Michael L. Keating v. Jodi K. Keating

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 03/08/2013 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 2110816 Michael L. K e a t i n g v. J o d i K. K e a t i n g Appeal from Baldwin C i r c u i t (DR-10-900364) 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. 2110816 Michael L. Keating ("the husband") appeals from j u d g m e n t d i v o r c i n g h i m f r o m J o d i K. K e a t i n g ( " t h e w i f e " ) . a In t h e j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t , among o t h e r t h i n g s , d i v i d e d t h e marital $1,000 property and ordered e a c h month i n p e r i o d i c This court's following. review of the t r i a l . a of the i n M a r c h 1998. The c h i l d was manager the wife indicates record 11 y e a r s When t h e p a r t i e s m a r r i e d , regional t o pay the alimony. The p a r t i e s m a r r i e d born of the marriage. was the husband for a finance One c h i l d was o l d a t the time the wife company. said, she The wife t e s t i f i e d t h a t no money was owed on t h e house she l i v e d i n a t the t i m e she m a r r i e d the husband. restaurant chain i n Mobile. at the time w i f e ' s house. The h u s b a n d w o r k e d f o r a He d i d n o t own any r e a l of the marriage, so the p a r t i e s property lived i n the E v e n t u a l l y , t h e w i f e s a i d , t h e y s o l d h e r house and b u i l t a new h o u s e . L a t e r , t h e y s o l d t h a t house and moved i n t o t h e h o u s e i n w h i c h t h e y were l i v i n g when t h e w i f e filed for that, a divorce in April 2010. when t h e p a r t i e s m a r r i e d , The w i f e also t e s t i f i e d she p a i d o f f t h e h u s b a n d ' s c a r d d e b t o f b e t w e e n $8,000 and $9,000 and h i s s t u d e n t w h i c h were a " f e w t h o u s a n d d o l l a r s . " 2 creditloans, 2110816 The wife testified ground of a d u l t e r y . that was a t t e n d i n g a divorce She s a i d t h a t , i n 2007, t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was h a v i n g he she sought graduate she d i s c o v e r e d an a f f a i r w i t h someone w i t h whom school. The w i f e said h u s b a n d t o l d h e r t h a t t h e i r m a r r i a g e was o v e r , love with t h e woman w i t h whom he was h a v i n g t h a t he a n d t h a t woman p l a n n e d t o m a r r y . testified, on t h e t h e woman d e c i d e d that the t h a t he was i n an a f f a i r , a n d However, t h e w i f e t o r e t u r n t o h e r own h u s b a n d . The h u s b a n d , i n t u r n , r e t u r n e d t o t h e w i f e a n d , a c c o r d i n g t o the w i f e , " p r e t t y much acted p e r f e c t " f o r a time, but, the wife s a i d , the a f f a i r had had a " c a t a s t r o p h i c , h e a r t b r e a k i n g " e f f e c t on t h e m a r r i a g e . In April 2010, t h e w i f e said, she l e a r n e d that the h u s b a n d was h a v i n g a n o t h e r a f f a i r , t h i s t i m e w i t h someone w i t h whom he h a d w o r k e d . She s a i d that t h e husband t o l d her at t h a t t i m e t h a t t h e i r m a r r i a g e was o v e r a n d t h a t s h e a s k e d h i m for h i s wedding band The wife residence told testified and h i s k e y t o t h e m a r i t a l that b u t t h a t he r e f u s e d , h i m n o t t o move. divorce she a s k e d t h e day a f t e r t h e husband telling The w i f e said she l e a r n e d 3 residence. t o leave the h e r h i s a t t o r n e y had that she f i l e d o f t h e husband's f o ra 2010 2110816 a f f a i r , b u t she s t a y e d i n t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e a b o u t two more weeks. During that two-week p e r i o d , the wife h u s b a n d w o u l d t a l k o p e n l y on t h e t e l e p h o n e whom he was h a v i n g wife's request the a f f a i r , that he the w i t h t h e woman w i t h a n d he c o n t i n u e d leave said, t h e house. to refuse the After about two weeks, t h e w i f e s a i d , she a n d t h e p a r t i e s ' c h i l d moved o u t o f the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e began h a v i n g At and i n t o a s m a l l e r house, and t h e w i f e t o pay r e n t . the time of the t r i a l , t h e p a r t i e s owed $292, 574 on t h e f i r s t m o r t g a g e on t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e . home-equity $54,000. the line of c r e d i t had purchased house") i n February did a balance of approximately D o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e was i n t r o d u c e d i n d i c a t i n g husband filed with They a l s o h a d a 2010, a b o u t f o r the divorce. not t e l l a house The w i f e that i n Daphne ( " t h e Daphne two months b e f o r e testified the wife t h a t t h e husband h e r a b o u t t h e Daphne h o u s e , a n d h e r name d i d n o t a p p e a r on a n y o f t h e p a p e r w o r k r e g a r d i n g t h e h o u s e . The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a f t e r she l e a r n e d a b o u t t h e Daphne h o u s e , t h e h u s b a n d t o l d h e r t h a t he h a d c a s h e d i n a r e t i r e m e n t for t h e down payment. retirement account. T h e r e was a p p r o x i m a t e l y $19,000 i n t h e The s e t t l e m e n t s t a t e m e n t