Antoinette Cahill Smith v. Shannon Cahill

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/19/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2110666 Antoinette C a h i l l Smith v. Shannon C a h i l l Appeal from M a r s h a l l C i r c u i t (DR-05-161.01) PITTMAN, Judge. A n t o i n e t t e C a h i l l Smith a judgment i n a p o s t d i v o r c e reverse Court ("the f o r m e r w i f e " ) proceeding. i n p a r t , a n d remand w i t h appeals We a f f i r m instructions. from i n part, 2110666 This this i s the second time these p a r t i e s c o u r t . I n S m i t h v. C a h i l l , 2 0 1 1 ) , we Shannon C a h i l l of the ( A l a . C i v . App. ("the f o r m e r husband") w i t h r e s p e c t t o some c l a i m s a s s e r t e d by p r o c e e d i n g she had f i l e d the marriage, they used m a r i t a l former husband (2) remanded t h e cause. and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y The p a r t i e s m a r r i e d i n 1986 The former w i f e i n a p o s t d i v o r c e i n 2009 and F a c t u a l Background farm. 72 So. 3d 692 (1) r e v e r s e d a j u d g m e n t on p a r t i a l f i n d i n g s i n f a v o r of the have b e e n b e f o r e and d i v o r c e d i n 1993. funds t o purchase During a poultry subsequently operated the poultry f a r m p u r s u a n t t o an a g r e e m e n t w i t h G o l d K i s t , w h i c h was then a c o o p e r a t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n . Under the terms of t h a t agreement, Gold K i s t , w h i l e i t was a cooperative association, assigned v a l u e t o an e q u i t y a c c o u n t i n t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s name e q u i t y account") 1993 divorce incorporated based judgment an on G o l d K i s t ' s ("the profits. divorce The judgment"), agreement between the p a r t i e s ("the parties' which r e g a r d i n g the d i v i s i o n o f the m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y , awarded the former husband the t a n g i b l e a s s e t s of the p o u l t r y farm but d i d not d i s p o s e of the equity account. 2 2110666 In approximately 2004, cooperative association shares sale for corporation, the Gold K i s t e q u i t y account that to to Gold a Kist converted c o r p o r a t i o n and public. notified When the from offered i t converted former was stock. Gold K i s t entitled to subsequently and d e p o s i t e d t h e p r o c e e d s 2005, 36,472 shares i s s u e d the of Gold former the husband i n a brokerage brought support he had been to on Kist husband a postdivorce ordered a the shares account. a g a i n s t t h e f o r m e r w i f e i n w h i c h he s o u g h t child to husband t h a t the 36,472 s h a r e s , and t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d l i q u i d a t e d t h o s e In its had a v a l u e o f $337,134.76 and t h a t , b a s e d v a l u e , he a proceeding a r e d u c t i o n i n the pay in the divorce judgment. D u r i n g d i s c o v e r y i n t h a t p o s t d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g , the former all w i f e propounded d i s c o v e r y r e q u e s t s s e e k i n g a l i s t the responses former husband's assets. The former to those d i s c o v e r y requests d i d not l i s t of husband's among h i s a s s e t s t h e e q u i t y a c c o u n t o r t h e f u n d s t h a t had r e s u l t e d from the c o n v e r s i o n of G o l d K i s t from a c o o p e r a t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n t o a c o r p o r a t i o n and t h e s u b s e q u e n t l i q u i d a t i o n of the Gold shares i s s u e d t o the former husband to the e q u i t y account"). 3 ("the funds Kist attributable 2110666 I n 2009, t h e f o r m e r w i f e b r o u g h t a p o s t d i v o r c e against other the former things, property h u s b a n d . The f o r m e r that the equity account alleged, had been the existence the divorce judgment husband of the e q u i t y account t h e p a r t i e s a g r e e d on t h e d i v i s i o n of the m a r i t a l had not d i s p o s e d among marital when t h e p a r t i e s d i v o r c e d ; t h a t t h e f o r m e r had n o t r e v e a l e d that wife proceeding before property; of the equity a c c o u n t ; a n d t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , she owned a s h a r e o f t h e e q u i t y account and t h e funds Based on t h o s e other things, that a t t r i b u t a b l e to the equity a l l e g a t i o n s , the former (1) t h a t she was e n t i t l e d wife account. claimed, to a she owned a s h a r e o f t h e e q u i t y a c c o u n t among determination and t h e funds a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e e q u i t y a c c o u n t and a judgment a w a r d i n g h e r t h a t share ("the e q u i t y - a c c o u n t claim") a n d (2) t h a t s h e was e n t i t l e d t o an a w a r d o f damages f o r f r a u d u l e n t s u p p r e s s i o n a n d conversion. equity I n response, t h e former husband a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e account had never been m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y because, he s a i d , t h a t a c c o u n t h a d been t i t l e d i n h i s name a n d , t h e r e f o r e , h a d been h i s s e p a r a t e p r o p e r t y when t h e p a r t i e s d i v o r c e d . a l s o a s s e r t e d t h a t the former w i f e ' s equity-account barred because, he said, i t constituted 4 (1) an He c l a i m was improper 2110666 attempt to modify the division property i n