Karen Day Lawrence v. Walter Ledon Lawrence

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/18/2013 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 2110556 Karen Day Lawrence v. Walter Ledon Lawrence Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t Court (DR-10-378) MOORE, J u d g e . K a r e n Day L a w r e n c e ("the w i f e " ) appeals e n t e r e d b y t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t January Lawrence from a judgment ("the t r i a l c o u r t " ) on 26, 2012, i n h e r d i v o r c e a c t i o n a g a i n s t Walter ("the h u s b a n d " ) . Ledon 2110556 F a c t s and P r o c e d u r a l Background The time, worth p a r t i e s met a n d s t a r t e d d a t i n g i n May 2008. t h e w i f e owned h e r own h o u s e , w h i c h almost investments amounted $250,000, and maintained s h e e s t i m a t e d was a portfolio ("the r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t s " ) , w h i c h to approximately personal property. owned a 1 4 - a c r e $415,000, as At that of she t e s t i f i e d well as various A c c o r d i n g t o t h e h u s b a n d ' s t e s t i m o n y , he farm, h o r s e s , a share o f a f i n a n c i a l - p l a n n i n g b u s i n e s s , and a p o r t f o l i o o f investments $25,000 t o $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 . worth approximately When t h e p a r t i e s met, t h e w i f e was p a y i n g a m o r t g a g e o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y $900 p e r month on h e r h o u s e a n d other household total e x p e n s e s o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y $2,600 p e r month, a of approximately paying $3,500 p e r month. The h u s b a n d was a m o r t g a g e payment o f $1,300 p e r month, u t i l i t i e s o f $500 p e r month, a n d t h e o p e r a t i n g e x p e n s e s o f h i s b u s i n e s s a t a r a t e o f $2,500 p e r month. While would sell home with they their were dating, separate the proceeds the parties agreed homes a n d j o i n t l y from those sales. that purchase 1 The they a new husband The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a f t e r t h e p a r t i e s h a d made t h a t a g r e e m e n t a n d h a d m a r r i e d , t h e h u s b a n d t o l d h e r t h a t she m i g h t l o s e h e r h o u s e i f he d e c l a r e d b a n k r u p t c y , w h i c h , s h e s a i d , m o t i v a t e d h e r t o s e l l h e r house a t a reduced p r i c e . 1 2 2110556 testified i t was t h a t , b e c a u s e he m a i n t a i n e d t h e w i f e ' s h o u s e on house d i d not s e l l certified transfer immediately. financial her planner, retirement them as husband's suggestion a u t h o r i z a t i o n forms. funds from the wife's that she f r o m M a i n e , where t h e y had to the w i f e 15 y e a r s , t o Montgomery, where her broker. The That I n J u l y 2008, t h e h u s b a n d , a accounts c o u l d oversee couple the market f i r s t . suggested been o v e r s e e n f o r the p r e v i o u s the farm, n o t f e a s i b l e t o s e l l t h a t p r o p e r t y f i r s t , so t h e agreed to place he l i v e s t o c k on h i s and The signed wife a l l consented the to necessary husband proceeded t o i n v e s t a l l the retirement accounts in annuities and r e a l - e s t a t e - i n v e s t m e n t t r u s t s , w i t h the e x c e p t i o n of $100,000, w h i c h was The i n v e s t e d i n an o i l company. p a r t i e s married a t t h e end o f S e p t e m b e r 2008. went on a honeymoon t o I s r a e l and A r u b a . I n 2009, t h e y t r a v e l e d as a c o u p l e to Ocala, Florida, f o r one multiple to Carolina. The occasions, South a l o n e t o C a l i f o r n i a on one vacationed house sell q u i c k l y , so households throughout 3 the 2009. wife on a n o t h e r husband on traveled occasion, The wife's p a r t i e s maintained The also week and, f o r 10 d a y s w i t h h e r s i s t e r i n H a w a i i . d i d not separate o c c a s i o n and, They two testified 2110556 t h a t , as a r e s u l t traveling, he o f t h e economic downturn and h i s f r e q u e n t earned only $77,000 financial-planning business cover the parties' According informed some the wife i n January 2009, h a d gone husband into withdrew the p a r t i e s ' l i v i n g business. unemployed the husband receivership. $150,000 in a n n u i t i e s he h a d e s t a b l i s h e d f o r t h e w i f e his was t h e o i l company i n w h i c h he h a d i n v e s t e