Richard Long v. Karen Long

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/19/2012 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 Reporter of Decisions, 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 2110474 R i c h a r d Long v. Karen Long Appeal from Baldwin C i r c u i t (DR-11-900427) Court MOORE, J u d g e . R i c h a r d Long the Baldwin Circuit f r o m K a r e n Long property, ("the husband") Court ("the t r i a l ("the w i f e " ) , awarding sole appeals dividing custody from a judgment o f court") d i v o r c i n g him thep a r t i e s ' of the parties' marital remaining 2110474 m i n o r c h i l d t o t h e w i f e , and o r d e r i n g t h e h u s b a n d t o pay support in and p e r i o d i c alimony. We reverse part. Procedural On M a r c h 24, of a f f i r m i n p a r t and child 2011, 2 c h i l d r e n , the from the wife; incompatible. The a f t e r a 2 6 - y e a r m a r r i a g e and t h e husband he filed alleged wife had a that filed a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e h u s b a n d had parties Background a complaint the for a parties become for a counterclaim She divorce that the sought s o l e custody of t h e p a r t i e s ' two c h i l d r e n ; c h i l d s u p p o r t ; p o s t m i n o r i t y for J.L., The the wife parties' oldest a l s o moved f o r an pending the e n t r y of a f i n a l On S e p t e m b e r 13, 2011, c h i l d ; and award divorce had c o m m i t t e d a d u l t e r y and become i n c o m p a t i b l e . birth of periodic pendente lite support alimony. support judgment. the trial c o u r t commenced an ore t e n u s h e a r i n g on t h e p a r t i e s ' c o m p e t i n g c l a i m s f o r a d i v o r c e . On S e p t e m b e r 22, pay $2,700 p e r the entry of 2011, the t r i a l court ordered month i n p e n d e n t e l i t e a final judgment. child The the husband t o support trial pending court also r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e m a r i t a l home had gone i n t o f o r e c l o s u r e and that, as a result, the wife and 2 the c h i l d r e n w o u l d have to 2110474 vacate t h e m a r i t a l home i n a few d a y s ; t h e t r i a l c o u r t the w i f e t o s e l l t h e contents accounting of allowed o f t h e m a r i t a l home, t o make an the proceeds, to utilize one-half p r o c e e d s , and t o pay i n t o c o u r t t h e r e m a i n i n g On O c t o b e r 3, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l court of the proceeds. completed the ore t e n u s h e a r i n g on t h e p a r t i e s ' c o m p e t i n g c l a i m s f o r a d i v o r c e , and on O c t o b e r judgment. 25, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l I n that judgment, court the t r i a l entered court, i t s final among other t h i n g s , d i v o r c e d t h e p a r t i e s , awarded t h e w i f e s o l e l e g a l and physical custody o f the p a r t i e s ' minor c h i l d , B.L.; 1 ordered t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was e n t i t l e d t o v i s i t w i t h B.L. a minimum o f three occasions those visits p e r month, w i t h t o be s e t b y m u t u a l the times and d u r a t i o n o f agreement o f t h e p a r t i e s ; ordered t h e h u s b a n d t o p a y $438 as c h i l d s u p p o r t ordered the p a r t i e s educational limitations; arrearage 2011 expenses to equally f o r J.L., e a c h month; share i n the postminority subject to certain specified s p e c i f i e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d owed a c h i l d - s u p p o r t o f $1,314 f o r t h e months o f J u n e , J u l y , a n d A u g u s t and a c h i l d - s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e o f $2,200 f o r t h e month o f The p a r t i e s ' o l d e s t c h i l d , J . L . , h a d r e a c h e d t h e age o f m a j o r i t y b e f o r e t h e e n t r y o f t h e f i n a l judgment. 1 3 2110474 S e p t e m b e r 2011, and s p e c i f i e d t h a t , a f t e r a p p l y i n g o n e - h a l f o f the proceeds to r e c e i v e d from the s a l e o f the h o u s e h o l d the husband's total arrearage, c h i l d - s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e was $915.87; t h e husband's 2 contents remaining ordered the husband t o p a y $1,000 p e r month as p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y t o t h e w i f e ; a l l o w e d the w i f e t o s e l l v a r i o u s items b e l o n g i n g t o the husband t h a t were b e i n g h e l d i n s t o r a g e , w i t h t h e f i r s t that sale to be applied a r r e a r a g e and t h e r e m a i n d e r to the $916 r e c e i v e d f r o m husband's of the proceeds child-support t o be a w a r d e d t o t h e w i f e as a p r o p e r t y award; o r d e r e d t h e p a r t i e s parcel proceeds of p r o p e r t y jointly in their names, with a the t o be d i s t r i b u t e d e q u a l l y b e t w e e n them; o r d e r e d t h e parties to s p l i t between held to s e l l them, specifically certain but s p e c i f i e d c r e d i t - c a r d debts e q u a l l y ordered addressed that were the any other debts responsibility of not the O u r c a l c u l a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e amount o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s child-support arrearage differ from the t r i a l court's calculations. Using the t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i g u r e s f o r the h u s b a n d ' s t o t a l a r r e a r a g e , we c a l c u l a t e $2,200 (September 2011 a r r e a r a g e ) + $1,314 (June, J u l y , and A u g u s t 2011 a r r e a r a g e ) = $3,514 ( t o t a l c h i l d - s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e ) . A f t e r c r e d i t i n g oneh a l f o f the proceeds r e c e i v e d from the s a l e of the c o n t e n t s o f t h e m a r i t a l home ($2,528.15) t o t h e h u s b a n d ' s t o t a l a r r e a r a g e ($3,514), the u n p a i d b a l a n c e o f the husband's c h i l d - s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e e q u a l s $985.85 ($3,514 - $2,528.15 = $ 9 8 5 . 8 5 ) . 2 4 2110474 individual existed; or i n d i v i d u a l s and motorized awarded vehicles i n whose name t h o s e a c c o u n t s the and parties any various debts then automobiles and associated with those t h e h u s b a n d moved t h e t r i a l court vehicles. On for November 3, a new trial 2011, or t o a l t e r , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59, A l a . R. husband moved the trial amend, o r v a c a t e t h e j u d g m e n t , C i v . P. court to On t h a t same d a t e , enforcement stay the the O c t o b e r 25, 2011, j u d g m e n t and t o s e t a r e a s o n a b l e bond. A d d i t i o n a l l y , on November 3, 2011, of supersedeas the husband f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r r e l i e f f r o m t h e j u d g m e n t , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 60, A l a . R. C i v . P., a s s e r t i n g t h a t t h e w i f e h a d t e s t i f i e d regarding certain J a n u a r y 12, 2012, facts d u r i n g the ore tenus a f t e r a h e a r i n g , the t r i a l h u s b a n d ' s m o t i o n f o r a new untruthfully hearing. c o u r t denied the t r i a l o r 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 and h i s m o t i o n f o r r e l i e f f r o m t h e j u d g m e n t . trial of On c o u r t , however, g r a n t e d the husband's motion The for a stay t h e j u d g m e n t , c o n d i t i o n e d upon h i s p o s t i n g a b o n d i n t h e amount o f $13,000 w i t h t h e t r i a l - c o u r t c l e r k ; t h e t r i a l specified alimony that t h e b o n d amount was obligation for 13 months 5 to but secure h i s was not court periodic- intended to 2110474 address 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 , which, the t r i a l court s t a t e d , t h e h u s b a n d was t o c o n t i n u e t o p a y d u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y of h i s a p p e a l . The h u s b a n d t i m e l y a p p e a l e d . 3 E v i d e n t i a r y Background The w i f e t e s t i f i e d in 1985 a n d t h a t t h a t she and t h e husband had m a r r i e d the marriage who, a t t h e t i m e o f t h e f i n a l h a d p r o d u c e d two s o n s : J . L . , h e a r i n g , was 19 y e a r s o l d , and B.L., who, a t t h e t i m e o f t h e f i n a l h e a r i n g , was 17 y e a r s o l d . At the time of the f i n a l hearing, B.L. c o n t i n u e d living with t h e w i f e i n t h e m a r i t a l home, w h i l e J . L . h a d moved t o A u b u r n to attend college. obtained student expenses. The w i f e t e s t i f i e d loans According to pay t h a t she a n d J . L . h a d h i s college tuition and t o t h e w i f e , t h e husband had g i v e n J . L . $1,300 t o w a r d h i s c o l l e g e e x p e n s e s . The 2010. wife The testified wife also that she h a d been testified paramour, L a u r i e K i t t r e l l , that seriously t h e husband i l l in and h i s h a d been d i s c o v e r e d k i s s i n g on t h e I n May 2012, t h e w i f e moved t o e n f o r c e t h e f i n a l j u d g m e n t and f o r a f i n d i n g o f c o n t e m p t a g a i n s t t h e h u s b a n d . She asserted that the husband had n o t complied with the r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s J a n u a r y 12, 2012, o r d e r , s e t t i n g t h e amount o f t h e s u p e r s e d e a s b o n d a n d t h a t he h a d f a i l e d t o p a y p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y as o r d e r e d i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n a l judgment. 