DeShazo v. DeShazo
| Decision Date | 03 May 1991 |
| Citation | 582 So.2d 564 |
| Parties | Lehman A. DeSHAZO v. Laura M. DeSHAZO. 2900206. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
J. Gary Pate of Boyd, Pate & Fernambucq, Birmingham, for appellant.
L. Drew Redden and Gerald L. Miller of Redden, Mills & Clark, Birmingham, for appellee.
After an ore tenus proceeding, the Circuit Court of Jefferson County entered a final judgment of divorce dividing the parties' property and awarding the wife periodic alimony. The husband appeals, contending that the trial court erred in awarding the wife $1500 per month periodic alimony in light of her separate estate, the length of the marriage, the conduct of the parties, her living expenses, and the respective financial circumstances of the parties. Clearly, such factors are appropriate. See, Lane v. Lane, 553 So.2d 1150 (Ala.Civ.App.1989).
The record reflects that the parties were married for nearly seven years and at the time of this action, the wife was 56 years old, and the husband was 66 years old. Both have been married before, the wife a number of times, and both have adult children from their prior marriages. There were no children born of this marriage. Although the husband suffered a heart attack, he had bypass surgery and now enjoys relatively good health. The wife has various health complaints, but overall is in good health. The wife has a ninth-grade education and was working as a receptionist when the couple met. She quit working prior to their marriage at the husband's request. The husband is the founder and president of DeShazo Crane Company. He has a base salary of $90,000 and in 1989 he had an income of $198,135, which included his salary and a bonus. The previous year, his bonus was substantially less ($15,000), but his salary was still $90,000. There were no allegations of abuse, but there were arguments, particularly with regard to the husband's plan to leave his business to his son. The wife had expected to be left a portion of the business and accused the husband of deceit when it became clear that he was leaving it to his son. The wife had been very supportive of the business, even to the point of lending the company substantial sums of money over a period of years.
The trial court awarded the wife the marital residence, a parcel of land in Shelby County, the parties' furniture, one of the parties' two cars, all monies held in her name, life and health insurance benefits, $1500 per month periodic alimony, and $5000 for an attorney's fee. The husband was awarded the following items of personal property: one of the parties' two cars; his stocks, bonds, and IRA's; and all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knight v. Knight
...court could not have considered the predicted reduction in earnings when determining the wife's financial needs. See DeShazo v. DeShazo, 582 So.2d 564 (Ala.Civ.App.1991) (trial court cannot consider impact of expected retirement when calculating periodic alimony, but must defer consideratio......
-
Spuhl v. Spuhl
...health, education, and work experience of the petitioning spouse as well as prevailing economic conditions, see DeShazo v. DeShazo, 582 So.2d 564, 565 (Ala.Civ.App.1991), and any rehabilitative alimony or other benefits that will assist the petitioning spouse in obtaining and maintaining ga......
-
Cheshire v. Cheshire
...age, health, education, and work experience of the petitioning spouse as well as prevailing economic conditions, seeDeShazo v. DeShazo, 582 So. 2d 564, 565 (Ala. Civ. App. 1991), and any rehabilitative alimony or other benefits that will assist the petitioning spouse in obtaining and mainta......
-
In re Gust
...approach and deferred consideration of the impact of retirement upon spousal support obligations. See, e.g., DeShazo v. DeShazo, 582 So.2d 564, 565 (Ala.Civ.App.1991) (affirming award of alimony because ability of husband to pay alimony in future is speculative); Chaney v. Chaney, 145 Ariz.......