Ernest Kreitzberg v. Myra Kreitzberg (Appeal from Baldwin Circuit Court: DR-09-900369)

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 2110920 and 2111066 Ernest Kreitzberg v. Myra K r e i t z b e r g Appeals from Baldwin C i r c u i t Court (DR-09-900369 and DR-09-900369.01) On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g THOMAS, J u d g e . The opinion o f March 1, 2 0 1 3 , i s w i t h d r a w n , following i s substituted therefor. and the 2110920 and 2111066 These the Baldwin Ernest c o n s o l i d a t e d appeals Circuit Kreitzberg Court are taken dividing ("the husband") from judgments of the m a r i t a l property and M y r a K r e i t z b e r g w i f e " ) and r e e v a l u a t i n g t h e h u s b a n d ' s of ("the a l i m o n y o b l i g a t i o n on remand f r o m t h i s c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n K r e i t z b e r g v. K r e i t z b e r g , 80 So. 3d 925 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) ( a p p e a l no. 2 1 1 0 9 2 0 ) , and f i n d i n g t h e h u s b a n d t o be i n c i v i l c o n t e m p t f o r h i s f a i l u r e t o p a y t h e w i f e any amount o f a l i m o n y d u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y o f t h e appeal in Kreitzberg (appeal no. 2111066). This court s u m m a r i z e d much o f t h e p e r t i n e n t f a c t u a l and l e g a l b a c k g r o u n d in K r e i t z b e r g , 80 So. 3d a t 926-30, as f o l l o w s : " A f t e r n e a r l y 35 y e a r s o f m a r r i a g e , t h e h u s b a n d f i l e d a complaint f o r a divorce i n the t r i a l court on July 9, 2009, claiming i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y of temperament and an i r r e t r i e v a b l e b r e a k d o w n o f t h e marriage. The w i f e answered the complaint and c o u n t e r c l a i m e d f o r a d i v o r c e on September 23, 2009. In her counterclaim, the wife a l l e g e d t h a t the h u s b a n d h a d p h y s i c a l l y and e m o t i o n a l l y a b u s e d h e r d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f t h e m a r r i a g e . On M a r c h 9, 2010, t h e h u s b a n d amended h i s c o m p l a i n t f o r a d i v o r c e t o i n c l u d e an a l l e g a t i o n t h a t t h e w i f e h a d p h y s i c a l l y and e m o t i o n a l l y a b u s e d h i m d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f t h e marriage. The w i f e a n s w e r e d t h e amended c o m p l a i n t and d e n i e d t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f a b u s e . The p a r t i e s conducted discovery. "On O c t o b e r 6 a n d 18, 2010, t h e t r i a l court conducted a t r i a l r e g a r d i n g the husband's d i v o r c e c o m p l a i n t and t h e w i f e ' s c o u n t e r c l a i m f o r a d i v o r c e . 2 2110920 and 2111066 The h u s b a n d and t h e w i f e were t h e o n l y w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f y d u r i n g the two-day t r i a l . to "The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l t h a t he h a d r e c e i v e d an i n h e r i t a n c e f r o m b o t h h i s m o t h e r and h i s aunt. Specifically, he testified that he had i n h e r i t e d 2,484 s h a r e s o f E x x o n M o b i l Corporation s t o c k f r o m h i s m o t h e r a f t e r h e r d e a t h on J a n u a r y 30, 1997. He s t a t e d t h a t t h o s e s h a r e s o f s t o c k h a d been transferred into h i s name alone. He further t e s t i f i e d t h a t a p r o g r a m c a l l e d 'Computer S h a r e ' manages t h e s t o c k and t h a t t h a t p r o g r a m c o n t i n u a l l y reinvests any dividend income that the stock p r o d u c e s . He s t a t e d t h a t t h e w i f e ' s name was n e v e r on h i s s t o c k a c c o u n t w i t h E x x o n M o b i l . "In a d d i t i o n to the ExxonMobil s t o c k , the h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d i n h e r i t e d $99,712 i n c a s h f r o m h i s m o t h e r . He s t a t e d t h a t , upon r e c e i p t re o f t h e c a s h , he i m m e d i a t e l y h a d t a k e n t h e money t o t h e bank, h a d s e n t $8,000 o f t h e money t o t h e U n i t e d Uni S t a t e s T r e a s u r y t o p a y t a x e s on t h e i n h e r i t a n c e and had p l a c e d t h e r e m a i n i n g $91,712 i n t o a c e r t i f i c a t e of deposit ('CD'). He testified that he had p u r c h a s e d t h a t CD a t t h e S t a t e Bank o f C o u n t r y s i d e i n C o u n t r y s i d e , I l l i n o i s . He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e CD h a d been p l a c e d i n h i s name o n l y . The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d c o n t i n u a l l y r e i n v e s t e d t h e money i n t h e CD, a l o n g w i t h any i n v e s t m e n t income f r o m t h e CD, i n t h e f o r m o f a CD u n t i l 2005. He t e s t i f i e d t h a t i n 2005 he h a d moved t h e CD f r o m t h e State Bank of Countryside to AmSouth Bank ('AmSouth') i n F a i r h o p e and t h a t t h e CD h a d r e m a i n e d i n t h e f o r m o f a CD w i t h AmSouth f r o m 2005 u n t i l 2008. The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e CD a t AmSouth was p l a c e d i n h i s name a l o n e and t h a t a l l t h e i n t e r e s t t h e CD a c c r u e d was i m m e d i a t e l y r e i n v e s t e d . "The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t i n 2008 he h a d w i t h d r a w n a l l t h e money i n t h e CD, w h i c h h a d grown t o $ 1 3 3 , 3 1 2 . 2 5 , and h a d p u r c h a s e d E x x o n M o b i l s t o c k 3 2110920 a n d 2111066 w i t h i t . He a l s o s t a t e d t h a t a n y d i v i d e n d income d e r i v e d f r o m t h e s t o c k was i m m e d i a t e l y r e i n v e s t e d . "Other t h a n t h e s t o c k s and cash, t h e husband a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d i n h e r i t e d $23,000 i n U n i t e d S t a t e s s a v i n g s bonds f r o m h i s m o t h e r . He s t a t e d t h a t t h a t money was h e l d i n t h e f o r m o f savings bonds i n h i s name u n t i l 2005, when he redeemed t h e s a v i n g s bonds a t AmSouth. The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a f t e r he redeemed t h e s a v i n g s b o n d s , he p l a c e d t h e money i n t o a money-market a c c o u n t h e l d j o i n t l y i n h i s a n d t h e w i f e ' s names. He s t a t e d t h a t he h a d p l a c e d t h e money i n t h e j o i n t money-market a c c o u n t i n o r d e r t o p a y t a x e s on t h e i n v e s t m e n t income h i s i n h e r i t e d money a n d s t o c k s h a d g e n e r a t e d because the couple f i l e d j o i n t t a x r e t u r n s . "The husband a l s o testified that he h a d i n h e r i t e d a s s e t s f r o m h i s a u n t . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d d i e d i n 2008, t h a t he h a d i n h e r i t e d a t o t a l o f $87,000 f r o m h e r e s t a t e , a n d t h a t he h a d r e c e i v e d t h e money i n two s e p a r a t e p a y m e n t s $60,000 as an i n i t i a l payment a n d a n o t h e r $27,000 as t h e f i n a l payment. The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d d e p o s i t e d t h e $60,000 i n an a c c o u n t he h a d o p e n e d i n h i s name a t R o y a l Bank o f Canada ('RBC'). He t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a f t e r h a v i n g p l a c e d t h e money i n t h e RBC a c c o u n t , he i m m e d i a t e l y w r o t e a c h e c k f o r t h e e n t i r e $60,000 t o E x x o n M o b i l t o p u r c h a s e 827 s h a r e s o f s t o c k . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t a l l d i v i d e n d income d e r i v e d f r o m t h a t s t o c k was a u t o m a t i c a l l y r e i n v e s t e d . "The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d r e c e i v e d t h e f i n a l payment o f $27,000 i n O c t o b e r 2009. He s t a t e d t h a t he h a d p l a c e d t h a t money i n a p e r s o n a l c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t a t RBC i n h i s name a n d t h a t he h a d t h e n t r a n s f e r r e d t h a t money t o E x x o n M o b i l t o p u r c h a s e a d d i t i o n a l s h a r e s o f s t o c k . He f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t all the dividend income f r o m that stock was a u t o m a t i c a l l y r e i n v e s t e d . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d n e v e r s o l d any o f h i s E x x o n M o b i l s t o c k o r w i t h d r a w n any money f r o m h i s s t o c k a c c o u n t w i t h E x x o n M o b i l . 4 2110920 and 2111066 "The h u s b a n d a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e d i v i d e n d income f r o m t h e E x x o n M o b i l s t o c k was l i s t e d on t h e p a r t i e s ' j o i n t t a x r e t u r n s . He s t a t e d t h a t i n some y e a r s t h e p a r t i e s had a t a x l i a b i l i t y upon w h i c h t h e y p a i d t a x e s t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s g o v e r n m e n t . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e t o t a l amount o f t a x e s t h e p a r t i e s had p a i d on t h e E x x o n M o b i l d i v i d e n d s was $8,560 and t h a t t h e t o t a l t a x e s t h e y had p a i d a f t e r r e d e e m i n g t h e s a v i n g s bonds was $10,980. He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e t o t a l t a x e s t h e p a r t i e s had p a i d f r o m 1997 u n t i l 2009 on any income d e r i v e d f r o m i n h e r i t e d a s s e t s was $32,253. "He t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e a s s e t s o f t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e i n c l u d e d a 2003 S a t u r n a u t o m o b i l e , a s c o o t e r , a r o w b o a t w i t h a m o t o r w o r t h a p p r o x i m a t e l y $1,000, a 1978 Catalina sailboat worth approximately $2,000-$3,000, and items of p e r s o n a l property. A d d i t i o n a l l y , he t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s owned t h e i r home i n F a i r h o p e and t h a t i t d i d n o t have an o u t s t a n d i n g m o r t g a g e on i t . He o p i n e d t h a t t h e v a l u e o f t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e was $225,000. He stated that he had come to the $225,000 value by c o n s i d e r i n g a l a r g e number o f c o m p a r a b l e homes t h a t had b e e n s o l d i n t h e p a r t i e s ' n e i g h b o r h o o d . "The h u s b a n d a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had an i n d i v i d u a l r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t ('IRA') w i t h a b a l a n c e o f a r o u n d $36,000 a t RBC and t h a t t h e w i f e a l s o had her own IRA and t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had a joint money-market a c c o u n t c o n t a i n i n g $210,000. He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had a j o i n t checking a c c o u n t w i t h a b a l a n c e o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y $1,300. He s t a t e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s l i v e d o f f o f t h e money i n t h e j o i n t c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e joint checking a c c o u n t i s f u n d e d by h i s S o c i a l S e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s and h i s two r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t s . Specifically, he s t a t e d t h a t he has a p e n s i o n w i t h JI Chase Company from which he receives a p p r o x i m a t e l y $363 p e r month and a p e n s i o n w i t h A l l i s C h a l m e r s M a n u f a c t u r i n g Company f r o m w h i c h he r e c e i v e s a p p r o x i m a t e l y $580 p e r month. A d d i t i o n a l l y , 5 2110920 and 2111066 he s t a t e d t h a t h i s S o c i a l S e c u r i t y c h e c k o f $1,678 p e r month i s a l s o d e p o s i t e d i n t o t h e a c c o u n t , w h i l e the w i f e ' s S o c i a l S e c u r i t y check of a p p r o x i m a t e l y $598 i s d e p o s i t e d i n t o h e r own separate checking account. "The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had w i t h d r a w n a t o t a l o f $16,000 f r o m t h e p a r t i e s ' j o i n t checking a c c o u n t t o pay h i s a t t o r n e y s t h r o u g h o u t t h e d i v o r c e a c t i o n . He s t a t e d t h a t he d i d n o t e x p e c t t h e w i f e t o pay f o r h i s a t t o r n e y f e e s b u t t h a t he f e l t the p a r t i e s s h o u l d s p l i t the c o s t of the a t t o r n e y fees i n t h e d i v o r c e a c t i o n . He a l s o a s k e d t h e c o u r t t o a w a r d e a c h p a r t y 50% o f t h e money-market a c c o u n t c o n t a i n i n g $210,000. A d d i t i o n a l l y , he s t a t e d t h a t he w o u l d l i k e t h e c o u r t t o a w a r d e a c h p a r t y 50% o f t h e p a r t i e s ' monthly j o i n t income, which comprises h i s J I Chase p e n s i o n , h i s A l l i s C h a l m e r s p e n s i o n , h i s Social Security check, and the wife's Social S e c u r i t y check. This d i v i s i o n would p r o v i d e each p a r t y w i t h r o u g h l y $1,600 p e r month. He a l s o s t a t e d t h a t he d i d n o t m i n d i f t h e w i f e was a w a r d e d t h e 2003 S a t u r n a u t o m o b i l e b u t t h a t he w o u l d l i k e t h e p a r t i e s ' C a t a l i n a s a i l b o a t , t h e s c o o t e r , and the rowboat. "The husband testified that he had never c o m m i t t e d any a c t o f d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e a g a i n s t t h e wife. However, he testified t h a t the w i f e had c o m m i t t e d a c t s o f d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e a g a i n s t him on two s e p a r a t e o c c a s i o n s . He s t a t e d t h a t t h e w i f e had thrown a p l a t e t h a t s t r u c k h i s head, c a u s i n g the p o l i c e t o be c a l l e d , t h a t r e s u l t e d i n t h e wife's b e i n g a r r e s t e d f o r d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e on J u l y 4, 2009. He a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e w i f e had s t r u c k him i n t h e eye w h i l e he was d r i v i n g . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t n o t i f y t h e p o l i c e o f t h i s i n c i d e n t b u t t h a t he d i d go t o t h e h o s p i t a l t o s e e k m e d i c a l a t t e n t i o n as a r e s u l t o f t h e i n c i d e n t . He stated t h a t t h e w i f e had c a l l e d t h e p o l i c e r e g a r d i n g the p a r t i e s ' d i s a g r e e m e n t s , b u t , he s a i d , he had n e v e r been a r r e s t e d . 6 2110920 and 2111066 "The husband testified that the wife's r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h h e r d a u g h t e r , M i c h e l l e K a i n z , and Kainz's grandchild had created problems i n the m a r r i a g e . He o p i n e d t h a t K a i n z does n o t l i k e him and t h a t she p l o t s a g a i n s t him. He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d allow the wife to have private telephone c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h K a i n z , b u t t h a t he had t o l d t h e wife t h a t he preferred t o be involved in any t e l e p h o n e c o n v e r s a t i o n s she had. He a l s o s t a t e d t h a t he was n o t t r y i n g t o c o n t r o l t h e w i f e . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had r e q u e s t e d t h a t K a i n z s t o p s e n d i n g t h e w i f e p i c t u r e s of K a i n z ' s granddaughter because the p i c t u r e s upset the w i f e because they reminded her t h a t she was not able to v i s i t the c h i l d . The husband a l s o testified that he d i d not shout o b s c e n i t i e s a t t h e w i f e o r c a l l h e r names. "The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e had d e t e r i o r a t e d o v e r t h e y e a r s . She t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had s e r i o u s m a r i t a l p r o b l e m s , i n c l u d i n g v e r b a l a b u s e , e m o t i o n a l a b u s e , and p h y s i c a l a b u s e . The w i f e s t a t e d t h a t t h o s e p r o b l e m s had s t a r t e d i n t h e 1980s b u t had g o t t e n much more s e v e r e a f t e r t h e h u s b a n d r e t i r e d b e c a u s e t h e p a r t i e s s p e n t more t i m e t o g e t h e r . She t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had f i l e d f o r a d i v o r c e i n t h e m i d - 1 9 8 0 s b e c a u s e o f an i n c i d e n t i n w h i c h t h e h u s b a n d had c o r n e r e d h e r and t h r e a t e n e d t o kill her. She testified that the husband had t h r e a t e n e d t o k i l l h e r s e v e r a l o t h e r t i m e s , b u t , she s a i d , he d i d n o t t h r e a t e n t o k i l l h e r e v e r y t i m e t h e y had a d i s p u t e . She t e s t i f i e d t h a t he w o u l d t a l k t o h e r i n a d e m e a n i n g way and t h a t he had threatened to burn down t h e parties' home. She further t e s t i f i e d t h a t the husband would throw o b j e c t s at h e r . S p e c i f i c a l l y , she t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had t h r o w n a wooden s t o o l , p a i n t s , and a dog b o w l f u l l of w a t e r , w h i c h had h i t h e r i n t h e b a c k o f t h e h e a d . She a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d had h i t h e r w i t h a m a g a z i n e and a remote c o n t r o l . She t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had s p i t i n h e r f a c e . She a l s o s t a t e d t h a t he had a b u s e d h e r a p p r o x i m a t e l y once a month f r o m t h e y e a r 2000 u n t i l t h e p r e s e n t . 