3 6 2110474 b e a c h i n O c t o b e r 2010. The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she u n d e r w e n t abdominal surgery i n December 2010 t o remove 12 i n c h e s i n t e s t i n e s a n d t h a t , i n J a n u a r y 2011, had left later, for college. t h e husband The w i f e t h e p a r t i e s ' o l d e s t son testified had confessed ofher that, to her that two d a y s he "was i n a d u l t e r y " a n d t h a t he h a d moved o u t o f t h e m a r i t a l home. The w i f e a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d f o u n d a l e t t e r dated F e b r u a r y 2011 a n d w r i t t e n b y t h e h u s b a n d t o K i t t r e l l ; i n t h a t letter, which the wife professed that introduced h i s 10-year love she h a d no concrete husband had engaged i n t o e v i d e n c e , t h e husband f o rK i t t r e l l . evidence i n sexual to establish intercourse anyone e l s e , a n d she a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t from e r e c t i l e The since testified at Calvary that b e e n w o r k i n g two p a r t - t i m e she the or suffered earning was employed as an Center and t h a t , i n J a n u a r y 2 0 1 1 , she a l s o h a d jobs t o help with t h e m a r i t a l home a n d t h e c h i l d r e n . She that Kittrell t h e husband C h r i s t i a n Learning the p a r t i e s ' separation Junkie" with admitted dysfunction. wife administrator The w i f e the expenses of She was w o r k i n g a t " B a t h $8.50 p e r h o u r o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y $45 p e r week. a l s o was w o r k i n g a t " P a c k y ' s A l l S e r v i c e s " e a r n i n g 7 $9 p e r 2110474 hour or approximately $50 p e r week. The w i f e acknowledged t h a t t h e CS-41 c h i l d - s u p p o r t - o b l i g a t i o n i n c o m e - s t a t e m e n t f o r m , see Rule trial 32, A l a . R. J u d . A d m i n . , court d i d not she h a d s u b m i t t e d accurately reflect her to the part-time employment i n c o m e . The 2010 wife introduced i n t o evidence W-2s from Calvary Christian c o p i e s o f h e r 2009 a n d Learning Center. Those documents i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e w i f e h a d e a r n e d $7,606.85 i n 2009 and of $28,663.16 i n 2010. The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a t t h e t i m e the f i n a l hearing, her salary at Calvary $30,000 a n d t h a t she e x p e c t e d t o make a l i t t l e more t h a n d u r i n g 2011 b e c a u s e o f h e r two p a r t - t i m e j o b s . t h a t s h e was p l a n n i n g after the f i n a l testified that Christian t o vacate was that She t e s t i f i e d t h e m a r i t a l home a few d a y s hearing t o move into the rental house would a rental cost h o u s e ; she h e r $1,000 p e r month. The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t , d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e , had been employed as t h e s e n i o r pastor t h e husband of C h r i s t i a n Life C h u r c h i n Orange B e a c h a n d t h a t h i s t o t a l c o m p e n s a t i o n p a c k a g e had b e e n $87,600 p e r y e a r . had A c c o r d i n g t o t h e w i f e , t h e husband l e f t t h e m a r i t a l home i n J a n u a r y 8 2011 a n d t h e c h u r c h h a d 2110474 a s k e d h i m t o r e s i g n a r o u n d t h e same t i m e . t h a t the church had given his full the wife, The w i f e believed t h e husband a severance package o f s a l a r y f o r s i x months when he r e s i g n e d . According to a f t e r t h e husband's r e s i g n a t i o n , she had r e c e i v e d money f r o m t h e c h u r c h i n o n l y F e b r u a r y , M a r c h , A p r i l , 2011. the She t e s t i f i e d that, before a n d May t h e husband's r e s i g n a t i o n , c h u r c h h a d b e e n p a y i n g h i m $2,700 p e r month as a h o u s i n g a l l o w a n c e a n d an a d d i t i o n a l $1,019 e v e r y two weeks. The w i f e testified she had received that, after t h e husband's resignation, l e s s than she h a d e x p e c t e d and f o r a s h o r t e r period t h a n she h a d e x p e c t e d . The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e m a r i t a l home h a d b e e n l o s t t o a foreclosure. The w i f e testified t h a t t h e monthly mortgage payments on t h e m a r i t a l home h a d b e e n $2,700 a n d t h a t s h e h a d not made t h o s e estimated that m o r t g a g e payments after January t h e p a r t i e s h a d owed $202,000 2011. She on t h e m a r i t a l home a n d t h a t t h e v a l u e o f t h e m a r i t a l home h a d b e e n " a r o u n d $237,000 o r $250,000." The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e h a d t r i e d to s e l l t h e m a r i t a l home b u t t h a t s h e h a d h a d no The w i f e the parties acknowledged that to maintain the t r i a l the status 9 quo court success. had ordered and t o pay a l l 2110474 r e c u r r i n g monthly b i l l s pending the entry o f a f i n a l judgment; the w i f e t e s t i f i e d bills but that According t h a t she h a d p a i d a l l t h e o t h e r she h a d not p a i d recurring t h e mortgage payments. t o t h e w i f e , she h a d d i s c u s s e d t h e m o r t g a g e payments w i t h t h e h u s b a n d , a n d , she s a i d , a n d he h a d i n s t r u c t e d h e r n o t t o p a y them. had ordered The w i f e a l s o a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t t h e t r i a l the p a r t i e s Although the wife of not t o dispose admitted of marital that sale assets. t h a t she h a d r e a d i e d t h e c o n t e n t s t h e m a r i t a l home t o c o n d u c t an e s t a t e held court a t the time o f the f i n a l t e s t i f i e d that the contents s a l e , she h a d n o t hearing. The wife o f t h e m a r i t a l home w o u l d n o t f i t i n t o h e r r e n t a l h o u s e a n d t h a t she n e e d e d w h a t e v e r money she c o u l d make f r o m s e l l i n g t h o s e i t e m s ; she r e q u e s t e d to proceed with the planned estate The w i f e the testified 50 t o 70 guns that that permission sale. t h e husband had s o l d 3 o r 4 o f he h a d c o l l e c t e d t h r o u g h the years, t h a t some j e w e l r y f r o m t h e m a r i t a l home was m i s s i n g , and t h a t she b e l i e v e d t h e h u s b a n d h a d s o l d a b o a t t h a t t h e y h a d owned. Thus, the wife believed s t a t u s quo o r d e r . that The w i f e t h e husband testified had v i o l a t e d the t h a t she d i d n o t know how much t h e h u s b a n d may have r e c e i v e d f o r t h o s e i t e m s o r how 10 2110474 he h a d u s e d t h e p r o c e e d s . o r d e r the husband She to s e l l a l s o asked the t r i a l c o u r t the remaining p r o c e e d s t o be u s e d t o p a y o f f m a r i t a l The wife testified that the guns and t o o r d e r husband was skilled final as a business. t h a t h i s a d u l t e r y might impact h i s a b i l i t y t o w o r k as a p a s t o r the the debts. j e w e l e r and c o u l d e a r n a s i g n i f i c a n t income i n t h a t She a c k n o w l e d g e d to again. hearing, She testified the husband was t h a t , at the time w o r k i n g as of a manager a t L a y l a ' s I c e Cream Shop; 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 ' s paramour, Laurie introduced into husband the Kittrell, evidence and K i t t r e l l ; husband would owns a that signed agreement i n t h a t agreement, e a r n $13 business. The wife between Kittrell the agreed t h a t p e r h o u r , n o t e x c e e d i n g 40 hours p e r week, as an i n d e p e n d e n t c o n t r a c t o r w h i l e m a n a g i n g h e r i c e ¬ cream shop. The w i f e a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t , i n December 2010, she and t h e h u s b a n d h a d p u r c h a s e d new v e h i c l e s f o r h e r and f o r J . L . ; t h e y h a d p u r c h a s e d a 2010 Hyundai Hyundai E l a n t r a f o r J.L. Sonata The wife f o r the wife testified and a that they 2010 had c a s h e d o u t one o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s two l i f e - i