Groenendyke v. Groenendyke

• Decision Date: 16 April 1986
• Citation: Groenendyke v. Groenendyke, 491 So.2d 959 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986)
• Parties: Pamette W. GROENENDYKE v. Richard A. GROENENDYKE, Jr. Civ. 5046.
• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

Page 959

491 So.2d 959

Pamette W. GROENENDYKE v.Richard A. GROENENDYKE, Jr.

Civ. 5046.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

April 16, 1986.

Rehearing Denied May 21, 1986.

James M. Fullan, Jr. of Beddow, Fullan & Vowell, Birmingham, for appellant.

J. Gary Pate and G.R. Fernambucq of Najjar, Denaburg, Meyerson, Zarzaur, Max & Boyd, Birmingham, for appellee.

WRIGHT, Presiding Judge.

This is a divorce case.

The parties were divorced on April 19, 1985, after seventeen years of marriage.No children were born of this marriage.Both parties were thirty-nine years of age at the time of the divorce.The husband is an attorney who practices law in Birmingham, Alabama.His salary for 1984 was $34,000.The wife has a degree in sociology from Auburn University.She was unemployed at the time the divorce was granted.However, prior to 1983, she was employed for ten years as the supervisor of the adult day care program for the Housing Authority in the Birmingham district.She earned $16,000 a year at this job.The parties maintained separate finances during the marriage.

The parties had an unusual lifestyle and marriage.There were no children born of this marriage because the parties agreed that having children would disrupt their lifestyle.Both parties admitted that they used marijuana or cocaine prior to 1979, and both invoked their fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination as to the years subsequent to 1979.They sought marital counseling in 1973 and have periodically been involved in counseling since that time.The parties separated for a short time in 1979, after the husband admitted that he had been involved with three different women.They reconciled and the wife testified that she had forgiven the husband.As part of the reconciliation between the parties, an agreement was reached, which was reduced to writing, regarding a number of matters.The wife worked until 1983, when she took a six-month leave of absence from the Housing Authority due to lower back problems, and she never returned to work.

The husband filed suit for divorce in 1984, alleging incompatability and irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.The wife answered and counterclaimed for divorce on the same grounds.After extensive oral hearing the court rendered a final decree of divorce in April 1985.The court divided the assets accumulated during the marriage thusly: The wife received half ($6,275) of the cash value of certain life insurance policies; half of the net proceeds from the sale of the residence, after reimbursement to the husband for the mortgage payments, taxes and insurance payments made during the pendency of the sale (house valued between $175,000 and $210,000); possession of the home pending the sale; a 1978 BMW; $1,300 from an IRA which was in her name; her personal checking account containing $31.95; cash in hand of $1,387.58; a Dean Witter account valued at $22,000; an account from City Federal containing $5,000; her interest in the net proceeds from the sale of commercial property in Memphis, Tennessee, which sold for $142,000; half of the proceeds from the sale of commercial property in Parkway East in Birmingham (valued between $165,000 and $185,000), and half of the checking account from this property, containing $4,000 to $5,000.The husband received half ($6,275) of the cash value of certain life insurance policies, one-half of the net proceeds from the sale of the residence, plus reimbursement for the mortgage payments, taxes and insurance payments made during the pendency of the sale (house valued between $175,000 and $210,000); a 1974 Porsche; stock in Texas International and Columbia Futures valued at $2,400; his half interest in Overlook Apartments (investment of $5,000); his interest in Diamond Head (investment of $10,000); his one-sixth interest in his office building and his interest in the law practice; his personal checking account containing between $1,400 and $1,500; a Dean Witter account valued at $8,500; $4,200 from IRA's in his name; half of the net proceeds from sale of the Parkway East property (valued between $165,000 and $185,000) and half of the checking account from this property (valued between $4,000 and $5,000).The court further ordered the husband to pay $4,500 in attorney fees to the wife's attorney.The court also reserved the right to award periodic alimony to the wife.The wife filed a motion for a new trial, or, in the alternative, a motion to alter, amend or vacate the decree, which was denied.The wife appeals from that judgment.

There are four issues asserted on appeal.The first and second issues presented are whether the trial court erred when it failed to award periodic alimony to the wife and whether the trial court failed to make an equitable division of the property acquired during the marriage.

The award and amount of periodic alimony and the division of property are matters within the sound discretion of the trial court.Hinds v. Hinds, 415 So.2d 1122(Ala.Civ.App.1982).The exercise of this discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly and palpably wrong.Kabaci v. Kabaci, 373 So.2d 1144(Ala.Civ.App.1979).There are no fixed standards to use in determining periodic alimony...