p r e p a r e d 4 account for the 2110816 p u r c h a s e o f t h e Daphne h o u s e made a down payment i n d i c a t e d t h a t the husband had of $22,391.98. The m o r t g a g e b a l a n c e f o r t h e Daphne h o u s e was a p p r o x i m a t e l y trial. rental At the time income $72,000 a t t h e t i m e o f t h e of the t r i a l , t h e h u s b a n d was earning f r o m t h e Daphne h o u s e , and he h a d o f f e r e d t h e r e n t e r s an o p t i o n t o p u r c h a s e t h e h o u s e f o r $ 1 1 7 , 9 0 0 . At earning the time an of annual the t r i a l , income of the wife worked approximately at $59,640. h u s b a n d w o r k e d f o r t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Army C o r p s o f and had an annual income of a approximately bank The Engineers $84,575. In a d d i t i o n t o t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e j o b s , t h e p a r t i e s a t one t i m e h a d owned an e n g r a v i n g and p e r s o n a l i z a t i o n shop c a l l e d P e r s o n a l l y Y o u r s G i f t s & A c c e s s o r i e s , LLC P Y ; t h e h u s b a n d owned 49%. ("PY"). The w i f e owned 5 1 % o f The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t PY n e v e r t u r n e d a " s i g n i f i c a n t p r o f i t " and t h a t i t h a d "a l o t o f d e b t . " The wife company, said that she h a d f o r r e v e n u e PY had Deepwater H o r i z o n o i l spill she $15,065 had r e c e i v e d Coast Claims Facility wife t e s t i f i e d filed a lost as claim a with result BP, of the i n the Gulf of Mexico. f r o m BP 2010 She said from the Gulf with the o i l s p i l l . The and i n connection an o i l $72,900 t h a t she h a d u s e d t h e money she r e c e i v e d as a 5 2110816 r e s u l t o f t h e o i l s p i l l t o p a y PY's e x p e n s e s , i n c l u d i n g p a y i n g off debt, paying o u t s t a n d i n g i n v o i c e s t o v e n d o r s , and m a k i n g payroll. The separated, t h e h u s b a n d t o l d h e r he w a n t e d n o t h i n g more t o do with PY. She wife said said that after she and the husband t h a t she h a d c l o s e d PY and h a d s o l d t h e f u r n i t u r e , f i x t u r e s , and e x i s t i n g i n v e n t o r y f o r $65,000. wife t e s t i f i e d that, a f t e r using the o i l - s p i l l money f r o m t h e s a l e o f t h e a s s e t s still approximately undisputed that, $20,000 despite in being o f PY, debt. a 49% money a n d t h e the business The partner The evidence i n PY, was was the husband had not p a i d a n y t h i n g toward i t s debt. In a d d i t i o n t o h i s share o f PY, t h e h u s b a n d h a d a s e c o n d business, Keating & Associates. the husband wrote g r a n t s "project firm and Through K e a t i n g & A s s o c i a t e s , f o r government p r o j e c t s , engaged i n management," and d i d " s t u f f " firms he had had contact f o r an with architectural i n previous jobs. K e a t i n g & A s s o c i a t e s h a d no e m p l o y e e s o t h e r t h a n t h e h u s b a n d . The wife testified that Keating & Associates also earned income f r o m a s s i s t i n g BP a f t e r t h e o i l s p i l l i n t h e G u l f . The p a r t i e s ' " p r o p o s e d " t a x r e t u r n f o r 2010 i n d i c a t e d t h a t K e a t i n g & A s s o c i a t e s h a d income o f $109,791 t h a t y e a r . 6 The husband 2110816 s a i d t h a t , b e c a u s e o f h i s f u l l - t i m e j o b w i t h t h e Army C o r p s of E n g i n e e r s , he d i d n o t have t h e t i m e t o d e v o t e t o t h e p r o j e c t s he h a d b e e n w o r k i n g on t h r o u g h K e a t i n g & A s s o c i a t e s . time of the t r i a l , Keating that, he s a i d , he was & Associates. However, a month b e f o r e the At n o t e a r n i n g an income the husband he had trial, also become the from testified a one-third p a r t n e r i n a v e n t u r e c a l l e d G l o b a l I n f r a s t r u c t u r e s S y s t e m s and Services, work." derived which was established to do "energy management He s a i d t h a t he e x p e c t e d t o e a r n a t h i r d o f any from that business. The husband has profit also taught e n g i n e e r i n g c o u r s e s a t F a u l k n e r U n i v e r s i t y and t h e U n i v e r s i t y of S o u t h A l a b a m a , e a r n i n g a p p r o x i m a t e l y $12,000 a n n u a l l y . The w i f e h a d a r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t t h r o u g h h e r e m p l o y e r a p p r o x i m a t e l y $20,409. She t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a t one t i m e , of she h a d an a d d i t i o n a l r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t o f more t h a n $60,000, b u t t h e p a r t i e s c l o s e d t h a t a c c o u n t and u s e d t h e p r o c e e d s the purchase of the marital residence. The toward husband numerous r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t s a t t h e t i m e o f t h e t r i a l . had Those a c c o u n t s t o t a l e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y $57,386. The to meet wife t e s t i f i e d her monthly t h a t she h a d b e e n u s i n g c r e d i t expenses 7 after she and the cards husband 2110816 separated. their B o t h p a r t i e s were q u e s t i o n e d e x t e n s i v e l y