Dana J. Lacey v. Russell S. Lacey
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL:
2/15/2013
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
2110692
Dana J . Lacey
v.
R u s s e l l S. Lacey
Appeal from DeKalb C i r c u i t
(DR-05-167.01)
Court
On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g
THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e .
T h i s c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n o f December 14, 2012, i s w i t h d r a w n ,
and
the following i s substituted therefor.
Dana
J . Lacey ("the w i f e " )
a n d R u s s e l l S. L a c e y ( " t h e
h u s b a n d " ) were d i v o r c e d b y a F e b r u a r y 6, 2007, j u d g m e n t o f t h e
trial
court
that
incorporated
the parties'
settlement
2110692
agreement.
Pursuant
a w a r d e d , among o t h e r
of r e a l p r o p e r t y ,
was
and
awarded a l l the
to
the
divorce
judgment,
the
t h i n g s , the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e ,
certain f i n a n c i a l assets.
p a r t i e s ' remaining
real
The
estate
wife
was
a parcel
husband
and
the
p a r t i e s ' e n t i r e i n t e r e s t i n a b u s i n e s s known as " D o u b l e D e l t a ,
Inc."
In
addition,
paragraph
14
of
the
divorce
judgment
provided:
"14.
T h a t t h e [ h u s b a n d ] s h a l l pay t o t h e [ w i f e ]
$2,500 p e r month f o r 96 months w i t h s a i d payments t o
t e r m i n a t e p r i o r t o t h e 96 p a y m e n t s o n l y upon h e r
death.
The t o t a l o f $240,000 s h a l l be s e c u r e d by a
mortgage or o t h e r s e c u r i t y i n t e r e s t i n r e a l and/or
p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y s u f f i c i e n t t o c o v e r any
remaining
b a l a n c e due u n d e r t h e t e r m s o f t h i s o r d e r and
by
l i f e i n s u r a n c e i n an amount s u f f i c i e n t t o make t h e
payment i n t h e e v e n t o f t h e [ h u s b a n d ] ' s d e a t h .
The
amount o f s e c u r i t y o r i n s u r a n c e
required
shall
d e c r e a s e w i t h e a c h payment.
"The
parties
understand
that
the
initial
s e c u r i t y s h a l l be s e c o n d m o r t g a g e s on p r o p e r t i e s and
s u b o r d i n a t e t o e x i s t i n g i n d e b t e d n e s s on t h e b u s i n e s s
of
the
[husband].
That
the
parties
further
u n d e r s t a n d and i t i s t h e o r d e r o f t h i s c o u r t t h a t
from time to time r e f i n a n c i n g or other m o d i f i c a t i o n s
of the f i n a n c i a l arrangement of the [husband]'s
business
may
be
r e q u i r e d and
the [ w i f e ]
shall
f o r t h w i t h e x e c u t e any and a l l documents n e c e s s a r y t o
allow said modifications
or r e f i n a n c i n g of
the
[husband]'s business
f o r so l o n g as t h e
[wife]
remains f u l l y secured f o r s a i d payments."
N e i t h e r p a r t y appealed the d i v o r c e
2
judgment.
2110692
On May 30, 2008, t h e h u s b a n d f i l e d
a petition
v a r i o u s p o r t i o n s of t h e d i v o r c e judgment.
t o modify
In pertinent part,
t h e h u s b a n d a l l e g e d t h a t p a r a g r a p h 14 o f t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t
c o n s t i t u t e d an award o f r e h a b i l i t a t i v e a l i m o n y ,
a termination of that purported
answered
alimony o b l i g a t i o n .
and a r g u e d , i n p e r t i n e n t
c o n s t i t u t e d a nonmodifiable
alimony i n gross.
a n d he s o u g h t
part,
that
The w i f e
paragraph
14
property d i v i s i o n i n the nature of
The w i f e l a t e r f i l e d
a p e t i t i o n asking the
t r i a l court t o enforce the divorce judgment; i n that p e t i t i o n ,
she
a l l e g e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d h a d f a i l e d t o make t h e payments
r e q u i r e d b y p a r a g r a p h 14 o f t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t .
