Culverhouse v. Culverhouse
| Decision Date | 17 September 1980 |
| Citation | 389 So.2d 937 |
| Parties | Barclay E. CULVERHOUSE v. Barbara W. CULVERHOUSE. Civ. 2262. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Charles L. Howard, Jr. of Howard & Howard, Birmingham, for appellant.
John R. Christian of Wheeler, Christian & Roberts, Birmingham, for appellee.
This case involves a petition to modify and an adjudication of child support arrearage.
By oral stipulation made in the circuit court, the appellant (defendant) limited the matters to be litigated under his petition to modify to the following paragraphs of the agreement of the parties which had been ratified by the court by their divorce judgment rendered on November 1, 1978:
2. That the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff for the support and maintenance of the minor children of the parties the sum of Three Hundred Dollars ($300.00) per week, with the first payment due and payable on November 3, 1978, and each week thereafter until the children attain their majority or marry.
6. Defendant shall continue to pay the premiums on the policy of insurance with New York Life, being policy number 33 524 925, in the amount of $150,000.00, and defendant shall continue to pay the premiums on said policy for as long as the plaintiff remains unmarried.
8. The defendant presently owns eight (8) lots in Sunshine Gardens Estates and described as follows: (descriptions omitted)
and the defendant agrees that as he sells each of the above described lots, that the plaintiff shall receive one half ( 1/2) of the net proceeds derived from each of said sales or sale.
9. That the 9.6 acres of property described further as: (description omitted)
shall be sold and when sold, and after payment of the balance of the note of approximately $20,000.00 on said property, that the net proceeds derived therefrom shall be divided equally between the plaintiff and defendant.
Those matters contained in paragraphs six, eight and nine are a portion of the property settlement provisions of the agreement of the parties. A court cannot modify a property settlement, except to correct clerical errors, after a lapse of thirty days from the rendition and entry of a final judgment approving such settlement. A divorce judgment dividing property between the parties is not subject to being modified as to such property division on account of changed conditions. Russell v. Russell, 386 So.2d 758 (Ala.Civ.App., 1980); Higginbotham v. Higginbotham, Ala.Civ.App., 367 So.2d 972 (1979) (); Monroe v. Monroe, Ala.Civ.App., 356 So.2d 196 (1978); McEntire v. McEntire, Ala.Civ.App., 345 So.2d 316 (1977); Kelley v. Kelley, 53 Ala.App. 608, 303 So.2d 108 (1974). Thus, the lower court was correct in not altering any of the provisions of said paragraphs six, eight or nine.
The defendant at the time of the divorce wholly owned his own corporation, Betr Homes, Inc., which was principally engaged in the construction and sale of residences in the Birmingham area. General economic conditions and increasing interest rates have been especially severe to the house building industry. Betr Homes and the defendant have not commenced new construction of a house since November 1, 1978, except for the foundation of one house, but they have completed the building of and sold five out of six houses then under various stages of construction. After April 1979, the business had no employees and was essentially dormant; however, three of the houses were sold thereafter for net receipts of $8,912, the last profitable sale being in August 1979.
In 1978 his salary from Betr Homes was $15,250, with net business income of $1,983 and gross capital gains of $24,528. His weekly income draws...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Johnson
...unless it was so unsupported by the evidence as to be palpably wrong, manifestly unjust, or plainly erroneous. Culverhouse v. Culverhouse, 389 So.2d 937 (Ala.Civ.App.1980)."Rogers v. Sims, 671 So.2d 714, 716–17 (Ala.Civ.App.1995).The former husband asserts that the former wife is largely re......
-
McCreless v. Valentin
...such property division on account of changed conditions. Russell v. Russell, 386 So.2d 758 (Ala.Civ.App.1980).”Culverhouse v. Culverhouse, 389 So.2d 937, 938 (Ala.Civ.App.1980). Valentin argues that the 2006 modification corrected an error because, he says, it only clarified or interpreted ......
-
Stephens v. Kathryn Nelson. Rebecca Lynn Stephens Kimbrough
...between the parties is not subject to modification as to such property division on account of changed conditions. Culverhouse v. Culverhouse, 389 So.2d 937 (Ala.Civ.App.1980); Russell v. Russell, 386 So.2d 758 (Ala.Civ.App.1980). However, the 1980 judgment did not modify the 1979 agreement ......
-
Bosarge v. Bosarge, 2170424
...unless it was so unsupported by the evidence as to be palpably wrong, manifestly unjust, or plainly erroneous. Culverhouse v. Culverhouse, 389 So.2d 937 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980).’" Rogers v. Sims, 671 So.2d 714, 716–17 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995)." Walker v. Lanier, 221 So.3d 470, 472 (Ala. Civ. App......