J.D.A. v. A.B.A.
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Alabama?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Alabama. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
J.D.A. ("the husband") appealed a circuit court judgment that, among other things, divorced him from A.B.A. ("the wife"); divided the marital assets; awarded the wife periodic alimony; required the husband to pay child support for the parties' two minor children and postminority educational support for all three of the parties' children; and awarded the wife an attorney fee. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions. The Court reversed the trial court's judgment insofar as it ordered the husband to pay the postminority educational expenses of the two minor children; required the husband to pay the expenses associated with the daughters' automobiles; awarded the wife $10,000 per month in periodic alimony; and awarded the wife an attorney fee. Because the division of marital assets is considered in conjunction with an award of periodic alimony, the Court also reversed the trial court's property-division awards so that the circuit court could reconsider the alimony and marital-property awards together. In all other respects, the judgment was affirmed.
Download PDF
REL: 03/15/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2100907 J.D.A. v. A.B.A. Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t (DR-09-900117) Court PER CURIAM. J.D.A. ("the husband") a p p e a l s Montgomery C i r c u i t him from A.B.A. from a judgment o f t h e C o u r t t h a t , among o t h e r ("the w i f e " ) ; d i v i d e d things, the marital divorced assets; awarded t h e w i f e p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y ; r e q u i r e d t h e husband t o pay 2100907 child support f o r the parties' two minor children and p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l support f o r a l l three of the p a r t i e s ' c h i l d r e n ; a n d a w a r d e d t h e w i f e an a t t o r n e y f e e . part, r e v e r s e i n p a r t , a n d remand w i t h We a f f i r m i n instructions. The p a r t i e s m a r r i e d i n 1987 when t h e w i f e , who was 20 years o l d , was completing undergraduate degree i n elementary the requirements f o r an e d u c a t i o n and t h e husband, who was t h e n 24 y e a r s o l d , was e m p l o y e d as a c e r t i f i e d accountant ("CPA") at BellSouth Corporation The p a r t i e s ' f i r s t was b o r n until child, encouragement, he a d a u g h t e r ("the o l d e r d a u g h t e r " ) , decided, to reenroll public i n Birmingham. i n November 1990. The h u s b a n d w o r k e d 1992, when then with the wife's i n c o l l e g e i n order at BellSouth support and t o take the courses necessary t o enable him t o s i t f o r the M e d i c a l C o l l e g e Acceptance Test and t o a t t e n d m e d i c a l school. I n 1993, t h e husband e n t e r e d m e d i c a l s c h o o l a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Alabama a t Birmingham. The parties' d a u g h t e r " ) was b o r n i n 1994. Following the completion second child of h i s f i r s t ("the younger year of r e s i d e n c y and t h e b i r t h o f t h e p a r t i e s ' t h i r d c h i l d , a s o n , i n 1998, t h e husband experienced an e m o t i o n a l 2 breakdown. He left the 2100907 hospital one distraught, day without telling the f i n i s h his residency. explanation wife The that he and could wife scheduled arrived not home return to an a p p o i n t m e n t f o r t h e h u s b a n d w i t h a p s y c h i a t r i s t and e x p l a i n e d t o t h e director o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s m e d i c a l p r o g r a m t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was not w e l l and needed t o took rest. The a six-month break completed h i s medical that the taught husband school h u s b a n d was placed from h i s r e s i d e n c y training. pursued his During medical on medication, d u t i e s , and the 10-year education, i n the Mountain Brook s c h o o l then period the wife system, earned a m a s t e r ' s d e g r e e i n e d u c a t i o n , and b e g a n t a k i n g c o u r s e w o r k f o r a d o c t o r a l degree i n e d u c a t i o n . In 2003, h u s b a n d was the e m p l o y e d by specialty of Two later, years p a r t i e s moved where the a group of p h y s i c i a n s p r a c t i c i n g the radiology. he His to Montgomery, starting became a p a r t n e r s a l a r y was i n t h e g r o u p and e a r n i n g a b a s e s a l a r y o f $400,000 p l u s d i v i d e n d s and For the 5 years p r e c e d i n g the t r i a l $300,000. began bonuses. o f t h e c a s e i n 2010, the h u s b a n d ' s a d j u s t e d g r o s s income was $578,497 i n 2 0 0 5 ; $ 6 8 7 , 0 2 3 in 2 0 0 6 ; $621,589 i n 2 0 0 7 ; $ 6 9 1 , 4 9 6 i n 2 0 0 8 ; and $685,915 i n 3 2100907 2009. A f t e r t h e p a r t i e s moved t o Montgomery, t h e w i f e was n o t employed. At trial, the wife testified that, marriage, t h e h u s b a n d h a d b e e n "busy t e n d i n g and avoided throughout had conflict, been aggravated alcohol and, by by with her, and Those p r o b l e m s , she s a i d , h a d t h e husband's later, to h i s career" communication involvement with the c h i l d r e n . the excessive h i s adulterous consumption conduct. of I t was u n d i s p u t e d t h a t , i n 2004, t h e h u s b a n d h a d h a d a b r i e f affair w i t h an e m p l o y e e o f h i s r a d i o l o g y p r a c t i c e g r o u p , t h a t he h a d confessed the a f f a i r him, and marital that the p a r t i e s counseling. second a f f a i r to the wife, that t h a t the w i f e had f o r g i v e n had t h e r e a f t e r At t r i a l , t h e husband husband c h a r a c t e r i z e d having stemmed from to a i n June a d i v o r c e a n d t o demand t h a t t h e h u s b a n d move o u t o f t h e m a r i t a l as admitted u l t i m a t e l y had caused the w i f e , 2009, t o f i l e a c o m p l a i n t s e e k i n g The participated i n residence. the p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l problems the wife's excessive spending and excessive consumption of a l c o h o l , her c o n t r o l l i n g p e r s o n a l i t y , and her having marital intentionally involved conflicts. The husband 4 the c h i l d r e n i n t h e i r testified that he had 2100907 d e p o s i t e d h i s earnings i n the p a r t i e s ' j o i n t checking account and that, wife when he h a d become c o n c e r n e d was spending and had indicated about to her t h e amount t h e that he would r e d u c e t h e money a v a i l a b l e i n t h e j o i n t a c c o u n t , t h e w i f e t h r e a t e n e d t o " b o u n c e c h e c k s " and t o damage h i s c r e d i t if had rating he d i d s o . The c a s e was t r i e d over four 29, and December 6, 2010. d a y s , S e p t e m b e r 27, 28, At the time of t r i a l , 43 y e a r s o l d ; t h e h u s b a n d was the w i f e 48 y e a r s o l d ; and t h e and was parties' c h i l d r e n were 19, 16, and 12 y e a r s o l d , r e s p e c t i v e l y . While t h e a c t i o n was p e n d i n g , t h e h u s b a n d l i v e d i n t h e g u e s t room o f h i s s i s t e r ' s house i n Montgomery; the p a r t i e s ' o l d e r entered the majority; the University of Alabama and reached daughter the age of and t h e w i f e and t h e two m i n o r c h i l d r e n r e m a i n e d i n marital residence. Furthermore, during the pendency of t h e a c t i o n , t h e h u s b a n d d e p o s i t e d $16,000 t o $20,000 p e r month i n the p a r t i e s ' j o i n t c h e c k i n g account f o r the l i v i n g of the w i f e daughter's and the minor college children expenses, the s c h o o l t u i t i o n , and a l l e x p e n s e s five vehicles. 5 and also paid minor children's associated with the expenses the older privatefamily's 2100907 The agreeing p a r t i e s reached a p a r t i a l t h a t they would s e l l settlement before the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e trial, and that t h e w i f e w o u l d r e c e i v e t h e n e t p r o c e e d s o f t h a t s a l e as part of her share of the m a r i t a l a s s e t s . The w i f e u s e d $200,000 o f t h e $288,000 d e r i v e d f r o m t h e s a l e o f t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e make a down payment on a townhouse wife payment on h e r mortgage i n d e b t e d n e s s f o r the On she purchased expected the for monthly townhouse t o be $1,500. J a n u a r y 13, 2011, the d i v o r c i n g the p a r t i e s without without that she $375,000. The approximately testified that to trial court m a k i n g any entered a judgment factual findings s p e c i f y i n g a ground f o r the d i v o r c e . 1 The trial N e i t h e r p a r t y argues t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t f a i l i n g to s p e c i f y a ground f o r the d i v o r c e . 1 and court erred in " A l t h o u g h i t i s the b e t t e r p r a c t i c e t o s e t out the g r o u n d s i n i t s d e c r e e , a t r i a l c o u r t w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d f o r i t s f a i l u r e t o do s o . C o z a d v. C o z a d , 372 So. 2d 1322 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1979) . Where t h e decree f a i l s t o c o n t a i n grounds f o r the d i v o r c e , t h i s c o u r t w i l l e x a m i n e t h e r e c o r d t o see i f t h e r e is sufficient evidence to support the ground or g r o u n d s p r o p o u n d e d by t h e p a r t i e s and i f so the d e c r e e w i l l be a f f i r m e d . C o z a d , s u p r a . " M a t h i e s o n v. M a t h i e s o n , 409 So. 2d 439, 442 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 2 ) . I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e w i f e s o u g h t a d i v o r c e on t h e g r o u n d o f i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y and t h e h u s b a n d ' s a n s w e r t o t h e wife's complaint acknowledged that the parties were 6 2100907 awarded the parties physical custody joint of legal t h e two custody minor and t h e w i f e children. The sole court d e t e r m i n e d t h a t , i f t h e p a r t i e s were u n a b l e t o r e a c h a m u t u a l d e c i s i o n on i s s u e s c o n c e r n i n g t h e c h i l d r e n , t h e h u s b a n d w o u l d have t h e f i n a l d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g a u t h o r i t y on m a t t e r s c o n c e r n i n g the children's activities authority education, health, a n d t h e w i f e w o u l d have t h e f i n a l on matters social/extracurricular concerning activities. the husband t o pay t h e w i f e c h i l d children "529 automobiles, and s p o r t s decision-making religion The t r i a l and court ordered s u p p o r t f o r t h e two m i n o r i n t h e amount o f $3,900 p e r month, t o m a i n t a i n t h e Plan" accounts 2 f o r a l l three children, and t o pay a l l t h r e e c h i l d r e n ' s " c o l l e g e t u i t i o n and o t h e r c o s t s p u r s u a n t t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s a n d l i m i t a t i o n s o f Ex p a r t e B a y l i s s [ , 550 So. 2d 986 (Ala. 1989),] and i t s progeny." incompatible. The e v i d e n c e ground f o r the d i v o r c e . supported The trial incompatibility court as a C o n g r e s s c r e a t e d a t a x e x e m p t i o n f o u n d i n 26 U.S.C. § 529 i n o r d e r t o encourage t a x p a y e r s t o save f o r f u t u r e c o l l e g e expenses. See S. Rep. No. 104-281, 106, Pub. L. No. 104-188, 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1474, 1580 ( s t a t i n g t h a t t h e r e a s o n f o r t h e change i n t h e l a w was t o " c l a r i f y t h e t a x t r e a t m e n t o f S t a t e - s p o n s o r e d p r e p a i d t u i t i o n programs and e d u c a t i o n a l s a v i n g s p r o g r a m s i n o r d e r t o e n c o u r a g e p e r s o n s t o s a v e t o meet post-secondary e d u c a t i o n a l expenses"). 