Ex Parte Drummond

Citations: 785 So. 2d 358; 2000 WL 1310505Docket: 1990033

Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; September 15, 2000; Alabama; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Mark S. Drummond and Rhonda B. Drummond were divorced by the Jefferson Circuit Court, with Rhonda appealing the judgment. The Court of Civil Appeals determined that the trial court improperly excluded Mark's inheritance from his grandmother's estate as marital property, ruling that Rhonda should have been entitled to share in it due to its common use during the marriage. Consequently, it reversed both the property division and alimony awards. The Alabama Supreme Court granted Mark's petition for certiorari review, ultimately reversing the Court of Civil Appeals' ruling regarding the property division and alimony, and remanding the case.

Key facts include that Mark and Rhonda were married in 1981, with Rhonda initially working as a teacher before becoming a homemaker after Mark secured a stable academic position. They received substantial annual gifts from Mark's wealthy family, which contributed to their income. The trial court awarded custody of the children to Mark, with visitation rights to Rhonda, along with alimony, the marital residence, a portion of Mark's investment account, and attorney fees to Rhonda. Rhonda contested the property division and custody arrangements on appeal, but the appellate court upheld the custody and attorney fees while reversing the property and alimony decisions.

The appellate review standard indicates that trial court determinations regarding alimony and property division are presumed correct unless clearly unsupported by evidence, necessitating a finding of abuse of discretion for reversal.

The trial court possesses broad discretion in matters of alimony and property division, as established in Alabama case law, with its judgment presumed correct unless it is shown to be unjust and clearly unsupported by evidence. Property divisions must be equitable, not necessarily equal, and this determination lies within the trial court's discretion. In reviewing such decisions, the appellate court considers property division and alimony together, factoring in the unique circumstances of each case.

In the context of the case at hand, Rhonda claims that Mark retained several bank and investment accounts valued at approximately $1.2 million, which the trial court allegedly failed to consider during the divorce proceedings. She argues this omission violates Ala. Code 30-2-51, which allows a judge to order financial allowances to a spouse, provided certain conditions are met regarding property usage for the common benefit of the marriage. Rhonda contends that Mark's inheritance from his grandmother was utilized for shared family expenses, thus qualifying it for consideration under the statute.

The Court of Civil Appeals determined that if the trial court excluded Mark’s assets without recognizing their common benefit to the marriage, it would constitute reversible error. After reviewing evidence, the court found many assets were indeed used for mutual benefit during the marriage, with their total value exceeding $1 million. Mark disputes this, asserting that the inheritance was not used for the marriage's benefit and lacks proof of such usage.

Mark contends that awarding any portion of his inheritance to Rhonda violates Alabama Code § 30-2-52, which permits a judge to make allowances from one spouse's estate if the divorce results from the other spouse's misconduct. Mark alleges Rhonda's infidelity during the marriage, arguing she should not benefit from his inheritance. However, the Court of Civil Appeals found no determination of misconduct by Rhonda in the trial court's judgment, rendering § 30-2-52 inapplicable. The Court also noted that assets not divided by the trial court were used for the couple's mutual benefit during the marriage.

Despite evidence supporting the conclusion that Rhonda's conduct contributed to the marriage's breakdown, the appellate court disagreed with the notion that the trial court was obligated to distribute Mark's inheritance. According to Alabama Code § 30-2-51, if a party does not use their inheritance or gifts for the marriage's common benefit, those assets cannot be considered in property divisions, but the statute allows discretion to the trial judge in such determinations. 

Rhonda was awarded significant assets, including the family home valued between $800,000 and $900,000, a Lexus, over $40,000 in attorney fees, $50,000 in alimony, and $4,000 monthly alimony. The appellate court concluded that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in property division, despite not explicitly stating the consideration of Mark's inheritance. The trial judge, having heard testimony and assessed witness credibility, made a reasonable decision, which the appellate court cannot overturn. Consequently, the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals reversing the property division and alimony aspects is reversed, and the case is remanded with instructions to reinstate those portions of the trial court's judgment.