r e g a r d i n g finances, certain including expenditures, their debt, the necessity the necessity f o r for certain deductions from t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e paychecks, l o a n s , and b u s i n e s s and to losses. Both p a r t i e s contended t h a t the other had access money t h a t was u n a c c o u n t e d f o r i n t h e documents e x c h a n g e d during discovery. After parties Hearing." the wife entered filed into a f o r a divorce "Temporary in April Agreement 2010, t h e Pending Final P u r s u a n t t o t h a t agreement, which t h e t r i a l court a d o p t e d on June 4, 2010, t h e h u s b a n d was t o r e t a i n of t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e . payments on t h e f i r s t for profits a l lutilities possession He a l s o was t o c o n t i n u e t o make t h e m o r t g a g e on t h a t r e s i d e n c e and t o pay f o rthe m a r i t a l residence. t h e w i f e were t o be e q u a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e The h u s b a n d a n d f o r t h e payments on the home-equity l i n e o f c r e d i t . The custody husband and t h e w i f e o f the minor p h y s i c a l custody child," also with agreed t o "share the wife having joint primary s u b j e c t t o t h e h u s b a n d ' s v i s i t a t i o n . However, the p a r t i e s a l s o agreed t o evenly d i v i d e " a l l expenses r e l a t e d to the minor c h i l d , " w i t h the caveat 8 that "[a]ny cost greater 2110816 t h a t $50.00 must be m u t u a l l y limited t o : "1. a g r e e d upon. Including but not E d u c a t i o n a l t u i t i o n , f e e s and meals/snacks. "2. Extracurricular "3. Summer camps a n d d a y c a r e . "4. C e l l phone "5. Clothing. "6. activities. bill. D o c t o r / c o - p a y expenses and p r e s c r i p t i o n s . " As t o t h o s e e x p e n s e s , t h e h u s b a n d a g r e e d t o r e i m b u r s e the wife for days payments s h e made on h i s behalf within 14 of notification. After divorcing the t r i a l , court l e g a l custody of the c h i l d , awarded p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l custody. t o p a y $1,123 p e r month i n c h i l d h u s b a n d was o r d e r e d past-due entered t h e p a r t i e s on t h e g r o u n d o f a d u l t e r y . were a w a r d e d j o i n t was the t r i a l pendente child judgment The p a r t i e s and t h e w i f e The h u s b a n d was o r d e r e d support. t o pay the w i f e a t o t a l lite a support. I n addition, the o f $17,259.82 i n However, after a h e a r i n g on t h e h u s b a n d ' s m o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e t h e j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t amended t h e j u d g m e n t a n d a w a r d e d t h e wife $8,629.91 i n p e n d e n t e l i t e 9 child support. That figure 2110816 r e p r e s e n t s h a l f o f t h e o r i g i n a l award, t o r e f l e c t t h e p a r t i e s ' agreement. The t r i a l c o u r t o r d e r e d t h a t t h e m a r i t a l home be s o l d a n d t h a t any e q u i t y r e m a i n i n g a f t e r t h e payment o f t h e m o r t g a g e , the home-equity l i n e o f c r e d i t , of t h e home was t o be p a i d and fees r e l a t e d t o t h e s a l e to the wife. The h u s b a n d was a l l o w e d t o remain i n t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e u n t i l i t s o l d , and he was o r d e r e d t o be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r m a k i n g t h e payments on both mortgage The the f i r s t and t h e home-equity l i n e h u s b a n d a l s o was a w a r d e d of credit. t h e h o u s e he h a d p u r c h a s e d i n Daphne. The wife was a w a r d e d a l l the business The h u s b a n d was a w a r d e d a l l t h e b u s i n e s s & Associates. vehicles. was responsible parties' credit $72 accounts credit interest i n Keating court ordered that the wife f o r paying t h e debt cards, which had a balance f i v e months b e f o r e court ordered i n PY. The p a r t i e s were e a c h a w a r d e d t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e I n addition, the t r i a l t o be interest on one o f t h e of approximately t h e j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d . that three of the p a r t i e s ' savings The trial o r "ETrade" be l i q u i d a t e d t o p a y t h e d e b t i n c u r r e d on two o t h e r cards, w h i c h had a combined 10 outstanding balance of 2110816 approximately entered. debt, $31,210.84 f i v e months b e f o r e The h u s b a n d was excluding debt Finally, the The "attached" ordered to to the pay marital the residence. wife $1,000 a alimony. husband t i m e l y appealed. The w i f e , who p r o se a t t i m e s d u r i n g t h i s l i t i g a t i o n , on was o r d e r e d t o pay any r e m a i n i n g m a r i t a l h u s b a n d was month i n p e r i o d i c the judgment has proceeded d i d not submit a b r i e f appeal. Our s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w o f a j u d g m e n t d e t e r m i n i n g an a w a r d of alimony and dividing marital property i s well settled. "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 evidence, 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 w r o n g . 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 ( A l a . 