2 7 2100907 f u r t h e r o r d e r e d t h e husband t o pay " a l l c o s t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the automobiles including, [ i nthe possession but not l i m i t e d o f t h e two t o , maintenance, daughters], g a s o l i n e , and insurance." The 43%, trial court awarded t h e husband 57%, a n d t h e w i f e of the m a r i t a l property f o r which the record i n d i c a t e s a value. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t awarded the w i f e p e r i o d i c alimony i n t h e amount o f $10,000 p e r month a n d t h e sum o f $40,000, which attorney's i t designated as "a p o r t i o n f e e s , c o u r t c o s t s , and l i t i g a t i o n of the wife's expenses." 3 When t h e t r i a l r e c e s s e d on S e p t e m b e r 29, t h e t r i a l c o u r t o r d e r e d t h e h u s b a n d t o c o n t i n u e t o d e p o s i t $16,000 p e r month in the p a r t i e s ' j o i n t checking account f o r the wife's l i v i n g expenses. When t h e t r i a l resumed on December 6, t h e w i f e f i l e d a p e t i t i o n s e e k i n g a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was i n c o n t e m p t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s S e p t e m b e r 29 o r d e r . The t r i a l j u d g e s t a t e d t h a t he h a d r e a d t h e w i f e ' s p e t i t i o n a n d t h e h u s b a n d ' s r e s p o n s e a n d t h a t he w o u l d " p r o b a b l y ... j u s t w a i t u n t i l t h e e n d t o s e e what t o do a b o u t t h a t . " The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s no e x p r e s s o r i m p l i e d r u l i n g on t h e w i f e ' s c o n t e m p t petition. 3 On F e b r u a r y 4, 2 0 1 3 , t h i s c o u r t remanded t h e c a u s e t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t f o r 14 d a y s f o r i t t o a d j u d i c a t e t h e o u t s t a n d i n g contempt c l a i m o r t o e n t e r a c e r t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e judgment p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. On F e b r u a r y 1 1 , 2 0 1 3 , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g t h e w i f e ' s contempt c l a i m . 8 2100907 Following the denial of husband appealed, raising court's review: (I) his the postjudgment following whether the motion, issues court trial for the this failed to c o n s i d e r a l l r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s i n making the p r o p e r t y - d i v i s i o n and periodic-alimony inequitable; him t o pay three and (II) whether the whether trial those court p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l support children; r e q u i r i n g him and awards (III) t o pay whether the trial f o r the daughters' awards erred were in ordering f o r the parties' court automobile erred expenses; (IV) w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n a w a r d i n g t h e w i f e attorney in an fee. I. The division husband and argues that the periodic-alimony trial awards court's were made propertywithout c o n s i d e r i n g a l l r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s and were i n e q u i t a b l e . "On a p p e a l t h e d i v i s i o n o f p r o p e r t y and t h e a w a r d o f 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 e n t i r e j u d g m e n t must be c o n s i d e r e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n as t o e i t h e r i s s u e . See O'Neal v. O ' N e a l , 678 So. 2d 161 (Ala. Civ. App. 1 9 9 6 ) . A p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n does n o t have t o be e q u a l i n o r d e r t o be e q u i t a b l e b a s e d on t h e p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s of each case; 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 sound d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t . See G o l d e n v. G o l d e n , 681 So. 2d 605 (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) . 9 2100907 "When d i v i d i n g m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y a n d d e t e r m i n i n g a p a r t y ' s need f o r alimony, a t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d consider s e v e r a l f a c t o r s , i n c l u d i n g '"the l e n g t h of t h e m a r r i a g e , t h e age a n d h e a l t h o f t h e p a r t i e s , t h e f u t u r e employment p r o s p e c t s o f t h e p a r t i e s , t h e s o u r c e , v a l u e , a n d t y p e o f p r o p e r t y owned, a n d t h e s t a n d a r d o f l i v i n g t o w h i c h t h e p a r t i e s have become accustomed d u r i n g the marriage."' Ex p a r t e E l l i o t t , 782 So. 2d 308 ( A l a . 2000) ( q u o t i n g N o w e l l v. N o w e l l , 474 So. 2d 1128, 1129 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1985)) ( f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d ) . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t may a l s o consider the conduct o f the p a r t i e s w i t h regard t o t h e b r e a k d o w n o f t h e m a r r i a g e , e v e n where t h e parties are divorced on the basis of i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y , o r w h e r e , as h e r e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t f a i l e d t o s p e c i f y t h e g r o u n d s upon w h i c h i t b a s e d i t s d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t . 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 ) . I t i s w e l l - s e t t l e d t h a t where a trial court does n o t make s p e c i f i c factual f i n d i n g s , t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t must assume t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t made t h o s e f i n d i n g s n e c e s s a r y t o s u p p o r t i t s j u d g m e n t , u n l e s s s u c h f i n d i n g s w o u l d be c l e a r l y erroneous. Ex p a r t e Fann, 810 So. 2d 631 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ; Ex p a r t e B r y o w s k y , 676 So. 2d 1322 ( A l a . 1996)." B a g g e t t v. B a g g e t t , 855 So. 2d 556, 559-60 (Ala. C i v . App. 2003). The marriage. her parties substantial assets during their The w i f e was a w a r d e d t h e u n e n c u m b e r e d a u t o m o b i l e i n possession automobile acquired a n d t h e h u s b a n d was a w a r d e d t h e u n e n c u m b e r e d and p i c k u p t r u c k i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n . E a c h p a r t y was awarded t h e f u r n i t u r e , f u r n i s h i n g s , f i x t u r e s , a p p l i a n c e s , and personal effects i n h i s or her possession. 10 The r e c o r d does 2100907 not i n d i c a t e the value of the f o r e g o i n g p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , but the evidence indicated that the wife r e t a i n e d most of the c o n t e n t s o f t h e 5-bedroom, 4 , 2 0 0 - s q u a r e - f o o t m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e that h a d been parties moved furnished with t o Montgomery. antiques purchased The t r i a l court after the d i v i d e d the r e m a i n d e r o f t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s as f o l l o w s : Assets Awarded t o Husband Value Vacant l o t , Lockwood Subd. 90,000 Awarded t o Wife 90,000 0 288,000 Net p r o c e e d s from sale of marital residence 288,000 0 Husband's R o t h IRA 129,000 64,500 64,500 90,000 45,000 45,000 292,770 292,770 W i f e ' s R o t h IRA 16,000 8,000 8,000 Wife's T r a d i t i o n a l IRA 33,000 16,500 16,500 251,000 125,500 125,500 20,000 10,000 10,000 Morgan-Keegan stock 1,343 1,343 0 Regions stock 2,297 2,297 0 Joint Fidelity savings account Husband's Fidelity profits h a r i n g account R e g i o n s Bank checking account ServisFirst stock 0 Bank Wife's teacher retirement acc't 23,000 0 11 23,000 2100907 Husband's e q u i t y interest i n medical p r a c t i c e 120,000 Total 120,000 $1,356,410 The division husband 0 $775,910 (57%) contends t h a t and p e r i o d i c - a l i m o n y the t r i a l $580,500 (43%) court's awards r e f l e c t property- a consideration of o n l y t h e f i r s t and l a s t f a c t o r s l i s t e d i n Baggett, i.e., the length of the marriage standard of l i v i n g (affluent) says, the remaining (23 y e a r s ) supra and t h e p a r t i e s ' thereby i g n o r i n g , the husband f a c t o r s : t h a t t h e w i f e i s r e l a t i v e l y young and i n g o o d h e a l t h ; t h a t , w i t h a m a s t e r ' s d e g r e e i n e d u c a t i o n and 10 years' employment is teaching prospects t h e source the a b i l i t y the wife's future a r e good; a n d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d ' s of v i r t u a l l y husband requested had experience, a l l the marital property. income The that the t r i a l court determine that the wife to earn an annual income of $45,000, c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e s a l a r y she had l a s t e a r n e d as a t e a c h e r , and a w a r d h e r r e h a b i l i t a t i v e alimony i n the i n i t i a l amount o f $6,300 p e r month, w i t h t h a t amount g r a d u a l l y d e c l i n i n g o v e r a 6 - y e a r p e r i o d a n d e n d i n g when t h e s o n l e a v e s home f o r c o l l e g e . The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e h a d no p l a n s t o r e t u r n t o t h e workforce; the she r e q u e s t e d marital property that the t r i a l c o u r t award h e r h a l f and p e r i o d i c alimony 12 i n t h e amount o f 2100907 $12,000 p e r month, w h i c h amount, she s a i d , w o u l d a l l o w h e r t o m a i n t a i n the s t a n d a r d of l i v i n g the p a r t i e s had e n j o y e d d u r i n g the marriage. The wife family's spending h i s t o r y presented a compilation of f o r t h e 26 months p r e c e d i n g the trial. The w i f e ' s e x p e r t w i t n e s s , a CPA, d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e f a m i l y ' s monthly amount expenditures by 20% to had averaged account $16,599; he f o r the fact reduced that the that wife's p o s t d i v o r c e h o u s e h o l d w o u l d have 4 members i n s t e a d o f 5; a n d he c o n c l u d e d t h a t p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y i n t h e amount o f a t l e a s t $11,731 p e r month w o u l d p r o v i d e standard of l i v i n g predivorce that was the wife with a commensurate w i t h postdivorce the family's status. On c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , the wife's expert witness readily acknowledged t h a t the w i f e ' s c o m p i l a t i o n was n o t a " b u d g e t . " Rather, record he said, i t was a a c t u a l l y spent f o r the previous represented standard marriage. things, o f what living that the wife had to i l l u s t r a t e enjoyed during The w i f e ' s m o n t h l y e x p e n s e s i n c l u d e d , among $2,000 f o r savings, $1,280 f o r vacations, g r o c e r i e s , $630 f o r r e s t a u r a n t s , $550 f o r g i f t s , 13 had 26 months, d i v i d e d by 26 a n d as " m o n t h l y e x p e n s e s " i n o r d e r of the family the the other $860 f o r a n d $420 f o r 2100907 home r e p a i r and maintenance. On c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n of the w i f e ' s e x p e r t , t h e h