The t r i a l
c o u r t c o n d u c t e d an o r e t e n u s h e a r i n g .
party t e s t i f i e d at the hearing.
The p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t h a t ,
i n J u l y 2008, t h e w i f e r e m a r r i e d ,
stopped making
t h e payments
Neither
a n d i n May 2009 t h e h u s b a n d
ordered
i n paragraph
14 o f t h e
d i v o r c e judgment.
The
attorney
divorce proceedings
who
represented
t h e husband
during
the
t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a t some p o i n t , t h e h u s b a n d
c o n t a c t e d h i m a n d i n f o r m e d h i m t h e r e was a d i s p u t e b e t w e e n t h e
p a r t i e s r e g a r d i n g w h e t h e r p a r a g r a p h 14 c o n s t i t u t e d an a w a r d o f
periodic
alimony
or alimony
i n gross.
3
I n response,
the
2110692
attorney
sent
a F e b r u a r y 2008 l e t t e r
concerning
that
evidence.
The
divorce
dispute; that
attorney
proceedings
who
to the wife's
letter
was
represented
testified
that
he
not admitted
the wife
drafted
j u d g m e n t and t h a t t h e h u s b a n d ' s a t t o r n e y
before
On
i t was
submitted
November
modification
17,
judgment
to the t r i a l
2011,
in
the
the
one
request
denied
f o r p e r i o d i c alimony,
court
The w i f e
the
trial
relief
and i t g r a n t e d
requested
entered
that
forth
in detail
an o r d e r
i t s finding
the
a
the
judgment
husband's
The t r i a l
court
vacating
On M a r c h 5, 2012,
t h e November
2011, j u d g m e n t and e n t e r i n g a new j u d g m e n t .
set
draft
by t h e p a r t i e s .
f i l e d a postjudgment motion.
court
divorce
entered
i t determined
t h a t t h a t o b l i g a t i o n be t e r m i n a t e d .
a l l other
the
court.
o b l i g a t i o n s e t f o r t h i n p a r a g r a p h 14 o f t h e d i v o r c e
was
into
during
approved that
trial
which
attorney
The t r i a l
17,
court
t h a t t h e award s e t f o r t h i n
p a r a g r a p h 14 o f t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t c o n s t i t u t e d an a w a r d o f
p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y , and i t t e r m i n a t e d
the husband's
t o p a y t h a t award.
appealed.
The w i f e
The w i f e t i m e l y
a r g u e s on a p p e a l t h a t t h e t r i a l
obligation
court
erred i n
i n t e r p r e t i n g p a r a g r a p h 14 o f t h e p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t as
4
2110692
an
award of p e r i o d i c
With
alimony r a t h e r
r e g a r d to the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
a l i m o n y i n g r o s s , t h i s c o u r t has
than
alimony
of p e r i o d i c
in gross.
alimony
stated:
"Our supreme c o u r t has e x p l a i n e d t h e d i f f e r e n c e
b e t w e e n p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y and a l i m o n y i n g r o s s .
Hager v. H a g e r , 293 A l a . 47, 299 So. 2d 743 ( 1 9 7 4 ) .
Alimony i n gross i s c o n s i d e r e d 'compensation f o r the
[ r e c i p i e n t spouse's] inchoate m a r i t a l r i g h t s [and]
... may a l s o r e p r e s e n t a d i v i s i o n o f t h e f r u i t s o f
t h e m a r r i a g e where l i q u i d a t i o n o f a c o u p l e ' s j o i n t l y
owned a s s e t s i s n o t p r a c t i c a b l e . '
[Hager v. H a g e r ] ,
293
Ala.
at
54,
299
So.
2d
at
749.
An
alimony-in-gross
award
'must
satisfy
two
r e q u i r e m e n t s , (1) t h e t i m e o f payment and t h e amount
must be c e r t a i n , and (2) t h e r i g h t t o a l i m o n y must
be v e s t e d . ' Cheek v. Cheek, 500 So. 2d 17, 18 ( A l a .