t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t more t h a n 30 d a y s a f t e r e n t r y o f t h a t j u d g m e n t and ( 2 ) an of the parties' marital improper attempt to the obtain a s h a r e o f h i s r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t b a s e d on a m a r r i a g e t h a t had lasted the less than equity-account 10 years. c l a i m was Moreover, b a r r e d by R. i n Rule 60(b), C i v . P. I n a d d i t i o n , he a s s e r t e d t h a t he was The trial former's and that (3) the time l i m i t s f o r r e l i e f from a judgment c o n t a i n e d fraudulent suppression the asserted (1) the d o c t r i n e o f l a c h e s , ( 2 ) t h e d o c t r i n e o f r e s j u d i c a t a , and seeking he Ala. not l i a b l e f o r conversion. c o u r t conducted a bench t r i a l . At the c l o s e wife's evidence, the trial court granted of the f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s m o t i o n f o r a j u d g m e n t on p a r t i a l f i n d i n g s as to the e q u i t y - a c c o u n t c l a i m , the f r a u d u l e n t - s u p p r e s s i o n claim, and t h e c o n v e r s i o n c l a i m ("the j u d g m e n t on p a r t i a l f i n d i n g s " ) . The parties claims. The subsequently former wife settled then the filed former a wife's postjudgment other motion c h a l l e n g i n g t h e j u d g m e n t on p a r t i a l f i n d i n g s , w h i c h t h e court denied. Thereafter, the former wife court. 5 appealed to trial this 2110666 As the n o t e d above, i n Smith v. C a h i l l , judgment on p a r t i a l findings this court a n d remanded Although a majority o f the judges o f t h i s i n t h e m a i n o p i n i o n i n S m i t h v. C a h i l l , by concurred t h e main opinion the cause. court d i d not j o i n an e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e main o p i n i o n and t h e s p e c i a l w r i t i n g c o n c u r r i n g reached reversed indicates that i n the r e s u l t four judges i n h o l d i n g ( 1 ) t h a t t h e e q u i t y a c c o u n t was m a r i t a l property when t h e p a r t i e s d i v o r c e d despite the fact that i t was t i t l e d i n t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s name, 72 So. 3d a t 698 a n d 700; ( 2 ) that equity the divorce account, judgment had not d i s p o s e d i d . ; and judgment had not d i s p o s e d wife's equity-account (3) that, because of the equity claim did the account, not seek of the divorce the former an improper m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n i n t h e d i v o r c e judgment, id. Moreover, special rejecting an e x a m i n a t i o n writing indicates o f t h e main that four t h e former husband's o t h e r wife's equity-account claim, although opinion judges and t h e concurred in defenses t o the former a majority of the court d i d n o t a g r e e on t h e r a t i o n a l e s f o r r e j e c t i n g t h o s e d e f e n s e s . All the judges concurred i n t h e judgment o f t h i s r e v e r s i n g t h e j u d g m e n t on p a r t i a l 6 court (1) f i n d i n g s a n d (2) r e m a n d i n g 2110666 the cause. the main 72 So. 3d a t 699-700. However, opinion and an e x a m i n a t i o n o f the s p e c i a l w r i t i n g i n d i c a t e s that m a j o r i t y of the judges d i d not j o i n i n g i v i n g the t r i a l specific i n s t r u c t i o n s regarding on remand. After how a court t h e c a u s e was t o p r o c e e d See i d . 1 this court remanded the cause, the former wife amended h e r c o m p l a i n t t o a l l e g e t h a t t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t h a d not disposed will") of o f the good w i l l of the p o u l t r y farm and t o c l a i m t h a t she was e n t i t l e d t o a the value awarding her claim"). of her share The providing that share trial that of the good w i l l of court the issues the good will subsequently t o be tried ("the g o o d determination and a j u d g m e n t ("the good-will entered included an order the former w i f e ' s g o o d - w i l l c l a i m . S u b s e q u e n t l y , t h e f o r m e r w i f e f i l e d an amendment t o h e r c o m p l a i n t s t a t i n g a f r a u d u l e n t - t r a n s f e r c l a i m against not husband's obtain only present leave the former wife; husband however, of the t r i a l court the but also former to f i l e that the wife former d i d not amendment as "[W]here the [ a p p e l l a t e ] court gives no precise d i r e c t i o n s as t o how a c a u s e i s t o p r o c e e d as t o a c e r t a i n m a t t e r on remand, t h e l o w e r c o u r t may p r o c e e d i n any manner that i s not i n c o n s i s t e n t with the [ a p p e l l a t e ] court's o p i n i o n . " D u r b i n v. D u r b i n , 818 So. 2d 409, 411 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2001) . 