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 p r o p e r t y 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. 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 , the 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 the p a r t i e s ; t h e i r f u t u r e p r o s p e c t s ; t h e i r ages, h e a l t h , and s t a t i o n i n l i f e ; the l e n g t h of the 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 t y p e 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, 734 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) . '[W]e n o t e t h a t t h e r e i s no r i g i d s t a n d a r d o r m a t h e m a t i c a l formula 11 2110816 on w h i c h a t r i a l c o u r t must b a s e i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f a l i m o n y and t h e d i v i s i o n o f m a r i t a l a s s e t s . ' Yohey v. Yohey, 890 So. 2d 160, 164 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 4) ." S t o n e v. S t o n e , 26 So. 3d 1232, 1236 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . The h u s b a n d c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e amount o f p a s t - d u e p e n d e n t e lite c h i l d support the t r i a l c o u r t awarded t o t h e w i f e i n t h e f i n a l j u d g m e n t was m a t h e m a t i c a l l y i n c o r r e c t o r , a l t e r n a t i v e l y , that the t r i a l award because, temporary court exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n the husband agreement pendency o f the the says, the parties i n making that violated the during the award had reached litigation. The t r i a l c o u r t a w a r d e d t h e w i f e $20,731 f o r e x p e n s e s she h a d i n c u r r e d on b e h a l f of the c h i l d . o f f s e t t h a t amount b y $3,471.18 i n c u r r e d on b e h a l f husband The t r i a l the $17,259.82 agreement, $8,629.91. However, r e c o r d how the t r i a l so court then and i t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e i n pendente l i t e c o u r t t h e n d i v i d e d t h a t amount i n h a l f , parties' $20,731 trial f o r expenses the husband had of the c h i l d , owed t h e w i f e The that the wife support. to r e f l e c t was awarded t h i s c o u r t i s unable t o d i s c e r n from the court a r r i v e d i n e x p e n s e s , on at the i n i t i a l which the other based. 12 figure of c a l c u l a t i o n s were 2110816 The she w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d k e p t up w i t h t h e e x p e n s e s h a d i n c u r r e d on b e h a l f o f t h e c h i l d d u r i n g t h e 19 months b e t w e e n t h e t i m e t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r a d o p t i n g t h e temporary agreement and t h e e n t r y o f t h e f i n a l judgment. total amount o f those expenses was $18,542.66. agreed t h a t t h e husband's share o f those b e e n $9,271.33. did In addition, wife e x p e n s e s w o u l d have t h e w i f e a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t she n o t make a l l o f h e r s h a r e o f t h e payments t o w a r d t h e home- equity line agreement. of credit When as called f o r i n the t h e h u s b a n d was g i v e n m i s s e d payments, t h e w i f e said, discuss t h e husband each e x p e n d i t u r e s p e n t on b e h a l f acknowledged of the c h i l d ; pendency o f t h e l i t i g a t i o n , those that f o r those she d i d n o t o f more t h a n h o w e v e r , she s a i d , refused to discuss anything temporary he w o u l d owe h e r a t o t a l o f The w i f e with also a credit $5,196.33. had The The $50 t h e husband w i t h h e r and, t h r o u g h o u t t h e had r e f u s e d t o reimburse h e r f o r expenditures. In h i s o r i g i n a l b r i e f t o t h i s c o u r t , t h e husband a s s e r t e d t h a t he owes t h e w i f e for only $371.25 i n p e n d e n t e l i t e support t h e 19 months t h e t e m p o r a r y a g r e e m e n t was i n e f f e c t . On r e h e a r i n g , t h e h u s b a n d c o n t e n d s t h a t , "upon f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s , " 13 2110816 he d o e s n o t owe any p e n d e n t e lite support. Given that the p a r t i e s h a d a g r e e d t o d i v i d e t h e e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d on b e h a l f of the c h i l d , fees, meals including and expenses f o r items such as snacks, clothes, medical tuition, e x p e n s e s , and c h i l d ' s e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s , the husband's the claim that he s h o u l d p a y l e s s t h a n $400 t o w a r d s u p p o r t o f t h e c h i l d f o r a 19-month p e r i o d i s i m p l a u s i b l e . From the evidence contained i n the record, c o u r t c o u l d have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was in the entitled how the and that t o reimbursement f o r the expenses f o r w h i c h she h a d d o c u m e n t a t i o n . determine trial uncooperative s h a r i n g e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d on b e h a l f o f t h e c h i l d w i f e was the trial $8,629.91 i n p e n d e n t e l i t e N o n e t h e l e s s , b e c a u s e we court arrived at the cannot award of c h i l d s u p p o r t t o t h e w i f e , we must r e v e r s e t h e judgment as t