C i v . App. 1 9 8 6 ) .
I t must a l s o be p a y a b l e o u t o f t h e
p r e s e n t e s t a t e o f t h e p a y i n g s p o u s e as i t e x i s t s a t
t h e t i m e o f t h e d i v o r c e . [Hager v. H a g e r ] , 293 A l a .
a t 55, 299 So. 2d a t 750.
In o t h e r words, alimony
i n g r o s s i s a f o r m o f p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t . [Hager v.
H a g e r ] , 293 A l a . a t 54, 299 So. 2d a t 749.
An
a l i m o n y - i n - g r o s s award i s g e n e r a l l y not m o d i f i a b l e .
Id.
" P e r i o d i c a l i m o n y , on t h e o t h e r h a n d , ' i s an
allowance f o r the f u t u r e support of the [ r e c i p i e n t
spouse] p a y a b l e from the c u r r e n t e a r n i n g s of the
[ p a y i n g s p o u s e ] . ' [Hager v. H a g e r ] , 293 A l a . a t 55,
299 So. 2d a t 750.
I t s purpose ' i s to support the
f o r m e r d e p e n d e n t s p o u s e and e n a b l e t h a t s p o u s e , t o
the e x t e n t p o s s i b l e , to m a i n t a i n the s t a t u s t h a t the
p a r t i e s had e n j o y e d d u r i n g the m a r r i a g e , u n t i l t h a t
spouse i s s e l f - s u p p o r t i n g or m a i n t a i n i n g a l i f e s t y l e
o r s t a t u s s i m i l a r t o t h e one e n j o y e d d u r i n g t h e
marriage.'
O'Neal v. O ' N e a l , 678 So. 2d 161, 164
( A l a . C i v . App. 1996)
(emphasis a d d e d ) .
Periodic
a l i m o n y i s m o d i f i a b l e b a s e d upon c h a n g e s i n t h e
p a r t i e s ' f i n a n c i a l c o n d i t i o n s o r n e e d s , s u c h as an
5
and
2110692
i n c r e a s e i n the need of the r e c i p i e n t spouse, a
d e c r e a s e i n t h e income o f t h e p a y i n g s p o u s e , o r an
i n c r e a s e i n t h e income o f t h e r e c i p i e n t s p o u s e .
See
T i b b e t t s v. T i b b e t t s , 762 So. 2d 856, 858 ( A l a . C i v .
App.
1999).
The
paying
spouse's duty
to
pay
p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y may be t e r m i n a t e d by p e t i t i o n and
p r o o f t h a t t h e r e c i p i e n t s p o u s e has r e m a r r i e d o r i s
c o h a b i t i n g w i t h a member o f t h e o p p o s i t e s e x . A l a .
Code 1975, § 30-2-55."
T e n E y c k v.
TenEyck,
885
So.
2d
146,
151-52
(Ala. Civ.
App.
2003).
In
determining
supreme c o u r t has
"the
source
of
importance."
the
nature
the
payment
and
So.
2d a t 152
purpose are
our
award i s u n s p e c i f i e d ,
purpose
are
of award i s not
[judgment],
important
i s periodic
alimony
or
500
So.
2d
17,
Walls
v.
Walls,
860
So.
2d
352,
("The
amended
In such
a case,
source
of
prime
743,
885
specifically
o f payment
and
i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether
alimony
Cheek,
judgment
the
factors
Cheek v.
i t s purpose,
alimony,
See a l s o T e n E y c k v. T e n E y c k ,
("'When t h e t y p e
s t a t e d i n the d i v o r c e
award.
the
award of
Hager v. H a g e r , 293 A l a . 47, 55, 299 So. 2d
(1974) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) .
award
an
h e l d t h a t when t h e
750
its
of
an
(quoting
( A l a . C i v . App.
19
i n gross.'"