1 7 2110666 r e q u i r e d by Rule 15(a), and h i s present wife A l a . R. C i v . P. filed separate motions amendment a d d i n g t h e f r a u d u l e n t - t r a n s f e r hearing, the t r i a l court The f o r m e r entered husband to dismiss the claim. an o r d e r Following a d i s a l l o w i n g the amendment a d d i n g t h e f r a u d u l e n t - t r a n s f e r c l a i m , s t a t i n g : "The Court d e c l i n e s t o expand l i t i g a t i o n i n t h i s m a t t e r beyond t h e parameters p r e v i o u s l y The trial court been t e r m i n a t e d parties' t h e n resumed t h e b e n c h t r i a l , a t the c l o s e o f the former w i f e ' s (1) t h e g r a n t i n g the set." o f t h e j u d g m e n t on p a r t i a l settlement t h a t were n o t d i s p o s e d After the t r i a l , regarding the former conversion judgment claim. wife's o f b y t h e j u d g m e n t on p a r t i a l the t r i a l good-will e v i d e n c e by f i n d i n g s a n d (2) court entered findings. equity-account claim, fraudulent-suppression In part, pertinent claims a judgment i n f a v o r o f t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d as t o t h e f o r m e r w i f e ' s claim, which had claim, the t r i a l court's stated: " [ I ] t i s hereby follows: ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as "1. I t i s apparent t h a t t h e Court o f C i v i l Appeals desired that the undersigned allow the [ f o r m e r w i f e ] t o p u r s u e a d i v i s i o n o f an u n d i v i d e d m a r i t a l asset, the Gold K i s t Equity Account. I t i s a l s o apparent t h e [former wife] interprets the 8 and 2110666 a p p e l l a [ t e ] d e c i s i o n t o a l l o w [the former wife] t o p u r s u e a d i v i s i o n o f b o t h t h e E q u i t y Account and 'On-Going C o n c e r n ' p o r t i o n o f t h e p o u l t r y b u s i n e s s owned when t h e p a r t i e s d i v o r c e d l o n g ago. A f t e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the evidence presented, the Court awards any r i g h t s t o t h e G o l d K i s t E q u i t y A c c o u n t , any r i g h t t o any v a l u e o f t h e 'On-Going C o n c e r n ' p o r t i o n of the p a r t i e s [ ' ] previous p o u l t r y business, and any a s s e t a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h a t f o r m e r b u s i n e s s , t a n g i b l e o r i n t a n g i b l e , t o t h e [former husband], Shannon C a h i l l . The C o u r t a l s o f i n d s f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d t h a t s u c h was t h e i n t e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s when t h e y e x e c u t e d t h e s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t p r e p a r e d b y t h e [ f o r m e r w i f e ' s ] a t t o r n e y l o n g ago. "2. The C o u r t f i n d s no c o n v e r s i o n the p a r t o f t h e [former husband]." Following the t r i a l wife o r f r a u d on c o u r t ' s e n t r y o f i t s judgment, t h e former appealed. Standard o f Review Because the t r i a l review court r e c e i v e d evidence ore tenus, our i s governed by t h e f o l l o w i n g p r i n c i p l e s : "'"'[W]hen a trial court hears ore tenus testimony, i t s f i n d i n g s on d i s p u t e d facts are p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t a n d i t s j u d g m e n t b a s e d on t h o s e f i n d i n g s w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d u n l e s s t h e j u d g m e n t i s p a l p a b l y e r r o n e o u s o r m a n i f e s t l y u n j u s t . ' " ' Water Works & S a n i t a r y Sewer Bd. v. P a r k s , 977 So. 2d 440, 443 ( A l a . 2007) ( q u o t i n g F a d a l l a v. F a d a l l a , 929 So. 2d 429, 433 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n P h i l p o t v. S t a t e , 843 So. 2d 122, 125 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ) . '"The p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s , however, i s r e b u t t a b l e and may be overcome where t h e r e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence presented to the t r i a l court to s u s t a i n i t s j u d g m e n t . " ' Waltman v. R o w e l l , 913 So. 2d 1083, 1086 ( A l a . 2005) ( q u o t i n g D e n n i s v. Dobbs, 474 So. 2d 77, 9 2110666 79 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ) . ' A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e o r e t e n u s r u l e does n o t e x t e n d t o c l o a k w i t h a p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s a t r i a l judge's c o n c l u s i o n s o f law or the i n c o r r e c t a p p l i c a t i o n o f law t o the f a c t s . ' Waltman v. R o w e l l , 913 So. 2d a t 1086." R e t a i l D e v e l o p e r s o f A l a b a m a , LLC v . E a s t Gadsden G o l f C l u b , 985 So. 2d 924, 929 court i n a nonjury specific findings ( A l a . 2007). case enters of fact Moreover, a judgment when t h e t r i a l without making regarding a disputed issue, the appellate court "will assume t h a t the t r i a l judge made those f i n d i n g s n e c e s s a r y t o s u p p o r t t h e judgment. F i t z n e r P o n t i a c - B u i c k - C a d i l l a c , I n c . v. P e r k i n s & A s s o c s . , Inc., 578 So. 2d 1061 ( A l a . 1991) . Under t h e o r e tenus r u l e , the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment and a l l i m p l i c i t f i n d i n g s necessary t o support i t carry a p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s a n d w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d u n l e s s ' f o u n d t o be p l a i n l y a n d p a l p a b l y w r o n g . ' F i t z n e r , 578 So. 2d a t 1063. 