7 2110920 and 2111066 "The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had t h r o w n a p l a t e a t t h e h u s b a n d on J u l y 4, 2009, and t h a t she had b e e n a r r e s t e d on a c h a r g e o f d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e r e g a r d i n g t h a t i n c i d e n t . She s t a t e d t h a t t h e c h a r g e s had b e e n d r o p p e d and t h a t she had t h r o w n t h e p l a t e i n response t o the husband's c o n s t a n t emotional a b u s e . The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had n e v e r s t r u c k the husband i n the eye. "The wife testified that the husband had 11,626.992 s h a r e s o f E x x o n M o b i l s t o c k w i t h a v a l u e of a p p r o x i m a t e l y $758,000. She t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had p a i d t a x e s on t h e s t o c k f r o m t h e i r j o i n t money-market a c c o u n t . However, she t e s t i f i e d t h a t the husband had placed only $23,000 of his inheritance i n the parties' joint money-market a c c o u n t and t h a t he had k e p t t h e r e s t o f t h e money and a s s e t s he had i n h e r i t e d s e p a r a t e . She stated t h a t , o t h e r t h a n t h e $23,000 d e p o s i t e d i n t o t h e joint money-market account, the husband's i n h e r i t a n c e had n e v e r b e e n u s e d f o r t h e common b e n e f i t of the p a r t i e s . "The wife t e s t i f i e d t h a t the value of the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e was $247,000. She s t a t e d t h a t she d i d n o t c a r e t o keep t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e b u t t h a t she w o u l d l i k e 50% o f t h e p a r t i e s ' e q u i t y i n t h e h o u s e . She a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t she w a n t e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o o r d e r t h a t t h e p a r t i e s ' IRA a c c o u n t s be e q u a l i z e d b e c a u s e h e r IRA c o n t a i n e d a b o u t $31,000 w h i l e t h e h u s b a n d ' s IRA c o n t a i n e d a b o u t $35,000. She a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t she w a n t e d h e r p e r s o n a l c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t , w i t h a v a l u e o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y $2,000, t o be awarded e n t i r e l y t o her. "In regard t o a d d i t i o n a l income, the wife testified that she had considered her monthly e x p e n s e s f o l l o w i n g t h e d i v o r c e . She t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e r m o n t h l y l i v i n g e x p e n s e s w o u l d be $2,845.74, w h i c h i n c l u d e d t h e c o s t o f p a y i n g r e n t b e c a u s e she was n o t a s k i n g f o r t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e . The w i f e d i d not d i s p u t e the husband's t e s t i m o n y regarding 8 2110920 and 2111066 t h e p a r t i e s ' m o n t h l y i n c o m e , and she t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s ' m o n t h l y income i n c l u d e d a b o u t $300 f r o m t h e h u s b a n d ' s J I Chase p e n s i o n , a b o u t $500 f r o m t h e Allis Chalmers pension, about $1,600 from the h u s b a n d ' s S o c i a l S e c u r i t y c h e c k , and a b o u t $600 f r o m h e r S o c i a l S e c u r i t y c h e c k . She t e s t i f i e d t h a t she would l i k e the t r i a l c o u r t to s p l i t the p a r t i e s ' m o n t h l y income e v e n l y b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s , w h i c h w o u l d g i v e h e r a p p r o x i m a t e l y $1,600 p e r month. She f u r t h e r a s k e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o a w a r d h e r $1,500 i n monthly alimony i n order to p r o v i d e her w i t h the a d d i t i o n a l money she w o u l d n e e d i n o r d e r t o pay f o r a l l of her expenses f o l l o w i n g the d i v o r c e . "The w i f e f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had had s e r i o u s h e a l t h i s s u e s throughout the marriage. She had had o p e n - h e a r t s u r g e r y i n 2005 and i n 2006. The w i f e a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had had a s t r o k e i n 2006 and t h a t she had had a p l a t e p l a c e d i n h e r f o o t i n 2008. She f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had had a hip r e p l a c e m e n t i n 2007 and t h a t she w i l l most l i k e l y r e q u i r e a n o t h e r s u r g e r y on h e r f o o t i n t h e future. " A f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g the ore tenus testimony and the trial exhibits, the trial court entered a j u d g m e n t on November 19, 2010, d i v o r c i n g t h e p a r t i e s on t h e g r o u n d s o f i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y and p h y s i c a l and emotional abuse by t h e h u s b a n d . P u r s u a n t t o i t s November 19, 2010, j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t o r d e r e d t h e d i v i s i o n o f t h e m a r t i a l a s s e t s as f o l l o w s : (1) t h e h u s b a n d was a w a r d e d 100% of the ExxonMobil stock; (2) t h e h u s b a n d was awarded the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e , w h i c h t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o u n d t o have a f a i r m a r k e t v a l u e o f $247,000; (3) t h e w i f e was a w a r d e d 65% o f t h e e q u i t y i n t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e , and, a c c o r d i n g l y , t h e h u s b a n d was o r d e r e d t o pay t h e w i f e $160,550; (4) t h e w i f e was a w a r d e d 50% o f t h e v a l u e o f t h e p a r t i e s ' j o i n t c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t p l us an a d d i t i o n a l $8,000 as r e i m b u r s e m e n t f o r t h e $16,000 t h e h u s b a n d had w i t h d r a w n f r o m t h e j o i n t a c c o u n t ; (5) t h e w i f e was a w a r d e d t h e 2003 S a t u r n automobile; 9 2110920 and 2111066 (6) t h e h u s b a n d was a w a r d e d t h e p a r t i e s ' C a t a l i n a s a i l b o a t , t h e s c o o t e r , t h e r o w b o a t , and a t r a i l e r ; (7) t h e w i f e was a w a r d e d 50% o f t h e p a r t i e s ' j o i n t money-market a c c o u n t , p l u s an a d d i t i o n a l $5,000 as r e i m b u r s e m e n t f o r $10,000 t h e h u s b a n d h a d w i t h d r a w n f r o m t h e money-market a c c o u n t d u r i n g t r i a l ; (8) t h e h u s b a n d was o r d e r e d t o p a y t h e w i f e $757.69 i n o r d e r t o e q u a l i z e t h e p a r t i e s ' IRA a c c o u n t s ; (9) t h e w i f e was a w a r d e d p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y i n t h e amount o f $2,500 p e r month; (10) t h e h u s b a n d was o r d e r e d t o p a y t h e w i f e ' s a t t o r n e y f e e s i n t h e amount o f $14,625; and (11) t h e p a r t i e s were a w a r d e d s p e c i f i c i t e m s o f personal property. "On December 20, 2010, t h e h u s b a n d f i l e d timely notice of appeal. The wife filed c r o s s - a p p e a l on December 30, 2010." (Footnote omitted.) I n K r e i t z b e r g , we c o n c l u d e d of $2,500 excessive income was per month in light $2,621 t h a t the t r i a l in periodic of the f a c t and that alimony that the the t r i a l court's to I d . a t 934. income was Thus, "we award because together and, with see A l b e r t s o n v. A l b e r t s o n , ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 5 ) , we a l s o reverse[d] t h e j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as i t d i v i d e d t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y , " 10 was monthly A l a . Code 1975, " b e c a u s e an a w a r d o f a l i m o n y must be c o n s i d e r e d the d i v i s i o n of m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y , award the wife t h e husband's periodic-alimony award v i o l a t e [ d ] § 3 0 - 2 - 5 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) , " 678 So. 2d 118, 120 court's a l l of h i s monthly d e r i v e d from h i s r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s . reverse[d] a a and 2110920 and we 2111066 "instructed alimony award appropriate the [the t r i a l fact and the in light that husband's the Id. is This an this considers incomes asset court's of that and the opinion in court 2011, the regarding court's (Appeal husband No. 2110920) filed a motion t h e i s s u e s t o be a d d r e s s e d as reversal of the trial court's November 19, 2010, j u d g m e n t ; t h a t same day t h e h u s b a n d a motion the o f j u d g m e n t on September 21, 2011. 22, requesting a hearing of i t r e l e a s e d on S e p t e m b e r 2, 2011, and t h i s September result as retirement stock The P r o p e r t y - D i v i s i o n A p p e a l On a division of the p a r t i e s ' estate." issued a c e r t i f i c a t e I. on remand,] t o a d j u s t property ExxonMobil separate K r e i t z b e r g was court, funds, alleging t h e w i f e h a d removed moneys f r o m t h e p a r t i e s ' accounts during f o r an a c c o u n t i n g the pendency of the p a r t i e s ' filed of the appeal. On March 1, 2012, the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t on remand d i v i d i n g t h e p a r t i e s ' marital property obligation recalculating i n accordance Kreitzberg. provisions and The of with judgment the on November this the court's remand 19, husband's instructions indicated 2010, in that a l l judgment i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h a t judgment, w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n 11 alimony were that the 2110920 and 2111066 trial court awarded the wife a l i m o n y and awarded the wife settlement. On M a r c h 7, a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e day $1,310.50 an 2012, i n monthly p e r i o d i c additional $84,000 the husband f i l e d the t r i a l property a motion c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t ; t h a t same t h e h u s b a n d f i l e d an amended p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . 14, 2012, the trial court h u s b a n d ' s m o t i o n f o r an court denied the court's March entered accounting; an 1, The 2012, On May denying order the t h a t same day husband's postjudgment motion postjudgment motion. to the and trial amended husband t i m e l y appealed the judgment to this court on trial June 19, 2012. In court erred awarding trial this the appeal, the in dividing wife court improperly indicate that the "determining contends parties' on marital trial both court the and he the the record considered his separate 12 of says, the trial Specifically, in amount trial estate in fashioning award of a l i m o n y . contained the property i s i n e q u i t a b l e and considered h i s separate comments that remand b e c a u s e , division i t s p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n and argues the alimony court's property husband alimony and the on he appeal estate in property 2110920 and division" his 2111066 and separate t h a t he w o u l d be e s t a t e t o pay forced to l i q u i d a t e assets t h e amounts a w a r d e d t o t h e w i f e . "Our s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w r e g a r d 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 p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y i s w e l l 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 t e n u s e v i d e n c e , i t s j u d g m e n t as t o t h a t e v i d e n c e i s p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t on a p p e a l and w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d a b s e n t a s h o w i n g t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n or t h a t i t s d e c i s i o n i s p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y 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 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2001); P a r r i s h v. P a r r i s h , 617 So. 2d 1036, 1038 (Ala. Civ. App. 1 9 9 3 ) ; and H a l l v. M a z z o n e , 486 So. 2d 408, 410 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . A p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n i s r e q u i r e d t o be e q u i t a b l e , n o t e q u a l , 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 the broad d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t . P a r r i s h , 617 So. 2d a t 1038.' " S t o n e v. S t o n e , App. 200 9 ) . 26 of So. 3d 1232, 1236 (Ala. Civ. "'The i s s u e s of p r o p e r t y division and a l i m o n y a r e i n t e r r e l a t e d , and t h e y must be considered together. Albertson v. A l b e r t s o n , 678 So. 2d 118 ( A l a . C i v . App. 199[5]). A property division is not r e q u i r e d t o be equal, but i t must be e q u i t a b l e . G o l d e n v. G o l d e n , 681 So. 2d 605 (Ala. C i v . App. 1996). In f a s h i o n i n g a p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n and an a w a r d o f a l i m o n y , t h e t r i a l c o u r t must c o n s i d e r f a c t o r s s u c h as t h e e a r n i n g c a p a c i t i e s o f t h e p a r t i e s ; their future prospects; t h e i r ages and health; the length of the parties' 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 13 2110920 and 2111066 o f m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y . R o b i n s o n v. R o b i n s o n , [795 So. 2d 729 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2001)]; L u t z v. L u t z , 485 So. 2d 1174 (Ala. Civ. App. 1 9 8 6 ) . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t may also consider the conduct of the p a r t i e s w i t h r e g a r d t o the breakdown of the m a r r i a g e .... Ex p a r t e Drummond, 785 So. 2d 358 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ; M y r i c k v. M y r i c k , 714 So. 2d 311 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 8 ) ; L u t z v. L u t z , supra.' " P a t e v. 2002) ." Spuhl v. Pate, Spuhl, , 849 [Ms. So. remand. in dividing the (Ala. Civ. 11, App. 2013], So. 3d trial parties' court exceeded i t s marital property on S p e c i f i c a l l y , he a s s e r t s t h a t t h e a d d i t i o n a l $84,000 award t o the w i f e renders because, he he separate says, estate $1,310.50 the p r o p e r t y w o u l d have t o to pay the division inequitable liquidate additional ore tenus evidence consisted of personal property, a with a motor the 2003 indicated assets $84,000 m o n t h l y p e r i o d i c - a l i m o n y award. property rowboat 976 2013). husband contends t h a t the discretion The 972, 2111096, J a n u a r y ( A l a . C i v . App. The 2d We the m a r i t a l residence, the Saturn a worth approximately C a t a l i n a s a i l b o a t worth approximately 14 his and the disagree. that automobile, of marital parties' scooter, $1,000, a a 1978 $2,000-$3,000, a joint 2110920 and money-market checking 2111066 account w i t h account Moreover, with each p a r t y had o f $210, 000, balance a a value of an In this case, the approximately individual ("IRA") v a l u e d a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y $36,000. husband was and a joint $1,300. retirement account 1 awarded his IRA, the s c o o t e r , t h e r o w b o a t , t h e 1978 C a t a l i n a s a i l b o a t , h a l f o f t h e f u n d s i n t h e p a r t i e s ' j o i n t money-market account, funds i n the p a r t i e s ' j o i n t - c h e c k i n g account, residence. parties' regarding received B a s e d on t h e t e s t i m o n y marital property the value and h u s b a n d was and t h e m a r i t a l regarding the value of the the trial court's of the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e , an a w a r d o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y h a l f of the $392,650. 3 r e q u i r e d t o p a y t h e w i f e $160,550 of the e q u i t y i n the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e ; thus, 2 the findings husband However, the as h e r p o r t i o n the husband's We note t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t ' s November 19, 2010, j u d g m e n t o r d e r e d t h e h u s b a n d t o p a y t h e w i f e $757.69 i n o r d e r to equalize the p a r t i e s ' IRAs. This provision was i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e M a r c h 1, 2012, j u d g m e n t , and, t h u s , t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t b o t h t h e h u s b a n d and t h e w i f e h a d an IRA w i t h an a p p r o x i m a t e v a l u e o f $36,000. 1 T h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s November 19, 2010, j u d g m e n t c o n t a i n e d a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e h a d a v a l u e o f $247,000. The t r i a l c o u r t ' s M a r c h 1, 2012, j u d g m e n t i n c o r p o r a t e d t h a t finding. 2 T h i s amount does n o t i n c l u d e t h e h u s b a n d ' s e s t a t e v a l u e d a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y $1,000,000. 3 15 separate 2110920 a n d 2111066 net award had a v a l u e of approximately was a w a r d e d $160,550 as h e r p o r t i o n marital 2003 residence, Saturn joint parties' half account, joint-checking o f the funds and h a l f account. 5 The 4 of the e q u i t y h e r IRA, t h e $84,000 p r o p e r t y automobile, money-market $232,100. of i n the award, t h e i n the parties' the funds Therefore, wife i n the the wife T h e h u s b a n d ' s n e t a w a r d was c o m p u t e d u s i n g t h e v a l u e s o f t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l a s s e t s as d e t e r m i n e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n K r e i t z b e r g , 80 So. 3d 925, as f o l l o w s : IRA o f $36,000 + t h e s c o o t e r t o w h i c h no v a l u e was g i v e n + t h e r o w b o a t w o r t h approximately $1,000 + t h e 1978 C a t a l i n a s a i l b o a t w o r t h a p p r o x i m a t e l y $3, 000 + h a l f o f t h e f u n d s i n t h e p a r t i e s ' j o i n t money-market a c c o u n t a t t h e t i m e o f t h e t r i a l , w h i c h was $105,000 + h a l f o f t h e f u n d s i n t h e p a r t i e s ' j o i n t - c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l , w h i c h was $650 + t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e d e t e r m i n e d t o have a v a l u e o f $247,000 - t h e p o r t i o n o f t h e w i f e ' s e q u i t y i n t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e i n t h e amount o f $160,550 = t h e h u s b a n d ' s n e t a w a r d o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y $232,100. 4 A s t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s November 19, 2010, j u d g m e n t n o t e s , t h e w i f e was a w a r d e d a d d i t i o n a l sums as c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r h e r h a l f o f moneys t h a t t h e h u s b a n d h a d removed f r o m t h e p a r t i e s ' j o i n t accounts. Those sums a r e n o t c o n t a i n e d i n t h e w i f e ' s t o t a l award b e c a u s e b o t h t h e husband and t h e w i f e r e c e i v e d e q u a l amounts o f t h o s e moneys. 5 16 2110920 and 2111066 r e c e i v e d a net award of a p p r o x i m a t e l y the p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n residence, collateral award to separate liquid to the which secure wife, estate. assets, a The again as without to either pay having half the to of the f r o m w h i c h he having estate residence. the alimony could loan composed h i s s e p a r a t e Moreover, a w a r d e d a s s e t s , s u c h as sell or additional liquidate any husband's award a l s o c o n t a i n e d money-market a c c o u n t , $84,000, he without such Accordingly, 6 i s n o t w h o l l y i n e q u i t a b l e on i t s f a c e . A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e h u s b a n d was marital $386,200. to or trial funds in the use having court to the sell as $84,000 of his several parties' c o u l d have p a i d t h e r e s o r t to the assets wife that the m a r i t a l reduced the husband's a w a r d as i n s t r u c t e d by t h i s c o u r t i n K r e i t z b e r g , w h i c h l e f t t h e h u s b a n d w i t h a m o n t h l y income o f $1,310.50 f r o m w h i c h to pay h i s monthly expenses. Thus, we cannot agree w i t h the T h e w i f e ' s n e t a w a r d was computed u s i n g t h e v a l u e s o f t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l a s s e t s as d e t e r m i n e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n K r e i t z b e r g , 80 So. 3d 925, as f o l l o w s : IRA o f $36,000 + t h e S a t u r n a u t o m o b i l e t o w h i c h no v a l u e was g i v e n + h a l f o f t h e f u n d s i n t h e p a r t i e s ' j o i n t money-market a c c o u n t a t t h e t i m e o f t h e t r i a l , w h i c h was $105,000 + h a l f o f t h e f u n d s i n t h e p a r t i e s ' j o i n t - c h e c k i n g account at the time of t r i a l , which was $650 + t h e p o r t i o n o f t h e w i f e ' s e q u i t y i n t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e i n t h e amount o f $160,550 + $84,000 a w a r d = t h e w i f e ' s n e t a w a r d o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y $386,200. 