n s u r a n c e p o l i c i e s t o pay f o r the v e h i c l e s . According 11 to the w i f e , the husband 2110474 d r i v e s a 2006 C h r y s l e r a u t o m o b i l e and an o l d e r model Tahoe. The automobile. and the that youngest son B.L. drives 1990 Mustang A l l t h e v e h i c l e s d r i v e n by t h e h u s b a n d , t h e c h i l d r e n were owned d e b t - f r e e . she a Chevrolet had been paying the wife, The wife for the children's the p a r t i e s ' separation, insurance testified vehicles. The she wife testified had learned that t h a t , since the life-insurance policy. so, and she intended h u s b a n d had The w i f e had cashed so. She b e l i e v e d he his n o t a g r e e d f o r him d e n i e d h a v i n g p r i o r knowledge t o do out had that the received other to do husband $6,500 f r o m that p o l i c y . The joint wife testified credit-card that she debts. and She the h u s b a n d had introduced into wife 2011 and $14,243 on t h e o t h e r acknowledged t h a t liability company ( " L L C " ) , c l a i m i n g any The the wife s e v e r a n c e c h e c k s as but, that o f May account 2011. The h u s b a n d i s a member i n a l i m i t e d she i n t e r e s t i n t h a t LLC testified as o f A p r i l two evidence documents i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e y had owed $32,000 on one as o f May had the 2011 12 testified, she was not or i t s a s s e t s . c h u r c h had and t h a t the stopped sending h u s b a n d had not 2110474 o f f e r e d h e r a n y a d d i t i o n a l money t o a s s i s t w i t h expenses. Although wife t e s t i f i e d mortgage before t h e m a r i t a l home h a d b e e n f o r s a l e , t h e t h a t she c o u l d n o t a f f o r d t o make t h e m o n t h l y payments and t h e mortgagee i t sold. The w i f e husband had c o n t i n u e d even though that, The w i f e according discovered, reflected wife to also introduced her, "loan he had borrowed. repay" documents husband's evidence multiple documents times i n 2010. that on t h e The w i f e wife checking o r how he h a d u s e d a n y money She d e n i e d surrounding employee-account joint the into t h a t she h a d h a d no k n o w l e d g e t h a t t h e h u s b a n d h a d circumstances The was g o i n g home mortgage payments. into b o r r o w e d money f r o m t h e c h u r c h that on i t that the evidence established introduced the phrase into husband's employee a c c o u n t a t t h e church testified however, t h e m a r i t a l home c o n t r i b u t i o n s toward h i s parents' The had f o r e c l o s e d t o make payments on h i s p a r e n t s ' he knew t h a t foreclosure. the m a r i t a l those any knowledge entries on of the t h e husband's statement. testified that she a n d t h e h u s b a n d h a d h a d a a c c o u n t a t R e g i o n s Bank a t t h e t i m e o f t h e i r s e p a r a t i o n b u t t h a t t h e bank had c l o s e d t h e a c c o u n t 13 because 2110474 t h e h u s b a n d h a d w r i t t e n a l a r g e number o f c h e c k s e x c e e d i n g t h e balance of the account. The w i f e introduced copy o f t h e a c c o u n t s t a t e m e n t i n d i c a t i n g fees and r e t u r n e d - c h e c k f e e s The wife i n t o evidence a numerous incurred i n April once a week. met According t h e husband f o r d i n n e r youngest husband child had l e f t child approximately b u t t h a t t h e c h i l d had chosen n o t had s u f f e r e d the marital The w i f e t e s t i f i e d anxiety home. church had agreed t o pay f o r c o u n s e l i n g child. separation, t o the w i f e , the c h i l d t y p i c a l l y had t o spend t h e n i g h t w i t h t h e husband. the a n d May 2 0 1 1 . t e s t i f i e d that, since the p a r t i e s ' the youngest c h i l d had v i s i t e d w i t h t h e husband overdraft attacks that since the The h u s b a n d ' s former f o r one y e a r f o r t h e The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t , t o h e r k n o w l e d g e , t h e o l d e s t had not v i s i t e d with the husband at a l l since the separation. The w i f e a d m i t t e d t h a t t h e husband had p r o v i d e d financial assistance d i r e c t l y to the children since the separation. also admitted t h a t t h e husband had p a i d f o r t h e youngest She child t o a t t e n d two summer camps, t h a t he h a d p a i d f o r t h e y o u n g e s t c h i l d ' s b i r t h d a y t r i p , a n d t h a t he h a d p r o v i d e d s c h o o l and s u p p l i e s f o r the youngest child. 14 clothes 2110474 The w i f e r e q u e s t e d support, she sole custody and p e r i o d i c alimony. would need of the minor c h i l d , child The w i f e d i d n o t know how much i n periodic alimony to meet e x p e n s e s , b u t she knew t h a t h e r r e n t w o u l d a l l of her $1,000 p e r she w a n t e d t o be a b l e month a n d , she t e s t i f i e d , cost t o pay her rent. The h u s b a n d difficult testified marriage and counseling f o r years. that that he they According and t h e w i f e had been had had a i n and out of t o t h e husband, t h e w i f e had o f t e n d i s c u s s e d d i v o r c e and had s t a t e d t o him i n t h e p a s t she would d i v o r c e that h i m i f p e o p l e w o u l d n o t blame h e r f o r t h e h u s b a n d ' s l o s i n g h i s j o b as a m i n i s t e r . The h u s b a n d that the wife's l a c k of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the church testified and i n t h e m i n i s t r y h a d b e e n a p r o b l e m a n d t h a t , i n 2009, t h e e l d e r s o f the church had counseled The h u s b a n d a d m i t t e d The h u s b a n d Kittrell confronted tell acknowledged on that day t h e husband and t h e w i f e about i t . t h a t he h a d k i s s e d K i t t r e l l that in 2010 t h e husband and g i v e n t h e w i f e and t h e church According someone h a d s e e n h i m and that the him a d e a d l i n e i n 2010. kissing person had by w h i c h t o o r t h e o t h e r p e r s o n w o u l d do s o . t o t h e h u s b a n d , he t h e n 15 had c o n f e s s e d before the 2110474 church congregation position as testified insurance all senior that severance and had voluntarily minister the of c h u r c h had package to the husband t h r o u g h t h e end o f 2 0 1 1 . h o u s e f o r $850 p e r h o w e v e r , he The was month. At the he was six-month health husband t e s t i f i e d that wife. p r o b a b l y not as he had earning $13 rented final restaurant" on a hearing, the beach. per hour i n t h a t $2,253.34. a Christian husband d e n i e d t h a t the believed and had At the time of l i v i n g r e n t - f r e e i n a condominium a t prompted h i s r e s i g n a t i o n he a his husband provide time of the small t o t h e h u s b a n d , he was G u l f Shores Beach R e t r e a t , that to Spectrum Beach Resorts managing "a the f i n a l h e a r i n g , had The gone d i r e c t l y t o t h e p o s i t i o n and h i s m o n t h l y i n c o m e was The and from h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a f t e r t h e s e p a r a t i o n , he accepted a job with According church. agreed to provide o f h i s s e v e r a n c e c h e c k s had The the resigned could retreat center. incident involving from the return a senior minister church, t o w o r k as and Kittrell he stated a minister of a church. He but admitted t h a t he had n o t i n q u i r e d a b o u t r e t u r n i n g t o work as a m i n i s t e r for a church, but he also opening f o r a bench j e w e l e r testified that i n Birmingham. 