Brown v. Brown

• Decision Date: 22 August 1968
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 410
• Citation: Brown v. Brown, 213 So.2d 863, 282 Ala. 701 (Ala. 1968)
• Parties: Leila Borland BROWN v. Barto L. BROWN, Jr.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 863

213 So.2d 863

282 Ala. 701

Leila Borland BROWN v. Barto L. BROWN, Jr.

6 Div. 410.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Aug. 22, 1968.

Higgins, Windham, Perdue & Johnson, Birmingham, for appellant.

Frank Marsh, Bessemer, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal originated from the circuit court of Jefferson County, in equity wherein, pursuant to an amended bill of complaint, the chancellor awarded appellant a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, on the ground of statutory cruelty.

Pursuant to a prayer for alimony and property settlement, the trial court, after hearing the evidence, awarded complainant (appellant) the sum of $600.00 per month, plus $100.00 per month each, for the use and support of three minor children of the parties.

In addition to the above monthly award, the court ordered appellee to execute and deliver a quit claim deed to the residence of the parties, and to make monthly payments of $212.50 to clear the property of a mortgage debt between the sums of $14,000.00 and $15,000.00. The appellant and appellee were joint tenants in the property, with the right of survivorship. This award was in the nature of alimony in gross to appellant.

On motion for rehearing, the decree was amended so that it conveyed household effects and furniture to appellant. The motion was otherwise overruled.

The trial court also decree, that the capital investment account and the interest of appellant in that certain partnership known as Arnold-Brown Metals & Supply Company of Birmingham, as follows:

'is hereby impressed with and made subject to a trust to the extent of $9,000.00, in reimbursement of complainant of an amount contributed to such partnership interest and subsequently transferred to respondent (appellee) without consideration to the complainant, with the right and privilege to respondent to free his said interest of such trust by paying the amount thereof to complainant or her solicitor in full.'

The above-quoted portion of the decree appears in paragraph (c) of the original decree.

We have carefully read the narrated evidence appearing in the briefs of the parties, and conclude therefrom that the appellant is entitled to additional relief that was not accorded to her in an amount to which she was entitled.

We do not think it would serve any useful purpose to burden this opinion with details of appellee's business investments, and the ramifications thereof, together with his income and property accumulations. He appears to have been very successful business-wise, and his income from his operations is quite substantial. The record before us embraces considerable detail, both oral and documentary, and reflects success in his business ventures.

The dollars and cents evaluations justified the family in living beyond the standard of a family with only an average income. While the trial court, with judicial propriety, might have allowed a larger monthly allowance than he decreed, we will not contradict his sincere judgment by holding that he was in error in not so doing. We think he properly overruled the motion for a rehearing, except as to the household furniture and effects.

It may be that appellant cannot be as free with her expenditures as she was when she and her husband were living together, and in colloquial language she might have to 'small in some,' but this observance of frugality, in our judgment, will not be too repressive. Such...