Kiefer v. Kiefer

Decision Date11 August 1995
Citation671 So.2d 710
PartiesLarita Sims KIEFER v. Charles M. KIEFER, Jr. 2940419.
CourtAlabama Court of Civil Appeals

Irvin Grodsky of Irvin Grodsky, P.C., Mobile, for Appellant.

Donald M. Briskman of Briskman & Binion, P.C., Mobile, for Appellee.

CRAWLEY, Judge.

In January 1991, the trial court entered a judgment divorcing Larita Sims Kiefer and Charles M. Kiefer, Jr. The trial court ordered the husband to pay $1,000 monthly child support, $2,000 monthly alimony, and to name the wife as beneficiary on a $100,000 life insurance policy. In June 1994, the husband filed a motion to reduce the amount of the alimony, alleging that a substantial change in circumstances had occurred since the divorce, specifically, that his income had decreased and the wife's income had increased. In October 1994, the husband also filed a petition to modify, requesting that the trial court terminate his obligation to provide a life insurance policy for the wife. Following ore tenus proceedings, the trial court reduced the monthly alimony to $1,000 and reduced the amount of required life insurance to $50,000. The wife filed a post-judgment motion, which was denied. She appeals.

The wife argues that the trial court erred in reducing the amount of the husband's alimony and life insurance coverage obligations.

The modification of periodic alimony is a matter within the discretion of the trial court, and on appeal its judgment on that matter is presumed correct. Posey v. Posey, 634 So.2d 571 (Ala.Civ.App.1994). This court will not reverse such a judgment unless it is not supported by the evidence or is otherwise plainly and palpably wrong. Id. The trial court may modify an award of periodic alimony if the petitioner proves that a material change of circumstances has occurred since the last award was made. Boudreaux v. Boudreaux, 550 So.2d 1030 (Ala.Civ.App.1989). The trial court may consider several factors, including the earning capacity of each spouse, the recipient's needs and the payor's ability to meet those needs, and the estate of each spouse. Posey, supra. Even if a change of circumstances is shown, the trial court is not required to grant the modification. Mullins v. Mullins, 475 So.2d 578 (Ala.Civ.App.1985).

At the time of the divorce, the husband was employed by CSX Railroad, and he testified that he earned $223,000 the year of the divorce. He last worked for CSX in Jacksonville, Florida, and he refused a promotion that would have required relocation out of the southeast. Currently, he is affiliated with a contracting firm owned by his present wife and has a $3,000 monthly gross salary. The wife argues that the husband intentionally reduced his income to avoid the alimony obligation and that the trial court erroneously considered his reduced income rather than his current potential earning ability. Prentice v. Prentice, 440 So.2d 1091 (Ala.Civ.App.1983).

Our supreme court has stated:

"The test is whether the former husband ... in good faith enters into a new occupation at a reduced income. If such be the circumstances, he should be permitted to make such change of occupation even though it might require his former wife ... to share in hardship attending the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Waddell v. Waddell
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • 24 Septiembre 2004
    ...spouse, and the estates of the respective parties." Edwards v. Edwards, 894 So.2d 698, 700 (Ala.Civ. App.2004) (citing Kiefer v. Kiefer, 671 So.2d 710 (Ala.Civ.App.1995)). "Factors the trial court may consider in determining whether to modify alimony include `the recipient spouse's financia......
  • Wilson v. Wilson, 2150259
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • 21 Octubre 2016
    ...that dismissed his claim seeking to modify his periodic-alimony obligation in the .02 modification action.In Kiefer v. Kiefer, 671 So.2d 710, 711 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995), this court stated that "[t]he trial court may modify an award of periodic alimony if the petitioner proves that a material......
  • Pope v. Pope
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • 14 Febrero 1997
    ...[sic] not affect his ability to meet his alimony obligation." Williams v. Williams, 444 A.2d 977, 981 (Me.1982). See, Kiefer v. Kiefer, 671 So.2d 710 (Ala.Civ.App.1995) (holding that, even if change of circumstances is shown, trial court is not required to grant modification of periodic ali......
  • Wilson v. Wilson (Ex parte Wilson)
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 16 Enero 2018
    ...cites Ex parte Boley, 392 So.2d 840 (Ala. 1981), McInnish v. McInnish, 441 So.2d 960 (Ala. Civ. App. 1983), and Kiefer v. Kiefer, 671 So.2d 710, 711 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995), each of which addresses the standard for measuring modification of either alimony or child support by employing the sam......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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