16 he had located According to an the 2110474 husband, t h e j e w e l e r $15 position w o u l d have p a i d approximately t o $17 p e r h o u r , b u t i t w o u l d r e q u i r e h i m t o r e l o c a t e t o B i r m i n g h a m , so he h a d n o t p u r s u e d i t . The husband t e s t i f i e d approximately separated. home $3,500 t o $4,000 since The h u s b a n d e s t i m a t e d t o have testified, t h a t he h a d g i v e n been $265,000 he a n d t h e w i f e h a d owed husband t e s t i f i e d he a n d t h e w i f e the value between the oldest child had of the m a r i t a l t o $270,000 $200,000 t h a t he h a d e x p e c t e d t h e w i f e a n d , he on i t . The t o make t h e m o r t g a g e p a y m e n t s o u t o f t h e s e v e r a n c e c h e c k s t h a t were sent to the h e r from wife's testimony credit-card using the church. that debts, Although t h e husband he h a d d i r e c t l y he a d m i t t e d that incurred certain denied any o f t h e items purchased t h o s e a c c o u n t s might have b e n e f i t e d him. The husband reviewed a l i s t of the items that the wife had p l a c e d i n s t o r a g e a n d t h a t t h e w i f e h a d t e s t i f i e d b e l o n g e d t o him. The h u s b a n d d e n i e d the w i f e belonged t o him. had been p l a c e d the that a l l of the property He a l s o d i s p u t e d wife. s t o r e d by the values that on many o f t h e i t e m s t h a t h a d b e e n s t o r e d b y 17 2110474 The his his husband d e n i e d t h a t he was p a y i n g p a r e n t s w i t h t h e i r mortgage payments. father parents i s terminally had t r a n s f e r r e d husband, that He t e s t i f i e d i l l and t h a t , the t i t l e h i s parents would f o r or a s s i s t i n g as a to their deposit that result, h i s home money to the into the h u s b a n d ' s a c c o u n t , a n d t h a t he t h e n w o u l d make t h e payments from t h a t On account. cross-examination, Kittrell were involved t h e husband in a romantic denied that he a n d relationship. He t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y h a d s h a r e d o n l y one k i s s i n O c t o b e r 2010. When asked Kittrell, i f he h a d w r i t t e n t h e husband the February admitted admitted that, i n that l e t t e r , Kittrell, that 2011 l e t t e r he h a d . he h a d p r o f e s s e d had d e s c r i b e d K i t t r e l l The to husband h i s love f o r as t h e " l o v e o f [ h i s ] l i f e , " and h a d s t a t e d t h a t , " e v e r y s i n g l e d a y f o r o v e r s i x months I have been "thank with." g e t t i n g up e a r l y t o cover God f o r y o u a n d o u r l o v e He Valentine's also had w r i t t e n Day a p a r t . " that you i n p r a y e r " [ t h a t ] he h a s b l e s s e d "this will The h u s b a n d h a d a l s o l e t t e r t h a t he was w r i t i n g i t b e c a u s e K i t t r e l l for a "love letter." 18 and t o us be o u r l a s t stated i n the had asked him 2110474 The husband also denied that he and Kittrell had ever e n g a g e d i n a s e x u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p b e c a u s e , he t e s t i f i e d , he " p h y s i c a l l y i n c a p a b l e " of engaging i n sexual admitted that, repeatedly used to i n the filled treat d e n i e d t h a t he months p r e c e d i n g intercourse. the trial, prescriptions for " L e v i t r a , " a erectile was t h a t L e v i t r a had explained 12 dysfunction. capable of Although sexual he had medication the intercourse that husband and denied he had continued to obtain refills of c o v e r a g e w o u l d end nothing had had ended i n May to e s t a b l i s h that testified. 2011, i t had he not admitted soon." i n J a n u a r y 2011 and financial assistance, January The t h a t he had other had he had the wife s i n c e he had moved not p r o v i d e d the w i f e than h i s severance checks, any since 2011. husband t e s t i f i e d t h a t he t h e " S t o n e G a t e " l o t owned by he as from He a l s o a d m i t t e d t h a t he had n o t d i r e c t l y made a m o r t g a g e payment on t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e out that terminated he the A l t h o u g h t h e h u s b a n d d e n i e d t h a t h i s s e v e r a n c e pay church He addressed h i s e r e c t i l e - d y s f u n c t i o n issue, m e d i c a t i o n because h i s " i n s u r a n c e the was sold the d i d n o t know t h e v a l u e the p a r t i e s . p a r t i e s ' boat 19 for $3,000, He admitted but he did of that not 2110474 i n d i c a t e when t h a t s a l e h a d o c c u r r e d . location He d e n i e d k n o w i n g t h e o f t h e p a r t i e s ' two j e t s k i s . The h u s b a n d also t e s t i f i e d t h a t , s i n c e he h a d l e f t t h e m a r i t a l home i n J a n u a r y 2011, the wife of h i s personal had n o t a l l o w e d him t o r e t u r n t o r e t r i e v e any b e l o n g i n g s ; he t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d c h a n g e d t h e l o c k s on t h e d o o r s t o t h e m a r i t a l home. testified that the wife The h u s b a n d a l s o h a d n o t a c c o u n t e d f o r some o f h i s belongings. Jay Stradley testified husband's f o r m e r c h u r c h . that the that he was minister of the A c c o r d i n g t o S t r a d l e y , he was aware t h e h u s b a n d w o u l d have b e e n f i r e d senior a member o f the church f r o m h i s p o s i t i o n as i f he h a d n o t resigned. S t r a d l e y a l s o denied t h a t the wife had not p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the husband's ministry; i n Stradley's performed the r o l e o f a m i n i s t e r ' s opinion, the wife had wife. S t r a d l e y , who w o r k s as a r e a l t o r , h a d l i s t e d t h e p a r t i e s ' home f o r s a l e . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d r e c e i v e d one o f f e r t o p u r c h a s e t h e m a r i t a l home f o r $160,000 b u t t h a t had n o t a c c e p t e d that offer. Stradley p a r t i e s owed $200,000 o r more on t h e i r 20 the p a r t i e s was aware mortgage. that the 2110474 S t r a d l e y a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e w i f e h a d a s k e d h i m t o be present at the marital separation so t h a t belongings. after home one t h e husband could Stradley testified the wife had l e f t day a f t e r the r e t r i e v e h i s personal t h a t , on t h e d e s i g n a t e d d a y , t h e m a r i t a l home, t h e h u s b a n d h a d a r r i v e d with the c h i e f of p o l i c e . According husband 30 t o 40 m i n u t e s had stayed parties' approximately to Stradley, the and had t a k e n p h o t o g r a p h s o f v a r i o u s i t e m s i n t h e m a r i t a l home, b u t he had taken The o n l y b o o k s w i t h h i m when he l e f t . w i f e was r e c a l l e d t o t h e s t a n d . since the l a s t She t e s t i f i e d that, c o u r t h e a r i n g , she a n d s e v e r a l l a d i e s f r o m t h e c h u r c h had c o n d u c t e d t h e e s t a t e s a l e and t h a t , from t h a t s a l e , she h a d made a t o t a l trial The o f $5, 196.26. She r e q u e s t e d that the c o u r t a l l o w h e r t o u s e t h e money t o p a y m a r i t a l wife also introduced into evidence a l i s t bills. o f items that she h a d p l a c e d i n s t o r a g e ; she t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d n o t f e l t comfortable selling agreed to store friend had prepared estimated objected value t h e items them listed f o r her. an to the values According itemized o f each item shown and t h a t on list to the wife, the and had p l a c e d the l i s t . on t h e l i s t ; 21 a f r i e n d had The the t r i a l an husband court 2110474 a l l o w e d the l i s t i n t o evidence shown t h e r e o n w o u l d be but i n d i c a t e d t h a t the g i v e n the a p p r o p r i a t e values weight. Analysis On judgment appeal, as to c h i l d support, the husband custody and We standard this custody well the visitation, the trial which f o l l o w i n g the first address the court reviews custody an p r e s e n t a t i o n of ore court's calculation the d i v i s i o n of the m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y , award of a l i m o n y . by challenges and issue. initial So. 2d 345, 347 tenus evidence is ( A l a . 2001). "'This presumption [ a c c o r d e d to the t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t b a s e d on o r e t e n u s e v i d e n c e ] i s b a s e d on t h e t r i a l court's unique p o s i t i o n to d i r e c t l y observe the 22 The of " A l a b a m a l a w g i v e s n e i t h e r p a r e n t p r i o r i t y i n an i n i t i a l c u s t o d y 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 b e s t i n t e r e s t of 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 f a c t b a s e d on e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d ore 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 c o u r t ' 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 . " 794 the award settled: Ex p a r t e B y a r s , of 2110474 w i t n e s s e s and t o a s s e s s t h e i r 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 is especially important in c h i l d - c u s t o d y cases. "In c h i l d custody cases e s p e c i a l l y , the p e r c e p t i o n of an attentive trial judge is of great i m p o r t a n c e . " 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 . C i v . App. 1981) . In regard to custody determinations, this C o u r t has a l s o s t a t e d : " I t i s a l s o w e l l 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 c o u r t s 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 n e c e s s a r y t o support i t s judgment, unless such f i n d i n g s w o u l d be clearly erroneous." Ex p a r t e 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. 2d 631, 632-33 ( A l a . 