6 17 2110920 and 2111066 husband's c o n t e n t i o n t h a t the p r o p e r t y t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s M a r c h 1, 2012, to division contained judgment r e q u i r e d the husband l i q u i d a t e a s s e t s of h i s separate estate. M o r e o v e r , b a s e d on t h e o r e t e n u s t e s t i m o n y p r e s e n t e d , trial c o u r t 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 breakdown of the abuse of the p a r t i e s had had age of the from retirement. consider regarding in dividing h u s b a n d ' s and t h a t the t r i a l the So. along w i t h the testimony the and health 2d the the for the emotional indicated that years, issues based on f a c t o r s the the t h a t the in t h a t e a c h p a r t y had Accordingly, G o l d e n v. G o l d e n , 681 also f o r n e a r l y 35 serious at f a u l t t o h i s p h y s i c a l and testimony divorce, evidence presented to The been m a r r i e d suffered proceeding m a r r i a g e due wife. in the wife years reached the ore trial tenus court parties' m a r i t a l property, 605, ( A l a . C i v . App. 608 the was see 1996), i n d i c a t i n g the r e l a t i v e v a l u e of both the w i f e ' s net a w a r d s , we court exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n cannot conclude in dividing the parties' marital property. Next, the husband argues t h a t the trial court erred r e v e r s a l i n f a s h i o n i n g i t s p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n b e c a u s e , he the record indicates that the 18 trial court to says, impermissibly 2110920 and considered 2111066 the husband's separate estate. The trial court d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d ' s E x x o n M o b i l s t o c k and any o f h i s i n h e r i t a n c e was p a r t o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s s e p a r a t e to § 30-2-51(a), A l a . Code 1975, i n both estate pursuant i t s November 2010, j u d g m e n t and i t s M a r c h 1, 2012, j u d g m e n t . trial 19, Moreover, the c o u r t s t a t e d on t h e r e c o r d t h a t i t d i d n o t c o n s i d e r t h e husband's separate estate as an asset that i t was able to award t o t h e w i f e b u t , i n s t e a d , t h a t i t b a l a n c e d t h e e q u i t i e s between reversal the p a r t i e s of Specifically, on remand i t s original the t r i a l as award court a r e s u l t of t h i s of alimony to the court's wife. stated: "While I u n d e r s t a n d t h a t [the husband]'s Exxon s t o c k i s c o m p l e t e l y owned by h i m and I c a n ' t t a k e t h a t i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n a t a l l i n t h e award and I am n o t and I have n o t , t h e f a c t t h a t t h a t may be t h e o n l y way he c a n p a y [ t h e w i f e ] b e c a u s e he e i t h e r d o e s n ' t want t o s e l l t h e h o u s e o r w h a t e v e r r e a s o n , t o me i s i r r e l e v a n t . B e c a u s e my a w a r d i s b a s e d s t r i c t l y out of the a s s e t s t h a t the p a r t i e s had a t t h e t i m e o f t h e d i v o r c e . The v a l u e o f t h e home, t h e money i n t h e j o i n t money m a r k e t a c c o u n t , t h e money i n t h e c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t . So anyway w i t h t h a t s a i d when I r e a d t h e when I r e a d t h e r u l i n g o f t h e A p p e l l a t e C o u r t I r e a d i t t o mean t h a t w h i l e I b a s e d my p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n t h e a w a r d t o [ t h e w i f e ] a c e r t a i n amount o f money i n t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e b a s e d on h e r h a v i n g a s u f f i c i e n t amount p e r month t o l i v e on, t h a t i f I t a k e away some o f t h a t t h e n I have t h e a b i l i t y to r e s t r u c t u r e the property settlement i n a way t h a t I b e l i e v e accommodates t h e i n t e n t o f my o r d e r . Not c i r c u m v e n t i n g or not t r y i n g t o s k i r t 19 2110920 and 2111066 around the a l i m o n y the r u l e s r e g a r d i n g the Exxon s t o c k or the r e t i r e m e n t . But c e r t a i n l y i f I b e l i e v e d t h a t [ t h e w i f e ] b a s e d on t h e f a c t s and circumstances i n t h i s c a s e s h o u l d be p r o v i d e d f r o m t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s s u f f i c i e n t money t o meet h e r needs b a s e d on the circumstance, t h e n I b e l i e v e t h e y have get s p e c i f i c a l l y i n s t r u c t e d me t h a t t h a t i s my duty t o d a y i s t o r e a d j u s t t h o s e e q u i t i e s t o make s u r e that occurs. " "I'm going t o make h e r an a d d i t i o n a l a w a r d o f p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t t h a t may come f r o m t h e s a l e o f t h e home o r f r o m t h e f u n d s i n money m a r k e t and c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t i n t h e amount o f $84,000." Additionally, at the hearing regarding the husband's p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n and amended p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , t h e court trial further stated: " I d i d h o u r s and h o u r s o f f i n a n c i a l c a l c u l a t i o n s i n t h i s c a s e , and I came up w i t h an amount t h a t I f e l t was e q u i t a b l e t o [the w i f e ] , t h a t d i d not invade the separate p r o p e r t y i n the separate e s t a t e o f [ t h e husband] t h a t w o u l d e n s u r e t h a t she was cared f o r , at l e a s t , s u f f i c i e n t l y . I s t i l l don't b e l i e v e i t was enough t o p r o v i d e her the same q u a l i t y o f l i f e , b u t I t r i e d my b e s t t o do what I c o u l d u n d e r t h e p a r a m e t e r s t h a t I was g i v e n by t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s . And t h a t i s t h e number t h a t I f e l t c r e a t e d an e q u i t a b l e d i v i s i o n o f p r o p e r t y i n t h i s c a s e . And I l i m i t e d my a l i m o n y a w a r d t o e x a c t l y what t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s t o l d me that I c o u l d , so t h a t w i l l s t a n d . " Thus, i n c o n t r a s t t o t h e h u s b a n d ' s a s s e r t i o n s i n h i s a p p e l l a t e brief, the trial court explicitly 20 stated that i t had not 2110920 and considered 2111066 the husband's p r o p e r t y award. that i t was account Therefore, appeal the due estate in fashioning i t s A d d i t i o n a l l y , the t r i a l c o u r t c o r r e c t l y noted allowed for separate to lower to balance the e q u i t i e s on periodic-alimony the comments award contained remand to the i n the we cannot conclude t h a t the t r i a l be reversed considered a w a r d on on the the separate remand b e c a u s e the on court i n awarding alimony, c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t i s due b a s i s t h a t the husband's and wife. record along w i t h the d i s c r e t i o n a f f o r d e d the t r i a l d i v i d i n g the p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y to trial court estate record to impermissibly in fashioning i t s does n o t support such a conclusion. Accordingly, have to be equal because in "'[a] order to property be division equitable does not on the based p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s o f e a c h c a s e , '" Harmon v. Harmon, 928 295, 298 So. 2d ( A l a . C i v . App. 556, 559 determination of (Ala. what d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l the trial parties' court 2005)(quoting Civ. App. i s equitable B a g g e t t v. B a g g e t t , 2003)), marital property 21 because awarding the 2d 855 "'a sound cannot conclude t h a t i t s discretion and and rests within c o u r t , ' " i d . , we exceeded So. the in dividing wife alimony the on 2110920 and 2111066 remand u n d e r t h e f a c t s p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s case. a f f i r m t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s M a r c h 1, 2012, divided the parties' II. The Contempt A p p e a l a petition (Appeal f o r c o n t e m p t on t h a t t h e h u s b a n d had trial court's petition, the wife also responsible for paying a result of the filed a counterclaim periodic alimony, styled as a The had 2011, The 2011, to was contempt held i n c u r r e d as the husband husband a l s o unable wife i n i t i a t e d the w i f e f i l e d stay to pay the discovery. a motion to On A p r i l 20, 2011, Subsequently, "motion alleging h u s b a n d be f e e s she he a m o t i o n t o compel answers t o her action. the F e b r u a r y 