Hackney v. Hackney

Citations: 794 So. 2d 1159; 2001 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 110; 2001 WL 259272Docket: 2991145

Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; March 15, 2001; Alabama; State Appellate Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

On February 8, 1999, Leigh M. Hackney initiated legal separation proceedings against Thomas A. Hackney, seeking custody of their four minor children, child support, alimony, the marital residence, and division of property. Thomas counterclaimed for a legal separation, later amending it to request a divorce, also seeking custody and equitable division of assets. On April 25, 2000, the court issued a 20-page order finalizing the divorce. Key rulings included:

- Leigh was granted custody of the minor children with shared parental responsibility.
- Thomas was ordered to pay $2,500 monthly in child support and $1,800 monthly in alimony.
- Thomas is responsible for tuition and fees for the children to attend Briarwood Christian School.
- Leigh received all shares of common stock in First Talladega Corporation, to be transferred by Thomas by May 15, 2000.
- Thomas retained his interests in the Blount Trust/Future Development Trust.
- Leigh received a half interest in Thomas's 401(k) Plan, not less than $110,000, based on the account balance at trial.
- Thomas must pay Leigh half of a $191,000 federal tax refund upon receipt.
- The residence at 4010 Montevallo Road was awarded to Thomas, who is liable for its mortgage.
- The residence at 1 Montcrest Road was also awarded to Thomas, with him responsible for its mortgage and indemnifying Leigh from related obligations; Leigh retains exclusive use until ongoing litigation is resolved.
- Leigh was awarded full interest in the Blue Springs Property, with Thomas required to release it as security for any debts within 45 days.
- Leigh also received the Brooks property, confirmed to have no liens against it.

The wife is awarded the Dunston property and the Allred property, with the husband representing that neither has any liens. The husband is granted all other real estate in his name, individually or jointly, and must pay any debts associated with those properties, indemnifying the wife from any related loss or obligation. The husband also receives all interests in various business entities, including Blount County Health Care, Inc., and is responsible for indemnifying the wife from any related financial liabilities. The ongoing litigation involving Blount County Health Care, Inc. and Diversified Health Systems, Inc. will result in the husband assigning 50% of the lease payments to the wife, less the mortgage due to her, beginning May 2000, as part of an equitable asset division. 

The husband's postjudgment motion was partially granted and partially denied on June 14, 2000. Motions to intervene by his brother and another individual were denied by the court. The husband appealed, contending that the court improperly awarded the wife certain properties and financial obligations, including lease payments from an unrelated corporation and educational expenses for their children. The appeal is subject to the ore tenus rule, which favors the trial court's findings as correct unless clearly erroneous, due to the court's direct observation of witness credibility.

In Hall v. Mazzone, 486 So.2d 408 (Ala.1986), the Alabama appellate court upheld the trial court's discretion regarding alimony and property division, emphasizing that such rulings will only be overturned on appeal if there is a clear abuse of discretion. The court noted that alimony and property division are interrelated, and a comprehensive review of the entire judgment is necessary to assess potential abuse of discretion. Factors influencing the trial court's decisions include the parties' earning capacities, future prospects, ages, health, marriage duration, lifestyle, marital property details, and conduct during the marriage. 

The trial court's decision was based on extensive testimony gathered over eight days, which provided ample support for its judgment. The couple, married in June 1983, had four children, with the wife leaving her healthcare job after their first child was born to become a housewife and primary caregiver, particularly for their youngest child with special needs. The wife assisted her husband in starting a medical supply business and reported that he controlled all financial decisions, leading to disputes over marital assets. 

The couple owned several properties, including two residences and various business ventures initiated by the husband, who had established multiple corporate entities. The wife currently works part-time earning $7.50 per hour, has a retirement account worth $74,000, and owns stock valued at $95,000. The husband, however, provided inconsistent information about his financial status, with undisclosed assets and liabilities. He faced sanctions for non-compliance with discovery requests and admitted to not filing income taxes for several years, despite previously reporting significant income and currently holding investment accounts worth over $500,000, Series E bonds, and expecting substantial profits from ongoing business litigation.

Bruce L. Gordon, the wife’s expert witness and corporate attorney, provided testimony identifying the husband's substantial assets, including $750,000 in equity in Blount County Health Care, $800,000 in Blount Trust, and a $2.4 million receivable owed to the trust from another corporation. He also noted $3.2 million in accounts receivable, revenues of $718,000 from Blount Medical Supply and $220,000 from Tri-County Medical Supply in 1999, a book value of $156,000 for Blount Medical Equipment Leasing, and real estate holdings valued at $1.75 million. The husband was projected to earn at least $16,000 monthly in lease payments linked to ongoing litigation and had various investment accounts.

The court found the husband's appeal arguments unpersuasive. Concerning children’s educational expenses, the husband indicated he had paid approximately $5,000 for their attendance at Briarwood Christian School and expressed his commitment to their education, leading the court to uphold the requirement for him to continue funding their schooling, referencing Etheredge v. Etheredge.

Regarding property division, despite the husband’s claims of pre-marriage property acquisition, evidence confirmed that all properties awarded to the wife were purchased during the marriage. There was no substantiation that the Allred property was an inheritance or gift, and the husband had sufficient financial means to replace the Blue Springs property, which was collateral for a loan. Thus, the trial court’s decision to award the wife property solely in the husband’s name was upheld, citing T.K.T. v. F.P.T.

Additionally, the husband acknowledged owning 100% of Excel Corporation, which controls Blount County Health Care, and anticipated netting about $20,000 monthly in lease payments post-litigation. The trial court's discretion to grant the wife 50% of these lease payments was affirmed, following Lyons v. Lyons. The court ultimately affirmed the trial court's judgment and granted the wife $7,500 in attorney fees for the appeal.