2001). " I n a d i v o r c e a c t i o n b e t w e e n two f i t p a r e n t s , where t h e r e has b e e n no p r i o r c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n and n e i t h e r p a r e n t has v o l u n t a r i l y relinquished custody of the c h i l d , the 'best i n t e r e s t ' of the c h i l d i s c o n t r o l l i n g ; t h e p a r t i e s s t a n d on ' e q u a l f o o t i n g ' and no p r e s u m p t i o n i n u r e s t o e i t h e r p a r e n t . '"'The t r i a l c o u r t ' s o v e r r i d i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s t h e c h i l d r e n ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t and w e l f a r e . ' " ' S m i t h v. S m i t h , 727 So. 2d 113, 114 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998) ( q u o t i n g C o l l i e r v. C o l l i e r , 698 So. 2d 150, 151 (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n Graham v. Graham, 640 So. 2d 963, 964 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 4 ) ) . " I n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s and w e l f a r e of t h e c h i l d , t h e c o u r t must c o n s i d e r t h e i n d i v i d u a l f a c t s of each case: "'The s e x and age of the c h i l d r e n are indeed very important considerations; h o w e v e r , t h e c o u r t must go b e y o n d t h e s e t o c o n s i d e r t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and needs o f each c h i l d , including their emotional, 23 2110474 s o c i a l , m o r a l , m a t e r i a l and e d u c a t i o n a l n e e d s ; t h e 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 ; t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of those s e e k i n g 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 and i n t e r e s t o f e a c h parent to provide f o r the emotional, s o c i a l , m o r a l , m a t e r i a l and e d u c a t i o n a l needs o f t h e c h i l d r e n ; t h e i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n e a c h c h i l d and e a c h parent; the interpersonal relationship b e t w e e n t h e c h i l d r e n ; t h e e f f e c t on t h e child of disrupting or continuing 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 e x p e r t w i t n e s s e s o r other independent i n v e s t i g a 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 o t h e r r e l e v a n t m a t t e r t h e e v i d e n c e may d i s c l o s e . ' "Ex p a r t e D e v i n e , Fell v. F e l l , The the So. a bad 494-95 697 and ( A l a . 1981)." ( A l a . C i v . App. f a i l e d to parties' only determining the remaining minor 2003). establish t h a t , as a r e s u l t , c o u r t e r r e d i n awarding the w i f e s o l e custody action; a t r i a l to 2d 486, 2d 686, or u n f i t parent however, m i s c o n s t r u e s in So. husband argues t h a t the evidence t h a t he was trial 869 398 child. of The interest of a child in B.L., husband, the d i s c r e t i o n a f f o r d e d to a t r i a l best the a court divorce c o u r t n e e d n o t f i n d one p a r e n t u n f i t i n o r d e r award the o t h e r p a r e n t sole custody. 24 See Fell, supra. 2110474 The trial court could have construed the evidence as e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t the husband had chosen t o l e a v e the f a m i l y and h i s l i f e l o n g it was career because of K i t t r e l l . undisputed at the hearing that Additionally, 4 B.L. had suffered a n x i e t y a t t a c k s and h a d r e q u i r e d c o u n s e l i n g s i n c e t h e h u s b a n d h a d moved o u t o f t h e m a r i t a l home. t h a t B.L. husband I t a l s o was undisputed had chosen n o t t o spend e x t e n d e d p e r i o d s since oldest child, the parties' separation and that with the J.L., the had not v i s i t e d w i t h the husband a t a l l . The e v i d e n c e a l s o tended t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t , w h i l e the husband had chosen t o manage an ice-cream shop, income b y more t h a n 50%, t h e w i f e was meet t h e f i n a n c i a l B.L. needs thereby reducing working three of the f a m i l y , his jobs to i n c l u d i n g those of and J . L . Considering a l l the evidence, i n c l u d i n g B.L.'s emotional s t a t e and h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e p a r t i e s a t t h e t i m e o f t h e d i v o r c e , the t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d have r e a s o n a b l y concluded that A trial c o u r t may c o n s i d e r e v i d e n c e o f a d u l t e r y i n f a s h i o n i n g a d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t e v e n when i t does n o t r e l y on a d u l t e r y as t h e b a s i s f o r g r a n t i n g t h e d i v o r c e . See, e.g., S h e w b a r t v. S h e w b a r t , 64 So. 3d 1080 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) ( a d d r e s s i n g p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y ) ; and Ex p a r t e Drummond, 785 So. 2d 358 ( A l a . 2000) ( a d d r e s s i n g a p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n ) . 4 25 2110474 an a w a r d o f s o l e Fell, to supra. the wife custody to the wife Because t h e t r i a l i s supported was a p p r o p r i a t e . c o u r t ' s award o f s o l e by s u f f i c i e n t evidence, See custody i t i snot p l a i n l y a n d p a l p a b l y e r r o n e o u s a n d we must a f f i r m i t . The h u s b a n d a l s o a s s e r t s t h a t t h e t r i a l failing B.L. court t o a w a r d h i m an e s t a b l i s h e d v i s i t a t i o n and t h a t , as a r e s u l t , erred i n schedule t h e j u d g m e n t must be with reversed. The h u s b a n d , h o w e v e r , f a i l e d t o r a i s e t h i s argument b e f o r e t h e trial c o u r t e i t h e r i n h i s R u l e 59 p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n o r a t t h e h e a r i n g on t h a t m o t i o n . has n o t been p r o p e r l y Andrews Therefore, preserved on 1997) review. appeal; rather, See 1992) arguments r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t our review e v i d e n c e and arguments c o n s i d e r e d Etherton f o r appellate v . M e r r i t t O i l Co., 612 So. 2d 409, 410 ( A l a . ("This C o u r t c a n n o t c o n s i d e r time t h e h u s b a n d ' s argument i s restricted by t h e t r i a l to the c o u r t . " ) ; and v . C i t y o f Homewood, 700 So. 2d 1374, 1377-78 ( A l a . ("'It i s a fundamental r u l e of a p p e l l a t e procedure t h a t , r e g a r d l e s s o f [the] m e r i t s o f [the] a p p e l l a n t ' s appellate courts w i l l trial court.'" (Ala. 1979))). not review questions contentions, n o t d e c i d e d by t h e ( q u o t i n g B e v i l l v. Owen, 364 So. 2d 1201, 1203 See a l s o G o t l i e b v . C o l l a t , 26 567 So. 2d 1302, 2110474 1304 ( A l a . 1990) error ("This for f a i l i n g to Court cannot put consider evidence a or trial accept t h a t , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e r e c o r d , were n o t p r e s e n t e d The husband next a s s e r t s t h a t the i t s c a l c u l a t i o n of c h i l d support. income t h e t r i a l purposes Ala. of R. income year, J u d . Admin. to the and child husband of He c h a l l e n g e s t h e amount o f support attributed an $3, 000 income it."). court erred i n per to month, the for 32, court or wife t o him to Rule pursuant In i t s judgment, the t r i a l month, o r $28,896 p e r We trial in arguments to c o u r t a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e w i f e and calculating court imputed $36, 000 per $2, 408 per of year. agree w i t h the husband t h a t the t r i a l court's income f i g u r e o f $2,408 p e r month f o r t h e w i f e i s u n s u p p o r t e d by the evidence. the hearing, at The The she was Calvary wife wife testified earning Christian at $30,000 f r o m h e r Learning also t e s t i f i e d that, that Center, she was or the time of full-time position $2,500 p e r working two month. part-time j o b s , e a r n i n g $187.50 p e r month f r o m one p a r t - t i m e j o b and additional $208.33 p e r month f r o m t h e other. 5 Thus, a t an the B e c a u s e no d o c u m e n t a t i o n was o f f e r e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h e t o t a l amount t h a t t h e w i f e had e a r n e d f r o m h e r p a r t - t i m e employment, we have a t t r i b u t e d income a t t h e r a t e s t a t e d by h e r f o r 50 weeks o f 2011. 