u s b a n d c h a l l e n g e d t h e l e g i t i m a c y o f many, i f n o t most, o f t h e l i n e i t e m s i n t h e w i f e ' s c o m p i l a t i o n . F o r e x a m p l e , he q u e s t i o n e d repair and m a i n t a i n o n l y 17 y e a r s o l d . figure labeled why t h e w i f e n e e d e d $420 p e r month t o a 2,700-square-foot townhouse The w i f e ' s e x p e r t e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e $420 " r e p a i r and maintenance" had a c t u a l l y d e r i v e d f r o m t h e more t h a n $100,000 i n e x p e n d i t u r e s had made t o renovate expenditures t h a t was the 85-year-old t h a t , the accountant been the family m a r i t a l residence conceded, should properly have b e e n c l a s s i f i e d a s " c a p i t a l i m p r o v e m e n t s " a n d t h a t c o u l d not validly have been used to determine a m a i n t e n a n c e e x p e n s e f o r t h e w i f e ' s new t o w n h o u s e . expert need made s i m i l a r t o save liquid assets $2,000 p e r month that marital property; expenses, which marital residence reason concessions with i n light s h e was r e q u e s t i n g the accuracy reflected over The w i f e ' s to the wife's of the s u b s t a n t i a l i n a division of the o f the w i f e ' s monthly utility the t o t a l the past respect repair-and- utility bills for the 26 months d i v i d e d b y 26; t h e f o r a v e t e r i n a r y e x p e n s e o f $100 p e r month when, t h e w i f e a c k n o w l e d g e d , s h e d i d n o t w a n t , a n d was n o t t a k i n g , t h e 14 2100907 family's pets; the validity husband's life-insurance admitted, the of a $300 premiums, h u s b a n d w o u l d pay and "household $500 the wife's per month s m a l l e r than addition, it the m a r i t a l wife's for expense, the the townhouse r e s i d e n c e and and is has expense "standard acknowledged restraint," of that a c o m p i l a t i o n had format living," the concept rather word that, "need" the he to than yard. "need." said, he converted illustrate her In items f o r repeated, implies expert the totaling h i s t o r y and i n order wife substantially a tiny g r o c e r i e s were " h i g h , " b u t , a monthly the d i v o r c e ; and h e l p " expenses simply taken the f a m i l y ' s spending to item the w i f e ' s e x p e r t conceded t h a t the l i n e restaurants had when which after need f o r " y a r d - c a r e " line the He "budgetary the wife's n o t been i n t e n d e d t o r e p r e s e n t . Much o f t h e e v i d e n c e at t r i a l t h e h u s b a n d ' s income f o r p u r p o s e s t o pay p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y . f o c u s e d upon how to of determining h i s assess ability The w i f e t o o k t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e h u s b a n d ' s a n n u a l g r o s s income was composed o f h i s b a s e salary o f $400,000, p l u s b o n u s e s a v e r a g i n g $250,000 o v e r t h e 5 y e a r s preceding the trial, plus the radiology practice group's $48,000 a n n u a l c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e h u s b a n d ' s r e t i r e m e n t p l a n . 15 2100907 By h e r c a l c u l a t i o n s , t h e husband's net m o n t h l y income, based on h i s e a r n i n g s i n 2009, t h e most r e c e n t y e a r f o r w h i c h full information the was available, m o n t h l y a l i m o n y she was and after requesting, accounting w o u l d be for $27,288. 4 The h u s b a n d t o o k t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t h i s b a s e s a l a r y o f $400,000 ( o r o t h e r "wages") s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d h i s income f o r p u r p o s e s o f determining h i s a b i l i t y t o pay p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y b e c a u s e , he s a i d , h i s b o n u s e s were i n c o n s i s t e n t and s p e c u l a t i v e . not address whether the radiology contributions to h i s retirement calculations, h i s n e t monthly income, b e f o r e t h e m o n t h l y a l i m o n y t h e w i f e was plan were practice income. He d i d group's By h i s accounting f o r r e q u e s t i n g , was $22,750. The w i f e ' s e x p e r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d ' s income f o r 2009 was $731,222 a f i g u r e t h a t he a r r i v e d a t b y a d d i n g t h e h u s b a n d ' s wages o f $462,222 (base s a l a r y o f $400,000 p l u s $62,222 e a r n e d by s u b s t i t u t i n g f o r o t h e r p h y s i c i a n s i n t h e g r o u p ) , b o n u s e s o f $221,000, and t h e r a d i o l o g y practice group's c o n t r i b u t i o n t o the husband's r e t i r e m e n t p l a n i n the amount o f 48,000. The e x p e r t e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e r e t i r e m e n t p l a n c o n t r i b u t i o n was n o n t a x a b l e i n c o m e , t h a t t h e p r o p o s e d a n n u a l a l i m o n y payment o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y $140,000 w o u l d be t a x d e d u c t i b l e , and t h a t t h e h u s b a n d ' s a d j u s t e d g r o s s income w o u l d , t h e r e f o r e , be $542,448, on w h i c h t h e h u s b a n d w o u l d p a y a p p r o x i m a t e l y $200,000 i n f e d e r a l and s t a t e t a x e s , r e s u l t i n g , t h e e x p e r t s a i d , i n n e t a n n u a l income t o t h e h u s b a n d o f $327,458, o r $27,288 i n n e t m o n t h l y i n c o m e . 4 16 2100907 The b u s i n e s s manager of t h e husband's r a d i o l o g y p r a c t i c e g r o u p t e s t i f i e d t h a t b o n u s e s a r e p a i d two, o r s o m e t i m e s t h r e e , times a year, not monthly. I n 2010, t h e h u s b a n d h a d a l r e a d y r e c e i v e d one bonus o f $25,645, and, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e b u s i n e s s manager, the approximately making his explained husband $40,000 2010 that could before income the expect another t h e end $465,645. partners of of the year, thereby The 5 in bonus manager the business husband's radiology p r a c t i c e group had determined not t o d i s t r i b u t e t o themselves, in f u t u r e y e a r s , as much o f t h e g r o u p ' s r e t a i n e d e a r n i n g s t h e y h a d done i n p a s t y e a r s . manager group's said, was earnings as That d e t e r m i n a t i o n , the b u s i n e s s a c o n s e q u e n c e o f a 33% r e d u c t i o n i n t h e since August 2009, a reduction that, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e b u s i n e s s manager, c o u l d be a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e u n c e r t a i n t y t h a t attended health-care reform, reimbursements to physicians, loss of lower Medicare c o n t r a c t s , and the When t h e t r i a l resumed on December 6, 2010, t h e h u s b a n d a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t he h a d r e c e i v e d a bonus i n t h e amount o f $50,000 i n November 2010 and t h a t an a d d i t i o n a l bonus i n t h e amount o f $40,000 was s t i l l p r o j e c t e d f o r December 2 2010. I f t h a t p r o j e c t i o n p r o v e d t o be a c c u r a t e , t h e n t h e h u s b a n d ' s 2010 i n c o m e , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e b u s i n e s s manager's m e t h o d o l o g y , w o u l d have been $515,645. 5 17 2100907 group's i n t e n t i o n t o comply w i t h t h e l o a n covenants r e l a t i n g t o an i m a g i n g c e n t e r i n w h i c h t h e g r o u p h a d a 33% The husband's planner, testified expert m o r e o v e r , he s a i d , upward t r a j e c t o r y , been r e d u c e d the 5 years CPA and financial trial, t h e b o n u s e s h a d n o t been on a steady and, i n b o t h preceding bonuses the 2007 a n d 2009, h a d from the p r e v i o u s years. expert opined, a t h a t t h e amount o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s h a d f l u c t u a t e d by 40% o v e r and, witness, interest. actually F u r t h e r , the husband's f u t u r e bonus income i s s p e c u l a t i v e and should not form t h e b a s i s f o r a p e r i o d i c - a l i m o n y award t h a t i s b a s e d upon a p a y o r ' s a "Monte current earnings. Carlo simulation" U s i n g what he r e f e r r e d t o as an f i n a n c i a l p l a n n e r s use t o determine his money" t h e husband's expert analytical formula i f a client will witness h u s b a n d c o u l d p a y t h e amount o f a l i m o n y , that "outlive s t a t e d that the child support, and o t h e r f i n a n c i a l o b l i g a t i o n s t h a t t h e w i f e h a d r e q u e s t e d he be o r d e r e d t o p a y i f t h e h u s b a n d " p e e l e d o f f " 4, 5, o r 6% o f h i s a s s e t s e v e r y y e a r , b u t , he s a i d , t o work u n t i l With court, t h e h u s b a n d w o u l d a l s o have t h e age o f 94 o r 95. respect t o t h e husband's argument that the trial i n m a k i n g t h e p r o p e r t y - d i v i s i o n and p e r i o d i c - a l i m o n y 18 2100907 awards, failed Baggett, s u p r a , we findings of otherwise, to consider a l l the note t h a t the t r i a l fact; however, unless factors c o u r t made no the we presume t h a t t h e t r i a l outlined record in specific demonstrates court considered a l l the a p p l i c a b l e f a c t o r s and s i m p l y c h o s e t o w e i g h some f a c t o r s more heavily 887 than others. ( A l a . C i v . App. considered not one c o u r t d i d not ("trial Ramsey, 995 So. 2d 881, court's indication that i t appellate court also consider same s t a t u t e " ) . f i r s t and in 2008) Ramsey v. o f many f a c t o r s e n u m e r a t e d i n a s t a t u t e " does " r e q u i r e [ ] an that Cf. The the t o presume t h a t t h e other trial f a c t o r s enumerated i n husband contends t h a t a l l but l a s t B a g g e t t f a c t o r s , w h i c h we the d i s c u s s below, weigh f a v o r of awarding the w i f e o n l y s h o r t - t e r m rehabilitative alimony. The age and health of the parties. r e l a t i v e l y young and i n good h e a l t h . hypertension, hyperlipidemia, p r e s c r i p t i o n medications The has and to c o n t r o l those f u t u r e employment p r o s p e c t s i n an e x c e l l e n t school 19 parties are The h u s b a n d s u f f e r s f r o m depression, a master's degree i n e d u c a t i o n teaching Both and 10 system. takes conditions. of the p a r t i e s . and he years' The The wife experience evidence was 2100907 undisputed that home seven for c e r t i f i c a t e had the wife had years, lapsed. not been employed o u t s i d e however, The and that her the teacher's wife s t a t e d that, i n order to be r e c e r t i f i e d , she w o u l d have t o c o m p l e t e a d d i t i o n a l c o u r s e work t h a t c o u l d t a k e as l o n g as one evidence to the contrary. ' a b i l i t y to earn, year. The h u s b a n d p r e s e n t e d "This court has held as o p p o s e d t o a c t u a l e a r n i n g s , that is a no the proper f a c t o r t o c o n s i d e r ' i n d e c i d i n g an a w a r d o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y . " Miller v. Miller, 47 So. ( q u o t i n g E b e r t v. E b e r t , 1985)). Civ. See App. the 262, 469 So. a l s o S t o n e v. 2009) award of a l i m o n y , as 3d earning ("In 265 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2d 26 Stone, 615, So. 618 3d (Ala. Civ. 1232, fashioning a property the t r i a l capacities 2009) 1236 division App. (Ala. and an 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 of the parties " (emphasis added)). The source, value, and type husband's s u b s t a n t i a l e a r n i n g s of property were t h e s o u r c e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y and were t h e s o u r c e represents less than 1/3 of the 20 o f 94% of a l l p r o p e r t y a f t e r t h e p a r t i e s moved t o Montgomery i n 2003. 