'The t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t i n s u c h a c a s e w i l l be a f f i r m e d , i f , u n d e r any r e a s o n a b l e a s p e c t o f t h e t e s t i m o n y , t h e r e i s c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e j u d g m e n t . ' C l a r k v. A l b e r t v i l l e N u r s i n g Home, I n c . , 545 So. 2d 9, 13 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ; s e e , a l s o , Norman v . S c h w a r t z , 594 So. 2d 45 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . " Transamerica Commercial So. F i n . C o r p . v. AmSouth Bank, N.A., 60 8 2d 3 7 5 , 378 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . Analysis The declining former wife argues that t o award h e r a share 10 the t r i a l court erred i n of the equity account, the 2110666 f u n d s a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e e q u i t y a c c o u n t , a n d t h e g o o d w i l l . We agree. "'[W]hen a s p e c i f i c a s s e t o f t h e p a r t i e s t o a d i v o r c e a c t i o n i s n o t d i s p o s e d o f by t h e d e c r e e , t h e p a r t i e s a r e l e f t i n t h e same p o s i t i o n r e l a t i v e t o t h a t a s s e t as t h e y were i n p r i o r t o t h e d e c r e e . Ex p a r t e D a v i s , [495 So. 2d 672 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) ] . ' J o h n s o n v. J o h n s o n , 585 So. 2d 89, 90 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1991) . "'[W]hen a divorce decree i s granted w i t h o u t any m e n t i o n o f t h e d i v i s i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s ' j o i n t l y owned p r o p e r t y , e a c h p a r t y r e t a i n s t h e same r i g h t , t i t l e , c l a i m , o r i n t e r e s t t h e r e i n which they h e l d p r i o r t o the d i v o r c e . I n e s s e n c e , when t h e t r i a l j u d g e does n o t a l t e r o w n e r s h i p t h a t , i n a n d of i t s e l f , d i s p o s e s o f t h e i s s u e , a n d t i t l e to t h e p r o p e r t y i s l e f t u n d i s t u r b e d by t h e judgment.' " H o c u t t v. H o c u t t , 491 So. 2d 247, 249 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 6 ) . See a l s o Dominex, I n c . v. Key, 456 So. 2d 1047, 1059-60 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) . " S m i t h v. S m i t h , 892 So. 2d 384, 389 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) . In t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t d i d n o t d i s p o s e of either Cahill, was the equity farm a s s e t when had been the p a r t i e s purchased m a r i t a l f u n d s . The good w i l l , the o r t h e good w i l l . I n Smith v. a majority of t h i s court held that the equity a marital poultry account poultry f a r m , was a l s o divorced account because the during the marriage using w h i c h was an i n t a n g i b l e a s s e t o f a marital 11 a s s e t when t h e p a r t i e s 2110666 d i v o r c e d f o r t h e same r e a s o n . not d i s p o s e Because t h e d i v o r c e judgment d i d o f e i t h e r t h e e q u i t y a c c o u n t o r t h e good w i l l , t h e former husband and t h e former w i f e the equity divorce continued a c c o u n t a n d t h e good w i l l judgment. Smith judgment does n o t d i s p o s e v. Smith, parties o f a j o i n t l y owned a s s e t , s u c h as alter case, and since the entry of the divorce h i s or her ownership i n t e r e s t t o award each o f t h e i n that jointly owned c o u r t does n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o the ownership i n t e r e s t of e i t h e r p a r t y owned a s s e t the i n the present c o u r t has j u r i s d i c t i o n a s s e t ; however, t h e t r i a l When of the divorce more t h a n 30 d a y s have e l a p s e d supra. the entry own a t h e e q u i t y a c c o u n t a n d t h e good w i l l judgment, a t r i a l after to j o i n t l y i n that jointly because t h a t would c o n s t i t u t e a m o d i f i c a t i o n of property division i n the divorce j u d g m e n t more t h a n 30 days a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e d i v o r c e judgment, w h i c h t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s p r o h i b i t e d from doing. 672, 495 So. 2d 674 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 6 ) . Thus, i n t h e p r e s e n t elapsed court See Ex p a r t e D a v i s , since had the entry jurisdiction ownership i n t e r e s t c a s e , b e c a u s e more t h a n 30 d a y s h a d of the divorce to award i n the j o i n t l y 12 each judgment, the trial party h i s or her owned e q u i t y account, the 2110666 funds a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e e q u i t y a c c o u n t , and t h e good will; however, the t r i a l court alter the ownership interest d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n of e i t h e r former husband the ownership party. I d . By to awarding i n t e r e s t of both p a r t i e s the i n the e q u i t y account, the funds a t t r i b u t a b l e t o the e q u i t y account, and t h e good w i l l , the trial court altered their i n t e r e s t s i n t h o s e a s s e t s , w h i c h i t d i d n o t have t o do. I d . A c c o r d i n g l y , we court with respect to reverse the ownership jurisdiction the judgment of the equity account, the a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e e q u i t y a c c o u n t , and t h e good w i l l , remand the determine cause the with monetary instructions value of to those the trial assets of the monetary value of those i n favor of the former c o n v e r s i o n c l a i m . The u n d i s p u t e d f o r m e r w i f e owned a o n e - h a l f and based on we to the parties assets. The f o r m e r w i f e a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l finding funds court e v i d e n c e a l r e a d y i n t r o d u c e d and t o a w a r d e a c h o f t h e one-half trial husband w i t h court erred i n respect to her evidence e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t the i n t e r e s t i n the e q u i t y account, t h e f u n d s a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e e q u i t y a c c o u n t , and t h e g o