Hill v. Hill

Citations: 208 So. 3d 1144; 2015 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 270Docket: 2130352

Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; December 3, 2015; Alabama; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The court withdrew its previous opinion and issued a new judgment regarding the divorce of Raleigh Levon Hill, Sr. and Beverly Collier Hill. The appeal concerns two primary issues: the award to the wife of $162,623.86 as half of the husband's lottery winnings and her entitlement to half of his retirement account. The procedural history indicates that the wife filed for divorce in September 2011, citing abandonment and incompatibility, approximately 23 years after the husband left. The husband claimed to have obtained a divorce via a Mexican court in 2002, which he argued nullified the trial court's jurisdiction, and he raised defenses of equitable estoppel and laches.

A bench trial was held in June 2013, focusing on the validity of the Mexican divorce, the wife’s entitlement to assets acquired post-separation, and her claim to the retirement account. The wife contended that the Mexican divorce was fraudulent due to misrepresentation and lack of proper notification. The husband later conceded that the Mexican divorce was invalid, affirming that they were still married and acknowledging the trial court's jurisdiction. However, he claimed the wife was estopped from claiming assets due to her portrayal of being single in various documents since their separation.

In September 2013, the trial court ruled the Mexican divorce void, confirmed its jurisdiction, granted the divorce based on incompatibility, categorized the lottery winnings as marital property, and awarded the wife the specified monetary settlement and half of the retirement account. The court affirmed these decisions in the current judgment.

The husband filed a postjudgment motion challenging the trial court's award of a property settlement to the wife, arguing it exceeded his estate's value and was inequitable. He specifically requested vacating the order granting the wife half of his U.S. Airways Inc. Employee Savings Plan due to her failure to provide evidence of its present value, citing Underwood v. Underwood, which reversed a similar award for lack of jurisdiction when the wife did not present evidence. The husband also sought to vacate the Qualified Domestic Relations Order issued on October 3, 2013, on the same grounds. During the hearing, he contended the trial court erred because the retirement account's value at separation was not established, presenting a jurisdictional issue. The trial court did not rule on the motion within 90 days, leading to its automatic denial under Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P. The husband subsequently appealed. The factual background presented indicates the wife gave birth to their first child in 1984, they married in 1985, and the husband left the family unexpectedly in 1988, moving to North Carolina and ceasing spousal support payments while only intermittently paying child support.

After leaving on July 29, 1988, the husband and wife had minimal contact and never cohabited again. The husband did not discuss divorce with the wife or serve her with any divorce proceedings he initiated. In 1999, he began a relationship with Erin Cullen, misrepresenting his marital status. As their wedding approached in 2002, the husband discovered he had no record of a divorce from his wife. He and Cullen used an online service to apply for a Mexican divorce, which he submitted without notifying or serving his wife. They received a judgment by mail shortly after and proceeded with a wedding ceremony. The wife only learned of the divorce judgment when she initiated her own divorce action.

On February 15, 2011, the husband won a $1,000,000 lottery prize, which he split with Cullen. He deposited his share of $325,247.73 into his account in August 2011. On October 1, 2011, he was served with process in the current divorce action, during which a standing order required him to preserve assets in their existing form. Despite this, on November 28, 2011, he purchased a house for $299,405 using the lottery proceeds. Following his departure from his wife, the husband was employed by U.S. Airways, Inc., where he had a fully vested retirement account valued at $30,357.51 as of the first quarter of 2013.

The trial court's findings are upheld under the ore tenus standard, which assumes the trial court's factual determinations are correct unless found to be palpably erroneous or manifestly unjust.

The presumption of correctness in trial court judgments is rebuttable, particularly when insufficient evidence exists to support the judgment. The ore tenus rule does not apply to a trial judge’s legal conclusions or misapplications of law. In the case presented, the husband contends that the trial court incorrectly awarded the wife half of the retirement account’s value based on an account statement dated well after the divorce was filed. This violates Alabama Code § 30-2-51(b), which allows for the division of vested retirement benefits only as of the filing date of the divorce complaint, excluding any post-complaint accumulations. Legal precedents affirm that trial courts cannot award post-complaint additions to retirement accounts. Additionally, under § 30-2-51(b), the court can only consider retirement benefits that were accrued during a marriage lasting at least ten years, and any pre-marital benefits or their appreciation are excluded. Mr. Robicheaux's appeal against the valuation date for retirement benefits was rejected, reinforcing that the relevant valuation should occur at the time of filing the divorce complaint, not at the divorce judgment date.