7 - y e a r p e r i o d b e t w e e n 2003 and 2010, owned. of However, 23-year the acquired when t h i s c a s e was parties' The the tried, marriage, 2100907 and, i n prior y e a r s , the w i f e ' s e a r n i n g s had supported the f a m i l y w h i l e t h e h u s b a n d was i n m e d i c a l s c h o o l . court may ... noneconomic c o n s i d e r the spouses' contributions relative periodic and the alimony." D.G.W. [Ms. 2100718, September 7, 2012] (Ala. economic i n dividing t o the marriage m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y and a w a r d i n g "[A] t r i a l E.A.B. v. So. 3d C i v . App. 2012) ( c i t i n g Weeks v. Weeks, 27 So. 3d 526, 532-33 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) ) . The t r i a l court reasonably c o u l d have f o u n d t h a t t h e w i f e h a d made s i g n i f i c a n t and , noneconomic c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o the marriage economic by s u p p o r t i n g t h e h u s b a n d ' s d e s i r e t o change c a r e e r s a n d b y s h e p h e r d i n g h i m through an emotional breakdown i n 1998 -- assistance and s u p p o r t w i t h o u t w h i c h t h e h u s b a n d m i g h t n o t have a c h i e v e d t h e e d u c a t i o n a n d t r a i n i n g t h a t e n a b l e d h i m t o e a r n t h e income t h e p a r t i e s had enjoyed i n t h e l a t t e r The of did conduct The t r i a l not s t a t e a ground that marriage. o f t h e p a r t i e s w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e breakdown the marriage. trial years of t h e i r "nobody c o u r t made no f i n d i n g o f f a u l t a n d f o r the divorce. i s one h u n d r e d I t stated during the percent at fault i n any d i v o r c e . I t i s j u s t t h e b a l a n c e o f i t . I mean t h a t ' s f o r me t o weigh." (Emphasis added.) Based 21 on t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d , 2100907 the trial although court reasonably both p a r t i e s shared relationship, i t was t h a t u l t i m a t e l y had We cannot consider court short-term the determined f o r the problems caused the breakdown of the that the trial applicable factors just the husband's rehabilitative c o u r t j u d g e s may fault have that, in husband's second a d u l t e r o u s conclude a l l the declined the t r i a l could invitation alimony. The affair marriage. court failed because to the the award to trial the wife fact that appellate- have w e i g h e d t h e f a c t o r s d i f f e r e n t l y t h a n d i d c o u r t "does n o t c o n s t i t u t e a b a s i s f o r ... reversal of the t r i a l c o u r t w h i c h h e a r d t h e e v i d e n c e and observed witnesses." Grimsley 75, Civ. App. v. 1989) . T h a t Grimsley, said, we 545 conclude p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y a w a r d e d t o t h e w i f e was So. 2d that the 77 the (Ala. amount of inequitable. "'"The t r i a l c o u r t has w i d e d i s c r e t i o n o v e r a l i m o n y and t h e d i v i s i o n o f p r o p e r t y , and i t may use w h a t e v e r means a r e reasonable and necessary to e q u i t a b l y d i v i d e the p a r t i e s ' p r o p e r t y . I t s judgment i s p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t and w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d u n l e s s i t i s so u n s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e ... as t o be u n j u s t and p a l p a b l y w r o n g . However, t h a t j u d g m e n t i s s u b j e c t t o r e v i e w and r e v i s i o n . " ' " Ex p a r t e F o l e y , parte 864 Drummond, 785 So. So. 2d 1094, 2d 358, 22 1097 361 ( A l a . 2003) (quoting Ex ( A l a . 2000), q u o t i n g in 2100907 turn Bushnell App. v. B u s h n e l l , 713 So. 2d 962, 964-65 (internal citations First, many 1997)) as t h e w i f e ' s of the l i n e items c o m p i l a t i o n " bore l i t t l e to the s i t u a t i o n children live substantial own on expert witness the wife's acknowledged, "standard-of-living e x i s t when she a n d t h e two m i n o r i n a new r e s i d e n c e with omitted). o r no r e l a t i o n s h i p t o h e r n e e d s , o r that w i l l time (Ala.C i v . and t h e c h i l d r e n a l s o t h e h u s b a n d , who was a w a r d e d spend liberal visitation. "[T]he purpose of p e r i o d i c alimony i s t o support the former dependent spouse and t o e n a b l e t h a t spouse, to the extent p o s s i b l e , t o maintain the status that the p a r t i e s had enjoyed d u r i n g t h e marriage, u n t i l the spouse i s s e l f - s u p p o r t i n g o r m a i n t a i n i n g a l i f e s t y l e o r s t a t u s s i m i l a r t o t h e one e n j o y e d during the marriage." O'Neal v. O ' N e a l , (emphasis (Ala. 678 So. 2d 1 6 1 , 165 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996) added) . In Gates v. Gates , 830 So. 2d 746, 750 C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) , t h i s c o u r t e x p l a i n e d t h a t " [ t ] h e p h r a s e f r o m O ' N e a l , ... ' t o t h e e x t e n t p o s s i b l e ' r e c o g n i z e s that both f o r m e r s p o u s e s w i l l have t o l i v e on s u b s t a n t i a l l y l e s s i n c o m e " after a divorce. N e i t h e r p a r t y can m a i n t a i n t h e same standard o f l i v i n g t h a t r e s u l t e d f r o m one income when t h a t income must 23 2100907 s u p p o r t two h o u s e h o l d s . that r e a l i t y The t r i a l c o u r t a p p e a r e d t o when i t s t a t e d d u r i n g t h e recognize trial: " [ W ] i t h two households t h i n g s are going to be d i f f e r e n t , r i g h t ? They a r e g o i n g t o be a l i t t l e different i f i t was p e r f e c t y ' a l l w o u l d n ' t g e t d i v o r c e d . B u t s i n c e you a r e g o i n g t o have t o g e t d i v o r c e d [your] l i f e s t y l e s h o u l d r e f l e c t [your] o l d one b u t n o t be e x a c t l y l i k e [ y o u r ] o l d one. I t i s j u s t not p o s s i b l e . " Nevertheless, despite the fact that e x p e n s e " c o m p i l a t i o n a p p e a r e d t o be than her needs, the trial that she requested. The alimony suggested wife's b a s e d more on court granted and, "monthly her wants the w i f e n e a r l y a l l c o u r t awarded her i n an amount o n l y s l i g h t l y expert witness the monthly p e r i o d i c l e s s than the $11,731 her c o n s i d e r i n g t h a t the w i f e kept most o f t h e f u r n i s h i n g s i n t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e , p r o p e r t y f o r which the record i n d i c a t e d no value but which, i f valued, w o u l d l i k e l y make t h e w i f e ' s s h a r e more t h a n t h e 43% i n d i c a t e d i n the t a b l e , supra. The s p e n t $12,000 on a n t i q u e Second, the wife's husband t e s t i f i e d t h a t the w i f e had f u r n i t u r e f o r t h e d i n i n g room a l o n e . assessment of the husband's net m o n t h l y income i n c l u d e d e l e m e n t s t h a t , e i t h e r as a m a t t e r law been or w i t h i n the considered trial in court's discretion, determining 24 the should husband's net not of have monthly 2100907 income f o r the purpose of fashioning an alimony award. A c c o r d i n g t o t h e w i f e , t h e husband's n e t monthly income, a f t e r accounting f o r the monthly alimony according t o t h e husband, accounting based, h i s net monthly f o r the monthly $22,750. The w i f e ' s in part, contributions alimony assessment upon she r e q u e s t e d , the income, the wife before requested, i s i n c o r r e c t because radiology t o t h e husband's i s $27,288; is i t is practice retirement group's plan. Employer contributions t o retirement plans are not g e n e r a l l y considered "income" t o t h e r e c i p i e n t , even f o r p u r p o s e s o f c h i l d - s u p p o r t d e t e r m i n a t i o n s , w h i c h a r e g o v e r n e d b y an e x p a n s i v e of "gross 211 income." See I n r e M a r r i a g e definition o f Mugge, 66 P.3d 207, ( C o l o . C t . App. 2003) ("Most j u r i s d i c t i o n s a d d r e s s i n g t h e q u e s t i o n have h e l d t h a t u n d i s t r i b u t e d e m p l o y e r c o n t r i b u t i o n s to pension purposes a n d r e t i r e m e n t p l a n s do n o t c o n s t i t u t e income f o r of c a l c u l a t i n g l o g i c a l because "there contributions satisfying" 937 would child support."). result i s [ i s ] no d i s c e r n i b l e way i n w h i c h be o f any a s s i s t a n c e a child-support obligation. S.W.2d 760, 764 That (Mo. C t . App. 1 9 9 7 ) . with respect to spousal support. 25 to [such] [a p a r e n t ] in F a r r v. C l o n i n g e r , The same i s t r u e 2100907 M o r e o v e r , t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a d t h e d i s c r e t i o n , b u t was n o t required, income. that, to consider the husband's bonuses " R u l e 3 2 [ ( B ) ( 2 ) ( a ) , A l a . R. i n determining child-support J u d . Admin.,] Stinson, 729 So. 2d 864, 866 a l s o A r n o l d v. A r n o l d , However, we have R e a v e s , 883 So. 2d 693 payor's bonus such one outside the husband's Alabama case, f o r the purpose required. determined that limits bonus 1998). See ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) . of Reaves v. determining Instead, citing of the t r i a l court i t s discretion i n h i s income. 883 in So. 2d a that the Rule i n c l u s i o n of bonuses i n the d e f i n i t i o n of "gross court and Stinson o b l i g a t i o n , and t h a t c a s e d i d n o t h o l d i n c l u s i o n was Reaves requires ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) , t h a t i n c l u d e d a i n income periodic-alimony only income." ( A l a . C i v . App. 977 So. 2d 501 found of h i s o b l i g a t i o n s , bonuses e x p e n s e r e i m b u r s e m e n t s be i n c l u d e d i n g r o s s v. as p a r t 32 income," the had not including at 699. acted the We i n t e r p r e t R e a v e s t o mean t h a t , w h e t h e r t o i n c l u d e b o n u s e s i n a s p o u s e ' s income f o r p u r p o s e s o f d e t e r m i n i n g is d i s c r e t i o n a r y with the t r i a l discretion will court. n a t u r a l l y depend p e r i o d i c alimony The e x e r c i s e o f t h a t upon a number o f f a c t o r s , i n c l u d i n g w h e t h e r t h e b o n u s e s a r e r e g u l a r and c o n s i s t e n t , and, 26 2100907 therefore, can p r o v i d e b o t h t h e p a y o r s p o u s e and spouse w i t h As the wife's expert implied, the amount o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y t h a t was t o g u a r a n t e e h e r t h e same s t a n d a r d o f l i v i n g t h a t she of parties' O'Neal v. trial So. the 3d the Using 678 take at pay assets. alimony o b l i g a t i o n and including In addition the 2010) a l l the those that the his (citing "In financial obligations living to monthly husband w i l l the by not net be the divorce expenses without $10,000-per-month $3,900 c h i l d - s u p p o r t 27 v. Id. i m p o s e d upon him monthly Shewbart the [periodic alimony], account that an financial (emphasis added). assessment own the [that] a b i l i t y to maintain 164) judgment." i t appears his on for himself." into [husband], obligations impact ( A l a . C i v . App. 2d husband's a b l e t o meet t h e down 1088 So. divorce income i s $22,750, drawing 1080, the the and lifestyle should of by have [ h u s b a n d ' s ] a b i l i t y t o pay court obligations [would] [husband] and h i s ... O'Neal, considering judgment alimony former m a r i t a l S h e w b a r t , 64 created the m a r r i a g e i g n o r e d "the periodic c o n d i t i o n of the the of the enjoyed during award recipient planning. husband's f i n a n c i a l - p l a n n i n g estimation required had certainty in financial the obligation, 2100907 the divorce children's of "529" p l a n a c c o u n t s . $2, 500 daughter judgment r e q u i r e s t h e husband t o fund p e r month i n those a n d $1, 000 e a c h the three The h u s b a n d d e p o s i t s a t o t a l accounts ($500 f o r t h e younger f o r the older daughter and t h e son). I n a d d i t i o n , t h e h u s b a n d p a y s $1,914 p e r month f o r t h e minor children's alimony, expenses tuition. The 6 monthly c h i l d - s u p p o r t , 529-plan, and p r i v a t e - s c h o o l - t u i t i o n total husband's $18,314, personal pendency o f t h i s sister's private-school house, leaving and only household $4,436 f o r a l l the expenses. During the a c t i o n , t h e husband had been l i v i n g i n h i s but, i n order to maintain h i s standard of l i v i n g he w i l l have t o p u r c h a s e a r e s i d e n c e , make p a y m e n t s on a mortgage indebtedness, and s h o u l d e r the other financial b u r d e n s i n c i d e n t t o home o w n e r s h i p . Because t h e w i f e ' s " s t a n d a r d - o f - l i v i n g c o m p i l a t i o n " was wholly u n r e l i a b l e i n determining her reasonable and n e c e s s a r y l i v i n g expenses, and because t h e t r i a l c o u r t i m p l i c i t l y relied on t h a t c o m p i l a t i o n a n d on t h e w i f e ' s e r r o n e o u s e s t i m a t i o n o f the husband's net monthly i n c o m e , we r e v e r s e the p e r i o d i c - The d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t does n o t o r d e r t h e h u s b a n d t o p a y the t u i t i o n . The h u s b a n d , h o w e v e r , s t a t e d a t t r i a l t h a t he w o u l d do s o , a n d n e i t h e r p a r t y r a i s e s t h e i s s u e on a p p e a l . 6 28 2100907 alimony a w a r d and reconsider the remand t h e cause a l i m o n y award. to the circuit court to B e c a u s e p r o p e r t y - d i v i s i o n and p e r i o d i c - a l i m o n y awards a r e i n t e r r e l a t e d , we must a l s o reverse the circuit trial court's d i v i s i o n of m a r i t a l assets f o r the c o u r t t o r e c o n s i d e r t h e p e r i o d i c - a l i m o n y and p r o p e r t y - d i v i s i o n awards together. II. The husband next contends t h a t the o r d e r i n g him t o pay postminority p a r t i e s ' three c h i l d r e n . The trial educational court erred support f o r w i f e m a i n t a i n s t h a t the in the husband w a i v e d t h a t argument by s t i p u l a t i n g a t t r i a l t h a t he w o u l d pay the was c h i l d r e n ' s c o l l e g e expenses. such a On We disagree that there stipulation. two occasions w h e t h e r he was d u r i n g the t r i a l , t h e h u s b a n d was asked w i l l i n g t o pay t h e c h i l d r e n ' s c o l l e g e e x p e n s e s . On t h e f i r s t o c c a s i o n , t h e h u s b a n d r e p l i e d t h a t he "wanted t h e c h i l d r e n t o have c o l l e g e e d u c a t i o n s , " and that their e d u c a t i o n s " n e e d [ e d ] t o be p a i d f o r by somebody," b u t " d i d n ' t know how that much [ t h e w i f e ] w a n t [ e d ] t o c o n t r i b u t e . " the second o c c a s i o n , to be "locked college into t h e h u s b a n d s t a t e d t h a t he [being] 29 100% d i d not responsible" for he On wish the 2100907 c h i l d r e n ' s c o l l e g e expenses. presented gross for Later i n the t r i a l , t h e husband a b u d g e t t h a t was b a s e d on t h e a s s u m p t i o n s t h a t h i s income was $400,000, t h a t bonus income was n o t c o u n t e d purposes o f t h e p r o p e r t y - d i v i s i o n and awards, and t h a t the wife alimony f o r s i x years. would periodic-alimony be a w a r d e d In that budget, rehabilitative t h e husband listed c o l l e g e , p r i v a t e - s c h o o l - t u i t i o n , and automobile expenses f o r the c h i l d r e n . The h u s b a n d p r e s e n t e d evidence i n d i c a t i n g that, i f he p a i d h i s own l i v i n g e x p e n s e s , t h e c h i l d r e n ' s a u t o m o b i l e expenses and educational private support, school he w o u l d tuition, have p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y . The f o l l o w i n g t h e n only and postminority $564 left t o pay occurred: "THE COURT: I s t h e r e a n y t h i n g t h a t y ' a l l c a n a g r e e on t h a t y o u c a n s e t t l e a n y a s p e c t o f t h i s t h i n g ? I mean c o l l e g e e x p e n s e , c h i l d s u p p o r t ? .... " " [ W i f e ' s c o u n s e l ] : You know, i f he i s c o m m i t t i n g t o p a y a n d be l e g a l l y b o u n d t o p a y c o l l e g e e d u c a t i o n e x p e n s e s t h a t ' s one t h i n g . B u t p u t t i n g t h e s e numbers i n h i s b u d g e t ... s a y i n g he i s p a y i n g t h a t f o r t h e c h i l d r e n a n d a c t u a l l y p a y i n g on [a] l e g a l b a s i s i s different. " "THE COURT: I t h i n k he i s s e t t i n g o u t what i t i s c o s t i n g h i m t o me. S t i p u l a t i n g t h a t he i s g o i n g t o pay t h a t . 30 2100907 "[Husband's c o u n s e l ] : "THE COURT: And I am Wait. going to order him to pay that. " [ H u s b a n d ' s c o u n s e l ] : B u t what he i s w i l l i n g t o do i n a c c e p t i n g an o r d e r f o r t h a t and t h a t ' s p r e t t y big t o a c c e p t an o r d e r , i s t o s a y I want t o have final decision-making authority over [matters c o n c e r n i n g t h e c h i l d r e n ' s e d u c a t i o n ] . O t h e r w i s e he i s r e l e g a t e d t o b e i n g t h e c h e c k w r i t e r w h i l e he i s b e i n g thrown under the bus." Taken in light context of submitted of the the e n t i r e record, purpose f o r which (to i l l u s t r a t e and the considered husband's in the budget was t h e h u s b a n d ' s a b i l i t y t o pay either a l l t h e c h i l d r e n ' s e x p e n s e s o r p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y i n t h e amount requested by the w i f e , but not b o t h ) , we the husband's i n c l u s i o n of p o s t m i n o r i t y do not b e l i e v e educational that expenses i n h i s b u d g e t c o n s t i t u t e d a s t i p u l a t i o n by t h e h u s b a n d t h a t w o u l d pay In those Ex parte he expenses. B a y l i s s , 550 So. 2d 986 (Ala. 1989), our supreme c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t has d i s c r e t i o n w h e t h e r to order postminority discretion, the trial support court and shall that, in exercising consider " a l l r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s t h a t s h a l l appear reasonable and n e c e s s a r y , i n c l u d i n g p r i m a r i l y the financial resources of the p a r e n t s and t h e c h i l d and the child's commitment to, and aptitude for, the requested education." 31 that 2100907 550 So. 2d a t 987. In a d d i t i o n , the t r i a l c o u r t may consider " t h e s t a n d a r d o f l i v i n g t h a t t h e c h i l d w o u l d have e n j o y e d i f t h e m a r r i a g e had n o t been d i s s o l v e d and the f a m i l y u n i t had been p r e s e r v e d and t h e c h i l d ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h h i s p a r e n t s and r e s p o n s i v e n e s s t o p a r e n t a l a d v i c e and g u i d a n c e . " Id. At the time attending of t r i a l , the older t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Alabama. scholarship daughter was already She h a d r e c e i v e d from t h e u n i v e r s i t y f o r h a l f h e r t u i t i o n a a n d an A l a b a m a Power Company s c h o l a r s h i p f o r h e r f r e s h m a n y e a r i n t h e amount o f $5,000. paying the including sorority including Because I t was u n d i s p u t e d remainder $500 of p e r month the t h a t t h e husband had been older daughter's expenses, f o r costs associated with her membership a n d $1,000 p e r month f o r " i n c i d e n t a l s , " the the prerequisites, expenses evidence as associated presented outlined in postminority-educational-support at with trial Bayliss, order with her automobile. satisfied the supra, for a respect to the o l d e r d a u g h t e r , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment i s a f f i r m e d i n s o f a r as i t r e l a t e d t o p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l s u p p o r t The same c a n n o t be s a i d , however, w i t h f o r her. respect to that p a r t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment t h a t o r d e r e d t h e husband t o 32 2100907 pay p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l s u p p o r t and f o r t h e younger daughter t h e s o n , who w e r e , a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l , old, respectively. Other than testimony y o u n g e r d a u g h t e r was a "good s t u d e n t " 16 a n d 12 years i n d i c a t i n g that the who h a d a " s t r a i n e d " r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e h u s b a n d a n d t h a t t h e s o n was h a v i n g some academic d i f f i c u l t i e s , the prerequisites have ordered postminority "'before factors concerning Indeed, i f such evidence i t w o u l d have b e e n p r e m a t u r e a n d i m p r o p e r t h e husband educational [those graduation was no e v i d e n c e f o r a B a y l i s s order. had b e e n p r e s e n t e d , to there support children] from h i g h t o be responsible f o r t h e two m i n o r c h i l d r e n ha[d] reached school h a [ d ] been p r e s e n t e d f o r paying and b e f o r e or nearly reached a l l of the relevant and c o n s i d e r e d by t h e c o u r t . ' " B e r r y h i l l v. R e e v e s , 705 So. 2d 505, 508 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1997) ( q u o t i n g Mansmann v. S t a t e ex r e l . E i l a n d , 590 So. 2d 308, 309 (Ala. 59, C i v . App. 1 9 9 1 ) ) . 61 See a l s o W e l l s v. M c N e a l , 646 So. 2d ( A l a . C i v . App. 1994) determined a parent's a (holding i t improper obligation for postminority support of 14-year-old child factors [ c o u l d n o t ] be r e a s o n a b l y 33 because "the t o have educational appropriate ascertained" at that time). 2100907 We reverse pertaining minor to that a l l educational appropriate of postminority children. receive part The support time." for trial educational trial relevant the court evidence the Berryhill, court's support 705 f o r the "retains jurisdiction concerning two judgment minor So. two to [postminority children] 2d a t at an erred in 508. III. The husband r e q u i r i n g him We argues t o pay that the trial f o r the daughters' court automobile expenses. agree. A. The older daughter's automobile expenses. P a r a g r a p h 6 of the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment, w h i c h r e q u i r e s t h e h u s b a n d t o pay to ... "college tuition Ex p a r t e B a y l i s s , " and other costs pursuant states, in pertinent part: " [ E ] x p e n d i t u r e s f o r e x t r a s s u c h as s o r o r i t i e s and f r a t e r n i t i e s , a u t o m o b i l e s , t r i p s , and n o n - e s s e n t i a l e x p e n s e s a r e o p t i o n a l and s h a l l be p r o v i d e d a t t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s as t h e y deem a p p r o p r i a t e and i n t h e i r c h i l d r e n ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s . " P a r a g r a p h 12(c) of the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment s t a t e s : "[The d a u g h t e r s ] c u r r e n t l y have [ t h e ] use and possession of automobiles. Ownership of these automobiles shall remain as currently titled. However, b o t h c h i l d r e n s h a l l c o n t i n u e t o have t h e use and p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e a u t o m o b i l e s . N e i t h e r o f t h e s e a u t o m o b i l e s a r e e n c u m b e r e d by d e b t . 