Xiangming Zha v. Ningyong Xu

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/12/12 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 , A l a b a m a 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 2110438 Xiangming Zha v. Ningyong Xu Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t Court (DR-11-900654.00) THOMAS, J u d g e . X i a n g m i n g Zha ("the husband") a p p e a l s the from Mobile Circuit Ningyong marital Xu property. Court ("the t r i a l ("the w i f e " ) from a judgment o f court") d i v o r c i n g him and d i v i d i n g the p a r t i e s ' 2110438 The p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d wife filed a complaint June 20, 2 0 1 1 . on J u l y 19, 1 i n C h i n a on May 1 7 , 2 0 0 2 . for a divorce The h u s b a n d f i l e d 2011. The trial i n the t r i a l an a n s w e r t o t h e court conducted court a hearing wife awarding custody and visitation p a r t i e s ' marital property. The to of the p a r t i e s ' minor c h i l d t o the husband, and dividing the The d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t o r d e r e d the h u s b a n d t o p a y t h e w i f e $834 p e r month i n c h i l d s u p p o r t , per on c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t on November 4, 2011, d i v o r c i n g the p a r t i e s , the on complaint O c t o b e r 27, 2011, a t w h i c h i t h e a r d e v i d e n c e o r e t e n u s . trial The month t o w a r d p r i v a t e - s c h o o l t u i t i o n , for three years provided in rehabilitative alimony. $230 and $750 p e r month The j u d g m e n t a l s o that, " [ w ] i t h respect to the f i n a n c i a l accounts, the wife s h a l l be a w a r d e d a l l a c c o u n t s i n h e r name and t h e h u s b a n d s h a l l be a w a r d e d a l l a c c o u n t s t h a t a r e i n h i s name. However, t h e w i f e i s a w a r d e d a j u d g m e n t against the husband r e p r e s e n t i n g an a d d i t i o n a l p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t , i n t h e amount o f $18,500.00. The h u s b a n d s h a l l make a r r a n g e m e n t s t o p a y same j u d g m e n t t o t h e w i f e w i t h i n 6 weeks f r o m t h e d a t e o f t h i s order." The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t C o u n t y i n J u l y 2009. 1 2 t h e p a r t i e s moved t o Mobile 2110438 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 j u d g m e n t on November 16, 2011. On November 30, 2011, t h e w i f e 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 j u d g m e n t . a hearing order on J a n u a r y on J a n u a r y 18, 2012, t h e t r i a l court 19, 2012, g r a n t i n g t h e w i f e ' s After entered an postjudgment m o t i o n i n s o f a r as i t p e r t a i n e d t o v i s i t a t i o n a n d g r a n t i n g t h e husband's postjudgment private-school requests this motion tuition; for relief. insofar the t r i a l court The h u s b a n d f i l e d c o u r t on F e b r u a r y as i t pertained denied to a l l other a t i m e l y appeal with 2, 2012. The o n l y i s s u e t h e h u s b a n d a s s e r t s i n h i s b r i e f the concerns $18,500 we refer additional property t o as an a w a r d o f a l i m o n y settlement, i n gross. n o t d i s p u t e t h e amount o f t h e a w a r d . the trial will The h u s b a n d does Rather, he a r g u e s t h a t c o u r t e r r e d by awarding the w i f e a p o r t i o n of h i s retirement accounts than which 10 y e a r s because t h e p a r t i e s had been m a r r i e d a t the time the complaint f o r a divorce filed. "'The t r i a l c o u r t i n t h i s c a s e a p p l i e d t h e l a w to undisputed, stipulated facts. Our review t h e r e f o r e i s de novo. "'"'When r e v i e w i n g a c a s e i n w h i c h t h e t r i a l c o u r t s a t w i t h o u t a j u r y and h e a r d 3 less was 2110438 evidence i n the form o f s t i p u l a t i o n s , b r i e f s , and t h e w r i t i n g s o f t h e p a r t i e s , this Court sits i n judgment of the evidence; there i s no p r e s u m p t i o n of c o r r e c t n e s s . O l d S o u t h e r n L i f e I n s . Co. v. W i l l i a m s , 544 So. 2d 941, 942 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ; C r a i g C o n s t r . Co. v. H e n d r i x , 568 So. 2d 752, 756 ( A l a . 1990) . When [an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ] must d e t e r m i n e i f t h e t r i a l c o u r t m i s a p p l i e d the law t o the undisputed f a c t s , t h e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w i s de n o v o , a n d no presumption of correctness i s given the d e c i s i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . S t a t e Dep't o f Revenue v. G a r n e r , 812 So. 2d 380, 382 (Ala. C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) ; s e e a l s o Ex p a r t e Graham, 702 So. 2d 1215 ( A l a . 1997) Adams v. Adams, [Ms. 2100787, A p r i l 20, 2012] (Ala. 68 So. 3d C i v . App. 2012) ( q u o t i n g Town o f W e s t o v e r v. Bynum, So. 3d 840, 842 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) , quoting A m e r i c a n R e s . I n s . Co. v . H&H S t e p h e n s C o n s t r . 