2, that the husband's c o u n t e r c l a i m . contempt 2011, In her f o r contempt. alleging F e b r u a r y 11, 3, wife r e q u e s t i n g a r e d u c t i o n i n t h e amount o f $2,500 m o n t h l y amount. On 2111066) i n K r e i t z b e r g , the that the a t t o r n e y On No. judgment. requested answered the w i f e ' s p e t i t i o n wife a l i m o n y as r e q u i r e d i n t h e 2010, petition. awarded the January f a i l e d t o pay November 19, and alimony. During the pendency of the appeal filed we j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as i t marital property $1,310.50 i n m o n t h l y p e r i o d i c Therefore, discovery dismiss the w i f e requests filed in the husband filed a and/or f o r the trial court 22 the motion to 2110920 a n d 2111066 recuse." I n t h a t m o t i o n , he r e q u e s t e d that the t r i a l judge r e c u s e h e r s e l f b e c a u s e , he a l l e g e d , she h a d shown b i a s a g a i n s t t h e h u s b a n d i n t h e d i v o r c e a c t i o n , a n d he a l s o r e q u e s t e d that t h e c o n t e m p t a c t i o n be s t a y e d u n t i l t h i s c o u r t i s s u e d a r u l i n g regarding t h e husband's p e n d i n g appeal November 19, 2010, j u d g m e n t . requested result o f t h e contempt p e t i t i o n . the husband's an o r d e r denying incurred as a On June 13, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l the wife's motion t o dismiss On 7 fees June 13, 2 0 1 1 , t h e trial t h e husband's m o t i o n t o s t a y and m o t i o n t o The h e a r i n g was c o n t i n u e d f o r attorney counterclaim. court also denied recuse. award court's The w i f e o p p o s e d t h a t m o t i o n a n d again court entered an of the t r i a l regarding the wife's contempt petition t w i c e due t o c o n f l i c t s , on a c c o u n t o f b o t h t h e husband and t h e w i f e . As mentioned above, on September 2, 2011, t h i s court r e l e a s e d K r e i t z b e r g , 80 So. 3d 925, w h i c h r e v e r s e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s November 19, 2010, j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as i t h a d a w a r d e d I n i t s June 13, 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r , t h e t r i a l c o u r t n o t e d t h a t , a l t h o u g h i t had d e n i e d t h e w i f e ' s motion t o d i s m i s s the husband's counterclaim, i t had moved the husband's c o u n t e r c l a i m t o the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e docket because i t " l a c k [ e d ] j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r u l e on a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e p r e v i o u s o r d e r w h i l e t h e o r d e r i s on a p p e a l . " 7 23 2110920 and 2111066 the w i f e the $2,500 i n m o n t h l y p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y and h a d d i v i d e d parties' court m a r i t a l property; issued i t s c e r t i f i c a t e on September 21, 2011, this o f judgment i n K r e i t z b e r g . On September 22, 2011, t h e h u s b a n d f i l e d a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e wife's c o n t e m p t p e t i t i o n b e c a u s e , he a r g u e d , he c o u l d n o t be found i n contempt f o r f a i l i n g court had r e v e r s e d . On t o f o l l o w a judgment t h a t O c t o b e r 11, 2011, t h e w i f e this filed a m o t i o n f o r s a n c t i o n s b a s e d on t h e h u s b a n d ' s a l l e g e d f a i l u r e t o respond t o d i s c o v e r y requests. filed an a n s w e r reduction order." of On O c t o b e r 27, 2011, t h e w i f e t o the husband's periodic alimony "counterclaim, and clarification motion f o r of court The t r i a l c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g on t h e p e n d i n g m o t i o n s i n t h e c o n t e m p t a c t i o n on O c t o b e r 28, 2011. On M a r c h 1, 2012, the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d o r d e r s d e n y i n g the husband's m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e w i f e ' s c o n t e m p t p e t i t i o n and t h e w i f e ' s m o t i o n f o r sanctions. Additionally, entered order an finding on M a r c h 1, 2012, t h e t r i a l the husband to c a l c u l a t i n g the husband's a l i m o n y a r r e a r a g e , be in court contempt, and a w a r d i n g t h e w i f e an $8,500 a t t o r n e y f e e . On M a r c h 7, amend, o r v a c a t e 2012, the husband f i l e d the t r i a l court's 24 a motion to judgment. alter, On M a r c h 27, 2110920 a n d 2111066 2012, the wife trial c o u r t ' s judgment. a response 2012, the postjudgment entered filed a motion t o a l t e r , On A p r i l 10, 2012, t h e h u s b a n d to the wife's trial court motions, an o r d e r amend, o r v a c a t e t h e postjudgment held a and, t h a t motion. hearing same denying the wife's on filed On May 14, the parties' day, t h e t r i a l postjudgment court motion and g r a n t i n g t h e husband's postjudgment m o t i o n i n p a r t and d e n y i n g it 14, i n part. B o t h p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d on t h e r e c o r d o f t h e May 2012, h e a r i n g to allow the t r i a l d a y s t o e n t e r a judgment court an a d d i t i o n a l adjudicating a l l the p a r t i e s ' 90 claims i n t h e contempt a c t i o n because a t t h e time o f t h e e n t r y o f t h e May 14, 2012, o r d e r s t h e t r i a l c o u r t had y e t t o determine the i s s u e o f an a t t o r n e y - f e e award t o t h e w i f e . g r a n t i n g t h e husband's Specifically, i n postjudgment motion i n p a r t , the t r i a l c o u r t h a d s e t a s i d e i t s a t t o r n e y - f e e award a n d h a d o r d e r e d t h e wife's attorney to provide documentation, as required by P e e b l e s v. M i l e y , 439 So. 2d 137 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) , t o e s t a b l i s h a reasonable attorney-fee On June 7, award. 2012, t h e w i f e filed the a f f i d a v i t a t t o r n e y , D a v i d Shepherd, w i t h t h e t r i a l c o u r t . stated: 25 of her The a f f i d a v i t 2110920 and 2111066 "My name i s D a v i d P. S h e p h e r d . I am l i c e n s e d t o p r a c t i c e l a w i n t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a and have b e e n so l i c e n s e d f o r more t h a n 33 y e a r s . A t t a c h e d as E x h i b i t 'A' t o t h i s A f f i d a v i t i s t h e t i m e I s p e n t r e g a r d i n g t h e above c a s e w h i c h b e g a n on December 21, 2010. A t t r i a l , t h e f e e o f [ t h e w i f e ] was e s t i m a t e d t o be E i g h t y F i v e H u n d r e d D o l l a r s ( $ 8 5 0 0 ) . The h o u r l y r a t e on t h i s c a s e was Two Hundred F i f t y Dollars ($250.00) p e r h o u r . The time c a l c u l a t e d t h r o u g h J a n u a r y 23, 2012, the date of the Final H e a r i n g was 13.6 h o u r s f o r a t o t a l f e e o f $10,325. The t i m e c a l c u l a t e d t h r o u g h t h e R u l e 59 m o t i o n s (5-16-12) was 46.8 hours for a total fee of $11,700." On June attorney-fee spent on consider 2012, the the 22, 2012, the affidavit, case was husband alleging t h a t the excessive issue without filed and holding a response urging the Shepherd time to had the a hearing. On court to June 27, t h e t r i a l c o u r t a f f i r m e d i t s p r e v i o u s a w a r d o f an $8,500 attorney claims fee to the w i f e , thus a d j u d i c a t i n g a l l the regarding the contempt husband appealed the t r i a l action. court's That same judgment t o t h i s parties' day court. On a p p e a l , t h e h u s b a n d a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t the a u t h o r i t y t o c o n s i d e r the w i f e ' s p e t i t i o n the lacked seeking to hold him i n c o n t e m p t f o r h i s f a i l u r e t o pay h e r $2,500 p e r month i n alimony pending the appeal contends t h a t the t r i a l of the divorce judgment. c o u r t c o u l d n o t h o l d him o f t h e o r i g i n a l November 19, 2010, 26 He i n contempt j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e , he says, 2110920 and 2111066 t h a t j u d g m e n t h a d been r e v e r s e d and was no l o n g e r effective. He f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d n o t have h e l d h i m in c o n t e m p t f o r f a i l i n g t o p a y t h e amount o f a l i m o n y in t h e j u d g m e n t on remand b e c a u s e , he s a y s , t h a t j u d g m e n t n o t i n e x i s t e n c e u n t i l t h e same d a t e t h e t r i a l in contempt. First, awarded c o u r t found him The h u s b a n d i s i n c o r r e c t . we note that the husband failed to secure s u p e r s e d e a s bond w h i l e h i s a p p e a l o f t h e November 19, j u d g m e n t was Although the record requested trial Rule 8, pending. that court request was that the t r i a l denied this A l a . R. court that court App. reflects 2010, that s e t a s u p e r s e d e a s bond, request. the to s e t a s u p e r s e d e a s bond p u r s u a n t to Because s u p e r s e d e a s bond, t h e h u s b a n d was he husband he failed P. The a had not secured a r e q u i r e d t o p a y t h e $2,500 m o n t h l y a l i m o n y payment t o t h e w i f e d u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y o f t h e appeal. 704 See Ryan v. Ryan, 267 A l a . 