o d w i l l and t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d w r o n g f u l l y d e t a i n e d h e r 13 ownership 2110666 interest i n those assets after the entry of the divorce judgment. "'To s u s t a i n a c l a i m o f c o n v e r s i o n , t h e r e must be (1) a w r o n g f u l t a k i n g ; (2) an i l l e g a l a s s e r t i o n of ownership; (3) an i l l e g a l use or misuse o f a n o t h e r ' s p r o p e r t y ; o r (4) a w r o n g f u l d e t e n t i o n o r interference with another's property. Gray v. L i b e r t y N a t ' l L i f e I n s . Co., 623 So. 2d 1156 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ; D r i v e r v. H i c e , 618 So. 2d 129 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) ; G i l l i s v. B e n e f i t T r u s t L i f e I n s . Co., 601 So. 2d 951 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . ' " P e n t t a l a v. D a v i d App. Hobbs BMW, 698 So. 2d 137, 139 (Ala. C i v . 1997) ( q u o t i n g Drennen L a n d & T i m b e r Co. v. P r i v e t t , So. 2d 1347, 1349 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) ) . Thus, t h e u n d i s p u t e d e s t a b l i s h e d the former w i f e ' s conversion 643 evidence claim. Accordingly, we r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e c o n v e r s i o n c l a i m , a n d we remand t h e c a u s e w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o the t r i a l wife c o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e t h e amount o f damages t h e f o r m e r i s entitled to recover f o r conversion and t o e n t e r a j u d g m e n t a w a r d i n g t h e f o r m e r w i f e t h a t amount o f damages. I n determining to recover, t h e amount o f damages t h e f o r m e r w i f e i s e n t i t l e d the t r i a l court former w i f e of her one-half account, good w i l l may consider t h e award to the ownership i n t e r e s t i n the e q u i t y the funds a t t r i b u t a b l e t o the e q u i t y account, and t h e i n m i t i g a t i o n o f t h o s e damages. See P i k e v. Reed, 47 14 2110666 So. 3d 253, 261 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) ( " ' [ I ] t has e v e r been t h e l a w t h a t when p r o p e r t y has b e e n w r o n g f u l l y c o n v e r t e d , and after such conversion such of wrongdoer, i f t h e owner o f t h e p r o p e r t y against him defense to (quoting Plummer v. 502, f o r such action, fact may in be into shown brings conversion, but comes the by the an a c t i o n i n not as a complete mitigation of damages.'" (1912))). 505 the this again possession trover i t s owner, property H a r d i s o n , 6 A l a . App. 525, 535, 60 So. The f o r m e r w i f e a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n finding i n favor of the fraudulent-suppression Cahill, supra, noted former husband w i t h claim. that The the main former respect opinion wife to her i n Smith had v. introduced s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t e n d i n g t o prove t h a t the former husband had f r a u d u l e n t l y s u p p r e s s e d the f a c t t h a t the e q u i t y account e x i s t e d . However, r e a s o n a b l e r e l i a n c e i s an e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t of a c l a i m of f r a u d u l e n t s u p p r e s s i o n , 914 So. 2d 830, 837 ( A l a . 2005), see J o h n s o n v. S o r e n s e n , and, remanded, t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d i n t r o d u c e d tending to prove that the former after the cause s u b s t a n t i a l evidence wife could not r e a s o n a b l y r e l i e d on h i s a l l e g e d f r a u d u l e n t s u p p r e s s i o n 15 was have of the 2110666 fact that testified the equity account that, before and The former husband the former w i f e purchased the he and t h e f o r m e r w i f e h a d met w i t h p o u l t r y f a r m i n 1988, he existed. the s e l l e r s o f t h e p o u l t r y f a r m and t h a t t h e s e l l e r s h a d t o l d t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d and t h e f o r m e r w i f e t h a t t h e y w o u l d have a G o l d Kist equity account i f they purchased farm and J e a n F o w l e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she and h e r t h e n h u s b a n d , who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the Gold K i s t is now deceased, h u s b a n d and the had sold former cooperative. the wife the p o u l t r y poultry i n 1988. farm She to the further former testified t h a t she and h e r l a t e h u s b a n d had met w i t h t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d and t h e f o r m e r w i f e b e f o r e t h e y p u r c h a s e d t h e p o u l t r y f a r m and that husband had Fowler and her late h u s b a n d and t h e f o r m e r w i f e equity account i f they told both the former t h a t t h e y w o u l d have a G o l d purchased the p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the Gold K i s t c o o p e r a t i v e . poultry farm Kist and In a d d i t i o n , Fowler t e s t i f i e d t h a t she and h e r l a t e h u s b a n d h a d e x p l a i n e d how Gold K i s t e q u i t y a c c o u n t s w o r k e d and t h a t she and h e r l a t e h u s b a n d had taken both Gold K i s t were the growers' former meeting h u s b a n d and the where G o l d K i s t discussed. 