1986)));
357
does
not
the
source
( A l a . C i v . App.
state
the
nature
of
2003)
this
o f t h e award, as w e l l
as
are f a c t o r s to c o n s i d e r i n d e t e r m i n i n g the nature
6
2110692
of the award.");
and K i l g o r e v. K i l g o r e ,
( A l a . C i v . App.
1990)
specified,
source
prime
the
572
So.
2d 480,
482
("When t h e t y p e o f a w a r d i n t e n d e d i s n o t
of
the
award
and
the
purpose
are
of
t h e s o u r c e o f a payment
of
importance.").
It
i s well
established
that
p e r i o d i c alimony i s the c u r r e n t earnings of the support-paying
spouse.
Hager v.
Hager,
293
A l a . a t 55,
299
So.
2d a t
( " ' [ P ] e r i o d i c a l i m o n y ' i s an a l l o w a n c e f o r t h e f u t u r e
750
support
of the [ r e c i p i e n t spouse] p a y a b l e from the c u r r e n t e a r n i n g s o f
the
[ p a y o r s p o u s e ] . " ) ; Rose v. R o s e , 70 So. 3d 429,
C i v . App.
2011)
("The
433 ( A l a .
s o u r c e o f p e r i o d i c - a l i m o n y payments must
be t h e c u r r e n t income o f t h e p a y o r s p o u s e . " ) ; S m i t h v.
866
So.
2d
588,
591
(Ala. Civ.
App.
2003)
Smith,
("'[P]eriodic
a l i m o n y i s d e f i n e d as an a l l o w a n c e f r o m t h e c u r r e n t e a r n i n g s
of a spouse
of
the
o t h e r [ . ] '"
McCurley,
Hornbook
t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e c u r r e n t and c o n t i n u o u s
(quoting
J r . , Alabama
§
18-6
TenEyck, s u p r a
at
Divorce,
205-06
(same).
Penny
(3d ed.
A.
Davis
Alimony
&
&
Robert
Child
1 9 9 3 ) ) ) ; and
support
Earl
Custody
TenEyck
v.
I n c o n t r a s t , t h e payment s o u r c e o f an
a l i m o n y - i n - g r o s s o b l i g a t i o n i s the e s t a t e of the p a r t i e s or of
t h e p a y o r s p o u s e , and a l i m o n y i n g r o s s may be a w a r d e d when t h e
7
2110692
d i v i s i o n o f j o i n t l y owned a s s e t s i s n o t f e a s i b l e o r p r a c t i c a l .
Hager v. H a g e r , 293 A l a . a t 55, 299 So. 2d a t 750 ("'Alimony
in
gross'
inchoate
i s the present
marital
rights--dower,
d i s t r i b u t i v e share.
present
value
of the [recipient
homestead,
quarantine,
I t i s p a y a b l e o u t o f t h e [payor
e s t a t e as i t e x i s t s
a t t h e time
spouse's]
and
spouse's]
o f d i v o r c e . " ) ; see
a l s o T e n E y c k v. T e n E y c k , 885 So. 2d a t 151-52 (same); J o h n s o n
v. J o h n s o n , 840 So. 2d 909, 912 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002)
(same);
and C l e m e n t s v. C l e m e n t s , 990 So. 2d 383, 392 ( A l a . C i v . App.
2007)
("[A]n
alimony-in-gross
present estate of the paying
On a p p l i c a t i o n
award
i s payable
from t h e
spouse.").
f o r r e h e a r i n g , t h e husband contends t h a t
t h e payments he h a d made i n t h e p a s t t o w a r d t h e o b l i g a t i o n s e t
forth
i n paragraph
14 were made f r o m h i s c u r r e n t
w h i c h he r e c e i v e d f r o m h i s b u s i n e s s .
f o r t h i n paragraph
other
However, t h e a w a r d s e t
14 s p e c i f i e s t h a t i t i s s e c u r e d b y , among
t h i n g s , a mortgage
on t h e p r o p e r t y
b u s i n e s s o r o t h e r a s s e t s o f t h e husband.
divorce
the w i f e
earnings,
judgment s p e c i f i e s
o f t h e husband's
In o t h e r words, t h e
t h a t i f t h e husband f a i l s
from h i s c u r r e n t e a r n i n g s ,
t o pay
t h e w i f e has a s e c u r i t y
i n t e r e s t " s u f f i c i e n t t o c o v e r any r e m a i n i n g b a l a n c e due" under
8
2110692
paragraph
14.
