Ex parte Durbin
Decision Date | 07 September 2001 |
Citation | 818 So.2d 404 |
Parties | Ex parte Marshall B. DURBIN, Jr. (In re Jackie McNeal Durbin v. Marshall B. Durbin, Jr.) |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Bruce L. Gordon of Gordon, Silberman, Wiggins & Childs, P.C., Birmingham; and L. Drew Redden of Redden, Mills & Clark, Birmingham, for petitioner.
Randall W. Nichols and Anne Lamkin Durward of Massey & Stotser, P.C., Birmingham, for respondent. WOODALL, Justice.
Marshall B. Durbin, Jr. ("the husband"), and Jackie McNeal Durbin ("the wife") were divorced by the Jefferson Circuit Court. The wife appealed from the divorce judgment, arguing that the trial court erred in its division of the marital property and in its award of periodic alimony.
The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case "with instructions for the trial court to treat all of the husband's personal Compass [Bancshares, Inc.] stock as marital property and to reconsider its division of the marital assets." Durbin v. Durbin, 818 So.2d 396, 402 (Ala.Civ.App.2000)(footnote omitted). The Court of Civil Appeals overruled the husband's application for rehearing on January 12, 2001.
The husband petitioned for certiorari review, which we granted on April 17, 2001. In his petition, he argues that the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals conflicts with this Court's decision in Ex parte Drummond, 785 So.2d 358 (Ala.2000). We have determined that it does conflict. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals and remand the case.
Facts
The trial court's judgment followed a lengthy trial. The facts of the case were summarized in the Court of Civil Appeals' opinion:
818 So.2d at 397-98 (footnote omitted; emphasis added).
On appeal before the Court of Civil Appeals, the wife argued that the trial court erred by treating the husband's interest in Marshall Durbin Food Corporation ("MDFC") as his separate estate and not considering it in the division of marital assets. The Court of Civil Appeals held that the trial court correctly determined that the corporation itself was not marital property, and therefore that the trial court did not err in refusing to treat the MDFC stock as marital property, because the husband had acquired all of that stock by inheritance or gift before the parties' marriage and it had not been used for the common benefit of the parties during the marriage.
As the Court of Civil Appeals noted, the trial court awarded some of the Compass stock to each party. The husband had acquired the Compass stock before the marriage:
818 So.2d at 401. The trial court awarded the husband all of the Compass stock that had been acquired before the marriage.
The husband acquired additional Compass shares during the marriage:
The Court of Civil Appeals held that the trial court should have considered as marital property the Compass stock that was obtained before the marriage ("the non-MIP Compass stock"):
818 So.2d at 401. In reversing the trial court's judgment and instructing it to treat all of the Compass stock as marital property when it reconsiders its division of the marital assets, the Court of Civil Appeals stated:
Standard of Review
In Ex parte Drummond, we described the relevant standard of review:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morgan v. Morgan
...such property in the marital assets to be divided between the parties lies within the discretion of the trial court. [Ex parte] Durbin, 818 So. 2d 404 (Ala. 2001)." Nichols v. Nichols, 824 So. 2d 797, 802 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001) (emphasis added).The above-quoted discussion in Nichols is roote......
-
Morgan v. Morgan
...and are matters within the discretion of the trial court. Carter v. Carter, 934 So.2d 406 (Ala.Civ.App.2005) (citing Ex parte Durbin, 818 So.2d 404, 408 (Ala.2001) ). Because those matters are interrelated, the entire judgment must be considered in determining whether the trial court exceed......
-
Morgan v. Morgan
...and are matters within the discretion of the trial court. Carter v. Carter, 934 So. 2d 406 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005) (citing Ex parte Durbin, 818 So. 2d 404, 408 (Ala. 2001)). Because those matters are interrelated, the entire judgment must be considered in determining whether the trial court e......
-
Vardaman v. Vardaman
...such property in the marital assets to be divided between the parties lies within the discretion of the trial court. [ Ex parte Durbin ], 818 So.2d 404 (Ala.2001).”Nichols v. Nichols, 824 So.2d 797, 802 (Ala.Civ.App.2001).In T.K.T. v. F.P.T., this court affirmed a judgment awarding the wife......
-
§ 3.03 Equitable Distribution Systems
...50% of one spouse's separate estate to the other spouse. See Minn. Stat. Ann. § 518.58.[50] Iowa Code § 598.21.[51] Durbin v. Durbin, 818 So.2d 404 (Ala. 2001).[52] Kunze and Kunze, 337 Ore. 122, 92 P.3d 100 (2004); Marriage of Tsukamaki, 199 Ore. App. 577, 122 P.3d 416 (2005).[53] See: Gru......