Holston v. Holston

Decision Date17 May 2013
Docket Number2111123.
Citation128 So.3d 736
PartiesScott HOLSTON v. Lecresha HOLSTON.
CourtAlabama Court of Civil Appeals

128 So.3d 736

Scott HOLSTON
v.
Lecresha HOLSTON.

2111123.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 17, 2013.


[128 So.3d 738]


John A. Henig, Jr., and Ashley N. Penhale of Copeland, Franco, Screws & Gill, P.A., Montgomery, for appellant.

Grady R. Edmondson, Mobile, for appellee.


PITTMAN, Judge.

Scott Holston (“the husband”) and Lecresha Holston (“the wife”) were married in December 2001. The marriage was the second one for both parties; the wife was 28 years old and the husband was 37 years old when they married. One week before the marriage, the parties executed an antenuptial agreement that, by its terms, is to be governed by the laws of Mississippi. The parties attached to the agreement handwritten statements outlining their major

[128 So.3d 739]

assets and liabilities. Those statements indicate that the wife's net worth was $2,000 and the husband's net worth was $1.7 million.

The husband is a pharmacist. When the parties married, the husband had an ownership interest in two closely held corporations: S & S Pharmacy, Inc., doing business as The Medicine Shoppe, and Holmac, Inc., doing business as Rx Express Pharmacy. He also owned a sole proprietorship, The Uniform Shoppe, and several parcels of real property in Alabama and Mississippi, including two commercial lots in Pascagoula, Mississippi.

After the marriage, the parties (and the wife's three daughters from her previous marriage) lived in the husband's residence in Grand Bay. Two sons were born of the parties' marriage. After the birth of the parties' second son in 2004, the husband sold the Grand Bay residence and the parties purchased a house in the Muir Woods subdivision of Mobile. The wife was employed outside the home only sporadically during the parties' seven-year marriage, and, when she was employed, she worked at The Uniform Shoppe. The husband was paid twice a month; he deposited his paycheck of approximately $2,300 from The Medicine Shoppe into the parties' joint checking account. The wife used the funds in that account to pay the family's routine monthly expenses. The husband also had an individual checking account, into which he deposited his earnings and bonuses from other business entities. The husband used the funds in his individual account to purchase real and personal property, to invest in new businesses and stocks, and to pay family expenses.

During the marriage, the husband used $60,000 from his individual account to purchase a lot adjacent to his two existing commercial lots in Pascagoula. In September 2007, he sold the three-lot parcel for $700,000. In order to avoid paying capital-gains tax on the sale of the lots and to receive favorable tax treatment pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 1031, the husband formed a separate business entity, Holston Timbers, LLC, that purchased four parcels of property in Mississippi.1 Holston Timbers subsequently purchased two additional parcels of land in Mississippi. The total purchase price for the six parcels was $846,458.72.

The husband also acquired an interest in two additional pharmacies during the marriage—Rx Express of Navarre, Inc., and Rx Express of Bayou La Batre, Inc.—and purchased stock in two Pascagoula banks. He bought 783 shares of Merchants & Marine Bank stock for $31,320, using funds from his individual checking account. The stock certificates were issued in the husband's name, payable to the wife upon his death. The husband bought 25,000 shares of Charter Bank stock for $250,000, with funds borrowed from his Medicine Shoppe account. The husband explained how he purchased the Charter Bank stock as follows: “When I wrote the check out of Medicine Shop [sic] to purchase the stock, that's the way I do loans to my [individual] account. And then, as I draw bonuses [from The Medicine Shoppe], I have to pay taxes on the bonus money I get. And whatever the net is, I apply it back to the loan, back to [The Medicine Shoppe].” The Charter Bank stock certificates were issued to the parties as joint tenants with right of survivorship. The husband also

[128 So.3d 740]

created an E–Trade account in the parties' joint names.

The parties filed joint federal and state income-tax returns during the marriage. For the four years preceding the trial of this case, those returns showed adjusted gross incomes of $593,211 for 2006; $813,272 for 2007; $1,093,250 for 2008; and $940,149 for 2009.

In January 2009, the wife filed a complaint for a divorce, seeking custody of the parties' sons, child support, periodic alimony, alimony in gross, an equitable division of the property acquired during the marriage, and an attorney fee. The husband answered the complaint, asserting that the wife was precluded by the antenuptial agreement from receiving periodic alimony, alimony in gross, or a division of the property that he had acquired during the marriage. The husband also counterclaimed, seeking a divorce and custody of the parties' sons.