Thus, g i v e n t h e u n i q u e
circumstances of
this
c a s e , we c o n c l u d e t h a t b e c a u s e t h e o b l i g a t i o n may be e n f o r c e d
against
a s s e t s o f the husband's
estate,
the source
of the
o b l i g a t i o n a t i s s u e i s t h e c u r r e n t e s t a t e of the husband.
Further,
the requirement
t h a t t h e o b l i g a t i o n be
secured
by a l i e n on t h e h u s b a n d ' s p r o p e r t y i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e p u r p o s e
of t h e award i n p a r a g r a p h
14 o f t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t
compensate
her
business.
in
gross
the
wife
for
interest
in
the
husband's
See K i l g o r e v. K i l g o r e , 572 So. 2d a t 482
i s intended to effect
a final
i s to
("Alimony
t e r m i n a t i o n of the
p r o p e r t y r i g h t s and r e l a t i o n s o f t h e p a r t i e s and i s b a s e d
the v a l u e of the [ r e c i p i e n t spouse's]
payor
spouse's]
on
i n c h o a t e r i g h t s i n [the
estate.").
I n t h i s c a s e , t h e t i m e and amount o f payment
i s certain;
the d i v o r c e judgment o r d e r s t h a t t h e w i f e r e c e i v e a t o t a l o f
$240,000,
each.
paid
i n 96
equal
monthly
Thus, t h e award a t i s s u e meets
installments
the f i r s t
of
$2,500
requirement
t h a t i n o r d e r t o c o n s t i t u t e an a w a r d o f a l i m o n y i n g r o s s , t h e
t i m e and amount o f t h e payment
TenEyck, s u p r a
must be c e r t a i n .
T e n E y c k v.
(a r e q u i r e m e n t o f an a w a r d o f a l i m o n y i n g r o s s
i s t h a t t h e t i m e and amount o f t h e payment must be
9
certain).
2110692
In
i t s judgment, the
requirement
because,
wife's
right
353-54
be
also
two
vested.").
supra,
(1)
certain,
trial
v.
not
and
See
Hughes,
703
("It i s w e l l
requirements:
Trammell
1988) .
1996)
alimony
The
and
Hughes v.
considered
amount must be
App.
see
the
second
satisfied
the r i g h t had not v e s t e d because the
( A l a . C i v . App.
satisfy
that
t o payment e n d e d a t h e r d e a t h .
supra;
to
c o u r t found
a l i m o n y - i n - g r o s s a w a r d was
i t determined,
TenEyck,
order
f o r an
trial
in
the
So.
settled
gross,
time
T e n E y c k v.
the
of
2d
352,
that
award
payment
in
must
and
the
(2) t h e r i g h t t o a l i m o n y must be
court r e l i e d
Trammell,
upon K i l g o r e
523
So.
2d
437
v.
Kilgore,
(Ala. Civ.
I n K i l g o r e v. K i l g o r e , t h i s c o u r t c o n c l u d e d
that
" t h e most r e a s o n a b l e c o n s t r u c t i o n , " i d . a t 483, o f a p r o v i s i o n
s t a t i n g t h a t " ' [ t ] h e h u s b a n d s h a l l pay a l i m o n y t o t h e w i f e i n
t h e amount o f $400 p e r month f o r a p e r i o d o f t e n y e a r s
s u c h t i m e as she r e m a r r i e s o r d i e s , w h i c h e v e r
was
t h a t t h e a w a r d was
In
Trammell
concluded
because
v.
that
the
one
Trammell,
an
right
award
to
comes
first,'"
of p e r i o d i c alimony.
Id. at
523
this
So.