Subsection (b) stipulates that for a trial judge to consider retirement benefits in a spouse's estate during divorce proceedings, the spouse must either be currently receiving those benefits or have a vested interest at the time the divorce is filed. The statute does not specify when the present value of these retirement benefits should be assessed, allowing the trial court to value them as of the divorce date.

In the case of Smith v. Smith, the Houston Circuit Court awarded Mrs. Smith half of Mr. Smith’s retirement accounts; however, this award was reversed on appeal. The appellate court found that some retirement benefits in those accounts were acquired before the marriage, and Mrs. Smith failed to provide evidence of their value at that time. Additionally, she did not demonstrate the value or appreciation of benefits that accrued after the marriage but before the divorce complaint was filed.

The ruling emphasized that retirement benefits earned after the divorce action was initiated are not deemed vested benefits under the applicable law. The appellate court noted that if the judgment had awarded a percentage of the vested benefits as of the divorce filing date, including any subsequent interest or appreciation, it would have complied with the statute. The decision reinforced the principle that awards related to retirement benefits must exclude pre-marriage benefits and any appreciation or post-complaint benefits.

An award of retirement benefits under § 30-2-51(b) is limited to vested benefits accrued during the marriage and does not include benefits earned prior to the marriage, after the divorce complaint was filed, or those that were not vested at the time the complaint was filed. However, vested benefits at the time of filing, including subsequent interest or appreciation, are eligible for division. The case of Smith v. Smith does not require that the current value of vested benefits be established on the filing date for a share to be awarded. The determination of present value can occur anytime post-filing and pre-judgment. In the discussed case, the trial court's error stemmed from including retirement benefits earned after the divorce complaint was filed when calculating the wife's share based on a quarterly statement. The husband's claims in a post-judgment motion did not adequately address the inclusion of post-complaint benefits as the basis for the trial court's error. The court clarified that an award based on a percentage of the vested benefits as of the filing date, along with any appreciation, would comply with § 30-2-51(b).

The trial court's reliance on the quarterly statement was deemed erroneous, yet the appellate court cannot reverse the judgment based on arguments not presented at trial, as established in Andrews v. Merritt Oil Co. The husband contended that the trial court improperly awarded the wife a property settlement of $162,623.86, arguing it constituted alimony in gross exceeding his estate's value. Evidence showed he used lottery proceeds of $325,247.73 to purchase a house valued at $299,405 post-service of the complaint, violating a court order to maintain asset status quo. While both the husband and Cullen were listed on the closing statement, the record lacked clarity on the house's title ownership. Even if jointly titled, the trial court could treat the house's full value as marital property since the husband funded it entirely with lottery proceeds, which was done to defeat the wife's marital interest. The court referenced Pattillo v. Pattillo and Baggett v. Baggett, highlighting the principle that property transfers intended to undermine a spouse's rights are voidable. The house's value exceeded the settlement awarded, leading to the rejection of the husband's argument against the award. Lastly, the husband claimed the property division was inequitable; however, the court noted that equitable does not mean equal, and the trial court's discretion in determining equity considers various factors, including marriage length, the parties' health and future prospects, property valuation, and any marital misconduct.

The parties were legally married for over 25 years and lived together for less than 4 years. Both individuals were in their 40s and healthy at the time of the trial. The husband had over 20 years of employment with U.S. Airlines, while the wife had worked for NASA for 9 years. Their primary assets included a house, purchased by the husband with lottery winnings, and the husband's retirement account. The trial court found that the husband's abrupt departure without notice and absence for over 20 years was the primary reason for the marriage's breakdown. The court treated the entire value of the house, $299,405, as marital property, asserting that the inclusion of Cullen’s name on the title was intended to undermine the wife's marital interest. Consequently, the wife was awarded $162,623.86, and the husband received $136,781.14 from the house's value. The wife was also granted half of the husband's retirement account. Given the awarded values and relevant factors, the division of marital property was deemed equitable, leading to the rejection of the husband’s argument. The trial court's judgment was affirmed. Additionally, the couple’s three children were over 19 at the time of the divorce filing, so no custody or child support claims were made. The separation date was noted as July 29, 1988, prior to the husband's employment with U.S. Airways.