34 2100907 The h u s b a n d s h a l l be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p a y i n g a l l costs a s s o c i a t e d w i t h these automobiles i n c l u d i n g , but not l i m i t e d to, maintenance, g a s o l i n e , and insurance." In r e s o l v i n g the "automobiles ... conflict and between p a r a g r a p h non-essential postminority educational provided the at appropriate paragraph and 12(c) associated governed with by the support] discretion in their of [both are parties following best husband to as in to shall they pay be deem interests") and " a l l costs automobiles"), principles that [related o p t i o n a l and the daughters'] (stating expenses children's ( r e q u i r i n g the 6 we are construing the judgment: "[D]ivorce judgments should 'be i n t e r p r e t e d or construed l i k e other w r i t t e n instruments.' Sartin v. S a r t i n , 678 So. 2d 1181, 1183 (Ala. Civ. App. 1 9 9 6 ) ; see a l s o S p r i n g e r v. D a m r i c h , 993 So. 2d 481, 48 8 ( A l a . C i v . App. 20 08) . "When interpreting possibly conflicting p r o v i s i o n s i n a judgment, s p e c i f i c terms are g i v e n more w e i g h t t h a n a r e more g e n e r a l p r o v i s i o n s . See Ex p a r t e Dan T u c k e r A u t o S a l e s , I n c . , 718 So. 2d 33, 36 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) . " Cockrell 2009). v. Cockrell, Paragraph 12(c) 40 So. concerns e x p e n s e s f o r b o t h a d u l t and the other 3d 712, the 715 payment o f minor c h i l d r e n . hand, c o n c e r n s the (Ala. Civ. automobile P a r a g r a p h 6, payment o f a u t o m o b i l e 35 App. on expenses 2100907 only for an paragraph adult 6 is child the more controlling, provision. payment the of in older college. specific, Accordingly, daughter's We conclude therefore, and, that the because automobile the husband's expenses is o p t i o n a l and may be p r o v i d e d a t t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e h u s b a n d , we r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r a s , i n p a r a g r a p h 1 2 ( c ) , i t r e q u i r e s t h e payment o f e x p e n s e s older daughter's B. The The wife a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the automobile. younger daughter's automobile argues that, because the expenses. husband's adjusted g r o s s income e x c e e d s t h e u p p e r m o s t l e v e l s o f t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t g u i d e l i n e s , R u l e 32(C) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. J u d . A d m i n . , a u t h o r i z e d t h e trial court younger ordering was to order daughter's t h e husband t o pay automobile. t h e husband t o pay required Admin., w h i c h to comply The wife the expenses i s c o r r e c t , but i n those expenses, with Rule of the 32(C)(4), the t r i a l court Ala. Jud. R. provides: "(4) A d d i t i o n a l Awards f o r C h i l d S u p p o r t . I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e recommended c h i l d s u p p o r t o r d e r , t h e c o u r t may make a d d i t i o n a l awards f o r e x t r a o r d i n a r y m e d i c a l , d e n t a l , and e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e n s e s i f ( i ) t h e p a r t i e s have i n w r i t i n g a g r e e d t o s u c h awards o r (ii) the court, upon reviewing the evidence, determines that [such] awards a r e i n t h e b e s t 36 2100907 i n t e r e s t o f t h e c h i l d r e n and s t a t e s i t s r e a s o n s f o r m a k i n g [such] a d d i t i o n a l a w a r d s . " (Emphasis added.) C i v . App. 2009) See A.B. v. J.B., 40 So. 3d 723, ( r e v e r s i n g a j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as a p a r e n t t o pay 733 (Ala. i t required h a l f of c h i l d ' s expenses f o r 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 b e c a u s e , among o t h e r r e a s o n s , " [ t ] h e f i n a l j u d g m e n t ... failed to include award under R u l e (plurality language necessary McGowin, opinion), 991 So. 2d 735 support the parties' (Ala. Civ. combined g r o s s income e x c e e d e d t h e u p p e r m o s t l i m i t o f t h e s c h e d u l e by a f a c t o r o f f o u r , b u t the t r i a l f a t h e r t o pay i n the two to child support only App. adjusted child-support court ordered The the amount s p e c i f i e d f o r c h i l d r e n when t h e p a r t i e s ' c o m b i n e d income i s $10,000 month. an 32(C)(4)"). I n McGowin v. 2008) the f a t h e r argued t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t ' s per child-support a w a r d was n o t i n s u f f i c i e n t b e c a u s e he had a l s o b e e n o r d e r e d t o pay children's the rejected that private-school argument, noting o b l i g a t i o n " w o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d support under Rule 3 2 ( C ) ( 4 ) , a t 742, an tuition. that the This father's court tuition ' a d d i t i o n a l ' award of A l a . R. J u d . A d m i n . , " 991 child So. 2d thus i n d i c a t i n g t h i s court's i m p l i c i t r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t R u l e 3 2 ( C ) ( 4 ) a p p l i e s even i n the case of high-income p a r e n t s 37 2100907 whose basic child-support reference to the In award of state i t s reasons the i s not determined automobile the t r i a l the p a r t i e s d i d not expenses, and the f o r making the award. to the court d i d not Accordingly, we as i t r e l a t e s to trial c o u r t ' s judgment i n s o f a r agree payment o f e x p e n s e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e y o u n g e r automobile. order I f the the husband expenses, the by guidelines. the present case, reverse obligation t o pay trial award, c o n s i d e r i n g trial court determines, the younger on daughter's court should state daughter's remand, to automobile i t reasons f o r the that, "[w]hen the combined a d j u s t e d g r o s s income exceeds the uppermost l i m i t of the c h i l d s u p p o r t s c h e d u l e , t h e amount o f c h i l d s u p p o r t a w a r d e d must r a t i o n a l l y r e l a t e t o t h e r e a s o n a b l e and n e c e s s a r y needs of the child, taking into account the l i f e s t y l e t o w h i c h t h e c h i l d was a c c u s t o m e d and t h e standard of l i v i n g the c h i l d enjoyed b e f o r e the d i v o r c e , and must r e a s o n a b l y r e l a t e t o t h e o b l i g o r ' s a b i l i t y t o pay f o r t h o s e needs." Dyas v. Dyas, (some e m p h a s i s 683 So. 2d 971, 973-74 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1995) added; f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d ) . IV. P a r a g r a p h 19(a) o f t h e t r i a l pertinent part: "The c o u r t ' s judgment s t a t e s , i n husband i s o r d e r e d t o pay t h e w i f e t h e 38 2100907 sum of fees, $40,000, w h i c h court indicates before that the settlement in costs, i s a portion and the came acknowledges paid to a p o r t i o n of trial. part: that "By she her i n c u r r e d the residence] in the volition t o pay own attorney During an The attorney The her record attorney parties' signature marital submit wife's her the fee trial and the attorney-fee of amount the wife's states, the second mortgage of $45,000 wife [on of her own counsel at the wife stated the end requested that of he the counsel s t a t e d t h a t the wife a t t o r n e y fees "through the t r i a l " attorney-fee trial. to the 7 i n c u r r e d $74,000 i n and t h a t he had s u b m i t t e d trial the court. The an record on a p p e a l , h o w e v e r , does n o t c o n t a i n an a t t o r n e y - f e e a f f i d a v i t of the w i f e ' s affidavit had an would Then, a t a h e a r i n g on t h e h u s b a n d ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , wife's the fees." case, affidavit below fee partial a g r e e m e n t , e x e c u t e d on S e p t e m b e r 21, 2010, pertinent attorney the l i t i g a t i o n expenses." wife case of counsel. T h e h e a r i n g was n o t c o n d u c t e d by t h e c i r c u i t j u d g e had p r e s i d e d o v e r t h e t r i a l o f t h i s c a s e . That judge d e f e a t e d i n t h e 2010 e l e c t i o n , and t h e c i r c u i t j u d g e r e p l a c e d him c o n d u c t e d t h e h e a r i n g . 7 39 who was who 2100907 We p r e t e r m i t f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e a t t o r n e y - f e e a w a r d b e c a u s e , as we 228 o b s e r v e d i n F r a z i e r v. C u r r y , ( A l a . C i v . App. 104 So. 3d 220, 2012), " t h e f i n a n c i a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e p a r t i e s as w e l l as t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e l i t i g a t i o n a r e u n d e t e r m i n e d b e c a u s e we have r e v e r s e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n and a l i m o n y a w a r d i n t h e i r e n t i r e t y and remanded the case for further consideration. A c c o r d i n g l y , we r e v e r s e t h e a t t o r n e y - f e e a w a r d and d i r e c t the t r i a l c o u r t to f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r the i s s u e on remand." Conclusion We ordered reverse the the husband expenses of the pay two trial to court's pay the judgment insofar postminority awarded the wife $10,000 p e r awarded the wife an marital assets p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y , we alimony and fee. Because to automobiles; the and division of i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h an a w a r d o f a l s o r e v e r s e the t r i a l d i v i s i o n awards so t h a t t h e husband month i n p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y ; attorney i s considered i t educational minor c h i l d r e n ; r e q u i r e d the the expenses a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the daughters' as circuit marital-property court's c o u r t may awards property- reconsider together. In the its c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the p r o p e r t y - d i v i s i o n , p e r i o d i c - a l i m o n y , and attorney-fee not authorized to awards on c o n d u c t an remand, the circuit evidentiary hearing. 40 court is Rather, that 2100907 c o u r t i s l i m i t e d t o e n t e r i n g a j u d g m e n t on t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e record 823, before 823 considered i t . ( A l a . C i v . App. 2001) new e v i d e n c e remand, we must court to fashion reverse. of ("Because property that 820 So. 2d the t r i a l court i t s ... j u d g m e n t on The c a s e i s remanded the evidence a t the time v. C o u r t r i g h t , i n fashioning an e q u i t a b l e a w a r d b a s e d upon court See C o u r t r i g h t f o rthe t r i a l division was b e f o r e [the] o r i g i n a l and alimony the divorce [trial] judgment." (emphasis a d d e d ) ) . In a l l o t h e r AFFIRMED respects, t h e judgment i s a f f i r m e d . IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Pittman, Moore, Thomas, a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , c o n c u r . J . , concurs part, and d i s s e n t s P.J., i n part, i n part, with joins. 