2d
of
alimony
payment
had
explained:
10
at
was
not
439,
periodic
vested;
until
the
482.
court
alimony
court
2110692
" I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e t h e award's t o t a l amount
can be a s c e r t a i n e d , and t h e t i m e f o r payment i s
c e r t a i n ; however t h e r i g h t i s not v e s t e d .
The
[judgment]
specifically
r e f e r s t o t h e a w a r d as
p e r i o d i c and p r o v i d e s f o r t h e s h o r t e n i n g o f t h e
payment p e r i o d i n t h e e v e n t o f d e a t h o f e i t h e r
spouse.
The
agreement f u r t h e r e n v i s i o n s a t a x
advantage
f o r the payor
spouse.
The
language
c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e s no i n t e n t i o n f o r t h e e s t a t e o f t h e
h u s b a n d t o be b o u n d i n t h e e v e n t o f h i s d e a t h .
Thus, t h e r i g h t i s n o t v e s t e d . "
In
this
case,
the
alimony
obligation,
by
terms, i s t e r m i n a b l e o n l y at the w i f e ' s death.
remains
i n force
upon
the
death
of
i t s express
The
the husband,
obligation
and
i t is
s e c u r e d n o t o n l y by p r o p e r t y w i t h i n t h e h u s b a n d ' s e s t a t e
but
a l s o , i n t h e e v e n t o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s d e a t h , by a l i f e - i n s u r a n c e
policy.
The
award
issue
at
language
of paragraph
14
i s terminable "only"
specifying
upon
the
that
wife's
the
death
demonstrates t h a t the award i s i n c o n t r a v e n t i o n of the g e n e r a l
law
that
death
of
an
award of p e r i o d i c
either
spouse
and
alimony
that
i s terminable at
the
i t i s t e r m i n a b l e upon
the
c o h a b i t a t i o n or r e m a r r i a g e of the r e c i p i e n t spouse.
2-55,
A l a . Code 1975
cohabitation
Stockbridge
1994)
or
v.
(periodic
remarriage
Reeves,
640
alimony i s terminable at
of
So.
See § 30¬
2d
the
recipient
947,
948
the
spouse);
(Ala. Civ.
App.
( c o n c l u d i n g t h a t the award a t i s s u e c o n s t i t u t e d a l i m o n y
11
2110692
in
g r o s s and n o t i n g t h a t
that
the payments
wife");
1118
at
Kelley
are
v.
"[t]his
to
cease
provision
upon
the
does n o t p r o v i d e
remarriage of
S t a t e Dep't o f Revenue,
( A l a . C i v . App.
796
So.
2d
the
1114,
2000) ( " [ P ] e r i o d i c a l i m o n y payments c e a s e
t h e d e a t h o f e i t h e r s p o u s e . " ) ; see a l s o K i l g o r e v. K i l g o r e ,
supra
( t h e a w a r d was
h e l d t o be p e r i o d i c
alimony because i t
s t a t e d i t w o u l d end a t t h e r e m a r r i a g e o r d e a t h o f t h e w i f e and
t h e r e was
because
no s t a t e m e n t t h a t i t was
alimony i n gross).
a periodic-alimony obligation
does
not
Also,
survive
the
death of the payor spouse, the s p e c i f i c a t i o n t h a t the alimony
o b l i g a t i o n a t i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e i s t o be s e c u r e d by i n s u r a n c e
on
the
periodic
husband's
alimony;
life
life
indicates
that
i n s u r a n c e may
Alexander,
(Moore,
65
So.
3d
958,
968-69
J . , c o n c u r r i n g i n the
award
n o t be u s e d
o b l i g a t i o n that i s terminable at death.
v.
that
is
to fund
See, e.g.,
("I
agree
an
Alexander
( A l a . C i v . App.
result)
not
with
2010)
the
h u s b a n d t h a t t h e o b l i g a t i o n t o p a y p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y ends upon
the
death of the o b l i g o r spouse;
thus, l i f e
p o s s i b l y be o r d e r e d t o ' s e c u r e ' t h a t
i n s u r a n c e cannot
obligation.").