2d 868, 872-73 ( A l a . 2006), quoting L.L.C. v. A l a b a m a Dep't o f Revenue, (Ala. , 2003)). i n turn I n c . , 939 So. i n t u r n Bean Dredging, 855 So. 2d 513, 516-17 I t was u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s h a d n o t b e e n m a r r i e d f o r 10 y e a r s a n d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s h a d a g r e e d upon t h e information respective that provided financial to the t r i a l accounts. t h e husband had f o u r court That i n f o r m a t i o n retirement $123,716.67 a n d t h r e e n o n - r e t i r e m e n t 4 regarding accounts their indicated that totaled a c c o u n t s w o r t h $6,014.85. 2110438 The 1975, husband i s c o r r e c t precluded the t r i a l that § 30-2-51(b)(1), judge from awarding i n t e r e s t i n t h e husband's r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s . A l a . Code the wife an S e c t i o n 30-2- 51(b)(1) p r o v i d e s : "(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 been 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 t h e 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 . " In the specifically divorce award judgment, the wife retirement accounts. any However, the trial interest alimony court i n the did not husband's i n gross i s a form of p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t and must be " ' p a y a b l e out of the present estate at the time o f t h e p a y i n g s p o u s e as i t e x i s t s divorce.'" Redden v. Redden, 44 So. 3d 508, 513 (Ala. App. 2 0 0 9 ) ( q u o t i n g T e n E y c k v. T e n E y c k , 885 So. 2d 146, (Ala. C i v . App. 2003)). of the Civ. 151-52 The h u s b a n d p o i n t s o u t t h a t he does n o t have t h e a s s e t s , o t h e r t h a n h i s r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t s , w i t h which t o p a y t h e $18,500 During the t r i a l , a l i m o n y - i n - g r o s s award. the t r i a l 5 judge commented: 2110438 "The p a r t i e s a l s o have s e v e r a l a c c o u n t s w h i c h a r e s e t o u t i n C o u r t E x h i b i t Number 5, t h a t a r e t o d a y ' s b a l a n c e s on t h e s e a c c o u n t s . Some o f t h e s e a c c o u n t s a r e IRA a c c o u n t s and s i n c e t h e p a r t i e s have n o t b e e n m a r r i e d f o r t e n y e a r s , the C o u r t might award a judgment r a t h e r than a d i v i s i o n of the a c c o u n t s i t s e l f . And so I am g o i n g t o d e c i d e what w i l l be f a i r i n l i g h t o f t h e t o t a l i t y o f t h o s e a c c o u n t s and the circumstances t h a t I ' l l hear today." (Emphasis added.) The trial judge a l s o s t a t e d the following: "Now, I can c o n s i d e r t h e v a l u e o f a r e t i r e m e n t e v e n t h o u g h I m i g h t n o t be a b l e t o a s s i g n a p o r t i o n o f a r e t i r e m e n t , b u t I can c o n s i d e r i t i n my o t h e r w i s e b r e a k down." Based upon those comments, i t appears that the trial j u d g e may have c o n s i d e r e d 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 s i n the f i n a l distribution of p r o p e r t y . B e c a u s e t h e p a r t i e s were not m a r r i e d f o r the s t a t u t o r i l y required was of the husband's r e t i r e m e n t not e n t i t l e d t o any p o r t i o n 10 a c c o u n t s as p a r t o f t h e p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n . 51 So. 3d 1031, trial 1037 ( A l a . C i v . App. c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t does n o t 2010). state that years, the w i f e H a t l e y v. H a t l e y , We note t h a t the the a l i m o n y - i n - g r o s s a w a r d i s b a s e d upon 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 s . However, i n l i g h t o f t h e t r i a l r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t s , we gross to the j u d g e ' s comments r e g a r d i n g t h e must r e v e r s e t h e a w a r d o f a l i m o n y i n wife. 6 2110438 We review t h e award o f alimony and t h e d i v i s i o n m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y t o g e t h e r t o determine whether t h e t r i a l exceeded i t s discretion. See H a t l e y , B e c a u s e we d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e t r i a l considered remand, So. 3d a t 1034. t h e husband's r e t i r e m e n t accounts the property division the t r i a l court adjust i n i t s division c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t as t o and t h e alimony may court c o u r t e r r e d i n s o f a r as i t o f p r o p e r t y , we must r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l both 51 of those award. I d . awards Upon so as t o i n s t i t u t e an e q u i t a b l e p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s . REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Pittman, J . , concurs. Thompson, P . J . , result, without 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 writings. 7

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.