Ex parte Drummond
Citation | 785 So.2d 358 |
Parties | Ex parte Mark S. DRUMMOND. (Re Rhonda B. Drummond v. Mark S. Drummond). |
Decision Date | 15 September 2000 |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Stephen R. Arnold and William M. Bowen, Jr., of White, Dunn & Booker, Birmingham, for petitioner.
Julie Katz Callaway of David Cromwell Johnson & Associates, Birmingham, for respondent.
Mark S. Drummond and Rhonda B. Drummond were divorced by the Jefferson Circuit Court. Rhonda appealed from the divorce judgment. The Court of Civil Appeals concluded that the trial court, in dividing the parties' marital property, had not considered as marital property an inheritance Mark had received from his grandmother's estate. It held that Rhonda should have been allowed to share in that property, on the basis that the evidence showed the inheritance had been used for the common benefit of the parties to the marriage. Thus, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the property-division portion of the trial court's judgment, and because property-division and alimony awards are usually so closely related, it reversed the alimony award as well. Drummond v. Drummond, 785 So.2d 353 (Ala.Civ.App.1999). We granted Mark's petition for certiorari review, to consider the Court of Civil Appeals' ruling regarding the trial court's order dividing the parties' property and awarding alimony. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals insofar as that judgment reversed those two portions of the trial court's judgment, and remand.
The facts of the case were adequately summarized in the Court of Civil Appeals' opinion:
On appeal, Rhonda claimed the division of property was inequitable and also challenged that portion of the judgment awarding custody of the daughters to Mark and that portion awarding an attorney fee. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the award of custody and the attorney-fee award, but reversed those portions of the judgment dividing the marital property and awarding alimony.
The standard appellate courts apply in reviewing a trial court's judgment awarding alimony and dividing property is well established:
Morgan v. Morgan, 686 So.2d 308, 310 (Ala.Civ.App.1996). More recently, the Court of Civil Appeals has stated:
Bushnell v. Bushnell, 713 So.2d 962, 964-65 (Ala.Civ.App.1997).
"`[P]roperty divisions are not required to be equal, but must be equitable in light of the evidence, and the determination as to what is equitable rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.'" Morgan v. Morgan, 686 So.2d 308, 310 (Ala. Civ.App.1996) (quoting Duckett v. Duckett, 669 So.2d 195, 197 (Ala.Civ.App.1995)). Rhonda contends that Mark was allowed to keep numerous bank and investment accounts that had been set up in his name alone. The total value of the accounts in question was approximately $1.2 million.1 She argues that the trial court did not consider these accounts when it entered its final judgment of divorce and that in failing to consider the accounts the court violated § 30-2-51, Ala.Code 1975. That section reads, in pertinent part:
Rhonda claims that the inheritance Mark received from his grandmother's estate was put into various bank accounts, which she says were used for the common benefit of the marriage, specifically for the purpose of paying taxes and providing gifts for the children.
The Court of Civil Appeals held:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Knight v. Knight
...v. Bushnell, 713 So.2d 962, 964–65 (Ala.Civ.App.1997)." '" Ex parte Foley, 864 So.2d 1094, 1097 (Ala.2003) (quoting Ex parte Drummond, 785 So.2d 358, 360–61 (Ala.2000) )." Ex parte Moore, 873 So.2d 1161, 1165–66 (Ala.2003). Moreover, " '[w]e note that there is no rigid standard or mathemati......
-
Morgan v. Morgan
...in Ex parte Durbin, 818 So. 2d 404 (Ala. 2001), which in turn rested on its construction of § 30-2-51(a) as set out in Ex parte Drummond, 785 So. 2d 358 (Ala. 2000) :" ‘ Section 30–2–51 states that if a party does not use his or her inheritance or gifts for the common benefit of the parties......
-
Damrich v. Damrich
...408, 410 (Ala.1986)."Matters such as alimony and property division are within the sound discretion of the trial court. Ex parte Drummond, 785 So.2d 358 (Ala.2000) ; Parrish v. Parrish, 617 So.2d 1036 (Ala.Civ.App.1993) ; and Montgomery v. Montgomery, 519 So.2d 525 (Ala.Civ.App.1987). The is......
-
Spuhl v. Spuhl
...or, as here, where the trial court failed to specify the grounds upon which it based its divorce judgment. Ex parte Drummond, 785 So.2d 358 (Ala.2000); Myrick v. Myrick, 714 So.2d 311 (Ala.Civ.App.1998); Lutz v. Lutz, supra.’ “Pate v. Pate, 849 So.2d 972, 976 (Ala.Civ.App.2002).”Spuhl II, 1......