1
On a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g , t h e h u s b a n d a r g u e s t h a t ,
i n r e c e n t c a s e l a w p r e c e d e n t , " l i f e i n s u r a n c e was m a n d a t e d t o
s e c u r e payment o f m o d i f i a b l e p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y . "
The c a s e s
1
12
2110692
In
both
Trammell,
Kilgore
supra,
to
implications,
were
Kilgore,
upon w h i c h t h e
s u c h as t e r m i n a t i o n
reference
v.
the
in addition
at
the
to
alimony.
Also,
simply
our
vested
Those o t h e r
supreme
signifies
death
court
that
2d a t 750
and
fact
of
Trammell
relied,
v.
factors
an
has
and
that
the
specified
the
tax
obligations
recipient
spouse,
t h a t t h e u n s p e c i f i e d awards o f
were i n t h e
f a c t o r s are
subject to m o d i f i c a t i o n . "
So.
court
periodic,
the
c o n t r i b u t e d to a determination
a l i m o n y were n o t
trial
and
upon t h e r e c i p i e n t s p o u s e ' s r e m a r r i a g e , a
o b l i g a t i o n as
terminable
supra,
held
award of
not
nature
of
periodic
present i n this
that
"the
term
'alimony i n gross'
case.
'vested'
is
not
Hager v. H a g e r , 293 A l a . a t 54,
299
( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) ; see a l s o B r u n n e r v. Ormsby,
10
c i t e d by t h e h u s b a n d i n s u p p o r t o f t h a t a s s e r t i o n a r e n o t on
point.
I n B u s h v. B u s h , 784 So. 2d 299, 300 ( A l a . C i v . App.
2000),
the
original
judgment
incorporated
the
parties'
agreement t h a t s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e d t h a t the o b l i g a t i o n a t
i s s u e was p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y and t h a t i t was t o be s e c u r e d by
l i f e i n s u r a n c e ; t h i s c o u r t a f f i r m e d a m o d i f i c a t i o n judgment
t h a t removed, among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t t h a t
o b l i g a t i o n be s e c u r e d by t h e l i f e - i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y . I n b o t h
L a c k e y v. L a c k e y , 18 So. 3d 393
( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) , and
S e l l e r s v. S e l l e r s , 893 So. 2d 456 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 4 ) , t h e
l i f e - i n s u r a n c e b e n e f i t s a w a r d e d t o t h e w i f e were l i s t e d as a
s e p a r a t e award f o r the b e n e f i t of the w i f e ; t h o s e b e n e f i t s
were n o t s p e c i f i e d as s e c u r i t y f o r t h e p e r i o d i c - a l i m o n y awards
at issue i n those cases.
13
2110692
So.
3d
18,
23
( A l a . C i v . App.
2008)
(same).
In Hager
v.
H a g e r , s u p r a , o u r supreme c o u r t r e v e r s e d t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h i s
c o u r t i n w h i c h we h e l d
gross
because
spouse.
t h a t an a w a r d c o u l d n o t be a l i m o n y i n
i t terminated at
the
death
of
the
recipient
R a t h e r , t h e supreme c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t "[w]e have
case which h o l d s t h a t the u n m o d i f i a b l e c h a r a c t e r of
in
gross'
is
changed
by
a
clause
that
H a g e r , 293 A l a . a t 54,
"The
necessarily
intent
to
inferred
299
award
from
unequivocally expressed."
226
( A l a . C i v . App.
So.
1991)
2d a t
the
Hager v.
750.
alimony
the
'alimony
terminates
i n s t a l l m e n t s i n c a s e o f t h e [payee s p o u s e ' s ] d e a t h . "
no
in
language
gross
used
should
or
should
be
be
B o l l i n g v. B o l l i n g , 586 So. 2d 225,
(emphasis a d d e d ) ; see a l s o Bonham v.
Bonham, 623 So. 2d 337, 338
( A l a . C i v . App.
