Goeman v. Goeman
| Citation | 646 So.2d 68 |
| Parties | Rebecca Ann GOEMAN v. Thomas GOEMAN. AV92000330. |
| Decision Date | 25 February 1994 |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
L. Drew Redden of Redden, Mills & Clark, Birmingham, for appellant.
Robert F. Prince and Suzanne H. Mills of Prince, Baird & Poole, P.C., Tuscaloosa, for appellee.
Rebecca Ann Goeman and Thomas Goeman were married on September 15, 1989. The husband sued for a divorce on August 26, 1991. A pendente lite order required the husband to pay the wife $3,400 per month temporary alimony; "the basic monthly household expenses for operating the marital residence"; and the insurance premiums, dealer/maintenance/repair, and license for the wife's automobile. Following a hearing, the parties were divorced by a judgment entered on January 20, 1993. The wife appeals.
The dispositive issue for our review is whether the trial court used the correct standard in determining the alimony award and the property division.
We note that following oral proceedings, the division of property and award of alimony are matters within the sound discretion of the trial court, and that this court will review these matters with a presumption of correctness. Percey v. Percey, 617 So.2d 682 (Ala.Civ.App.1992). In making a property division and an award of alimony, the trial court may consider such factors as the earning capacity of the parties; their future prospects; their ages and health; the length of the marriage; the parties' standard of living; the value, source, and type of property to be divided; and the conduct of the parties that led to the divorce. Id. Based on our review of the trial court's order, we conclude that the trial court considered all of these factors.
Here, the parties separated after 23 months of marriage. The husband, a businessman, owned several McDonald's restaurant franchises. The wife had a B.S. degree, a master's degree, and a law degree. She also had experience working in the business field. During the brief marriage, the husband provided substantial financial assistance to the wife, allowing her to avoid foreclosure on property she had owned before their marriage.
The wife was awarded all real and personal property that she had owned before the marriage; all household goods and furnishings in the parties' marital residence; exclusive use and possession of the marital residence until March 1993; the 1990 Mercedes 350 SDL...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knight v. Knight
...; Laws v. Laws, 653 So.2d 293 (Ala.Civ.App.1994) ; Hewitt v. Hewitt, 637 So.2d 1382 (Ala.Civ.App.1994) ; Goeman v. Goeman, 646 So.2d 68 (Ala.Civ.App.1994) ; Wilbanks v. Wilbanks, 624 So.2d 605 (Ala.Civ.App.1993) ; Seamon v. Seamon, 587 So.2d 333 (Ala.Civ.App.1991) ; Daugherty v. Daugherty, ......
-
O'Neal v. O'Neal
...Laws v. Laws, 653 So.2d 293 (Ala.Civ.App.1994); Hewitt v. Hewitt, 637 So.2d 1382 (Ala.Civ.App.1994); Goeman v. Goeman, 646 So.2d 68 (Ala.Civ.App.1994); Wilbanks v. Wilbanks, 624 So.2d 605 (Ala.Civ.App.1993); Seamon v. Seamon, 587 So.2d 333 (Ala.Civ.App.1991); Daugherty v. Daugherty, 579 So.......