o t h i s i s s u e and remand t h e c a u s e f o r the trial court to recalculate t h e amount o f p e n d e n t e s u p p o r t owed t o t h e w i f e o r t o d e m o n s t r a t e how lite i t reached the $20,731 amount o f e x p e n s e s on w h i c h i t s a w a r d i s b a s e d . The h u s b a n d a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e f i n a l judgment h i m t o make t h e m o n t h l y payments the requiring on b o t h t h e f i r s t m o r t g a g e m a r t i a l r e s i d e n c e and t h e h o m e - e q u i t y l i n e o f c r e d i t 14 on was 2110816 inequitable balance because, he says, approximately reason one-half ..." in of the on t h e h o m e - e q u i t y l i n e o f c r e d i t was a t t r i b u t a b l e t o the purchase o f the w i f e ' s v e h i c l e . that half alone, arguably, of the [home-equity He s t a t e s t h a t , "[f]or she s h o u l d be o b l i g a t e d t o p a y line of c r e d i t ] i n s t a l l m e n t s . The h u s b a n d ' s argument as t o t h i s i s s u e i s one p a r a g r a p h l e n g t h , a n d he f a i l s his to cite any a u t h o r i t y i n s u p p o r t o f position. " R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) [ , A l a . R. App. P.,] r e q u i r e s t h a t arguments i n b r i e f s c o n t a i n d i s c u s s i o n s o f f a c t s and r e l e v a n t l e g a l a u t h o r i t i e s t h a t s u p p o r t t h e p a r t y ' s p o s i t i o n . I f t h e y do n o t , t h e a r g u m e n t s a r e w a i v e d . Moore v. P r u d e n t i a l R e s i d e n t i a l S e r v s . Ltd. P'ship, 849 So. 2d 914, 923 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ; A r r i n g t o n v. M a t h i s , 929 So. 2d 468, 470 n. 2 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ; Hamm v. S t a t e , 913 So. 2d 460, 486 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 2 ) . 'This i s so, because " ' i t i s n o t t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h i s C o u r t t o do a p a r t y ' s legal research o r t o make and address legal a r g u m e n t s f o r a p a r t y b a s e d on u n d e l i n e a t e d g e n e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n s not supported by s u f f i c i e n t a u t h o r i t y o r a r g u m e n t . ' " ' Jimmy Day P l u m b i n g & H e a t i n g , I n c . v. S m i t h ,. 964 So. 2d 1, 9 ( A l a . 2007) ( q u o t i n g B u t l e r v. Town o f A r g o , 871 So. 2d 1, 20 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n Dykes v. Lane T r u c k i n g , I n c . , 652 So. 2d 248, 251 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) ) . " White 1058 Sands Group, L.L.C. v. PRS I I , L L C , 998 So. 2d 1 0 4 2 , ( A l a . 2008). M o r e o v e r , we n o t e t h a t , i n t h e f i n a l j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t p e r m i t t e d t h e husband t o remain i n t h e m a r i t a l 15 residence 2110816 until i ti s sold. A l s o , t h e p a r t i e s h a d u s e d t h e money f r o m t h e w i f e ' s r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t t o make t h e down payment on t h e marital residence. discovered affair, that The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t when t h e w i f e t h e h u s b a n d was i n v o l v e d i n a s e c o n d e x t r a m a r i t a l t h e husband acknowledged t h e a f f a i r and t o l d t h e w i f e their marriage was "over." When husband t o l e a v e t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e , so the wife and t h e c h i l d square footage were Throughout remained failed t h e pendency i n the m a r i t a l t o reimburse incurred on b e h a l f b e n e f i t of remaining the t r i a l of the residence. the wife She a l s o s a i d t h a t litigation, the A t t h e same f o r h i s share of the c h i l d . h a l f the t h e r e n t a l house d i d n o t . husband time, he of the expenses The h u s b a n d h a s h a d t h e i n t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e , a n d , as he t o l d c o u r t , h i s l i f e s t y l e has n o t changed s i n c e t h e w i f e and t h e c h i l d l e f t t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e . before residence f o r r e n t i n g had approximately had a p o o l ; refused, The w i f e s a i d t h e house of the m a r i t a l residence. the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e asked the t h e husband a n d t h e c h i l d moved t o a s e p a r a t e w h i c h t h e w i f e has had t o pay r e n t . she the wife u s , we cannot say that the t r i a l B a s e d on t h e r e c o r d court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n r e q u i r i n g t h e h u s b a n d t o make b o t h t h e m o n t h l y 16 2110816 mortgage payments payments on the on the m a r i t a l residence balance owed on the that the and the home-equity monthly line of credit. The husband also argues month i n p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y inequitable. and The s a i d her w i f e w o r k e d as was the a c c o u n t and He amount t h e each $3,156.52 e a c h month. I n h i s to demonstrate t h a t the a c t u a l l y $3,667.65, and w i f e ' s " t r u e " m o n t h l y income was discount $1, 000 a b r a n c h manager o f a bank the husband attempts $3,156.52 as t h e w i f e had of