Kean v. Kean
2015 WL 4506612, 189 So.3d 61 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A spouse is not required to consume the principal of a property distribution award from a divorce in order to maintain the marital standard of living before being entitled to periodic alimony. Under Alabama law, a separate estate is considered insufficient for maintenance if it does not produce enough income for the spouse to live in the manner to which they were accustomed during the marriage.
Facts:
- Tyler Kean ('the husband') and Christine Kean ('the wife') were married for 17 years and had three minor children.
- One of their children had special needs, which required the wife to provide full-time care, thus limiting her employment prospects.
- The husband operated a restaurant as a sole proprietorship, and the business paid for some of the family's personal living expenses in addition to his income.
- The wife received $3,000 per month from a trust established by her father.
- The parties' marital standard of living cost approximately $7,315 per month.
- The wife filed a complaint for divorce from the husband.
Procedural Posture:
- Christine Kean ('the wife') filed a complaint for divorce against Tyler Kean ('the husband') in the Baldwin Circuit Court, the trial court.
- Following proceedings, the trial court entered a final judgment that, among other things, awarded the wife periodic alimony of $2,200 per month and child support of $1,250 per month.
- In calculating child support, the trial court attributed $80,000 in annual income to the husband and imputed minimum wage income to the wife, but it did not include the wife's trust income or the husband's business expense reimbursements.
- The husband appealed the trial court's judgment to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, challenging the alimony award and the child support calculation.
- The wife filed a cross-appeal, also challenging the trial court's calculation of the husband's income for child support purposes.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In determining a spouse's need for periodic alimony, must a court require that spouse to first deplete the principal of liquid assets received in the property division before finding they have a need for support?
Opinions:
Majority - Moore, J.
No. A spouse is not required to consume the principal of a property distribution award in order to maintain the marital standard of living before being entitled to periodic alimony. The court affirmed the alimony award, holding that the wife demonstrated a need for support. Citing the precedent in Steiner v. Steiner, the court reasoned that an estate is 'insufficient for her maintenance' if it does not produce an income on which she can live in the manner to which she has been accustomed. Forcing the wife to use her approximately $110,000 property settlement to cover her monthly shortfall would deplete the entire amount in just over four years, which contradicts the principle that a property award is for long-term security, not immediate consumption. The court also reversed the child support calculation, finding the trial court erred by failing to include the wife's trust income and the husband's business expense reimbursements in their respective gross incomes as required by Rule 32, Ala. R. Jud. Admin.
Concurring - Thompson, P.J.
No. The alimony award was appropriate when considered together with the property division. Judge Thompson concurred in the result but emphasized that property division and alimony are interrelated and must be reviewed together. He reasoned that the trial court could have found the property division greatly favored the husband, given that the wife's expert valued the husband's business much higher than the husband's expert did. Therefore, the alimony award could be seen as a way to offset this disparity and make the overall divorce resolution equitable. He also highlighted the wife's limited future employment prospects due to caring for the parties' special-needs child as a significant factor supporting the alimony award.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and clarifies the long-standing principle from Steiner v. Steiner for modern divorce cases involving liquid assets. It solidifies the distinction between the 'use' of assets and the 'consumption' of their principal, establishing that a property award is intended for long-term security and potential income generation, not to be depleted for daily living expenses. This precedent provides crucial protection for recipient spouses by ensuring that periodic alimony can be awarded to meet shortfalls in maintaining the marital standard of living without first requiring the spouse to exhaust their share of the marital estate. The case reinforces that courts must look at a spouse's ability to generate income from their assets, rather than their ability to live off the principal itself.