16 former w i f e equity to a accounts 2110666 As n o t e d introduced substantial evidence tending t o prove her c l a i m of fraudulent suppression; however, husband Fowler, above, based on the t r i a l the former w i f e the testimony of the former and c o u r t as t h e t r i e r o f f a c t c o u l d have f o u n d f r o m t h e c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e f o r m e r w i f e h a d known about the existence of the e q u i t y account since 1988. See Woods v. Woods, 653 So. 2d 312, 314 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1994) ("In ore tenus proceedings, the f a c t s and o f t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s , court should accept the t r i a l only that court i s the s o l e judge of testimony and t h e t r i a l i t considers t o be worthy of b e l i e f . " ) . Because such a f i n d i n g would support the trial court's respect i n favor of the former husband t o the fraudulent-suppression that the t r i a l supra. judgment That determination c l a i m , we must c o u r t made s u c h a f i n d i n g . factual finding, in t h a t the former w i f e turn, the equity account existed would support c o u l d n o t have f o r m e r h u s b a n d was e n t i t l e d respect and, assume See T r a n s a m e r i c a , r e l i e d on t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s a l l e g e d l y s u p p r e s s i n g that therefore, 17 a reasonably the fact that t o a judgment i n h i s f a v o r to the fraudulent-suppression with the with claim. Accordingly, we 2110666 affirm t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l fraudulent-suppression Finally, court with respect to the claim. the former wife argues that the t r i a l e r r e d i n d i s a l l o w i n g t h e amendment t o h e r c o m p l a i n t court adding a f r a u d u l e n t - t r a n s f e r c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e former husband and h i s present wife. The f o r m e r wife argues that the t r i a l court d i s m i s s e d t h a t amendment f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 12(b) ( 6 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., a n d t h a t t h a t d i s m i s s a l was erroneous because, she s a y s , c l a i m . However, a l t h o u g h that the t r i a l amendment stated a valid court's ruling disallowing t h e amendment was p r o m p t e d b y t h e m o t i o n s t o d i s m i s s f i l e d b y the former husband and h i s p r e s e n t w i f e , the language o f the o r d e r d i s a l l o w i n g t h e amendment makes i t c l e a r t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t was d i s a l l o w i n g t h e amendment p u r s u a n t t o R u l e Ala. 15(a), R. C i v . P., r a t h e r t h a n d i s m i s s i n g i t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 12(b) ( 6 ) . I n R e c t o r v. B e t t e r H o u s e s , I n c . , 820 So. 2d 75, 77¬ 78 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) , t h e supreme c o u r t stated: " R u l e 1 5 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., g o v e r n s amendments t o pleadings. I t provides, i n pertinent part: "'Unless a c o u r t has o r d e r e d o t h e r w i s e , a p a r t y may amend a p l e a d i n g w i t h o u t l e a v e o f c o u r t , b u t s u b j e c t t o d i s a l l o w a n c e on t h e c o u r t ' s own m o t i o n o r a m o t i o n t o s t r i k e o f an a d v e r s e p a r t y , a t any t i m e more t h a n 18 2110666 forty-two (42) d a y s before the f i r s t s e t t i n g o f t h e case f o r t r i a l , and such amendment s h a l l be f r e e l y a l l o w e d when j u s t i c e so r e q u i r e s . T h e r e a f t e r , a p a r t y may amend a p l e a d i n g o n l y b y l e a v e o f c o u r t , a n d l e a v e s h a l l be g i v e n o n l y upon a showing o f good cause.' " ( E m p h a s i s added.) I n B o r o s v. B a x l e y , 240 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) , we e x p l a i n e d : 621 So. 2d "'Although Rule 15(a) i t s e l f c a l l s f o r l i b e r a l amendment, t h i s C o u r t h a s h e l d c o n s i s t e n t l y that "the grant or d e n i a l of l e a v e t o amend i s a m a t t e r t h a t i s w i t h i n the d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t and i s s u b j e c t t o r e v e r s a l on a p p e a l o n l y f o r an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . ' "621 So. 2d a t 245 ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . Thus, 'Rule 15, [ A l a . R. C i v . P . ] , i s n o t c a r t e blanche authority t o amend a c o m p l a i n t a t any time.' S t a l l i n g s v. A n g e l i c a U n i f o r m Co., 388 So. 2d 942, 947 ( A l a . 1980) ( q u o t i n g S t e a d v. B l u e Cross-Blue S h i e l d o f A l a b a m a , 294 A l a . 3, 6, 310 So. 2d 469, 471 ( 1 9 7 5 ) ) . '[U]ndue d e l a y i n f i l i n g an amendment, when i t c o u l d have b e e n f i l e d e a r l i e r b a s e d on t h e information a v a i l a b l e or discoverable, i s i n i t s e l f g r o u n d f o r d e n y i n g an amendment.' P u c k e t t , T a u l & Underwood, I n c . v. S c h r e i b e r C o r p . , 551 So. 2d 979, 984 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . ' [ I ] f t h e c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s ... t h a t a p a r t y has had s u f f i c i e n t o p p o r t u n i t y t o s t a t e a c l a i m ... b u t has f a i l e d t o do s o , l e a v e t o amend may p r o p e r l y be d e n i e d . ' W a l k e r v . T r a u g h b e r , 351 So. 2d 917, 922 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 7 7 ) . " In the the present former wife's case, a l l t h e t r a n s a c t i o n s c h a l l e n g e d by fraudulent-transfer claim