d of h e r funds 2009, The marriage. t o the wife, her that in his i n 2009, w h i c h , he s a i d , d i d n o t expenses. throughout the p a r t i e s ' i n commissions Throughout funds i n order from the t o cover expenses and t h e o p e r a t i n g expenses f o r The h u s b a n d and t h e w i f e also invested i n h o r s e s , p u r c h a s i n g two f o r $25,000 a n d l e a s i n g s i x o t h e r s . November 2009, t h e h u s b a n d c o n v i n c e d t h e w i f e t h a t t h e y In should i n v e s t f u n d s i n I r a q i d i n a r s ; $8,000 o f t h e amount t h e p a r t i e s invested came f r o m funds from t h e w i f e ' s investments. At some p o i n t , t h e w i f e ' s house s o l d f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y $190,000; the s a l e and wife received the proceeds derived from that p l a c e d them i n t o a c e r t i f i c a t e - o f - d e p o s i t a c c o u n t i n o n l y h e r name. 4 2110556 In the January parties' 2010, t h e w i f e a s k e d t h e h u s b a n d t o show h e r income-tax returns for the preceding year. A c c o r d i n g t o t h e w i f e , upon h e r i n q u i r i n g a b o u t t h e i n c o m e - t a x r e t u r n s , the husband t o l d her to l e a v e the premises, s a i d , w i t h i n 72 h o u r s , into an she apartment. The left wife and, t h e p r e m i s e s and later eventually a filed she moved separate i n c o m e - t a x r e t u r n f o r t h e 2009 t a x y e a r , w h i c h r e s u l t e d i n a tax liability of approximately $60,000. The evidence i n d i c a t e d t h a t , had the w i f e f i l e d j o i n t l y w i t h the their tax l i a b i l i t y w o u l d have b e e n a p p r o x i m a t e l y The 2010. wife filed In her c o m p l a i n t , fraudulently taken a induced large permission. fraud. was wife had from the into of marrying her making husband i n requested him and retirement t h a t she any claim to any h u s b a n d had owned b e f o r e t h e i r m a r r i a g e t h a t he accounts be had had without awarded a l l the the w i f e t e s t i f i e d of the property $60,000 of the 5 funds that the b u t t h a t she w a n t e d t o be f i n a n c i a l l y r e s t o r e d . The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had approximately April l o s t as a r e s u l t o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s a l l e g e d A t t h e t r i a l on A p r i l 5, 2011, not $22,000. the w i f e a l l e g e d t h a t the husband her portion The money t h a t she she for a divorce husband, from her only retirement 2110556 a c c o u n t s and a p o r t i o n o f t h e p r o c e e d s home from the s a l e of her left. The t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t on S e p t e m b e r 29, divorcing the p a r t i e s . In t h a t judgment, the trial a w a r d e d t h e w i f e $150,000, r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e amount t h e had withdrawn from the wife's representing the t a x l i a b i l i t y annuities, plus 2011, court husband $54,000, t h a t t h e w i f e had i n c u r r e d as a r e s u l t of those withdrawals. The trial c o u r t a l s o awarded t h e w i f e $8,000 i n I r a q i d i n a r s , w h i c h h a d b e e n p u r c h a s e d w i t h the w i f e ' s any had funds. The t r i a l c o u r t d e c l i n e d t o award t h e w i f e amount t o c o m p e n s a t e h e r f o r t h e f u n d s t h a t t h e invested in the o i l company, which had husband gone into r e c e i v e r s h i p , o r any amount t o c o m p e n s a t e h e r f o r t h e l o s s she h a d s u f f e r e d on t h e s a l e o f h e r On motion October to a l t e r , that motion, the parties The 2011, the husband filed argued from the w i f e ' s permission of the that the postjudgment $150,000 t h a t a n n u i t i e s had been wife and had f o r t h e i r j o i n t benefit to maintain husband a amend, o r v a c a t e t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t . the husband been w i t h d r a w n with 28, house. been had withdrawn used their In by the lifestyle. a l s o argued t h a t the w i f e had d e l i b e r a t e l y f i l e d 6 2110556 a separate income-tax return increasing her t a xburden. f o r 2009, thereby The h u s b a n d f i n a l l y needlessly a r g u e d t h a t he c o u l d n o t a f f o r d t o p a y t h e amounts a w a r d e d i n t h e j u d g m e n t , w h i c h he c h a r a c t e r i z e d as " a l i m o n y i n g r o s s . " The w i f e filed a w r i t t e