41 concurs writing, i n the result i n which Thompson, 2100907 MOORE, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t , c o n c u r r i n g p a r t , and d i s s e n t i n g i n p a r t . I concur opinion, i n parts I I . , III.A., and i n the r e s u l t i n IV. o f t h e main a n d I c o n c u r i n t h e r e s u l t as t o p a r t I . As t o p a r t III.B., I respectfully dissent. I. As I r e a d t h e b r i e f f i l e d w i t h t h i s c o u r t b y J.D.A. ("the h u s b a n d " ) , he does n o t c o m p l a i n t h a t Court ("the t r i a l court") estate. The h u s b a n d exceeded i t s discretion i n monthly property she r e c e i v e d . that the wife improperly instead $10,000 t h e Montgomery argues i n awarding periodic alimony In that regard, divided that Circuit the m a r i t a l the t r i a l A.B.A. court ("the i n addition wife") to the t h e husband concedes i s e n t i t l e d t o a l i m o n y , b u t he m a i n t a i n s that, b a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d have l i m i t e d i t s award t o s i x y e a r s o f r e h a b i l i t a t i v e a l i m o n y a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y $6,000 p e r month. The husband m a i n l y a s s e r t s t h a t t h e w i f e d i d not prove a n e e d f o r p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y i n t h e amount o f $10,000 p e r month. In order to establish petitioning support a need for periodic s p o u s e must "show[] t h a t w i t h o u t he o r she w i l l be u n a b l e 42 to maintain alimony, such the financial the p a r t i e s ' 2100907 former 1080, marital 1087 lifestyle." S h e w b a r t v. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010). Shewbart, 64 So. N a t u r a l l y , t o meet s t a n d a r d , t h e p e t i t i o n i n g s p o u s e must f i r s t p r o v e t h e 3d that marital s t a n d a r d o f l i v i n g and t h e c o s t s t o t h e p a r t i e s o f m a i n t a i n i n g that station i n l i f e . The marital 64 So. standard 3d a t living of 1088. refers to the w h i c h t h e p a r t i e s had become a c c u s t o m e d t o l i v i n g marriage. Ex p a r t e E l l i o t t , 782 So. 2d 308, Obviously, during a lengthy marriage, 311 manner i n during the ( A l a . 2000). a couple's standard of l i v i n g v a r i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y as one o r b o t h s p o u s e s p r o g r e s s i n their c a r e e r s and achieve higher earnings. m a r i t a l s t a n d a r d of l i v i n g , period l e a d i n g up reflects the expected to generally 1998) to manner live wage e a r n e r had divorce they the i f that period accurately parties continued Pickett, 723 So. to 2d ( h o l d i n g t h a t w i f e , who for f i r s t r e c e i v e d inadequate a t r i a l c o u r t should c o n s i d e r the i n which P i c k e t t v. (plurality) the In a s s e s s i n g the would be 71 have married. (Ala. Civ. had been been See App. primary 10 y e a r s o f t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e , had alimony to s u s t a i n the l u x u r i o u s s t a n d a r d of l i v i n g e s t a b l i s h e d d u r i n g the l a s t 6 years of the a f t e r h u s b a n d became a p h y s i c i a n ) . 43 marriage 2100907 In this case, the evidence shows that, i n 2003, the p a r t i e s moved t o Montgomery, where t h e h u s b a n d became e m p l o y e d as a r a d i o l o g i s t . year, the earning year. foot husband a dividends A f t e r working base became salary and b o n u s e s a of partner that with antiques. often ate routinely they in a $400,000 ranging per radiology year, f r o m $60,000 The p a r t i e s moved i n t o house f o r two y e a r s a t $300,000 p e r along t o $291,000 an 8 5 - y e a r - o l d , substantially group renovated at restaurants, vacationed employed s e v e r a l times yard per year. per 4,200-squareand furnished The p a r t i e s owned s e v e r a l a u t o m o b i l e s . out with They workers, In and addition, t h e y s a v e d s u b s t a n t i a l amounts o f money f o r t h e i r r e t i r e m e n t . The e v i d e n c e f u l l y s u s t a i n s a f i n d i n g that the p a r t i e s a f a i r l y a f f l u e n t m a r i t a l standard of The w i f e p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e maintain that standard of l i v i n g , enjoyed living. i n d i c a t i n g that, i n order to she w o u l d n e e d $11,731 p e r month i n p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y . The f i n a n c i a l e x p e r t who testified for estimate documents the wife based that on financial e v i d e n c i n g t h e a c t u a l s p e n d i n g by t h e f a m i l y f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s preceding the t r i a l . to be "wholly The m a i n o p i n i o n c o n s i d e r s t h a t e s t i m a t e unreliable in 44 determining [the wife's] 2100907 reasonable and n e c e s s a r y purchased a smaller living expenses" now t h a t she h a s home a n d t h e p a r t i e s ' o l d e r d a u g h t e r h a s moved away t o c o l l e g e . So. 3d a t assumes t h a t p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y s h o u l d . That be a w a r d e d b a s e d on t h e r e a s o n a b l e amount n e c e s s a r y t o s u s t a i n an e x - s p o u s e to h i s or her p o s t m a r i t a l lifestyle. P e r i o d i c alimony i s intended statement according That i s n o t t h e law. as f i n a n c i a l a i d t o e n a b l e an e x - spouse t o e n j o y t h e s t a n d a r d of l i v i n g as i t e x i s t e d during t h e m a r r i a g e , i . e . , t h e " e c o n o m i c s t a t u s q u o , " O r r v. O r r , 374 So. 2d 895, 897 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 7 9 ) . Thus, t h e mere f a c t t h a t t h e w i f e ' s c l a i m f o r p e r i o d i c alimony exceeds h e r c u r r e n t living e x p e n s e s does n o t , excessive. I believe i n and o f i t s e l f , the f i n a n c i a l t e s t i f i e d t o a reasonable estimate the former m a r i t a l standard information That expert f o r the wife of the costs of maintaining o f l i v i n g b a s e d on t h e f i n a n c i a l provided. said, just reasonable estimate marital render her claim standard because a spouse has established as t o t h e c o s t s o f m a i n t a i n i n g of l i v i n g does n o t mean t h a t a u t o m a t i c a l l y e n t i t l e d t o t h a t amount. must f u r t h e r 45 a the former t h e spouse i s The p e t i t i o n i n g s p o u s e 2100907 " e s t a b l i s h h i s o r h e r i n a b i l i t y t o a c h i e v e t h a t same s t a n d a r d o f l i v i n g t h r o u g h t h e u s e o f h i s o r h e r own i n d i v i d u a l a s s e t s , i n c l u d i n g h i s o r h e r own s e p a r a t e e s t a t e , t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y r e c e i v e d as p a r t o f any s e t t l e m e n t o r p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n , a n d h i s o r h e r own w a g e - e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y , ... w i t h t h e l a s t f a c t o r t a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n t t h e age, h e a l t h , e d u c a t i o n , a n d work e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e p e t i t i o n i n g s p o u s e as w e l l as prevailing economic conditions, ... a n d any r e h a b i l i t a t i v e alimony or other b e n e f i t s that w i l l a s s i s t the p e t i t i o n i n g spouse i n o b t a i n i n g and m a i n t a i n i n g g a i n f u l employment." S h e w b a r t , 64 So. 3d a t 1088. In c a l c u l a t i n g t h e m o n t h l y e s t i m a t e f o r a l i m o n y the w i f e , the w i f e ' s f i n a n c i a l expert d i d not f u l l y the w i f e ' s e s t a t e o r h e r e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y . $580,500 i n assets i n the divorce $200,000, p a r t o f t h e p r o c e e d s needed by consider The w i f e r e c e i v e d judgment. She used from t h e s a l e o f t h e m a r i t a l home, as a down payment on a t o w n h o u s e . E x c l u d i n g t h e down payment, t h e w i f e s t i l l h a d $268,500 l e f t i n l i q u i d a s s e t s a n d $112,000 i n r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t s . did not account f o r any o f t h o s e w i f e ' s f i n a n c i a l needs. The w i f e ' s f i n a n c i a l assets expert when a s s e s s i n g t h e The w i f e ' s f i n a n c i a l e x p e r t a l s o d i d not reduce the e s t i m a t e t o account f o r t h e f a c t t h a t t h e w i f e 46 2100907 was only capable 43 years of e a r n i n g The trial old at the time of the divorce as much as $48,000 p e r y e a r c o u r t , h o w e v e r , was and as a was teacher. required to consider those f a c t o r s when a s s e s s i n g t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e w i f e t o m a i n t a i n former m a r i t a l s t a n d a r d of l i v i n g . Ala. App. 691, ("[T]he in alimony."); App. the and 2009) award of alimony, as the 331 sufficiency element Civ. 695, earning So. of the trial S t o n e v. ("In 707 wife's court's Stone, ( A l a . C i v . App. estate is a 26 So. 3d capacities of the 1236 division parties; marital property."). The and the trial source, court (Ala. and an f a c t o r s such their p r o s p e c t s ; t h e i r a g e s , h e a l t h , and s t a t i o n i n l i f e ; of the p a r t i e s ' marriage; 1976) regarding 1232, c o u r t must c o n s i d e r 57 necessary determination fashioning a property the t r i a l the See H u g g i n s v. H u g g i n s , 2d 704, 8 value, obviously the and future length type of considered The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she d i d n o t i n t e n d t o work a f t e r t h e d i v o r c e , i n p a r t so t h a t she c o u l d f o c u s on r a i s i n g t h e c h i l d r e n , b u t a l s o b e c a u s e she had become a c c u s t o m e d t o a c t i n g as a homemaker. However, t h e e v i d e n c e showed t h a t t h e w i f e had t a u g h t s c h o o l f o r many y e a r s when t h e c h i l d r e n were y o u n g e r and, p r e s u m a b l y , n e e d e d more c a r e and a t t e n t i o n . The w i f e had a l l o w e d h e r t e a c h i n g c e r t i f i c a t e t o l a p s e , b u t t h e e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t she c o u l d r e g a i n i t w i t h a y e a r o f c o u r s e work, w h i c h she s h o u l d be a b l e t o a c c o m p l i s h , g i v e n h e r l a c k o f any p h y s i c a l o r o t h e r d i s a b i l i t y . B a s e d on t h a t e v i d e n c e , i t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e w i f e has t h e c a p a c i t y t o e a r n wages as a t e a c h e r . 8 47 2100907 some o f t h o s e f a c t o r s when i t a w a r d e d t h e w i f e l e s s p e r i o d i c alimony than she requested, but the evidence t h e a w a r d s h o u l d have b e e n e v e n l o w e r the significant well as her assets earning the wife i n order to account f o r received capacity, both indicates that i n the of which divorce she could as rely upon i n o r d e r t o h e l p h e r m a i n t a i n t h e f o r m e r m a r i t a l s t a n d a r d of l i v i n g . S h e w b a r t , 64 So. her and assets spouse to standard for with only maintaining of l i v i n g , part the the p e t i t i o n i n g a d d i t i o n a l support that ( " I f t h e use wage-earning c a p a c i t y allows r o u t i n e l y meet associated 3d a t 1088 and of the parties' the that petitioning financial former s p o u s e has maintenance of h i s or costs marital p r o v e n a need i s measured by shortfall."). For those reasons, a w a r d on t h e h u s b a n d , discretion alimony. 