1993)
("The
intent
t o a w a r d a l i m o n y i n g r o s s must be u n e q u i v o c a l l y e x p r e s s e d o r
necessarily
inferred
from
the
a d d e d ) ) ; and L a c e y v. Ward, 634
App.
1994)
language
So.
used."
2d 1013,
1015
(emphasis
(Ala. Civ.
("Because an a w a r d o f a l i m o n y i n g r o s s c a n n o t
m o d i f i e d , t h e i n t e n t t o g i v e s u c h an a w a r d s h o u l d be
be
clearly
e x p r e s s e d , or n e c e s s a r i l y i n f e r r e d , from the language u s e d . " ) .
Thus, t h e f a i l u r e t o e x p r e s s l y d e s i g n a t e t h e a w a r d as a l i m o n y
14
2110692
in
gross
rather,
or
the
language
to
refer
nature
to
of
i t as
the
such
award
may
McCurley,
be
inferred
from
the
See
o f t h e a w a r d and t h e f a c t s .
Robert E a r l
i s not d e t e r m i n a t i v e ;
Penny A.
Davis
and
J r . , Alabama D i v o r c e , A l i m o n y
C u s t o d y H o r n b o o k § 18-5
a t 253
( 4 t h ed. 2005)
t o l a b e l a p r o v i s i o n o f a [judgment]
& Child
("[T]he
failure
as a l i m o n y i n g r o s s
will
not d e f e a t a p r o v i s i o n which i n substance p r o v i d e s f o r alimony
in gross.
The d e s i g n a t i o n o f a p r o v i s i o n as a l i m o n y i n g r o s s
should
present,
be
but
i t is
not
mandatory."
(footnotes
omitted)).
In
that
the
of
that
paragraph
14.
A l t h o u g h the award t e r m i n a t e s a t t h e w i f e ' s d e a t h , t h a t
fact
award
this
i s one
award
is
case,
paragraph
f o r alimony
inferable
from
14
does
not
i n gross, but
the
language
a l o n e does n o t mean t h a t t h e r i g h t
of
alimony i n gross.
current
earnings.
the
award
the
of
nature
i s not v e s t e d .
H a g e r , 293 A l a . a t 54, 299 So. 2d a t 750.
characteristics
specify
indicate
Hager v.
Further, a l l other
that
i t is
one
of
The a w a r d i s n o t p a y a b l e f r o m t h e h u s b a n d ' s
Rather,
that
obligation
i s s e c u r e d by
a
m o r t g a g e on t h e p r o p e r t y i n t h e h u s b a n d ' s e s t a t e , i t s u r v i v e s
t h e d e a t h o f t h e h u s b a n d and i s s e c u r e d by l i f e i n s u r a n c e , and
15
2110692
the
amount
conclude
and
that
timing
the
of
trial
t h e payments
court
erred
are c e r t a i n .
We
i n concluding
p a r a g r a p h 14 o f t h e p a r t i e s '
divorce
award o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y .
R a t h e r , we h o l d
that
j u d g m e n t c o n s t i t u t e d an
that
that
award
i s i n the nature
of a
was one o f a l i m o n y i n g r o s s .
An
award
property
division,
modification.
supra.
of alimony
and
that
husband's
part
we h o l d
of
obligation
d i v o r c e judgment.
remanded
such
an
award
Hager v. H a g e r , s u p r a ;
Accordingly,
entering
i n gross
that
subject
to
and T e n E y c k v. T e n E y c k ,
the t r i a l
i t s judgment
under
i s not
court
that
paragraph
14
The j u d g m e n t i s r e v e r s e d ,
erred i n
terminated
of
the
the
parties'
and t h e cause i s
f o r t h e e n t r y o f a judgment i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h
this
opinion.
APPLICATION FOR REHEARING OVERRULED;
14,
2012,
WITHDRAWN;
OPINION
OPINION OF DECEMBER
SUBSTITUTED;
REVERSED
AND
REMANDED.
Pittman
Thomas
and Donaldson, J J . , c o n c u r .
a n d Moore,
J J . , concur
writings.
16
i n the r e s u l t ,
without
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.