t o t h e w i f e i s n o t j u s t i f i e d and i s take-home pay b r i e f on a p p e a l , award not claimed. wife The husband c o n t r i b u t e d to t o t h e payment o f h e r attempts her to retirement health-insurance premium. a l s o c h a l l e n g e s a number o f t h e e x p e n s e s on h e r b u d g e t being too determines considered, high t h a t , by the month w i t h o u t On the monthly wife unnecessary. his The calculation, would have a husband ultimately when c h i l d surplus of support $518.81 is each r e c e i v i n g alimony. other hand, "disposable t h a t income was Corps or as the income" husband of claimed $5,112.14. that he I t appears had a that o n l y what he e a r n e d f r o m h i s j o b w i t h t h e Army of Engineers. I t d i d not 17 include his teaching jobs, 2110816 f r o m w h i c h he e a r n e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y $12,000 a n n u a l l y , income he e a r n e d f r o m t h e r e n t a l p r o p e r t y he h a d p u r c h a s e d i n Daphne, o r his income from K e a t i n g & Associates, w h i c h was more than $100,000 b e f o r e t h e d i v o r c e , o r f r o m h i s c o n s u l t i n g work w i t h Global Infrastructures Systems and Services. The husband c l a i m e d t h a t , b a s e d on h i s m o n t h l y take-home p a y o f $5,112.14, he w o u l d have a shortfall required t o pay evidence, the $1,000 trial o f $201.04 a month court e a c h month i f he i n alimony. could have Based believed on the were the wife's c a l c u l a t i o n s as t o h e r income and e x p e n s e s o v e r t h e h u s b a n d ' s calculations. Additionally, the d e t e r m i n e d t h a t the husband's t o t a l pay t h e w i f e him, $1,000 trial court income was have s u f f i c i e n t to a month i n a l i m o n y w i t h o u t as t h e h u s b a n d a r g u e s . could "crippling" A l s o , we n o t e t h a t t h e payments t o w a r d t h e m o r t g a g e and t h e b a l a n c e o f t h e h o m e - e q u i t y l i n e o f credit constitute expenditures. $3,190.18 of the husband's When t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e s e l l s , monthly the husband w i l l be r e l i e v e d o f t h a t b u r d e n and w i l l be a b l e t o l o w e r h i s m o n t h l y m o r t g a g e o r r e n t a l payments i f he c h o o s e s . F u r t h e r m o r e , i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t o a w a r d a l i m o n y and divide marital property, the t r i a l 18 court may consider the 2110816 relative fault marriage. App. the p a r t i e s L a c k e y v. L a c k e y , 2009); and Davis So. is of 3d guilty , f o r t h e breakdown 18 So. 3d 393, 401 v. D a v i s , (Ala. C i v . [Ms. 2110119, O c t . 12, 2012] ( A l a . C i v . App. 2012) . of misconduct of the "'Where one s p o u s e toward the other spouse, the t r i a l c o u r t ' s a w a r d may be as l i b e r a l as t h e e s t a t e o f t h e o f f e n d i n g spouse w i l l McDowell, Shirley permit under the circumstances.'" 644 So. 2d 27, 28 v. Shirley, 600 M c D o w e l l v. ( A l a . C i v . App. 1994) So. 2d 284, 287 (quoting ( A l a . C i v . App. 1992)). In h i s b r i e f , t h e husband appears t o argue t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d n o t have c o n s i d e r e d awarding the wife alimony reconciled after h i s affair the wife were affair. intimate evidence of h i s adultery i n because, he says, the p a r t i e s i n 2007 came t o l i g h t a n d he a n d after the wife The h u s b a n d d i d n o t p r o v i d e learned o f t h e 2010 any a u t h o r i t y f o r h i s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e p a r t i e s were i n t i m a t e a f t e r separated, the t r i a l court a d u l t e r y when d e t e r m i n i n g The after wife she whether t o award acknowledged discovered could not consider t h e husband's alimony. that t h e two h a d b e e n t h e husband's second 19 they intimate affair. She 2110816 testified that after she h a d moved t o t h e r e n t a l h o u s e , t h e h u s b a n d h a d o c c a s i o n a l l y come o v e r a n d " a c t e d l i k e he m i s s e d " her. She s a i d t h a t glass o f w i n e a n d t h a t , on " p r o b a b l y had they would watch t e l e v i s i o n "wound up h a v i n g r e l a t i o n s . " three" a n d have a occasions, The w i f e s a i d t h e i r they intimacy had o c c u r r e d b e c a u s e s h e was l o n e l y a n d m i s s e d t h e h u s b a n d a n d b e c a u s e he h a d t o l d h e r t h a t he m i s s e d h e r a n d " n o t t o g i v e up." The w i f e intimate, also testified that, after they t h e h u s b a n d t o l d h e r t h a t he was s t i l l h a d been seeing the woman w i t h whom he h a d b e e n h a v i n g an a f f a i r b u t t h a t t h e w i f e could no l o n g e r pursue a divorce on t h e g r o u n d o f a d u l t e r y because they had had sex s i n c e they had separated. the w i f e they on said, s h e n e v e r moved b a c k i n w i t h t h e husband and never r e c o n c i l e d a f t e r t h e second a f f a i r . the other hand, testified that However, The h u s b a n d , the wife h a d been t h e i n s t i g a t o r of t h e i r i n t i m a c y a f t e r they separated. He d i d n o t contend t h a t they had ever r e c o n c i l e d a f t e r t h e second a f f a i r . The that h u s b a n d a l s o c i t e s no a u t h o r i t y t o s u p p o r t the parties' requires intimacy a determination after separating that the wife 20 h i s contention necessarily condoned t h e a f f a i r . 