677, 682, 104 So. 2d 700, (1958). trial His f a i l u r e t o do so was, as d e t e r m i n e d by t h e c o u r t , w i l l f u l contempt. We agree with the husband that "[t]he reversal of a judgment, or a p a r t t h e r e o f , w h o l l y a n n u l s i t , o r t h e p a r t of it, as i f i t never e x i s t e d , " 27 and that "[a]nother judgment 2110920 rendered and 2111066 by a c o u r t w i t h j u r i s d i c t i o n must t h e r e a f t e r r e p l a c e [the r e v e r s e d judgment]." 591 ( A l a . C i v . App. husband ends S h i r l e y v. S h i r l e y , 361 So. 2d 590, 1978) . there. However, our agreement w i t h t h e I n K r e i t z b e r g , we reversed the trial c o u r t ' s November 19, 2010, j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as i t a w a r d e d t h e w i f e $2,500 p e r month i n a l i m o n y , c o u r t , on remand, and we i n s t r u c t e d t h e t r i a l t o r e d u c e t h e amount o f a l i m o n y a w a r d e d t o t h e w i f e and t o a d j u s t t h e p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n as i t saw f i t t o balance 935. the e q u i t i e s of the p a r t i e s . Our o p i n i o n , w h i c h r e p l a c e d t h e t r i a l insofar as i t a w a r d e d t h e w i f e r e q u i r e d the t r i a l to the K r e i t z b e r g , 80 So. 3d a t court t o redetermine be a w a r d e d t h e w i f e . husband $2,500 court's judgment p e r month i n alimony, t h e amount o f a l i m o n y Our o p i n i o n d i d n o t e n t i r e l y of h i s o b l i g a t i o n t o pay the wife absolve alimony, i t m e r e l y r e q u i r e d t h a t t h e amount o f t h a t o b l i g a t i o n be r e d u c e d . Thus, o u r r e v e r s a l o f t h e $2,500 m o n t h l y a l i m o n y o b l i g a t i o n i n K r e i t z b e r g d i d n o t , as t h e h u s b a n d c o n t e n d s , s e r v e t o remove the b a s i s f o r h o l d i n g him i n contempt. Furthermore, trial i n s o f a r as the husband court l o s t authority to consider contends the contempt due t o t h e t i m i n g o f t h e h e a r i n g , we d i s a g r e e . 28 that the petition To a l l o w t h e 2110920 and timing of 2111066 a trial court's hearing contempt t o impact a t r i a l j u d g m e n t w o u l d be file trial 'and a motion to Morgan, 515 the 15 So. 2d 1249, So. law issue 1254 that party for contempt a may independent proceeding'" (Ala. 381 C i v . App. So. 2d 58, 2005) 59 (Ala. 1980)). a 907 (quoting Opinion hearing regarding contempt court's a u t h o r i t y to decide be Dial v. for b e c a u s e by f i l i n g a "'separate to a and action that i s So. Allowing petition It is petition 2d 447, of the petition the may 2008). a underlying b e i n g a p p e a l e d . W i l c o x e n v. W i l c o x e n , as 1994)." Goetsch file initiates from the "[a] i t s judgments ( A l a . C i v . App. party that to 1 9 8 7 ) ; see a l s o K i n g c o n t e m p t d u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y o f an a p p e a l petition settled ( A l a . C i v . App. 413 for right effective.' ( A l a . C i v . App. a a party's such process judgments] 2d 403, settled and power t o e n f o r c e and [the 2d 14, v. G o e t s c h , 990 well orders a petition a u t h o r i t y to enforce i t s It is well inherent render So. v. K i n g , 636 also c o n t r a r y to the t o make s u c h necessary court's f o r contempt. c o u r t has regarding the 449 n.1 C l e r k No. 25, timing dictate w o u l d be a of a trial arbitrary and w o u l d p r o v i d e an i n c e n t i v e f o r a p a r t y t o d e l a y a c o n t e m p t h e a r i n g s h o u l d i t be t o h i s o r h e r p o t e n t i a l a d v a n t a g e . 29 Thus, 2110920 and we 2111066 c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t had t h e a u t h o r i t y t o consider the w i f e ' s contempt p e t i t i o n d e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t the was held after the issuance of our September hearing 21, 2011, c e r t i f i c a t e o f j u d g m e n t as t o o u r o p i n i o n r e v e r s i n g t h e c o u r t ' s November 19, S i m i l a r l y , we the ability to the 2010, judgment. cannot conclude t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t calculate the husband's a r r e a r a g e 2012, j u d g m e n t , w h i c h i t e n t e r e d i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h o u r remand contempt The trial for f a i l i n g court could based that c o u r t had compliance i n the March The t r i a l c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d arrearage this i t awarded alimony on in alimony of lacked based instructions. amount o f trial on with t o pay not the have calculated $2,500-per-month reversed. our alimony pending Instead, remand the the instructions, was appeal. husband's alimony the 1, obligation trial court, determined in an a p p r o p r i a t e amount o f m o n t h l y a l i m o n y -- $1,310.50. Based that properly reduced amount of alimony, computed t h e h u s b a n d ' s a r r e a r a g e . the trial Although court our instructions on remand i n K r e i t z b e r g d i d n o t c o n t e m p l a t e c a l c u l a t i o n o f alimony arrearage, nature that the we think i t implicit judgment on remand 30 i n r e v e r s a l s of instituting on an an this alimony 2110920 and 2111066 o b l i g a t i o n i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e remand i n s t r u c t i o n s o f t h i s court should be 2d 454, retroactively court reversed. judgment t h i s applied See 455 (Ala. child-support Civ. order entered in date of the F o s t e r v. F o s t e r , 733 So. 1999) App. to the that (holding compliance with a remand i n s t r u c t i o n s f r o m t h i s c o u r t s h o u l d be r e t r o a c t i v e t o t h e d a t e of the divorce M c W h o r t e r , 716 judgment reversed So. 2d 720, 722 see a l s o S m i t h v. S m i t h , 928 2005) by this c o u r t ) ; Ex ( A l a . C i v . App. So. 2d 287, ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t a p a r t y who pays 294 1998) reimbursement 549 So. 2d 512, f o r the overpayment); 514 ( A l a . C i v . App. e r r o r on t h e p a r t o f t h e t r i a l contempt f o r f a i l i n g calculating amount o f 2012, the alimony pursuant to j u d g m e n t on be entitled W o o l w i n e v. W o o l w i n e , 1989) (same). We find c o u r t i n h o l d i n g the husband i n the arrearage trial court based awarded on the reduced i n i t s March had November the 19, authority 2010, 1, remand. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , t h e h u s b a n d a r g u e s t h a t , even i f t h e court no t o pay a l i m o n y p e n d i n g t h e a p p e a l or i n husband's alimony (same); ( A l a . C i v . App. j u d g m e n t t h a t i s l a t e r r e v e r s e d on t h a t i s s u e may to parte to find judgment a f t e r 31 him in contempt this court's of trial the r e v e r s a l of 2110920 a n d 2111066 that judgment, finding 2010, We the t r i a l the husband court t o be exceeded i n contempt i t s discretion o f t h e November in 19, judgment. review the t r i a l court's finding under the f o l l o w i n g w e l l - s e t t l e d s t a n d a r d of c i v i l of contempt review. "The i s s u e w h e t h e r t o h o l d a p a r t y i n c o n t e m p t i s s o l e l y w i t h i n the d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l court, and a t r i a l c o u r t ' s c o n t e m p t d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d on a p p e a l a b s e n t a s h o w i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l court acted outside i t s d i s c r e t i o n or that i t s judgment i s n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e . Brown v. Brown, 960 So. 2d 712, 716 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006) ( a f f i r m i n g a t r i a l court's d e c i s i o n not t o hold a p a r e n t i n contempt f o r f a i l u r e t o pay c h i l d support when t h e p a r e n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d d e d u c t e d f r o m h i s m o n t h l y c h i l d - s u p p o r t payment t h e amount he h a d e x p e n d e d t o buy c l o t h e s f o r t h e c h i l d r e n ) . " Poh v. Poh, 64 So. 3d 49, 61 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) . " R u l e 70A, A l a . R. C i v . P., has g o v e r n e d c o n t e m p t proceedings i n c i v i l a c t i o n s s i n c e J u l y 11, 1994. Rule 70A(a)(2)(D) defines 'civil c o n t e m p t ' as a willful, continuing failure o r r e f u s a l o f any person t o comply w i t h a court's lawful writ, s u b p o e n a , p r o c e s s , o r d e r , r u l e , o r command t h a t b y its nature is still capable of being complied with.'" Stamm v. Stamm, 922 So. 2d 920, 924 Moreover, i n order 70A(a)(2)(D), the to hold trial a party court 32 must ( A l a . C i v . App. i n contempt find that 2004) . under Rule the party 2110920 and 2111066 w i l l f u l l y f a i l e d or r e f u s e d t o comply w i t h a c o u r t o r d e r . T.L.D. v. C.G., The 849 So. 2d 200, husband contends t h a t discretion testimony i n h o l d i n g him indicated the appeal and, funds should serve admitted to to trial wife had asserts, joint a pay finding funds, and on says, the garnished t a k i n g of what what f u n d s t h e w i f e contempt In had dates and, of alimony. what f u n d s t h e w i f e accounts, exceeded i t s removed and the w i f e ' s court considered extensive testimony regarding court h i s alimony o b l i g a t i o n " prevent failure the 2002). j o i n t accounts d u r i n g the pendency of t h u s , he "offset ( A l a . C i v . App. i n c o n t e m p t b e c a u s