Figures v. Figures
1993 WL 75961, 624 So. 2d 188 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court's judgment in an ore tenus divorce proceeding, including awards of alimony in gross and attorney's fees, is presumed correct and will not be reversed absent a plain and palpable wrong or gross abuse of discretion, and contempt findings will be upheld if supported by any evidence.
Facts:
- Thomas H. Figures (husband) and Janice F. Figures (wife) were married in January 1987.
- Their marriage, lasting approximately five years, was marked by discord and acrimony. Janice alleged enduring physical and verbal abuse, while Thomas denied this and claimed Janice abandoned him, which were the underlying reasons for the divorce dispute.
- Janice, who has a master's degree, is employed as a psychologist and earned $34,599 per year. Thomas, an attorney, earned approximately $40,000 annually from his practice and $590 per month as a municipal judge.
- Before the marriage, Thomas purchased the home where the parties resided. Janice contributed approximately $3,300 from the sale of her own home to improve the husband's home and made half of the mortgage payments, averaging $350 per month, from 1987 until February 1991.
- During the course of the divorce proceedings, Thomas failed to produce requested financial documents in response to Janice's pretrial discovery requests, despite being twice ordered by the court to do so.
Procedural Posture:
- In August 1991, Janice F. Figures (wife) filed a complaint for divorce in the Circuit Court of Mobile County (trial court), alleging incompatibility and physical violence, and seeking property division, alimony in gross, and attorney's fees.
- Thomas H. Figures (husband) answered and filed a counterclaim for divorce, alleging abandonment.
- On the day of trial, the husband filed a motion for the trial judge to recuse himself, which the judge denied at the commencement of the trial.
- Following an ore tenus proceeding, the trial court entered a judgment divorcing the parties on the grounds of incompatibility, divided marital property, awarded the wife $7,000 as alimony in gross, and ordered the husband to pay $3,000 for the wife's attorney's fees.
- The trial court also found the husband and his attorney in contempt for failing to comply with previous court orders to produce financial documents in response to the wife's pretrial discovery requests.
- The husband appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Is a divorce judgment final for purposes of appeal when the trial court does not specifically rule on a counterclaim for divorce, but grants the divorce sought by both parties? 2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in awarding $7,000 in alimony in gross to the wife? 3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in awarding $3,000 in attorney's fees to the wife? 4. Was the trial court's finding of contempt against the husband for failing to comply with discovery orders supported by the evidence? 5. Did the trial judge commit reversible error by refusing to recuse himself based on alleged bias and prejudice?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, a divorce judgment is final for purposes of appeal when both parties seek a divorce and the judgment grants that relief, even if a counterclaim is not specifically addressed, because the grounds for divorce are causes, not distinct claims for relief under Rule 54(b). The appellate court finds no merit in the husband's contention regarding the finality of the judgment, noting that both parties sought divorce and such relief was granted, thereby disposing of the allegations in the husband's counterclaim. No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $7,000 in alimony in gross. The court emphasized that no mathematical formula exists for determining alimony in gross, and the trial court must consider the particular facts of each case, including marriage length, property, parties' stations and future prospects, and conduct during the marriage. Given Janice's financial contributions to Thomas's home and Thomas's failure to provide requested banking records, the appellate court could not hold the award an abuse of discretion. No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $3,000 in attorney's fees to the wife. Factors for awarding attorney's fees include the parties' financial circumstances, conduct, litigation results, and the trial court's knowledge of the value of services. The testimony showed Janice's attorney spent nearly sixty hours preparing for trial, and Thomas's non-cooperation in discovery likely made the work more difficult and time-consuming. In view of these factors, the appellate court could not hold the award an abuse of discretion. Yes, the trial court's finding of contempt against the husband was supported by the evidence. The appellate court's review scope for contempt only assesses if any evidence supports the finding. It was undisputed that Thomas failed to comply with Janice's discovery requests and two court orders compelling production of financial documents. His argument that a prior order was void due to a judge's recusal was unsubstantiated and irrelevant, as he also failed to comply with a subsequent valid order. Thus, there was ample evidence to support the finding of contempt. No, the trial judge did not err in refusing to recuse himself. Thomas's assertion of bias, based on a denial of a continuance and the judge's statement about the case's duration, was unsubstantiated. The judge's statement indicated an interest in fair and expeditious resolution, not bias. Therefore, the appellate court concluded the trial judge did not err in refusing recusal. The trial court's judgment is affirmed, and the wife's request for attorney's fees on appeal is granted in the amount of $750.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the significant deference appellate courts give to trial court judgments in divorce proceedings, particularly when evidence is presented orally (ore tenus). It clarifies that the grounds for divorce are not 'claims for relief' requiring separate rulings for appeal finality, thereby streamlining the appellate process. The decision also underscores the importance of strict compliance with discovery orders, indicating that trial courts have broad power to enforce such orders through contempt findings, which appellate courts will uphold if any supporting evidence exists, emphasizing the court's authority in managing litigation.