At trial in July 2010, the parties stipulated that the antenuptial agreement was valid, and the trial court stated that it would enforce the agreement. The agreement provides, in pertinent part:

“4.

“The parties agree that except as may be otherwise expressly set forth in this agreement, all property, real and personal, owned by either of them at the time of their contemplated marriage, from whatever source, shall remain the respective property of the person in whose name it stands, and neither shall acquire any interest in or right to any of the property of the other.

“A.

“If the parties shall be married, the right with respect to the property owned by either of them at the time of the contemplated marriage or acquired during their marriage shall be subject to the terms of this agreement....

“B.

“[A]ll properties of any name or nature, real, personal, or mixed, wherever they may be found, belonging to [the husband] before marriage, or those which may be acquired or accumulated after such marriage, by purchase, trade, gift, or otherwise, shall be and remain forever his personal estate, and this shall include all interests, rents, dividends, profits, and other appreciated value which may in time accrue, or result in any manner from increase in value, or be collected for the use of the properties in any way.

“C.

[Section C is identical in all respects to section B, but it is applicable to properties belonging to the wife.]

“D.

“It is further agreed that [the husband] and [the wife] do mutually waive and release to each other, and to their heirs at law, devisees, legatees, successors and assigns, all claims of dower, courtesy, widow's allowances, forced shares, all rights of support and all claims as heirs at law of each other in and to their respective properties mentioned above. Each party shall hold all real property and personal property which he or she now owns or may hereafter acquire free from any claim of dower, inchoate or otherwise, and this contract shall evidence the right of [the husband] to convey any of his real estate free from any such claims of dower. At the request of [the husband], [the wife] shall execute, acknowledge, and deliver such other instruments as may be reasonably required to accomplish the transfer by [the husband] of any of his real property free from any such claim of dower or to divest any claim of dower

[128 So.3d 741]

in such property. It is also expressly understood and agree [d] that in the event of the death of [the husband] or in the event of separation or dissolution of the marriage, [the wife] shall in consideration therefor, receive certain payments as herein described.

“E.

“It is further agreed that nothing herein shall be construed to be a bar to either party giving any property of which he or she may be possessed to the other party by will or otherwise. It is understood that each party to this contract shall control his or her own personal estate, as described herein, and do with the properties whatsoever he or she wishes and wills, by his or her orders or directions, or by a testament, the same as either could or would do if no marriage relations existed between them.

“F.

“If the parties separate or the marriage is dissolved, each party waives, releases, and relinquishes the other from any duty or obligation to support the other in any fashion or manner whatsoever, including temporary and permanent separate maintenance, temporary alimony, permanent lump-sum, periodic, or rehabilitative alimony, or any other form of alimony or support, which duty or obligation may otherwise arise but for this agreement, and no claim or demand for such support shall be made at any time or under any circumstances. The parties specifically express and acknowledge their understanding that each party's own separate property and the provisions relative to equitable distribution, as hereinafter set forth, are sufficiently adequate to enable each party to provide for his or her own support in the event of a separation or dissolution of marriage. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to suggest that either party expects, in the event of the part[ies'] separation or dissolution of marriage, to continue or anticipates a standard of living or lifestyle commensurate with that which was enjoyed prior to or during the parties' marriage.

“....

“H.

“In the event of a dissolution of marriage, regardless of which party is at fault or initiates the dissolution action, [the wife] shall receive the sum of $10,000 for each year or portion of a year of the marriage. Payment of the lump sum shall be in cash payable as follows: 1) $5,000 payable within 60 days of the date that either party files for dissolution; and 2) the balance within 30 days of the entry of a final judgment of divorce. It is the intent of the parties that the payments set forth herein shall fully satisfy all alimonial obligations of [the husband], said obligations to include temporary and permanent separate maintenance, temporary alimony, permanent lump-sum, periodic or rehabilitative alimony, or any other...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Ex parte Peake
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • September 24, 2021
    ... ... any decision. See Yarbrough v. Yarbrough , 144 So.3d ... 386, 392 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014); Holston v. Holston , ... 128 So.3d 736, 743 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013); Gore v ... White , 96 So.3d 834, 841 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012); ... Egres ... ...
  • Blackburn v. Blackburn
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • April 10, 2015
  • Messina v. Agee
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • June 26, 2020

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT