Adams v. Adams
| Decision Date | 31 March 2000 |
| Citation | 778 So.2d 825 |
| Parties | Annie ADAMS v. Lewis ADAMS. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Robert Straub of Russell, Straub & Kyle, Decatur, for appellant.
Thomas H. Guthrie, Athens, for appellee.
Alabama Supreme Court 1991687.
Annie Adams appeals from a judgment divorcing her and Lewis Adams, her husband of 41 years. She argues that the circuit court inequitably divided the marital property. We agree, and we therefore reverse the judgment of the circuit court and remand for that court to reconsider the division of property.
The wife is 59 years old and in good health. She lives with the parties' only child, a 37-year-old unmarried daughter. Neither the wife nor the daughter is employed. The parties agree that the daughter has "emotional problems," that she has always lived with her parents, and that she has never been employed. With the exception of several short-term or seasonal jobs, such as Christmas employment at a local department store, the wife was not employed during the marriage. When she married, she had a high school diploma. Between 1988 and 1990, she earned three degrees: two associate degrees (one in general education and one in retail merchandising) and a bachelor's degree in personnel management.
The husband is 62 years old and in poor health. After having cardiac-bypass surgery, he retired in 1994 from the Monsanto Corporation, where he had been employed for over 30 years. The husband testified that, after his retirement, he set up an investment account at A.G. Edwards & Sons and that he intended that he, his wife, and his daughter would live on the interest from that account during his retirement. The parties were separated for a year before the divorce. At the time of the separation, the A.G. Edwards account balance was approximately $426,000. At the time of the divorce, the account balance was $367,542. The parties agree that the net monthly income from the investment account is $1,960. The husband testified that he will receive an additional $1,200 per month in Social Security benefits when he reaches age 65. It is undisputed that, during the parties' one-year separation, the husband voluntarily deposited $1,000 per month in a checking account for the wife. It is also undisputed that the wife routinely overdrew that account in the amount of $500 to $700 every month.
The wife was awarded the marital home and an adjoining lot, together valued at between $50,000 and $56,000. She was also awarded all the furnishings of the home, valued at $2,000. The husband was ordered to pay the $3,000 mortgage indebtedness on the marital home, at a monthly payment of $155. The wife was awarded two vehicles valued at $3,000 each; the husband was awarded two vehicles valued at $3,500 and $3,000. The husband was awarded stocks worth $17,800 and the investment account totalling $367,542. The husband was ordered to pay the wife periodic alimony of $600 per month for three years and then $750 per month thereafter. The husband was also ordered to provide health insurance for the wife through a COBRA plan for as long as the law allowed.
The trial court awarded the wife assets totalling approximately $64,000—or 16% of the marital property—and awarded the husband assets totalling approximately $385,000—or 84% of the marital property. The husband argues that the award represents the trial court's recognition that the wife is financially irresponsible and that she cannot be trusted not to squander the parties' joint assets. The husband maintains, therefore, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to award the wife any portion of the investment account. We reject the husband's argument.
Pattillo v. Pattillo, 414 So.2d 915, 917 (Ala. 1982). What each spouse may do with his or her share of the marital property after the marriage is over may be relevant to, but should not be decisive of, the issue of how to divide the property.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex Parte Andrews
...received 23%. An award of only 16% to one party was also found to be `so disproportionate as to be inequitable.' Adams v. Adams, 778 So.2d 825 at 827 (Ala.Civ.App.2000). "And in a case where Wife was awarded only 13% of the parties' assets, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals cited this Cour......
-
Swift v. Swift
...indicate an abuse of discretion." Fell v. Fell, 869 So.2d 486, 496 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003).’ " Id. The wife cites Adams v Adams, 778 So.2d 825 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000), a case in which this court determined that the property division was inequitable although the trial court had been concerned th......
-
Weeks v. Weeks
...Cunningham v. Cunningham, 964 So.2d 678 (Ala.Civ.App. 2007); Kaufman v. Kaufman, 934 So.2d 1073 (Ala.Civ.App.2005); and Adams v. Adams, 778 So.2d 825 (Ala.Civ.App.2000). However, "there is no rigid standard or mathematical formula on which a trial court must base its determination of alimon......
-
Spuhl v. Spuhl
...a retirement plan of her own] a portion of the husband's retirement benefits after 34 years of marriage.” Id. at 599. In Adams v. Adams, 778 So.2d 825 (Ala.Civ.App.2000), the division of marital property was similar to the division in this case. The trial court had awarded the wife assets o......