2110816 In fact, our review never forgave Based various of the record indicates that or condoned the husband's on the evidence sources of of the adultery, his amount o f h i s income and income, the husband's the the child's lifestyle, t h e h u s b a n d ' s comment t h a t h i s l i f e s t y l e a t a l l s i n c e he trial t h e w i f e had c o u r t d i d not h u s b a n d t o pay The and the w i f e husband discretion engraving we not changed conclude that the $1,000 a month i n p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y . that i n d i v e s t i n g him PY. separated, had abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n o r d e r i n g asserts business, wife conduct. w i f e ' s i n c o m e , t h e c h a n g e s i n t h e w i f e and and the the trial court exceeded i t s of h i s i n t e r e s t i n the p a r t i e s ' The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t the b e e n p r o f i t a b l e and had not She s a i d t h a t she had u s e d t h e p r o c e e d s f r o m t h e s a l e , as w e l l as money r e c e i v e d as debts, but that PY a r e s u l t of still husband acknowledged t h a t PY's debt, business. even though had he he she had the had was of not a s o l d the o i l spill, debt Furthermore, i n arguing s h a r e o f PY was the t r i a l that business about paid 49% business. t o pay PY's $20,000. The any money shareholder toward in t h a t d i v e s t i n g him of h i s i n e q u i t a b l e , the husband never mentions c o u r t a w a r d e d him K e a t i n g 21 & Associates and the that divested 2110816 t h e w i f e o f any The interest husband conceded she may have had i n that business. t h a t , a l t h o u g h he d i d n o t have t h e he once h a d t o p u t i n t o K e a t i n g & A s s o c i a t e s , i t was ongoing concern. just become which he time still an E v i d e n c e a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t the husband had a p a r t n e r i n another expected to earn consulting income. The business from husband's c o n t e n t i o n t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d i v e s t i n g him o f his i n t e r e s t i n PY i s n o t w e l l The husband a l s o argues taken. t h a t the t r i a l d i s c r e t i o n i n r e q u i r i n g him t o l i q u i d a t e t o pay c e r t a i n m a r i t a l d e b t . w h i c h were a c c u m u l a t e d pay nor marital the debt wife mentioned, parties' n e c e s s a r i l y meant t h a t n e i t h e r the t r i a l court heard respective and incomes the Based the c o u r t abused proceeds of parties' from debt, of i t s discretion financial debt. 22 accounts husband As employment breakdown cannot of the say that i n ordering that be to r e g a r d i n g the their the the accounts. the evidence and causes those on t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s , we certain accounts d u r i n g the course of the marriage, marriage. trial financial The l i q u i d a t i o n o f t h e a c c o u n t s , r e c e i v e d proceeds opportunities, c o u r t abused i t s used t o pay the the 2110816 The h u s b a n d a l s o c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t a b u s e d i t s discretion in mandating more expensive health-insurance coverage through the w i f e ' s employer r a t h e r than the available The through h i s employer husband cites no i n c a l c u l a t i n g c h i l d support. authority for A c c o r d i n g l y , t h i s argument i s w a i v e d . So. 2d a t The insurance this contention. W h i t e Sands Group, 998 1058. husband argues that the trial court abused its d i s c r e t i o n i n a w a r d i n g t h e w i f e $12,000 t o be p a i d t o w a r d h e r attorney states fee. that In support the wife of his contention, f a i l e d t o demonstrate the that husband she f i n a n c i a l need f o r an award o f an a t t o r n e y f e e and t h a t was no e v i d e n t i a r y b a s i s f o r an award o f $12,000. "'Whether t o award an a t t o r n e y f e e i n a domestic r e l a t i o n s case i s w i t h i n the s o u n d 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, a b s e n t an abuse o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n , i t s ruling on that question will not be r e v e r s e d . Thompson v. Thompson, 650 So. 2d 928 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1994) . " F a c t o r s t o be c o n s i d e r e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t when a w a r d i n g such fees include the financial circumstances of the p a r t i e s , the p a r t i e s ' conduct, the r e s u l t s of the litigation, and, where a p p r o p r i a t e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s k n o w l e d g e and e x p e r i e n c e as t o t h e v a l u e o f t h e s e r v i c e s p e r f o r m e d by t h e a t t o r n e y . " F i g u r e s v. F i g u r e s , 624 So. 2d 188, 191 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) . ' 23 had a there 2110816 " G l o v e r v. G l o v e r , App. 1 9 9 6 ) . " E.A.B. v. (Ala. D.G.W., [Ms. C i v . App. In t h i s determined So. 2d as the court's primary cause court's 176 2100718, S e p t . 7, mentioned, husband's the of The wife the breakdown of indicated of testified that the her wife aware behalf. said, she that the s e r v i c e s of t h a t she had paid expenses. We In a d d i t i o n , had she could i t marriage. rejected the , have were supported p a i d her still by her many trial of the attorneys, time of attorney the attorney f i l e d the current attorney owed The no e v i d e n t i a r y b a s i s $5,000 t o t h e the the Moreover, c o n t r a r y wife's f i r s t r e p r e s e n t e d h e r i n t h i s c a s e and who on court evidence also t o t h e h u s b a n d ' s a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e r e was value 3d circumstances husband's arguments d u r i n g the l i t i g a t i o n . the So. f i n d i n g t h a t t h e h u s b a n d ' s c o n d u c t was judgment for (Ala. Civ. 2012] trial financial more f a v o r a b l e t h a n t h e w i f e ' s . the t r i a l 174, 2012). case, that 678 the who complaint trial, the $10,000 and was for outstanding n o t e t h a t t h e r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e i s 1,010 pages l o n g , e x c l u d i n g the 3 boxes of e x h i b i t s , which h o l d about 500 p a g e s o f documents e a c h . the The wife's testimony regarding amount she had p a i d t o h e r a t t o r n e y s p r o v i d e d t h e t r i a l 24 court 2110816 with an evidentiary basis t h e r e f o r e , we f o r i t s a w a r d o f an conclude t h a t the t r i a l attorney c o u r t d i d n o t abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n o r d e r i n g t h e h u s b a n d t o pay t h e w i f e an f e e o f $12,000. (Ala. Civ. discretion wife's See App. T.K.T. v. F.P.T., 716 1998) (trial i n awarding wife attorney's paid attorney fees an totaled $7,100 and court attorney So. did attorney 2d 1235, not fee of $20,250 and costs of fee; 1240 abuse its $15,000 when she had already $3,418.15). F i n a l l y , the husband contends t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t abused its discretion "settlement trial that i n denying h i s motion to enforce agreement" of t h i s matter. the wife's first grounds f o r h i s request first attorney the The parties had reached a purported before the husband c i t e s a motion t o withdraw attorney filed with the to withdraw from the case, court. the As wife's stated: "1. The [ w i f e ] and reached a settlement [the husband] have a p p a r e n t l y agreement i n s a i d case. "2. The [ w i f e ] has i n f o r m e d t h e u n d e r s i g n e d counsel t h a t she w i s h e s t o a l l o w [ t h e h u s b a n d ' s ] a t t o r n e y , Mr. Thomas P. O l l i n g e r , t o d r a f t s a i d settlement a g r e e m e n t and r e p r e s e n t h e r s e l f p r o se f r o m t h i s point forward." The trial court granted t h e m o t i o n on F e b r u a r y 4, 2011. t h a n two weeks l a t e r , t h e w i f e r e t a i n e d a s e c o n d a t t o r n e y , 25 Less who 2110816 f i l e d a n o t i c e o f a p p e a r a n c e on F e b r u a r y that and the 16, 2011. husband's a t t o r n e y d r a f t e d a s e t t l e m e n t the husband signed i t on February 9, h o w e v e r , n e v e r s i g n e d t h e document, and motion seeking enforcement agreement. A h e a r i n g was On 2011, May 11, the of i t was denying A transcript trial court the A p r i l 8, and 2011, 2011. The purported entered 8, B e c a u s e we h e a r i n g , we an 2011, order order." proceedings does is presume not that evidence.'" (Ala. before the the judgment ( q u o t i n g Newman v. C i v . App. order appellate court's 1993))). 26 not do n o t have a t r a n s c r i p t v. J i m W a l t e r Homes, I n c . , 789 So. 2d 243, that stating "interim must assume t h a t t h e court's 2011. husband's 247 is S t a t e , 623 evidence See (Ala. Civ. i s based court, of court's decision not t o e n f o r c e the p u r p o r t e d s e t t l e m e n t agreement. ("'[W]hen a t r i a l a settlement a r g u m e n t s on t h e p r e s e n t e d at t h a t h e a r i n g supports the t r i a l 2000) wife, the husband f i l e d what i t c a l l e d an of the A p r i l appear i n the r e c o r d . the agreement, h e l d on t h e m o t i o n on A p r i l 8, that, a f t e r hearing testimony motion, I t appears we on App. evidence conclusively supported So. Leeth 2d by 1171, the 1172 2110816 For the reasons s e t f o r t h a b o v e , we r e v e r s e t h a t p o r t i o n of t h e judgment a w a r d i n g t h e w i f e pendente l i t e in t h e amount o f $ 8 , 6 2 9 . 9 1 , trial a n d we remand child support t h e cause f o r t h e c o u r t t o r e c o n s i d e r t h e award o r t o p r o v i d e this court w i t h g u i d a n c e as t o how t h e amount o f t h e award was d e t e r m i n e d and t o e n t e r a judgment accordingly. The r e m a i n d e r o f t h e judgment i s a f f i r m e d . APPLICATION FOR REHEARING OVERRULED; OPINION OF DECEMBER 14, 2012, WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; AFFIRMED REVERSED IN PART; IN PART; AND REMANDED. Pittman, Thomas, Moore, a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , c o n c u r . 27

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.