Murphy v. Murphy
Decision Date | 16 April 1993 |
Citation | 624 So.2d 620 |
Parties | Clarence Earl MURPHY v. Sherry Elaine MURPHY. AV92000031. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Margaret Y. Brown, Auburn, for appellant.
Joseph L. Dean, Jr. of Dean & Barrett, Opelika, for appellee.
L. CHARLES WRIGHT, Retired Appellate Judge.
Following oral proceedings, the Circuit Court of Lee County entered a final divorce decree, dividing the parties' property, awarding the wife custody of the three minor children, awarding the wife alimony in gross, and denying the husband visitation. The court reserved jurisdiction to award periodic alimony and child support. The husband appeals.
The record reflects that the parties were married in 1980. The wife had two daughters prior to the marriage. The husband adopted the daughters. A son was born to the parties in 1987.
The wife is 38 years of age and has a twelfth-grade education. At the time of the hearing she was working as a clerical worker, earning approximately $700 per month. The husband is 44 years of age. At the time of the hearing he was incarcerated, serving a 25-year sentence for rape in the first degree of his 16-year-old adopted daughter.
The wife worked outside the home for approximately one year during the marriage. The husband had been employed with the same company for approximately 22 years. He earned approximately $750 per week. He had two retirement funds with his employer. The first fund, "Plan A," was a savings plan with a balance of $4,267. This fund could be withdrawn at any time, because at the time of the hearing the husband was no longer employed with the company. The second fund, "Plan B," was a pension plan. With 22 years of service, the husband would be entitled to approximately $550 per month when he reached 62 years of age, or a reduced amount when he reached the age of 55.
The wife's parents gave the parties ten acres of land as a gift. The parties borrowed money and built a home and a shop on the property. The property has a mortgage balance of approximately $17,000. Monthly mortgage payments are $642.
The husband asserts that the trial court erred in its disposition of his retirement benefits.
Initially, the trial court made the following disposition of the retirement funds:
The husband filed a posttrial motion concerning the disposition. Following a hearing on the motion, the trial court amended its final decree in the following manner:
Retirement benefits are not divisible for the purpose of a property settlement or an award of alimony in gross. Cole v. Cole, 538 So.2d 21 (Ala.Civ.App.1987).
Hager v. Hager, 293 Ala. 47, 299 So.2d 743 (1974).
The court's decree awarded all of the parties' property to the wife. The only major assets awarded the husband were his retirement funds. The husband is not eligible to receive benefits from the larger fund until he reaches 55 years of age. He could withdraw the benefits from the smaller fund, but the funds would not be divisible for purposes of awarding alimony in gross. At the time of the divorce, therefore, the husband had no assets in his estate which could be used to satisfy the award of alimony in gross.
The trial court, on its own, determined that its initial disposition of the retirement funds was in error. We agree with that determination. It appears, however, that the amended disposition was an effort to indirectly do what the existing law prohibits. This court recognizes the heinous conduct of the husband. However, such conduct does not change the law of marital property. It is required that we reverse the trial court's award of alimony in gross. Thompson v. Thompson, 532 So.2d 1027 (Ala.Civ.App.198...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Knight v. Knight
...case are different, this court must also consider the particular facts and circumstances of the case being reviewed. Murphy v. Murphy, 624 So.2d 620, 623 (Ala.Civ.App.1993).'" ' " Bushnell v. Bushnell, 713 So.2d 962, 964–65 (Ala.Civ.App.1997)." '" Ex parte Foley, 864 So.2d 1094, 1097 (Ala.2......
-
Y.N. v. Jefferson County Dep't of Human Res..
...child's mental and emotional welfare); Minchew v. Mobile County Dep't of Human Res., 504 So.2d 310 (Ala.Civ.App.1987); Murphy v. Murphy, 624 So.2d 620 (Ala.Civ.App.1993) (trial court properly denied father's request to visit or correspond with son based on evidence indicating that son feare......
-
McAlpine v. McAlpine
...are different, this court must also consider the particular facts and circumstances of the case being reviewed. Murphy v. Murphy, 624 So.2d 620, 623 (Ala.Civ.App.1993).' "Bushnell v. Bushnell, 713 So.2d 962, 964-65 Ex parte Drummond, 785 So.2d 358, 360-61 (Ala.2000). The trial court ordered......
-
Brown v. Brown
...case are different, this court must also consider the particular facts and circumstances of the case being reviewed. Murphy v. Murphy, 624 So.2d 620, 623 (Ala. Civ.App.1993). The trial court allowed the wife to choose between a time-share in Orlando, Florida, and a time-share in Branson, Mi......