Laurendine v. Laurendine
| Docket Number | CL-2022-0592,CL-2022-0624 |
| Decision Date | 15 September 2023 |
| Parties | Kenneth Charles Laurendine v. Joi A'Nell Laurendine Joi A'Nell Laurendine v. Kenneth Charles Laurendine |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
1
Kenneth Charles Laurendine
v.
Joi A'Nell Laurendine
Joi A'Nell Laurendine
v.
Kenneth Charles Laurendine
Nos. CL-2022-0592, CL-2022-0624
Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
September 15, 2023
Appeals from Baldwin Circuit Court (DR-18-900224)
FRIDY, JUDGE.
Kenneth Charles Laurendine ("the husband") appeals from a judgment of the Baldwin Circuit Court ("the trial court") divorcing him from Joi A'Nell Laurendine ("the wife"), dividing the marital property, and awarding the wife periodic alimony. The wife cross-appeals. For the reasons set forth herein, the judgment is reversed.
Background
The husband and the wife married in September 1988. One child was born of the parties' marriage. The wife commenced an action seeking a divorce from the husband in February 2018. The case was tried over four days from December 2019 to July 2020. At the time the trial began, the parties had been married thirty-one years, the husband was sixty-one years old, the wife was fifty-eight years old, and the parties' child had reached the age of majority and was attending college.
The wife testified at the trial that she had commenced the divorce action because, she said, there had been changes in the husband's behavior and he was "generally remote." The husband said that the parties had discussed their relationship one Saturday morning and realized that neither was happy in the marriage. The wife moved from
the marital residence in 2018, saying that it was too awkward to remain in the same home with the husband and that she did not want to be there anymore. She moved into her father's house, where she still lived during the trial.
Because we find that the husband's argument regarding what he says was an improper award to the wife of survivor benefits from his federal civil-service retirement supports a reversal of the trial court's judgment, we set forth only those facts relevant to that issue. The husband worked for the United States Postal Service ("the USPS") beginning in 1981 and continuing throughout the marriage. When the trial was held, he was the postmaster in Foley earning $100,648 per year. Because retirement for USPS employees is through the civil-service retirement system ("the CSRS"), it was undisputed that the husband would not be eligible to receive Social Security benefits when he retires. The wife would receive her own Social Security benefits, and she potentially was entitled to a portion of the husband's CSRS retirement benefits. See § 30-2-51(c), Ala. Code 1975.
Like the military, the CSRS offers spouses survivor benefits. A premium must be paid to secure those benefits for a surviving spouse. In
this case, the husband's monthly CSRS retirement pay would be reduced by between $575 and $600 to pay the premium. At trial, the wife requested survivor benefits; however, the husband objected to her receiving them.
On October 26, 2020, the trial court entered a judgment divorcing the parties, dividing their real and personal property, and awarding the wife periodic alimony of $1,500 per month until the husband retired from the USPS. Thereafter, the husband was to pay the wife $1,217 per month until the wife began to receive her own Social Security benefits or reached the age of sixty-five, whichever occurred first, at which time the husband's obligation to pay periodic alimony would end.
As part of the division of the parties' personal property, the trial court awarded the parties their respective retirement accounts. It also awarded the wife 31% of the total amount of the husband's USPS thrift-savings-plan account as of the day of entry of the judgment and a share of the husband's CSRS retirement benefits. Additionally, the trial court awarded the wife a survivor annuity under the CSRS, calculated as "[t]he maximum possible survivor annuity under the CSRS times a fraction, the numerator of which is 370 and the denominator of which is the number
of [the husband's] total months of service with the USPS at the time of his retirement."[1]
The parties both filed motions to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment, which the trial court denied. The husband appealed from that judgment. This court reversed the judgment and remanded the cause for the trial court to comply with § 30-2-57, Ala. Code 1975, by making findings of fact relative to the alimony award. Laurendine v. Laurendine, 353 So.3d 1148 (Ala. Civ. App. 2021). We did not reach the other issues the husband had raised in that appeal. On remand, the trial court entered an amended judgment on December 13, 2021, adding the required findings and leaving in place its original award of periodic alimony. All other provisions in the original divorce judgment remained the same.
Both parties again filed motions to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment. Those motions were denied by operation of law. The husband appeals from the amended divorce judgment, and the wife cross-appeals. Both parties have raised issues challenging the propriety of the trial
court's award of a share of the husband's CSRS retirement benefits to the wife.
Standard of Review
Dividing marital property and determining whether to award alimony are matters within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the judgment of the trial court based on its factual findings is presumed correct when those findings rest on testimony heard ore tenus. Ex parte Durbin, 818 So.2d 404, 408 (Ala. 2001). No such presumption attaches to the trial court's determinations of law, however, which this court reviews de novo. See Whaley v. Whaley, 261 So.3d 386, 392 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017).
Analysis
The husband contends that the trial court erred in awarding the wife what he says is more than half of his retirement benefits and by not deducting the portion of those retirement benefits that he says accrued before the marriage. He makes a number of arguments to bolster those contentions, but we conclude that our resolution of one of his arguments requires a reversal of the trial court's judgment.
The husband argues that the award to the wife of a survivor benefits reduces his CSRS retirement benefits and potentially...
To continue reading
Request your trial