5 27 2110474 time of the final hearing, income was $2,895.83. the w i f e ' s gross t h a t the trial the wife's total monthly Because the evidence e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t m o n t h l y income was court erred $2,895.83, we i n using an income o f month f o r t h e w i f e i n i t s c h i l d - s u p p o r t The gross husband a l s o c h a l l e n g e s conclude $2,408 per calculation. the t r i a l court's imputation o f income t o him o f $36,000 p e r y e a r , o r $3,000 p e r month. argues t h a t the w i f e p r e s e n t e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t he was determination that a underemployed 'is to according Clements 2007) Civ. to v. the be judicial We from 2d v. W i n f r e y , the of 383, 602 facts 394 "[T]he unemployed the So. evidence disagree. voluntarily discretion So. or other trial or presented court.'" (Ala. Civ. 2d 904, 905 App. (Ala. 1992)). the is made 990 (quoting Winfrey From underemployed. parent Clements, App. no t e s t i m o n y He reasonably evidence presented, have c o n c l u d e d the trial t h a t the husband had court could been asked t o r e s i g n f r o m h i s p o s i t i o n as s e n i o r m i n i s t e r o f C h r i s t i a n C h u r c h , where he was improper involvement t e s t i f i e d before earning with the t r i a l Life $7,300 p e r month, b e c a u s e o f h i s Kittrell. Although c o u r t t h a t he 28 the husband c o u l d work a g a i n as 2110474 a minister, position. a more admitted that he had not sought such a A l t h o u g h t h e h u s b a n d a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t he h a d h a d lucrative testified wife he had employment opportunity i n Birmingham, t h a t he h a d n o t p u r s u e d t h a t p o s i t i o n . taken two additional jobs after he While the the parties' s e p a r a t i o n t o supplement her income, the husband's testimony e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t he h a d n o t s o u g h t any employment o t h e r t h a n at K i t t r e l l ' s i c e - c r e a m s h o p , where he was e a r n i n g o n l y $2,253 per month a t t h e t i m e o f t h e t r i a l . the trial husband B a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e , c o u r t was w e l l w i t h i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n f i n d i n g t h e t o be underemployed and i n imputing an income of $3,000 p e r month t o h i m . U s i n g $2,895.83 and $3,000 as t h e m o n t h l y g r o s s for the wife monthly gross guidelines and the husband, income totals respectively, $5,895.83. o f R u l e 32, A l a . R. child-support amount f o r one The J u d . Admin., child their o f $814. incomes combined child-support yield a monthly The husband's p e r c e n t a g e o f t h a t c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n i s 5 1 % o r $415.14. Because the t r i a l court's award o f $438 p e r month i n s u p p o r t e x c e e d s t h e amount e s t a b l i s h e d u n d e r t h e child guidelines when u s i n g t h e p a r t i e s ' a p p r o p r i a t e i n c o m e s , b e c a u s e t h e t r i a l 29 2110474 c o u r t p r o v i d e d no g r o u n d s f o r d e v i a t i n g f r o m t h e g u i d e l i n e s , and b e c a u s e we can d i s c e r n no must r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l The basis for that deviation, c o u r t ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t award. husband next a s s e r t s t h a t the t r i a l d i v i s i o n and we i t s award of p e r i o d i c alimony court's property were i n e q u i t a b l e . "When t h e t r i a l c o u r t f a s h i o n s a p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n f o l l o w i n g the p r e s e n t a t i o n of ore tenus e v i d e n c e , i t s j u d g m e n t as t o t h a t e v i d e n c e i s p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t on a p p e a l and w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d a b s e n t a s h o w i n g t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n or t h a t i t s d e c i s i o n i s p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y wrong. R o b e r t s v. R o b e r t s , 802 So. 2d 230, 235 (Ala. Civ. App. 2 0 0 1 ) ; P a r r i s h v. P a r r i s h , 617 So. 2d 1036, 1038 (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) ; and H a l l v. Mazzone , 486 So. 2d 408, 410 ( A l a . 1986) . A property d i v i s i o n i s required to be equitable, not equal, and a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f what i s e q u i t a b l e r e s t s w i t h i n t h e broad d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t . P a r r i s h , 617 So. 2d a t 1038." S t o n e v. S t o n e , 26 So. 3d 1232, 1236 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009). "The i s s u e s o f p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n and a l i m o n y are i n t e r r e l a t e d , and t h e y must be c o n s i d e r e d t o g e t h e r . A l b e r t s o n v. A l b e r t s o n , 678 So. 2d 118 (Ala. Civ. App. 1 9 9 [ 5 ] ) . A p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n i s not r e q u i r e d t o be e q u a l , b u t i t must be e q u i t a b l e . G o l d e n v. G o l d e n , 681 So. 2d 605 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) . In f a s h i o n i n g a p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n and an a w a r d o f a l i m o n y , t h e t r i a l c o u r t must c o n s i d e r f a c t o r s s u c h as t h e e a r n i n g c a p a c i t i e s o f t h e p a r t i e s ; their f u t u r e p r o s p e c t s ; t h e i r ages and h e a l t h ; t h e l e n g t h o f t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e ; and t h e s o u r c e , v a l u e , and type of m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y . R o b i n s o n v. R o b i n s o n , [795 So. 2d 729 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) ] ; L u t z v. L u t z , 485 So. 2d 1174 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1986) . In a d d i t i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t may also consider the 30 2110474 conduct o f t h e p a r t i e s w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e breakdown o f t h e m a r r i a g e , e v e n where t h e p a r t i e s a r e d i v o r c e d on t h e b a s i s o f i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y , o r , as h e r e , where t h e t r i a l c o u r t f a i l e d t o s p e c i f y t h e g r o u n d s upon which i t based i t s d i v o r c e judgment. Ex p a r t e Drummond, 785 So. 2d 358 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ; M y r i c k v. M y r i c k , 714 So. 2d 311 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 8 ) ; L u t z v. L u t z , s u p r a . " P a t e v. P a t e , Based 849 So. 2d 972, 976 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) . on o u r r e v i e w appears t h a t t h e t r i a l of the t r i a l court ordered court's judgment, i t the following. Because t h e m a r i t a l home h a d b e e n l o s t t o a f o r e c l o s u r e , n e i t h e r p a r t y was any awarded p o s s e s s i o n equity home. proceeds and court ordered by t h e husband from that Each p a r t y the t r i a l parties' o r was a s s i g n e d The t r i a l jointly parties. from o f t h a t home a n d n e i t h e r p a r t y court sale debt associated t h e "Stone and t h e w i f e , t o be received awarded children to the wife; Gate" and t h e respective automobiles, the vehicles the t r i a l a joint l o t , held between t h e driven court also by t h e awarded which the p a r t i e s had i n d i c a t e d they wished the c h i l d r e n t o r e c e i v e . to f i l e that evenly t h e w i f e t h e p a r t i e s ' two f o u r - w h e e l e r s , a l s o were o r d e r e d with t o be s o l d split their received 6 The p a r t i e s 2010 i n c o m e - t a x r e t u r n a n d The t r i a l c o u r t i n s t r u c t e d t h e p a r t i e s t o t r a n s f e r t i t l e of t h e v e h i c l e d r i v e n by t h e o l d e s t c h i l d t o him. 6 31 2110474 to evenly split any r e f u n d ; they the c r e d i t - c a r d debt addressed The trial a l s o were o r d e r e d to split at the hearing. court allowed the wife to s e l l the contents of t h e m a r i t a l home a n d o r d e r e d t h e p r o c e e d s t o be d i v i d e d e v e n l y between t h e p a r t i e s ; however, The t h e husband's share was t o be a p p l i e d t o h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t trial court also ordered the wife p r o p e r t y t h a t was h e l d i n s t o r a g e , that sale evenly first proceeds $916 arrearage; the t r i a l from t h e husband's share proceeds, arrearage. the personal t o d i v i d e the proceeds of and t o a p p l y t h e t o h i s remaining child- c o u r t f u r t h e r s p e c i f i e d t h a t any share t o h i s child-support arrearage w i f e as a p r o p e r t y to sell b e t w e e n t h e two p a r t i e s , $916 o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s support o f those remaining after applying w o u l d be a w a r d e d t o t h e settlement. B a s e d on t h e a b o v e , i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e v a s t m a j o r i t y o f t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y was d i s t r i b u t e d e q u a l l y b e t w e e n the p a r t i e s . "The d i v i s i o n equal, only equitable." 