Ayers v. Ayers
| Decision Date | 10 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2210318,2210376 |
| Parties | Marla Ayers v. Louie F. Ayers II Louie F. Ayers II v. Marla Ayers |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Marla Ayers
v.
Louie F. Ayers II
Louie F. Ayers II
v.
Marla Ayers
Nos. 2210318, 2210376
Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
November 10, 2022
Appeals from Cullman Circuit Court (DR-19-900180)
FRIDY, JUDGE
Marla Ayers ("the wife") appeals from a partial summary judgment entered by the Cullman Circuit Court ("the trial court") determining that a prenuptial agreement between her and Louie F. Ayers II ("the husband") was enforceable and from the final judgment entered by the trial court insofar as it divorced the parties on the ground of incompatibility rather than adultery. The husband cross-appeals from the final judgment divorcing the parties insofar as it ordered him to provide the wife with health-insurance coverage. We affirm the partial summary judgment determining that the prenuptial agreement was enforceable and the final judgment insofar as it divorced the parties on the ground of incompatibility. We reverse the final judgment insofar as it directed the husband to provide health-insurance coverage for the wife.
Background
The parties married in October 2001. Both had been married previously; the husband had custody of two children from his previous marriage. Two children were born during the parties' marriage to one another. The parties separated in June 2019, and the wife filed a complaint for divorce that month.
During the litigation, the husband filed a motion for a partial summary judgment regarding the enforceability of a prenuptial agreement that the parties had signed before their marriage. In support of his motion, the husband included a copy of the prenuptial agreement, which provided that the property owned by each party before the marriage or acquired by either party in his or her own name during the marriage would remain separately owned property, "free from any and all claims of the other party that may arise by reason of their marriage except as otherwise set out specifically in this Agreement." The prenuptial agreement also required each party "to sign a waiver of a Qualified Pre-Retirement Survivor Annuity or Qualified Joint and Survivor Annuity (as defined in the Internal Revenue Code) under any qualified retirement plan in which the owner of them shall be a participant at any time." Regarding rights to marital property, the prenuptial agreement provided:
"The parties hereby waive, release and relinquish any and all claims and rights of every kind, nature or description whether legal or equitable which they may have against the other's separately owned property, as such property shall exist at the time of such dissolution not specifically reserved in this Agreement, including but not limited to the following
"1. Support
"2. Maintenance;
"3. Alimony;
"4. Attorneys fees, court costs, or other fees or expenses incurred as a result of the divorce or dissolution;
"5. Any right or claim for property settlement or other division of property;
"6. All other funds or allowances which might otherwise accrue as a result of the dissolution of the marriage;
"7. The right to obtain a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (as defined in the Internal Revenue Code) with respect to any qualified retirement plan in which the other is a participant.
... [I]n the event of divorce or dissolution of the marriage the parties shall receive their designated interest in any jointly held property, whether cash or chattels or real estate unless otherwise stated herein. Each party's interest shall be whatever designation appears on any instrument of title to said property unless otherwise stated herein. In the event of divorce, the acquired property after the marriage shall be equally divided between the parties."
The prenuptial agreement indicated that each party was represented by an attorney and that each party had made to the other a full and complete disclosure of his or her separately owned property, including his or her assets, net worth, and income. In the prenuptial agreement, the husband and the wife each acknowledged that the other's
"assets, present net worth, and income" had been fully and fairly disclosed, that the other party had fully explained and answered questions regarding that party's assets and present net worth, and that each party had received the advice of counsel. The acknowledgment also stated that each party understood that, by entering into the prenuptial agreement, he or she was waiving and releasing any rights to the other's separately owned property and that he or she entered the agreement freely, voluntarily, and with full knowledge.
In the prenuptial agreement, an attorney for each party certified that he had advised his client with respect to the prenuptial agreement, that he had explained "the meaning and legal effect of it," that his client had acknowledged a "full and complete understanding" of, and the legal consequences of, the prenuptial agreement, and that his client had freely and voluntarily executed the prenuptial agreement in his presence. An exhibit describing the parties' assets was attached to the prenuptial agreement.
In opposing the husband's partial-summary-judgment motion seeking enforcement of the prenuptial agreement, the wife argued that the prenuptial agreement was unenforceable under several equitable
doctrines. Specifically, she contended that the enforcement of the prenuptial agreement would result in unjust enrichment to the husband, that the husband came to the action with unclean hands because, she said, he had engaged in an adulterous relationship with another woman, and that the husband was estopped from enforcing the prenuptial agreement because, she said, he had told the wife he would always take care of her.
The trial court held a hearing on the husband's motion for a partial summary judgment at which the parties testified. In addition, the wife submitted transcripts of the parties' depositions to the court. Regarding the creation of the prenuptial agreement, the husband testified that, after the parties decided to marry, they retained their own attorneys to prepare the prenuptial agreement to protect their assets and, he said, to protect his children from his previous marriage. The wife testified that she had participated in the preparation of the prenuptial agreement and recalled meeting with her attorney at his office one time. She also said that she had entered into the prenuptial agreement freely and that she had discussed it with her attorney before signing it. However, she said,
she later realized that she did not fully understand the prenuptial agreement.
The evidence showed that the parties signed the prenuptial agreement the day before their wedding. The wife testified that she did not recall any coercion or threats being made to induce her to sign the prenuptial agreement. The husband said that he, the wife, their respective attorneys, and two witnesses gathered in a conference room and that the attorneys explained the terms of the prenuptial agreement. The wife testified that she did not recall that meeting. Nonetheless, it is undisputed that the husband, the wife, and the witnesses signed the prenuptial agreement.
Evidence showed that, when the parties married, the husband was the plant manager at Ingram Farms, earning approximately $80,000 annually, and that the wife worked as a dental hygienist. Soon after the marriage began, the husband and the wife mutually agreed that she would leave her job to be a stay-at-home mother. The wife testified that she had allowed her dental-hygienist license to lapse because, she said, she had believed that she would not need it any longer. She said that the husband had told her that she would always be taken care of and that
she had believed him. The husband denied telling the wife that she would always be taken care of, explaining that he had agreed only to the terms in the prenuptial agreement. At the hearing, the husband also denied the wife's allegation that he had had an affair.
On April 30, 2021, the trial court entered a partial summary judgment determining that the prenuptial agreement was valid and enforceable. In doing so, the trial court explicitly rejected the wife's arguments that the prenuptial agreement was unenforceable under the equitable doctrines the wife had asserted.
On October 6, 2021, the trial court held a trial in the divorce action. At the trial, the wife contended that the husband had committed adultery with a coworker and that that was the reason she sought a divorce. She testified that she believed that, "until [she] started figuring things out," the parties had had a good marriage. The wife said that she did not confront the husband about the alleged affair; instead, she said, she simply had had him served with the divorce complaint and he had left the marital residence.
Both the husband and the coworker testified that they had not engaged in an adulterous relationship. During the husband's testimony,
the wife submitted into evidence a video containing clips of the husband and the coworker together in different vehicles. The husband testified that, when they were observed in one of the vehicles, the husband and the coworker were talking about the coworker's divorce. In one clip, the coworker was sitting in the husband's lap while they were in a vehicle. The husband said that one thing had led to another, and that they had hugged and kissed, but that "nothing beyond that" had ever occurred. The coworker admitted that the husband had gotten into her vehicle with her and that the two had hugged and kissed. The coworker also said that she generally sent text messages to the husband multiple times a day. She admitted that, after being instructed at her deposition to preserve her text messages, which she said that she habitually deleted, she had continued to delete messages for several days. She said that she could not...
To continue reading
Request your trial