e , he t h a t the funds from the p a r t i e s ' joint 205 See this therefore, despite case, the and a r g u m e n t s o f removed f r o m t h e the had wife had those his trial counsel parties' removed those been awarded p u r s u a n t to the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgments b e f o r e c o n c l u d i n g t h a t , even under the r e d u c e d m o n t h l y p e r i o d i c - a l i m o n y a w a r d o f $1,310.50, h u s b a n d was amount o f in arrears $1,258.82. as to h i s alimony obligation In making i t s c a l c u l a t i o n s , in the the the trial c o u r t d i d o f f s e t t h e h u s b a n d ' s a l i m o n y a r r e a r a g e by t h e amount of certain accounts. funds The the husband wife does had not 33 removed from contest the the parties' amount o f the 2110920 and 2111066 arrearage or the t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t he was i n arrears on a p p e a l . We c a n n o t a g r e e t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was failing t o pay the w i f e the $2,500 p e r month i n a l i m o n y owed u n d e r t h e November 19, 2010, indicates that t h e w i f e was remove funds living expenses. argument that contemptuous from the the are persuaded not wife's actions failure t o pay accounts taken alimony Moreover, by funds to the and fund her husband's i n response s h o u l d excuse the t r i a l he the r e c o r d compelled to garnish joint b e i n g found i n contempt. the judgment because parties' We not i n contempt f o r to h i s him from court stated on r e c o r d t h a t i t found the husband's a c t i o n s i n f a i l i n g to p a y t h e w i f e any amount o f a l i m o n y d u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y o f t h e a p p e a l t o be Thus, the both c o n t e m p t u o u s and husband's argument "almost unconscionable." that the wife's taking and g a r n i s h m e n t of j o i n t funds a b s o l v e d h i s w i l l f u l f a i l u r e t o pay her a l i m o n y l a c k s m e r i t or s u p p o r t i n law. Accordingly, exceeded we cannot i t s d i s c r e t i o n by conclude that the trial court d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t the husband had willfully f a i l e d o r r e f u s e d t o pay t h e w i f e a l i m o n y d u r i n g t h e pendency of the appeal as ordered 34 in the trial court's 2110920 and 2111066 November 19, 2010, judgment. The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t h a d n o t p a i d any amount o f a l i m o n y b e c a u s e , he s a i d , not t h i n k t h a t the t r i a l legal. trial the husband had r e q u e s t e d c o u r t s e t a s u p e r s e d e a s b o n d and t h e t r i a l that request, request to the husband d i d not appeal this court or request that was that the court denied the d e n i a l of that this court s u p e r s e d e a s b o n d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 8, A l a . R. App. t h e h u s b a n d was he d i d c o u r t ' s November 19, 2010, o r d e r Moreover, although he P. o b l i g a t e d t o p a y t h e w i f e a l i m o n y as set a Thus, ordered u n d e r t h e November 19, 2010, j u d g m e n t d u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y o f that appeal. Therefore, the ore tenus evidence supports t r i a l c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e husband had w i l l f u l l y to pay the wife alimony as ordered i n the trial November 19, 2010, j u d g m e n t d u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y o f t h e in Kreitzberg. the failed court's appeal 8 We n o t e t h a t , a l t h o u g h t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s June 13, 2011, o r d e r s t a t e d t h a t i t h a d moved t h e h u s b a n d ' s c o u n t e r c l a i m seeking a modification of h i s alimony award to the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d o c k e t due t o t h e t r i a l court's l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m a t t h a t t i m e (see n o t e 7, s u p r a ) , the t r i a l c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d the husband's c o u n t e r c l a i m a t t h e May 14, 2012, h e a r i n g b e c a u s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a d been r e i n v e s t e d w i t h j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e a c t i o n due t o t h i s c o u r t ' s i s s u a n c e o f i t s c e r t i f i c a t e o f judgment i n K r e i t z b e r g on September 21, 2011. On remand, t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e d u c e d t h e h u s b a n d ' s a l i m o n y award, and, t h u s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t 8 35 2110920 a n d 2111066 F i n a l l y , t h e husband argues t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n awarding the wife the t r i a l says, an $8, 500 a t t o r n e y fee. He c o n t e n d s that c o u r t ' s a t t o r n e y - f e e a w a r d was i n e r r o r b e c a u s e , he " t h e amount o r d e r e d as a t t o r n e y s f e e s was i n e q u i t a b l e and i m p r o p e r u n d e r t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f P e e b l e s v. M i l e y , 439 So. 2d 137 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) . " P u r s u a n t t o § 30-2-54, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , has authority t o award brought t o recover unpaid attorney alimony. fees 9 the t r i a l i n contempt court actions I t i swell settled that " [ w ] h e t h e r t o a w a r d an a t t o r n e y fee i n a domestic relations case i s within t h e sound 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 a n d , a b s e n t an abuse is effectively a final judgment a d j u d i c a t i n g a l l c l a i m s b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s i n t h e u n d e r l y i n g c o n t e m p t a c t i o n . See, e.g., F a u l k v. Rhodes, 43 So. 3d 624, 625 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) ("A j u d g m e n t i s g e n e r a l l y n o t f i n a l u n l e s s a l l c l a i m s , or t h e r i g h t s o r l i a b i l i t i e s o f a l l p a r t i e s , have b e e n d e c i d e d . " ) ; a n d K e l l e y v. U.S.A. O i l C o r p . , 363 So. 2d 758, 759 ( A l a . 1978) ("To s u p p o r t an a p p e a l , t h e o r d e r a p p e a l e d f r o m must be a f i n a l j u d g m e n t . " ) . 9 S e c t i o n 30-2-54 p r o v i d e s : "In a l l a c t i o n s f o r divorce or f o r the recovery of alimony, maintenance, or support i n which a judgment o f d i v o r c e has been i s s u e d o r i s p e n d i n g and a c o n t e m p t o f c o u r t c i t a t i o n h a s b e e n made b y t h e c o u r t a g a i n s t e i t h e r p a r t y , t h e c o u r t may, o f i t s d i s c r e t i o n , upon a p p l i c a t i o n t h e r e f o r , a w a r d a reasonable sum as f e e s or compensation o f the attorney or attorneys representing both p a r t i e s . " 36 2110920 and 2111066 o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n , i t s r u l i n g on t h a t q u e s t i o n w i l l n o t 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 s u c h f e e s i n c l u d e the f i n a n c i a l 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. 1993) . A d d i t i o n a l l y , a t r i a l c o u r t i s p r e s u m e d t o have k n o w l e d g e f r o m w h i c h i t may s e t a r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e e v e n when t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e as t o t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f t h e a t t o r n e y f e e . T a y l o r v. T a y l o r , 486 So. 2d 1294 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 6 ) . " Glover v. G l o v e r , Therefore, its So. 2d 174, 176 ( A l a . C i v . App. we must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l 1996). court exceeded d i s c r e t i o n i n a w a r d i n g an $8,500 a t t o r n e y f e e t o t h e according trial to the court the 2010, record "almost factors found November 19, on 678 the husband j u d g m e n t , and that i t found unconscionable." t h a t she had attorney-fee had to be the t r i a l the incurred commencement o f with the of the its court also stated the conduct wife to be testified fees at the time of Furthermore, the w i f e f i l e d an the $11,700 drafting case, contempt husband's Additionally, hearing. affidavit In t h i s in i n c u r r e d $8,500 i n a t t o r n e y t h e O c t o b e r 28, 2011, wife o u t l i n e d above. wife in trial court attorney that stated the fees the contempt p e t i t i o n 37 from in December 2110920 a n d 2111066 2010 through t h e end o f postjudgment along with a detailed h e a r i n g s i n May 2 0 1 2 , itemization of A c c o r d i n g l y , we c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l its discretion the court expenses. exceeded i n a w a r d i n g t h e w i f e an a t t o r n e y - f e e award i n t h e amount o f $8,500. Conclusion F o r t h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d a b o v e , we a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t s trial of the court. 2110920 -- A P P L I C A T I O N OVERRULED; OPINION OF MARCH 1, 2013, WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; AFFIRMED. 2111066 -- A P P L I C A T I O N OVERRULED; OPINION OF MARCH 1, 2013, WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , c o n c u r . Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t w r i t i n g . 38

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.