630 of property does n o t have t o be J o h n s o n v . J o h n s o n , 565 So. 2d 629, ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 9 ) . The t r i a l court made no a w a r d r e g a r d i n g t h e m a r i t a l home b e c a u s e t h a t p r o p e r t y h a d b e e n l o s t to a foreclosure. The h u s b a n d a r g u e s 32 that the t r i a l court 2110474 should have a l l o w e d alleged improper severance checks. sent directly him a c r e d i t handling of or a setoff the marital f o rthe wife's home and h i s He a s s e r t s t h a t h i s s e v e r a n c e c h e c k s to the wife and t h a t were s h e was e x p e c t e d t o make t h e m o r t g a g e payments w i t h t h o s e f u n d s b u t t h a t s h e f a i l e d t o do s o . 7 The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e h a d r e c e i v e d s e v e r a n c e c h e c k s only from February t o May 2 0 1 1 , t h a t she h a d r e c e i v e d less t h a n s h e h a d e x p e c t e d i n t h o s e c h e c k s , a n d t h a t h e r income h a d been i n s u f f i c i e n t t o a l l o w h e r t o c o n t i n u e m o n t h l y m o r t g a g e payments d u r i n g action. The h u s b a n d a d m i t t e d c h e c k s , he h a d n o t p r o v i d e d m a k i n g t h e $2,700 t h e pendency o f t h e d i v o r c e that, other than h i s severance the wife with any funds o r p a i d any o f t h e m a r i t a l d e b t s s i n c e he h a d l e f t t h e m a r i t a l home i n January 2011. It to i s the duty of the t r i a l resolve issues arising from court r a t h e r than t h i s conflicting court evidence. Young v. Young, 515 So. 2d 32, 33 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 7 ) . See As T h e h u s b a n d moved f o r a f i n d i n g o f c o n t e m p t a g a i n s t t h e w i f e b a s e d on h i s a l l e g a t i o n t h a t t h e w i f e h a d v i o l a t e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s s t a t u s quo o r d e r . The t r i a l c o u r t , h o w e v e r , denied that motion. 7 33 2110474 the t r i e r from of fact, the t r i a l the disputed improperly Under evidence i n failing that whether the wife had acted t o make t h e m o n t h l y m o r t g a g e p a y m e n t s . the p a r t i c u l a r conclude c o u r t was e n t i t l e d t o d e t e r m i n e circumstances the t r i a l court of this exceeded case, we cannot i t s discretion i n f i n d i n g t h a t b o t h p a r t i e s were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e l o s s o f t h e marital home a n d t h a t no a d j u s t m e n t marital e s t a t e was n e c e s s a r y . i n the d i v i s i o n As a r e s u l t , of the the t r i a l court did n o t e x c e e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n f i n d i n g t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was not entitled to a credit or a s e t o f f f o r the loss of the m a r i t a l home. The husband's arguments r e g a r d i n g t h e Stone Gate l o t a r e confusing parties at best. to s e l l The t r i a l court's t h e l o t and t o s p l i t judgment o r d e r e d t h e the proceeds. In h i s r e p l y b r i e f , t h e husband a s s e r t s t h a t t h e l o t had been deeded to the parties' c h i l d r e n and a l s o t h a t t h e l o t had been in a foreclosure. The t r a n s c r i p t supports n e i t h e r of those assertions. " I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t 'an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t i s l i m i t e d t o a r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d , and t h e r e c o r d c a n n o t be c h a n g e d , a l t e r e d , o r v a r i e d on a p p e a l b y statements i n b r i e f s of counsel.' Q u i c k v. B u r t o n , 960 So. 2d 678, 680-81 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006) ( c i t i n g W a l - M a r t S t o r e s , I n c . v. Goodman, 789 So. 2d 166, 34 lost 2110474 176 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , and G o t l i e b v. C o l l a t , 567 So. 2d 1302, 1304 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) ) . T h i s c o u r t c a n n o t presume e r r o r or the e x i s t e n c e of f a c t s to which the r e c o r d is silent. I d . A l s o , t h i s c o u r t must c o n c l u s i v e l y presume t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e n o t c o n t a i n e d i n the record on appeal supports the trial court's judgment. S a r t i n v. S a r t i n , 678 So. 2d 1181, 1183 (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) . " J.B. v. C l e b u r n e C n t y . Dep't o f Human R e s . , (Ala. C i v . App. 2008). husband's arguments, We, therefore, 992 So. 2d 34, do not 40 address the raised i n his reply b r i e f , regarding the S t o n e Gate l o t . The husband a l s o a s s e r t s t h a t the t r i a l court erred i n awarding the wife $1,000 p e r month i n p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y . asserts that wife expenses and t o e s t a b l i s h a need f o r a l i m o n y , o r t o e s t a b l i s h the t h a t the husband In Shewbart 2010), this failed to had the f i n a n c i a l v. S h e w b a r t , court ability 64 So. addressed a p p l i c a b l e t o an award provide at evidence t o pay of her alimony. 3d 1080 ( A l a . C i v . App. length the principles of p e r i o d i c alimony. " T h i s c o u r t and o u r supreme c o u r t have e n u m e r a t e d t h e many f a c t o r s t r i a l c o u r t s must c o n s i d e r when w e i g h i n g t h e p r o p r i e t y o f an award o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y , Edwards v. E d w a r d s , 26 So. 3d 1254, 1259 (Ala. C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) , w h i c h i n c l u d e : t h e l e n g t h o f t h e m a r r i a g e , S t o n e v. S t o n e , 26 So. 3d 1232, 1236 (Ala. C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) ; t h e s t a n d a r d o f l i v i n g t o w h i c h t h e p a r t i e s became a c c u s t o m e d during the m a r r i a g e , W a s h i n g t o n v. W a s h i n g t o n , 24 So. 3d 1126, 35 He 2110474 1135-36 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) ; t h e r e l a t i v e f a u l t o f the p a r t i e s f o r the breakdown of the m a r r i a g e , L a c k e y v. L a c k e y , 18 So. 3d 393, 401 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) ; t h e age and h e a l t h o f t h e p a r t i e s , Ex p a r t e E l l i o t t , 782 So. 2d 308, 311 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ; and t h e f u t u r e employment p r o s p e c t s o f t h e p a r t i e s , B a g g e t t v. B a g g e t t , 855 So. 2d 556, 559 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003). In weighing those f a c t o r s , a t r i a l c o u r t essentially determines whether the petitioning spouse has demonstrated a need f o r c o n t i n u i n g monetary support t o s u s t a i n the former, marital s t a n d a r d o f l i v i n g t h a t t h e r e s p o n d i n g s p o u s e can and, u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , s h o u l d meet. See G a t e s v. G a t e s , 830 So. 2d 746, 749-50 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) ; H e w i t t v. H e w i t t , 637 So. 2d 1382, 1384 (Ala. C i v . App. 1994) ('The failure to award a l i m o n y , a l t h o u g h d i s c r e t i o n a r y , i s a r b i t r a r y and c a p r i c i o u s when t h e needs o f t h e w i f e a r e shown t o m e r i t an a w a r d and t h e h u s b a n d has t h e a b i l i t y t o pay.'). "A p e t i t i o n i n g s p o u s e p r o v e s a n e e d f o r p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y by s h o w i n g t h a t w i t h o u t such financial s u p p o r t he o r she w i l l be u n a b l e t o m a i n t a i n t h e p a r t i e s ' f o r m e r m a r i t a l l i f e s t y l e . See P i c k e t t v. P i c k e t t , 723 So. 2d 71, 74 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998) (Thompson, J . , w i t h one j u d g e c o n c u r r i n g and two judges c o n c u r r i n g i n the r e s u l t ) . As a n e c e s s a r y condition t o an award of p e r i o d i c alimony, a petitioning spouse should first establish the s t a n d a r d and mode o f l i v i n g o f t h e p a r t i e s d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e and t h e n a t u r e o f t h e f i n a n c i a l c o s t s to the p a r t i e s of m a i n t a i n i n g t h a t s t a t i o n i n l i f e . See, e.g., M i l l e r v. M i l l e r , 695 So. 2d 1192, 1194 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) ; and A u s t i n v. A u s t i n , 678 So. 2d 1129, 1131 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996). The p e t i t i o n i n g spouse s h o u l d then e s t a b l i s h h i s or her i n a b i l i t y t o a c h i e v e t h a t same s t a n d a r d o f l i v i n g t h r o u g h t h e use o f h i s o r h e r own i n d i v i d u a l a s s e t s , i n c l u d i n g h i s o r h e r