n response t o t h e husband's m o t i o n . The trial court conducted a hearing on t h e h u s b a n d ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on J a n u a r y 17, 2 0 1 2 . A t t h a t h e a r i n g , t h e h u s b a n d d i d n o t o f f e r any new e v i d e n c e ; that the t r i a l the husband's trial court postjudgment h u s b a n d was o r d e r e d court reasoned financial requested c o u r t r e v i s e t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t b a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t had been p r e s e n t e d 2012, i n s t e a d , he that decisions at the t r i a l . entered motion a the wife made judgment and r e d u c i n g t o pay t h e w i f e On J a n u a r y 26, granting t h e amount t h e t o $72,000. h a d h a d some by t h e husband The input evidence benefit of the exact amount of the marriage. postjudgment order: The "The C o u r t 7 trial into the and t h a t she had r e c e i v e d some b e n e f i t a n d e n j o y m e n t f r o m t h e w i t h d r a w a l funds from h e r a n n u i t i e s , a l t h o u g h the ofthe n e i t h e r p a r t y had produced that had been trial court used f o r the stated i s of the opinion in i t s that the 2110556 [wife] cannot simply s h a r i n g some o f t h e walk judgment, as 8, 2012, the marriage f o r the a c t i o n without taken." the w i f e f i l e d a motion to set amended, evidence to the t r i a l c o u r t of her from responsibility On F e b r u a r y 7, 2012, the away so that she could present c o u r t ; the w i f e a l s o n o t i f i e d the i n t e n t to appeal the r e v i s e d judgment. the w i f e f i l e d her n o t i c e of appeal to aside trial On this new March court. 2 Issues On a p p e a l , t h e w i f e a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o m m i t t e d reversible error by considering "new h u s b a n d d i d n o t have t h e means t o pay the original bankruptcy "testify" also divorce and as argues to by allowing factual that judgment the and counsel matters trial not court evidence" that the t h e amounts a w a r d e d i n would for have the husband i n evidence. erred in o r i g i n a l j u d g m e n t b a s e d on t h e o r a l t e s t i m o n y to The file to wife amending its adduced a t the trial. T h e f a c t t h a t t h e w i f e ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , w h i c h was f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., remained p e n d i n g b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t when she f i l e d h e r n o t i c e o f a p p e a l does n o t d e p r i v e t h i s c o u r t o f a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n . See H a r v i l l e v. H a r v i l l e , 568 So. 2d 1239 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990) . 2 8 2110556 Discussion A l t h o u g h we a g r e e w i t h t h e g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t c a n n o t c o n s i d e r new e v i d e n c e as a b a s i s f o r a m e n d i n g a judgment, see T i c e v. T i c e , 2012), find trial we court no merit 100 So. 3d 1071 i n the w i f e ' s improperly amended evidence i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r the (Ala. Civ. contention judgment App. that the on new based case. T h i s c o u r t has r e v i e w e d t h e t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e h e a r i n g t h e h u s b a n d ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , w h i c h i s 13 p a g e s l o n g . that hearing, the only arguably "new evidence" c o n s i s t e d o f a s t a t e m e n t made by c o u n s e l the husband on In introduced f o r the husband that w o u l d have t o d e c l a r e b a n k r u p t c y i f t h e j u d g m e n t r e m a i n e d i n p l a c e b e c a u s e he d i d n o t have t h e means t o p a y t h e amounts o u t l i n e d postjudgment i n the d i v o r c e order, the trial judgment. court However, stated that in its the record from the t r i a l c o n t a i n e d evidence r e g a r d i n g the a b i l i t y of the husband t o repay the w i f e , n o t i n g t h a t the husband had commissions of $77,000 $1,900 i n m o n t h l y i n 2009 and that he also earned receives r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s from the m i l i t a r y . a l s o observe t h a t the husband i m p r o v e d s i n c e 2009. The t e s t i f i e d that h i s business trial 9 court p l a i n l y indicated We had that 2110556 it was not convinced t h a t the husband l a c k