Crowder v. Crowder

Citations: 166 So. 3d 135; 2014 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 211; 2014 WL 5507493Docket: 2120928

Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; October 31, 2014; Alabama; State Appellate Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion OriginalDissent OriginalDissent Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Hannah Caroline Crowder appeals a Talladega Circuit Court judgment granting her a monthly alimony of $300, a gross alimony award of $55,000, certain personal property, one of four real estate parcels, and an equal share of proceeds from the sale of another parcel. The divorce was sought by her husband, Donnie Steve Crowder, on grounds of incompatibility and alleged adultery, with Hannah counterclaiming for divorce based on incompatibility. Due to a computer malfunction, no transcript exists from the ore tenus hearing, but a statement of evidence and evidentiary exhibits have been approved by the trial court.

Hannah contends the trial court erred in its alimony and property division, specifically regarding the entirety of Donnie's individual retirement account (IRA). The appellate review of such decisions is deferential, presuming the trial court's determinations on alimony and property division are correct unless shown to be an abuse of discretion. Key factors for consideration in these determinations include the parties' earning abilities, future prospects, age, health, the marriage's duration, and conduct related to the divorce cause. While property division need not be equal, it must be equitable, with decisions based on individual case facts.

The record indicates the couple married in 1987 and separated in May 2011, having one child who is now 18. Donnie, aged 64, receives $1,632 monthly in Social Security retirement benefits and has health issues, while Hannah, 54, receives $716 monthly in disability benefits and has unspecified health problems. They jointly owned various properties, including a river lot, a 10-acre Fayetteville parcel with mobile homes, a Florida lot, and a 34-acre Georgia parcel with a residence, collectively valued between $216,000 and $337,000.

The Georgia parcel, inherited by the husband, was solely titled in his name during the marriage, while the wife made no financial contributions to the Fayetteville parcel, from which the husband purchased a mobile home using $62,000 of inherited funds. The husband also opened an IRA worth approximately $264,000 at separation, reduced to $107,000 by trial time due to job loss, withdrawals for marital debts, and spousal support payments. An argument about the wife's alleged infidelity occurred in April 2011, with the child testifying he saw the wife with another man, Jim Bush, in May, shortly before she moved in with him, although she claimed to have paid rent. The court's division of marital property did not favor the husband unfairly; he was awarded assets potentially worth $317,000 compared to the wife’s $82,000. The wife's claim that the inherited Georgia parcel and Fayetteville parcel should be divisible was rejected, as Alabama law does not mandate inheritance to be considered divisible property. Ultimately, the wife received about 30% of the divisible property, while the husband received around 70%, and her failure to address her conduct in the divorce process was noted.

A court may consider fault in property division during a divorce even if the divorce was granted on grounds of incompatibility. In the case reviewed, evidence of the wife's adultery, the husband's greater age, lack of significant medical history for either party, and the wife's minimal economic contribution to marital assets supported the trial court's decision to award a larger share of marital assets to the husband. The court also found no error in granting the husband his IRA, as he had previously used funds from it to pay marital debts, benefiting both parties. 

Regarding the wife's claim of insufficient periodic alimony, the trial court's $300 monthly award was deemed reasonable. The wife argued that her alimony and benefit payments would not cover her claimed monthly expenses of $1,401; however, her actual itemized expenses totaled $1,251, and some expenses were not considered necessities. The wife's assertion of inequity due to an alleged increase in the husband's income post-separation was clarified; the increase was due to pension distributions rather than a rise in wages, which had decreased. The husband's advanced age and loss of long-term employment further undermined the wife's claims regarding his earning capacity.

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, noting that it is permissible to value divisible retirement accounts at the time of the divorce judgment rather than at separation. An additional account with a $10,000 balance was not mentioned in the divorce judgment, but both parties retain their interests in it due to the trial court's silence on the matter. The judgment was affirmed, with some dissenting opinions noted.