Daugherty v. Daugherty
1991 WL 37545, 579 So. 2d 1377 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While trial courts have broad discretion in dividing marital property and awarding alimony, such awards must be equitable, not arbitrary or unjust, and must consider all relevant circumstances of the parties and their financial ability to comply, so as not to unduly burden one spouse.
Facts:
- The parties were married for 22 years and were 47 (husband) and 51 (wife) years old at the time of the divorce.
- The parties jointly purchased their marital home in 1979 for $54,900, with approximately $45,000 remaining on two mortgages.
- The parties purchased two adjacent lots in 1980 for $8,000, and the husband's brother made improvements to a building on them and operated a business there.
- Prior to the divorce proceedings, the husband transferred his interest in the adjacent lots to his brother for $100.
- The wife was self-employed as an art teacher, sold art supplies, and had started several small businesses, while the husband worked as an installer of outdoor sprinkler systems for 12 years, earning about $2,000 net per month.
- The husband's sprinkler system installation job was terminated shortly after the divorce trial, and he anticipated receiving unemployment compensation of $176 per week as his sole income.
- The wife alleged the husband had drinking and gambling problems and committed adultery; the husband claimed the wife managed family finances poorly and they had disputes over their son's discipline.
- The parties had experienced financial difficulties in recent years and had a 19-year-old son living with the wife.
Procedural Posture:
- The wife filed for divorce, initially alleging an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, and later amended her pleading to include adultery.
- The husband filed an answer and counterclaim, also based on the grounds of an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
- An ore tenus proceeding (a trial where evidence is presented orally) was held.
- On May 29, 1990, the state trial court (the court of first instance) granted the divorce, awarding the wife periodic alimony, the marital home, two adjacent lots, personal property, and relief from certain tax liabilities.
- The husband filed post-trial motions challenging the judgment, which were denied by the trial court.
- The husband appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama (an intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by awarding the wife what amounted to the total marital assets and periodic alimony payments that exceeded the husband's financial ability, thereby rendering the award arbitrary and unjust?
Opinions:
Majority - Court
Yes, the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the wife what amounted to the total marital assets and excessive periodic alimony payments. While trial courts have discretion, awards must be equitable and not arbitrary or unjust. The judgment, which awarded the wife all marital assets and $1,000 per month in alimony (approximately 50% of the husband's expected net income when re-employed), was oppressive and exceeded the husband's financial ability to comply, especially considering his unemployment at the time of the reconsideration hearing. Such an award would 'cripple' the husband and remove his incentive to work, which is not justified without a showing of extreme need or infamous treatment. The court found both parties potentially equally at fault, making fault less of a factor. It also noted that the wife's meaningful employment skills and entrepreneurial initiative were comparable to the husband's, and with their only child being 19, it would not be difficult for her to pursue a full-time career. Therefore, the award did not serve the legislative purpose of preserving the economic status quo without unduly burdening one spouse.
Concurring - Robertson, P.J.
I concur with the majority opinion, aligning with its reasoning that the trial court's award was an abuse of discretion given the circumstances of the parties.
Dissenting - Thigpen, J.
No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding the property division, and that portion of the judgment should be affirmed. Judgments based on ore tenus evidence carry a presumption of correctness and should be affirmed if supported by competent evidence unless palpably wrong. The trial court was entitled to consider the conduct of the parties, including the husband's pre-divorce transfer of real property to his brother for a minimal sum, evidently to reduce the wife's interest, and stipulations regarding his questionable conduct after leaving the wife. These factors are proper considerations for the court in fashioning an equitable property division. Given the broad discretion afforded to the trial court in property division and the presumption of correctness, an appellate court should not substitute its judgment.
Analysis:
This case highlights the appellate court's role in ensuring that trial court divorce judgments, even with broad discretion, remain equitable and do not impose an undue financial burden on either party. It emphasizes that while fault can be a factor, it is not always determinative, especially when both parties contribute to the marital breakdown. The decision underscores the importance of considering both immediate and future financial prospects and abilities of both spouses, particularly when one's financial situation significantly changes during litigation. This case serves as a reminder that an award should preserve the economic status quo as much as possible without 'crippling' a spouse.
