Hendrix v. Hendrix
| Decision Date | 30 July 1975 |
| Citation | 320 So.2d 684,56 Ala.App. 178 |
| Parties | Felton W. HENDRIX v. Dorothy Dale HENDRIX. Civ. 524. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Robert Straub, Decatur, for appellant.
Camp, Williams & Spurrier, Huntsville, for appellee.
This is a divorce case.
The issues are whether the trial court erred in its division of the property of the parties and/or its award of alimony in gross; and whether the trial court based its decree on conjecture or speculation.
There is evidence in the record to support the following pertinent facts.
The parties were married for over thirty years and raised two children who are now adults. The appellant-husband is approximately fifty-five years of age and the appellee-wife is fifty years of age. Neither party has any unusual physical impairment. The husband is a self-employed farmer, but has worked at other employment through the marriage years. The wife is employed and presently earns approximately $90 per week before normal deductions. Additionally, the wife has rental income of $50 per month and a separate estate acquired by inheritance of $14,000 (which property was properly, in this instance, not considered by the court in its award). Furthermore, the wife has helped on the farm or worked in private employment the majority of the marriage.
The parties during marriage acquired assets consisting of the following:
A 120-acre farm and home located thereon. An appraiser appointed by the court placed the value of the farm, home, and other buildings thereon at $64,950. There is no mortgage or other incumbrances on this real estate. Additionally, there was testimony that there was livestock and farm equipment worth approximately $20,000. There were additional assets of stock, stock certificates, cash, and accounts receivable of $39,000. Again, there were no incumbrances on any of the listed assets.
The only direct testimony as to the husband's income was the introdction of his tax returns for several years. These documents showed his taxable income ranged from less than $200 a year to over $5,000.
The trial court, having heard the evidence Ore tenus, issued a detailed final decree. The trial judge specially found that through the joint efforts of both parties the aforementioned estate had been accumulated and that an equitable division of that estate had to be made. The trial court furthermore found that the principal fault for the breakdown of the marriage lay with the husband (this is not an issue in this appeal) and the wife was entitled to a division of property and alimony as directed.
The effect of the trial court's decree was to award the home, farm, crops, farm machinery, and livestock to the husband.
The wife was awarded stock of a value of $28,500. In addition, the husband was ordered to pay $32,500 to the wife as a further property division and/or alimony in gross (the decree is unclear as to specifically how this amount should be classified). In the alternative, the husband, in lieu of the $32,500 to be paid over a three year period, was given an option of paying $27,500 within approximately one year after the decree.
As noted earlier, the husband's able counsel argues the trial court abused its discretion in its award.
While the arguments of counsel are persuasive, we cannot reverse, even though the trial court's action might not coincide with what this court would have done.
We note at the outset the law in Alabama that where the evidence in a divorce case is heard Ore tenus by the trial court its findings are presumed correct and will not be overturned without a showing of an abuse of discretion, and this rule has particular application as regards an award of alimony. Chancellor v. Chancellor, 52 Ala.App. 10, 288 So.2d 794.
In this case we cannot determine whether the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Banks v. Banks
...we must conclude that the discretion of the court was not abused. Phillips v. Phillips. 277 Ala. 2, 166 So.2d 726; Hendrix v. Hendrix, 56 Ala.App. 178, 320 So.2d 684, cert. denied 294 Ala. 758, 320 So.2d The wife argues that the judge abused his discretion in that since the award has charac......
-
Goodman v. Goodman
...its discretion either in the awards granted by the divorce decree or in its refusal to modify that decree. We said in Hendrix v. Hendrix, 56 Ala.App. 178, 320 So.2d 684, Cert. den. 294 Ala. 758, 320 So.2d 687 (1975) that the award of alimony in gross or property division made to the wife mu......
- Godbee v. State
-
Williams v. Williams
...age, health, duration of the marriage, standard of living, value and type of property, and the conduct of the parties. Hendrix v. Hendrix, 56 Ala.App. 178, 320 So.2d 684, cert. denied, 294 Ala. 758, 320 So.2d 687 In divorce cases the division of property and award of alimony made by a trial......