Madden v. Madden
| Decision Date | 20 May 1981 |
| Citation | 399 So.2d 304 |
| Parties | Imogene MADDEN v. Ralph MADDEN. Civ. 2562. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Clyde D. Baker, Guntersville, for appellant.
W. D. Wilkes, Jr., Guntersville, for appellee.
This is a divorce case.
The parties were married at middle age and lived together for nearly five years. They were granted a divorce for incompatibility. The judgment effected a property settlement. As a part thereof the court included the following:
Four: As property division, the plaintiff is hereby granted sole right and title to the residence owned by her prior to the marriage upon the payment to defendant of the sum of $2,800 for which a judgment in favor of defendant and against plaintiff is hereby entered.
The legal propriety of this provision of the judgment is the only issue on appeal. We find it erroneous both legally and equitably.
At the time of the marriage of the parties, each owned a home and furnishings. For a short time after marriage, they resided in the home owned by the husband. They later moved to the home owned by the wife. The furnishings owned by the husband were moved into the home of the wife. The husband sold his home and netted $10,000 from the sale. He deposited $6,000 in a joint bank account with the wife. Certain repairs and improvements were made to the wife's property from the joint account. The amount so used was uncertain; however, the husband stated it came to three thousand or more. The wife subsequently borrowed $8,000 from a bank and made other improvements and additions to the house. She has repaid that indebtedness from her own funds. The evidence disclosed that the wife wrote two checks on the joint account totaling $2,800. She said she did not remember what she did with the cash but assumed it went to pay for improvements to the house. The husband did not state to the contrary.
During the marriage, both parties were employed. The husband made contributions toward food, paid half the utilities and gave the wife gifts and cash from time to time. The wife paid taxes and insurance on her property and paid all other household expenses. A son of the wife by a previous marriage lived part time in the home. Another son of the wife was killed during the marriage. From insurance benefits paid to the wife because of the son's death, the loan for improvements to the house was paid in full by the wife. At the time of trial the wife retained $1,000 from the insurance benefits.
At one time during the marriage, the husband left the home and moved into a motel for some three months. The wife asked him to return to the home and attempt to make the marriage work. The husband demanded that she pay him $1,000 for his expenses while living in the motel. The wife agreed to pay him $500. She paid. He returned. He subsequently sought to borrow $1,000 from her insurance benefits. She refused but loaned him $150 to purchase an automobile body.
Though there is no specific finding in the judgment, in view of the evidence, we conclude the order for payment by the wife of $2,800 to the husband represents repayment of the two checks written from the joint account by the wife and used in improving her home. The order for payment of the sum is indicated in the judgment to be a consideration for the granting of sole title to the home owned by her prior to the marriage. The order presents the anomaly of requiring the wife to pay for title to property which she already owns property which she owned prior to the marriage.
From a legal view, the order is brought into the purview of § 30-2-51, Code of Alabama (1975) (as amended in 1979). That statute is authority for the granting of alimony in a divorce case. Such alimony may be awarded as periodic...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knight v. Knight
...; Huldtquist v. Huldtquist, 465 So.2d 1146 (Ala.Civ.App.1984) ; West v. West, 437 So.2d 583 (Ala.Civ.App.1983) ; Madden v. Madden, 399 So.2d 304 (Ala.Civ.App.1981) ; Dees v. Dees, 390 So.2d 1060 (Ala.Civ.App.1980)."We acknowledge that recently this court has stated that the sole purpose of ......
-
In re White
...is to preserve, insofar as possible, the economic status quo of the parties as it existed during the marriage." Madden v. Madden, 399 So.2d 304, 305 (Ala.Civ.App.1981). Although originally based on the common law duty of a husband to support his wife, the Alabama alimony statute, subsequent......
-
O'Neal v. O'Neal
...Huldtquist v. Huldtquist, 465 So.2d 1146 (Ala.Civ.App.1984); West v. West, 437 So.2d 583 (Ala.Civ.App.1983); Madden v. Madden, 399 So.2d 304 (Ala.Civ.App.1981); Dees v. Dees, 390 So.2d 1060 We acknowledge that recently this court has stated that the sole purpose of periodic alimony is to su......
-
Moore v. Moore
...quo of the parties after divorce as it existed while they were married. West v. West, 437 So.2d 583 (Ala.Civ.App.1983); Madden v. Madden, 399 So.2d 304 (Ala.Civ.App.1981). Alimony may be awarded upon a showing of need by one spouse together with the requisite ability to pay of the other. Ma......