occurred, and were d i s c o v e r a b l e , b e f o r e t h e f o r m e r w i f e f i l e d t h e amendment 19 2110666 to her wife complaint d i d not adding the i n c l u d e the g o o d - w i l l c l a i m , yet the fraudulent-transfer claim in amendment. A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e t r i a l amendment a d d i n g the to summary, we a f f i r m the judgment of the t r i a l cause with determine the the c o n v e r s i o n instructions value of to the the equity a t t r i b u t a b l e to the e q u i t y account, the evidence awarding proper court r e v e r s e the the already presented former w i f e claim, c l a i m ; and we trial court account, as judgment c o u r t w i t h r e s p e c t to the e q u i t y - a c c o u n t t h e g o o d - w i l l c l a i m , and the a the Id. t h e f r a u d u l e n t - s u p p r e s s i o n c l a i m ; we of the t r i a l that c o u r t ' s d i s a l l o w a n c e of f r a u d u l e n t - t r a n s f e r c l a i m was e x e r c i s e of i t s d i s c r e t i o n . In former remand (1) the to funds and t h e g o o d w i l l b a s e d on and one-half of to enter that value a judgment and (2) to d e t e r m i n e t h e amount o f damages t h e f o r m e r w i f e i s e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r on h e r c o n v e r s i o n c l a i m b a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e already presented of former and wife to on enter her a judgment conversion finding claim and i n favor awarding her the that amount o f damages. The appeal parties' are requests f o r the award of a t t o r n e y f e e s denied. 20 on 2110666 AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thomas a n d Moore, J J . , concur i n the r e s u l t , without writings. Donaldson, P.J., J . , dissents, with joins. 21 writing, w h i c h Thompson, 2110666 DONALDSON, J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g . When t h e s e p a r t i e s d i v o r c e d i n 1993, t h e G o l d K i s t a c c o u n t was h e l d Although certain provision "residuary" asset spouse. i n t h e name o f t h e f o r m e r the p a r t i e s ' divided other solely specific addressing clause held 1993 divorce property, any husband. agreement i t d i d not contain unspecified assets, e.g., solely i n t h e name marital filed things, a determination divorce asset to that a complaint seeking, t h a t s h e was e n t i t l e d t o that had n o t been addressed j u d g m e n t . As n o t e d i n t h e o r i g i n a l i t was i n t h e 1993 decision i n this case: "[T]he former wife insists that she h a s n o t i m p r o p e r l y attempted t o reopen t h e p r o p e r t y - d i v i s i o n aspects o f t h e d i v o r c e judgment b u t t h a t she i s i n s t e a d a s s e r t i n g a r i g h t t o a claimed m a r i t a l share of t h e e q u i t y t h a t had a c c r u e d i n t h e e q u i t y account d u r i n g t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e ( i . e . , f r o m 1988-1993) . She p o i n t s o u t t h a t t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t was s i l e n t as t o t h a t m a r i t a l a s s e t , a n d she c l a i m s that, t h e r e f o r e , h e r i n t e r e s t i n t h a t a s s e t i s t h e same a s i t was d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e . See Ex p a r t e D a v i s , 4 95 So. 2d [672] a t 673 [ ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) ] , a n d M c G u i r e [ v . Horton], 586 So. 2d [9] a t 9 [ ( A l a . C i v . App. 1991)]." S m i t h v. C a h i l l , a o f a spouse a p o r t i o n o f t h e e q u i t y a c c o u n t because, she a s s e r t e d , a a a w a r d i n g a l l r i g h t s and i n t e r e s t s i n any I n 2009, t h e f o r m e r w i f e among o t h e r settlement equity 72 So. 3d 692, 696 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) . 22 2110666 The former wife appealed the trial court's initial judgment d e n y i n g her c l a i m " t o the e x t e n t t h a t i t p r e c l u d e [ d ] her from c l a i m i n g m a r i t a l r i g h t s as t o t h e e q u i t y a c c o u n t from p r o c e e d i n g to t r i a l o f f r a u d and c o n v e r s i o n at 695. The designation defenses former of were settlement equity d i d not account the e q u i t y appear as account to a martial was contest the asset. His addressed i n the a g r e e m e n t and a w a r d e d t o h i m a n d / o r t h a t t h e f o r m e r w i f e ' s c l a i m s were t i m e - b a r r e d . The p l u r a l i t y o p i n i o n o f t h i s c o u r t remanded t h e c a s e t o t h e t r i a l wife claims r e l a t i n g to the e q u i t y account." I d . husband the that a g a i n s t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d on and c o u r t so t h a t t h e former c o u l d p u r s u e h e r c l a i m t o t h e e q u i t y a c c o u n t as w e l l h e r f r a u d and c o n v e r s i o n trial court followed the claims. I d . a t 699. mandate, and the On as remand, t h e former wife was p e r m i t t e d to present evidence r e g a r d i n g her claims through the adversarial The process. former wife d i d not "own" one-half of a c c o u n t a t t h e t i m e o f t h e d i v o r c e i n 1993 b e c a u s e was h e l d i n t h e name o f t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d a l o n e . a c a s e i n w h i c h j o i n t l y owned p r o p e r t y was d i v o r c e judgment. For example, 23 in the equity that asset This i s not not mentioned in a S m i t h v. S m i t h , 892 So. 2d 2110666 384 ( A l a . C i v . App. owners o f c e r t a i n the wife were 2 0 0 3 ) , t h e h u s b a n d and t h e w i f e were j o i n t real property, listed as i . e . , both grantees on the the deed. husband The and divorce judgment d i d not s p e c i f i c a l l y a l l o c a t e the r e a l p r o p e r t y , therefore, the the w i f e property remained a j o i n t because "'the parties tenant [were] and left and co-owner i n the same p o s i t i o n r e l a t i v e t o t h a t a s s e t as t h e y were i n p r i o r t o decree.'" 