t h e r m o r e , we alimony periodic its so t h a t , 72 retirement benefits. See Newton. r e v e r s e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s award o f p e r i o d i c on remand, i t can r e c o n s i d e r alimony i n conjunction with d i v i s i o n of the m a r i t a l assets. i t s award o f i t s reconsideration of See Newton. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . Bryan, J . ,concurs i n the r e s u l t , without 20 writing.

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

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