e d the a b i l i t y to p a y t h e amounts a w a r d e d t o t h e w i f e i n t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t . We are to construe r e v e r s e them. 2005). j u d g m e n t s so as t o u p h o l d them, n o t See Ex p a r t e S n i d e r , 929 So. 2d 447, 457 ( A l a . We c o n s t r u e t h e s t a t e m e n t s made by t h e t r i a l court i n its p o s t j u d g m e n t o r d e r as f o r e c l o s i n g any c o n t e n t i o n t h a t i t was reducing inability to t h e a w a r d b a s e d on new evidence of t h e husband t o pay t h e o r i g i n a l the w i f e . Therefore, b a s e d on t h e mere f a c t we regarding amounts a w a r d e d decline to reverse that counsel the t h e judgment f o r t h e husband, during t h e h e a r i n g on t h e h u s b a n d ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , r a i s e d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e h u s b a n d may have t o d e c l a r e b a n k r u p t c y i f the o r i g i n a l award r e m a i n e d i n e f f e c t . We a l s o r e j e c t t h e w i f e ' s argument t h a t t h e t r i a l court was b o u n d by i t s o r i g i n a l j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e t h e h u s b a n d d i d n o t introduce any different evidence l e g a l arguments f o r r e v i s i o n . R u l e 59, A l a . R. C i v . P., a trial c o u r t may o r make any On a m o t i o n f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o i n an a c t i o n t r i e d w i t h o u t amend t h e j u d g m e n t o r make new f a c t and d i r e c t t h e e n t r y o f a new j u d g m e n t . R. Civ. P. That "compelling" decision may 10 be based a jury, f i n d i n g s of Rule 59(a), A l a . on any ground 2110556 previously a v a i l a b l e for rehearings including the Allen Fountain, v. 2002). grounds Rule 59 stated 861 So. motions in suits in § 2d in equity, i d . , 12-3-11, A l a . 1104, 1107 specifically (Ala. allow a s i t t i n g without a jury to reconsider the its arguments judgment i s b a s e d or to rehear 567 So. 2d 1347, 1348 1975. Civ. App. trial court e v i d e n c e upon w h i c h regarding l e g a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g t h a t judgment. Jenkins, Code See H o l l a n d upon r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n , somewhat d i s p u t e d , the t r i a l d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e w i f e had, had "some i n p u t " i n t o t h e d e c i s i o n t o w i t h d r a w t h e her a n n u i t i e s and t h a t she o f t h o s e f u n d s , w h i c h had m a r i t a l d e b t s , t o pay had The a joint made t h e file trial a tax had, court in fact, funds from enjoyed the benefit t h a t she the advice return and 11 pay and t o a c c u m u l a t e m a r i t a l further reconsidered return with tax court, been used, a t l e a s t i n p a r t , t o d e c i s i o n , upon t h e separate in fact, for vacations, acknowledged at t r i a l filing court i t s a w a r d b a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l . A l t h o u g h t h e e v i d e n c e was assets. v. ( A l a . 1990). In t h i s case, the husband r e q u e s t e d t h a t the t r i a l reconsider the that the wife w o u l d have b e n e f i t e d from h u s b a n d and of her to that she former counsel, incur additional had to tax 2110556 liability. B a s e d on i t s r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e e v i d e n c e , the t r i a l c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t i t w o u l d be i n e q u i t a b l e t o r e q u i r e t h e h u s b a n d t o r e p a y t h e w i f e t h e e n t i r e $204,000 w i t h the w i t h d r a w a l s equitable to order from the a n n u i t i e s and the husband t o repay o n l y associated t h a t i t would $72,000 o f be that amount. We conclude t h a t the t r i a l authority under Rule adjust i t s o r i g i n a l of the 59 to case. fairness of the evidence is insufficient The we ultimate The amount to a f f i r m the the evidence and to i t s reconsidered wife does n o t awarded sustain that or to view contest argue specific that f o r the award of a t t o r n e y fees AFFIRMED. and the amount. denied. Thompson, P . J . , the judgment. husband's request appeal i s reconsider award a c c o r d i n g e q u i t i e s of the Therefore, court acted wholly w i t h i n i t s Pittman 12 and Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . on

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.