89, 495 90 I d . a t 389 ( q u o t i n g J o h n s o n v. ( A l a . C i v . App. So. 2d 672 (Ala. 1991), c i t i n g 1996)). J o h n s o n , 585 i n t u r n Ex p a r t e Further, Alabama is of So. the 2d Davis, not a "community p r o p e r t y " s t a t e where e a c h s p o u s e i s a u t o m a t i c a l l y e n t i t l e d t o h a l f o f t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s upon d i s s o l u t i o n o f t h e marriage. W i l k i n s o n v. W i l k i n s o n , Civ. 2004). App. Instead, the equity account 905 was So. a 2d 1, 9, n.2 marital asset s u b j e c t t o a l l o c a t i o n a n d / o r d i v i s i o n as p a r t o f t h e proceedings. In d e t e r m i n i n g marital estate, a t r i a l (Ala. divorce the e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n of c o u r t ' s a l l o c a t i o n n e e d n o t be the equal: "[A] t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i v i s i o n o f m a r i t a l a s s e t s must be equitable; i t need not be 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 sound d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t . G e o r g e v. G e o r g e , 14 So. 3d 180, 183 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009); 24 was 2110666 and G o l d e n v. G o l d e n , 681 App. 1996) S t o n e v. S t o n e , 26 When dividing apportion or division and when t a k e n awarded So. as 3d 1232, marital divide each award of a w h o l e . The former wife account, but i t was not t h a t c o u r t , not 2d 605, 1237 608 assets, a trial individual trial a l l or (Ala. Civ. ( A l a . C i v . App. court a court asset; a l l m a r i t a l assets the for So. r e q u i r e d t o do need not rather, the must be certainly portion so. equitable could of The 2009). the have equity decision was an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t , t o make: "We must remember t h a t '[w]e are a u t h o r i z e d to d i s t u r b the t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n o n l y i f i t i s u n s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e and, therefore, i s u n j u s t and p a l p a b l y w r o n g . ' G r i m s l e y v. Grimsley, 545 So. 2d 75, 76 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 9 ) . I t i s n o t f o r an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t t o s u b s t i t u t e i t s j u d g m e n t for t h a t of the t r i a l c o u r t . " Ex p a r t e The Durbin, trial 818 So. 2d 404, 409 ( A l a . 2001). court properly considered o f m a r i t a l a s s e t s as c o n t a i n e d i n t h e 1993 agreement i n making the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h i s court presented i n S m i t h v. the Cahill. entire divorce division settlement r e q u i r e d by t h e mandate Although the former wife e v i d e n c e t o t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d have determined from the proceeding t h a t the evidence presented e q u i t y a c c o u n t had 25 at the adversarial l i m i t e d value at the 2110666 time of the conditions parties' on i t s liquidation, liquidation, business divorce and based the prohibitions with Gold Kist i f the on tax years for and consequences of any continuing to do against a c c o u n t was v a l u e o f t h e a c c o u n t a t t h e t i m e i t was restrictions liquidated. converted The to stock 11 a f t e r t h e p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e w o u l d be r e l e v a n t t o a c l a i m damages for fraud or conversion r i g h t t o r e c o v e r b a s e d on t h o s e trial c o u r t . I t was court t o make an w i t h i n the award of the had the former wife's c l a i m s b e e n s u s t a i n e d by sound d i s c r e t i o n of the equity account to the the trial former h u s b a n d , and t h a t a w a r d c a n n o t be d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l b a s e d on the f a c t s of t h i s case. After a l l the hearing testimony, the trial court a g a i n s t t h e f o r m e r w i f e on h e r c l a i m s o f f r a u d and "The in conversion. e x i s t e n c e of f r a u d i s a q u e s t i o n f o r the t r i e r of f a c t this case, J a n d a , 984 So. the trial 2d 434, court's determination the found former matter wife within court 436 to determine." ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007). Janda The t h a t the former husband d i d not regarding that the court's c o u r t determined t h a t the equity discretion. account the former husband i s e n t i t l e d 26 v. trial defraud i s , again, Because a trial to a l l 2110666 rights, title, conversion claim and c a n n o t be A different facts to interest result in affirm Because could well I find equity account, a sustained. of t h i s case, but the d e c i s i o n make. the no abuse t h e judgment. T h e r e f o r e , Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s . 27 have been r e a c h e d on t h e was f o r the t r i a l of d i s c r e t i o n , I respectfully I dissent. court would

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.