9 and due I b e l i e v e the t r i a l i n awarding the I do not, to the f i n a n c i a l impact of wife the court exceeded i t s $10,000 i n m o n t h l y p e r i o d i c however, agree w i t h the husband t h a t the I do n o t b e l i e v e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t w o u l d be i n e r r o r for c o n s i d e r i n g t h e b o n u s e s e a r n e d by t h e h u s b a n d when c a l c u l a t i n g h i s a b i l i t y t o pay p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y , as t h e m a i n opinion implies. So. 3d a t . However, I do a g r e e t h a t t h e amount o f t h e p e r i o d i c - a l i m o n y award, when c o n s i d e r e d along w i t h the other o b l i g a t i o n s the husband i n c u r r e d i n the d i v o r c e judgment, s e v e r e l y impacts h i s a b i l i t y t o m a i n t a i n the m a r i t a l standard of l i v i n g . 9 48 2100907 wife should have approximately been $6,000 awarded per month rehabilitative for only alimony s i x years. a s s u m i n g t h a t t h e w i f e r e t u r n s t o work f u l l t i m e as a at t h e end be able assets of s i x years, to she do, the as t h e h u s b a n d m a i n t a i n s wife's received in earnings, the when divorce, would teacher should with still Shewbart, 64 So. 3d at 1088 (holding that the not s u f f i c i e n t t o m a i n t a i n the former m a r i t a l s t a n d a r d of See Even she coupled of be living. s p o u s e has a n e e d f o r p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y when r e h a b i l i t a t i v e a l i m o n y does n o t f u l l y enable spouse t o m a i n t a i n m a r i t a l s t a n d a r d I w o u l d remand t h e case f o r the trial e q u i t a b l e amount o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y , time the husband of living). c o u r t t o a w a r d a more but not f o r the limited advocates. II. The husband r e q u i r i n g him his argues t o pay that the the automobile m i n o r d a u g h t e r , b e c a u s e , he Admin., does not Specifically, the authorize trial erred in expenses a s s o c i a t e d w i t h says, such court Rule 32, A l a . R. extraordinary husband argues t h a t , having Jud. expenses. established a g e n e r a l c h i l d - s u p p o r t a w a r d o f $3,900 p e r month f o r t h e m i n o r children, the trial court could 49 not order additional child 2100907 support consisting 32(C) ( 4 ) , Ala. R. of automobile Jud. Admin., expenses allows because only Rule extraordinary m e d i c a l , d e n t a l , and e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e n s e s , c a t e g o r i e s i n w h i c h t h e a u t o m o b i l e e x p e n s e s do n o t Generally speaking, child-support attached formulas as a trial obligation" an s e t out fall. appendix by to c o u r t determines the reference Rule 32 i n R u l e 32(C) ( 1 ) - ( 3 ) . to and the by "total schedule applying Once t h e t r i a l the court has e s t a b l i s h e d t h e t o t a l c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n , u n d e r R u l e 32(C)(4) a trial court extraordinary medical, may d e n t a l , and the p a r t i e s agree or the t r i a l a w a r d t o be i n the order educational i n t e r e s t s and p r o d u c e d by t h e g u i d e l i n e s p r e s u m a b l y c o v e r s f o r the support medical, dental, and expenses" i f expresses Thus, an a w a r d o f m o n t h l y c h i l d necessary for c o u r t f i n d s s u c h an a d d i t i o n a l child's best reasons i n w r i t i n g . " a d d i t i o n a l awards a l l the its support expenses of a c h i l d , except f o r e x t r a o r d i n a r y educational expenses. A trial court c a n n o t a w a r d an a d d i t i o n a l amount f o r o t h e r e x p e n s e s b e c a u s e that a w a r d w o u l d be obligation." See (Mo. 2010) C t . App. d u p l i c a t i v e of the "total P i c k e r i n g v. P i c k e r i n g , 314 (trial child-support S.W.3d 822, 838 court erred i n ordering father to 50 2100907 pay c h i l d ' s c e l l u l a r - t e l e p h o n e expenses because those expenses p r e s u m a b l y were i n c l u d e d did not qualify definition, must n o t as stating that schedule, 2d 142, "an duplicate ordinary exceeds the R u l e 32(C) 145 child-support extraordinary However, when t h e parents i n general Missouri award of e x t r a o r d i n a r y expenses expenses"). combined a d j u s t e d uppermost limits does n o t a p p l y . ( A l a . C i v . App. and under living expenses award 1 0 gross of the income o f the child-support D e r i e v. D e r i e , 689 So. 1996). "When t h e c o m b i n e d a d j u s t e d g r o s s income e x c e e d s the uppermost l i m i t of the c h i l d support schedule, t h e amount o f c h i l d s u p p o r t a w a r d e d must r a t i o n a l l y r e l a t e t o t h e r e a s o n a b l e and n e c e s s a r y needs o f t h e c h i l d , t a k i n g i n t o account the l i f e s t y l e to which t h e c h i l d was a c c u s t o m e d and t h e s t a n d a r d o f l i v i n g the c h i l d enjoyed b e f o r e t h e d i v o r c e , and must r e a s o n a b l y r e l a t e t o t h e o b l i g o r ' s a b i l i t y t o pay f o r t h o s e n e e d s . [Anonymous v. Anonymous, 617 So. 2d 694, 697 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1993)]." T h e m a i n o p i n i o n c i t e s o n l y McGowin v. McGowin, 991 So. 2d 735 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) , t o s u p p o r t i t s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t Rule 32(C)(4) a p p l i e s to t h i s case. McGowin i s a p l u r a l i t y o p i n i o n whose r e a s o n i n g has o n l y q u e s t i o n a b l e precedential v a l u e a t b e s t . Ex p a r t e D i s c o u n t F o o d s , I n c . , 789 So. 2d 842, 845 ( A l a . 2001) . M o r e o v e r , t h e i s s u e i n McGowin was the sufficiency of the c h i l d - s u p p o r t award i n l i g h t of the f a t h e r ' s i n c o m e , and any s t a t e m e n t r e g a r d i n g t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f R u l e 3 2 ( C ) ( 4 ) was d i c t a . McGowin does n o t o v e r r u l e t h e m u l t i t u d e o f c a s e s h o l d i n g t h a t R u l e 32(C) does n o t a p p l y when c a l c u l a t i n g c h i l d support f o r a f f l u e n t parents. 10 51 2100907 Dyas v. Dyas, (footnote 683 So. omitted). 2d In 971, such 973-74 cases, ( A l a . C i v . App. a trial court 1995) does not e s t a b l i s h a " t o t a l c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n " b a s e d on t h e R u l e 32 schedule to which only e x t r a o r d i n a r y medical, dental, e x p e n s e s may the trial the amount educational awards child support be added. based Rather, primarily on c h i l d r e n of the m a r r i a g e need i n o r d e r t o m a i n t a i n m a r i t a l standard In limits child support in cases in g u i d e l i n e s , the trial which and 2d 759 of lessons clothing. See, ( A l a . C i v . App. e.g., 2002) (trial continuing horseback-riding, and use of p a r e n t s ' two court could gymnastics, and court limited those to awarding only e x p e n s e s o u t l i n e d i n R u l e 32(C) ( 4 ) . 572 ( A l a . C i v . App. trial "extraordinary" I n Wagner v. Wagner, 2008), t h i s 52 dance v a c a t i o n homes when a w a r d i n g In such cases, a 2d 843 consider o u t s i d e the g u i d e l i n e s ) . i s not food, Tompkins v. T o m p k i n s , c h i l d support So. the of l i v i n g , n o t j u s t t h e c o s t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h n e c e s s a r i e s , s u c h as costs former c o u r t must c o n s i d e r a l l the evidence r e g a r d i n g the former m a r i t a l standard So. the c o m b i n e d a d j u s t e d g r o s s income e x c e e d s t h e u p p e r m o s t of the shelter, court of l i v i n g . determining parents' the and court decided that 989 a 2100907 trial c o u r t h a d n o t e r r e d i n o r d e r i n g a f a t h e r t o pay p e r month f o r a u t o m o b i l e part of a insurance, fuel, and m a i n t e n a n c e p o s t m i n o r i t y - e d u c a t i o n a l - s u p p o r t award p a r t e B a y l i s s , 550 So. 2d 986 ( A l a . 1989) . $227.50 under Notably, Rule 11 as Ex 32 does n o t a p p l y t o B a y l i s s c a s e s , see T h r a s h e r v. W i l b u r n , 574 So. in 2d 839 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1990), w h i c h t h e p a r e n t s ' income e x c e e d s guidelines, living, pay. support is based Id. T h e r e f o r e , when R u l e the and child parents support during i f those the so marital does not standard of apply, a trial f o r a c h i l d as a component expenses marriage i n cases the parents' a b i l i t y to 32 c o u r t can o r d e r a u t o m o b i l e e x p e n s e s of like the uppermost l i m i t s of the on t h e needs o f t h e c h i l d , which, that had the been borne child by has the become a c c u s t o m e d t o t h o s e p a y m e n t s as a p a r t o f t h e m a r i t a l s t a n d a r d of living. In t h i s c a s e , t h e t r i a l automobile expenses c o u r t , by o r d e r i n g t h e payment o f f o r the younger daughter, i m p l i e d l y found The t r i a l c o u r t i n Wagner e v i d e n t l y r e a s o n e d t h a t t h o s e e x p e n s e s were n e c e s s a r y and r e l a t e d t o t h e c h i l d ' s t r a v e l i n g t o and f r o m c o l l e g e , w h i c h w o u l d make t h o s e e x p e n s e s , a t l e a s t indirectly, e d u c a t i o n a l expenses. However, automobile e x p e n s e s n e e d n o t be r e l a t e d o n l y t o t r a v e l t o and f r o m s c h o o l t o be a w a r d e d i n n o n - B a y l i s s c a s e s when R u l e 32 does n o t a p p l y because, i n such cases, a t r i a l c o u r t i s not l i m i t e d t o a w a r d i n g e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e n s e s u n d e r R u l e 32(C) (4) o r B a y l i s s . 11 53 2100907 t h a t t h o s e payments of l i v i n g , f e l l within the c h i l d ' s marital standard t h a t she w o u l d c o n t i n u e t o need t h o s e payments, and that t h e husband Kelly v. K e l l y , (appellate could a f f o r d t o pay those 981 So. 2d 423, 426 court will assume trial expenses. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) court made f i n d i n g s of f a c t t o support i t s c h i l d support award such an award even i f i t could, its reason 32(C)(4) expenses d u p l i c a t e s child-support procedural cannot award. be made u n d e r R u l e the t r i a l part The h u s b a n d court o f t h e $3,900 argues 32(C)(4) f o r t h e award. Because I conclude does n o t a p p l y , I f i n d no b a s i s issue. Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s . 54 only that and t h a t , d i d n o t comply w i t h t h e a s p e c t s o f Rule 32(C)(4) by e x p r e s s i n g a s p e c t o f t h e judgment; t h e r e f o r e , to t h i s t o support The h u s b a n d a l s o does n o t c o m p l a i n t h a t t h e of automobile general necessary determination). The h u s b a n d does n o t a r g u e t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e f a i l s those f i n d i n g s . See i n writing that Rule f o r reversing that I r e s p e c t f u l l y d i s s e n t as
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.