own separate estate, the m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y r e c e i v e d as p a r t o f any s e t t l e m e n t or p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n , and h i s o r h e r own wage36 2110474 e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y , see M i l l e r v. M i l l e r , s u p r a , w i t h t h e l a s t f a c t o r t a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n t t h e age, h e a l t h , e d u c a t i o n , and work e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e p e t i t i o n i n g s p o u s e as w e l l as p r e v a i l i n g e c o n o m i c c o n d i t i o n s , see DeShazo v. DeShazo, 582 So. 2d 564, 565 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 1 ) , and any r e h a b i l i t a t i v e a l i m o n y o r other b e n e f i t s t h a t w i l l a s s i s t the petitioning spouse in obtaining and maintaining gainful employment. See T r e u s d e l l v. T r e u s d e l l , 671 So. 2d 699, 704 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 5 ) . I f t h e use o f h i s o r h e r a s s e t s and w a g e - e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y a l l o w s t h e p e t i t i o n i n g s p o u s e t o r o u t i n e l y meet o n l y p a r t o f the f i n a n c i a l c o s t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h m a i n t a i n i n g the p a r t i e s ' former m a r i t a l standard of l i v i n g , the p e t i t i o n i n g s p o u s e has p r o v e n a n e e d f o r a d d i t i o n a l s u p p o r t and m a i n t e n a n c e t h a t i s m e a s u r e d by t h a t shortfall. See S c o t t v. S c o t t , 460 So. 2d 1331, 1332 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 4 ) . "Once t h e f i n a n c i a l n e e d o f t h e p e t i t i o n i n g spouse i s e s t a b l i s h e d , the trial court should c o n s i d e r the a b i l i t y of the responding spouse t o meet t h a t n e e d . See H e r b o s o v. H e r b o s o , 881 So. 2d 454, 458 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) . The a b i l i t y t o pay may be p r o v e n by s h o w i n g t h a t t h e r e s p o n d i n g s p o u s e has a s u f f i c i e n t separate e s t a t e , f o l l o w i n g the d i v i s i o n o f t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y , see § 3 0 - 2 - 5 1 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, a n d / o r s u f f i c i e n t e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y to c o n s i s t e n t l y p r o v i d e the p e t i t i o n i n g spouse w i t h t h e n e c e s s a r y f u n d s t o e n a b l e him o r h e r t o m a i n t a i n the p a r t i e s ' former m a r i t a l standard of living. Herboso, supra. In c o n s i d e r i n g the responding s p o u s e ' s a b i l i t y t o pay, t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d t a k e i n t o account a l l the f i n a n c i a l o b l i g a t i o n s of the responding spouse, i n c l u d i n g those obligations c r e a t e d by t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t . See O'Neal v. O ' N e a l , 678 So. 2d 161, 164 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996). The t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d a l s o c o n s i d e r t h e i m p a c t an a w a r d o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y w i l l have on t h e f i n a n c i a l c o n d i t i o n o f t h e r e s p o n d i n g s p o u s e and h i s o r h e r a b i l i t y to maintain the p a r t i e s ' former m a r i t a l l i f e s t y l e f o r h i m s e l f or h e r s e l f . I d . A responding 37 2110474 s p o u s e o b v i o u s l y has t h e a b i l i t y t o pay i f t h e r e s p o n d i n g s p o u s e can s a t i s f y t h e e n t i r e t y o f t h e petitioning spouse's needs without any undue economic hardship. See, e.g., MacKenzie v. M a c K e n z i e , 486 So. 2d 1289, 1292 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1986). I n most c a s e s , h o w e v e r , s i m p l y due t o t h e f a c t t h a t , a f t e r s e p a r a t i o n , former spouses r a r e l y can live as w e l l and as cheaply as they did t o g e t h e r , G a t e s , 830 So. 2d a t 750, a t r i a l c o u r t w i l l f i n d t h a t the r e s p o n d i n g spouse cannot f u l l y meet t h e f i n a n c i a l needs o f t h e p e t i t i o n i n g s p o u s e . W a l l s v. W a l l s , 860 So. 2d 352, 358 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003). In those cases, the t r i a l c o u r t should endeavor to determine t h e amount t h e responding s p o u s e can f a i r l y pay on a c o n s i s t e n t b a s i s . See R u b e r t v. R u b e r t , 709 So. 2d 1283, 1285 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 8 ) . " A f t e r b e i n g s a t i s f i e d t h a t the petitioning s p o u s e has a n e e d f o r p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y and t h a t t h e r e s p o n d i n g s p o u s e has some a b i l i t y t o meet t h a t need, the t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d c o n s i d e r the e q u i t i e s of the case. The l e n g t h o f t h e m a r r i a g e does n o t determine t h e r i g h t t o , o r amount o f , p e r i o d i c alimony. H a t l e y v. H a t l e y , 51 So. 3d 1031, 1035 (Ala. C i v . App. 2010). However, t h e l o n g e r t h e p a r t i e s have m a i n t a i n e d c e r t a i n l i v i n g and f i n a n c i a l a r r a n g e m e n t s , t h e more f a i r i t w i l l seem t h a t t h o s e a r r a n g e m e n t s s h o u l d be m a i n t a i n e d b e y o n d t h e d i v o r c e t o t h e e x t e n t p o s s i b l e . See Edwards v. E d w a r d s , 410 So. 2d 91, 93 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1982) . The trial c o u r t s h o u l d a l s o g i v e due r e g a r d t o t h e h i s t o r y o f the marriage and the various economic and n o n e c o n o m i c c o n t r i b u t i o n s and s a c r i f i c e s made by t h e p a r t i e s d u r i n g the marriage. See Hanna v. Hanna, 688 So. 2d 887, 891 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1997) . I n l i g h t of those f a c t o r s , the t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d endeavor t o a v o i d l e a v i n g the p a r t i e s i n an unconscionably disparate financial position. J o n e s v. J o n e s , 596 So. 2d 949, 952 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1992) . However, t h e t r i a l c o u r t can c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r t h e m a r r i a g e , and i t s a t t e n d a n t s t a n d a r d o f l i v i n g , e n d e d due t o t h e 38 2110474 g r e a t e r f a u l t o f one o f t h e p a r t i e s , and, i f s o , t h e t r i a l c o u r t can a d j u s t t h e a w a r d a c c o r d i n g l y . Yohey v. Yohey, 890 So. 2d 160, 164-65 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 4 ) . L a s t l y , t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d c o n s i d e r any and a l l o t h e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s b e a r i n g on t h e f a i r n e s s of i t s d e c i s i o n . See A s h b e e v. A s h b e e , 431 So. 2d 1312, 1313-14 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 3 ) . " S h e w b a r t , 64 We So. 3d a t must a g r e e w i t h establish failed establish had become postdivorce needs. regarding w o u l d be her the husband t h a t the alimony. standard accustomed The expenses after the Shewbart, supra. of We, the alimony to living to the divorce need for which the and the wife was her provided t h a t her rent i d e a of the t o know the periodic alimony. t h e r e f o r e , must c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e the trial i n o r d e r i n g the husband t o wife in the amount of to evidence marriage i t i s impossible wife's failed wife's W i t h o u t some g e n e r a l court exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n periodic wife The testimony monthly expenses, i f any, of during only $1,000 p e r month. other extent, the a need f o r p e r i o d i c to parties wife's 1087-89. $1,000 pay per month. Conclusion We custody a f f i r m the of B.L. trial to the court's wife j u d g m e n t as t o t h e and 39 the husband's award of visitation 2110474 schedule. We reverse the t r i a l court's judgment as t o t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t c a l c u l a t i o n and t h e award o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y t o the wife, a n d we remand t h e c a u s e proceedings consistent with AFFIRMED I N PART; to the t r i a l this opinion. REVERSED IN PART; court f o r AND REMANDED INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n a n d B r y a n , J J . , c o n c u r . Thomas, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , 40 without w r i t i n g . WITH

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.