Murray v. Murray
| Decision Date | 10 January 1992 |
| Citation | 598 So.2d 921 |
| Parties | Gerald D. MURRAY v. Delisa G. MURRAY. 2900521. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Lindsey Mussleman Davis of Holt, McKenzie, Holt & Mussleman, Florence, for appellant.
Curtis L. Whitmore, Huntsville, for appellee.
After an ore tenus proceeding, the trial court entered a judgment of divorce dissolving the marriage of Delisa G. Murray and Gerald Dewayne Murray. The judgment contained a requirement that Gerald Murray (husband) pay Delisa Murray (wife) a lump sum property settlement in the sum of $25,000. Further, the husband was ordered to pay the wife's attorney the sum of $2,500, representing a reasonable attorney's fee, and the sum of $1,320 in expenses. The trial court ruled in favor of the wife on her counterclaim seeking damages for assault. Consequently, the court ordered the husband to pay the wife $5,000 compensatory damages and $50,000 punitive damages. From the decision of the trial court, the husband appeals.
The husband asserts that the trial court erred in failing to make an equitable division of the property, in awarding attorney's fees to the wife, and in awarding damages to the wife regarding her counterclaim of assault against the husband.
The husband argues that the $25,000 lump sum property settlement was inequitable. The division of marital property in a divorce action is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Kirk v. Kirk, 371 So.2d 54 (Ala.Civ.App.1979). Further, the trial court's decision following the presentation of ore tenus evidence is presumed correct, and this court will not reverse that decision absent an abuse of discretion. Thomas v. Thomas, 394 So.2d 372 (Ala.Civ.App.1980).
The parties married on July 11, 1989. The wife was 27 and the husband was 43 at the time of trial. After the parties married, the wife quit her job with the state. The husband owns Factory Outlet Mobile Home Sales, Inc. During their marriage, the husband operated his mobile home business, and the wife assisted in the business doing clerical work and answering phones. Although the wife is currently seeking employment, she is now unemployed. There were no children born of this marriage. At the time of their marriage, the wife had in her custody one child from a previous marriage. During the course of their marriage it is apparent, from a review of the record, that there was a great deal of discord between the parties. The trial court also found that the husband had physically abused the wife on several occasions.
The husband's personal assets as of October 1, 1989, totaled approximately $2,223,570 with liabilities of approximately $213,455. In 1990, the husband's personal assets totaled approximately $2,199,590 with $611,448 in liabilities. The husband's personal assets include Factory Outlet Mobile Homes Sales, Inc., rental property encompassing six houses, a percentage of ownership in apartments, various commercial properties, a lake home, personal property, brood mares, show mares, First Metro stock, and other assets. Liabilities include mortgages payable on rental and commercial property and notes payable for the First Metro stock, an automobile, and a boat.
At the time of trial, the wife owned no assets. The only asset the wife had prior to the marriage was an automobile which she eventually sold for $3,000.
Among those factors which ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kreitzberg v. Kreitzberg
...conduct of the parties in regard to the cause of the divorce; and the source, value, and types of marital properties. Murray v. Murray, 598 So.2d 921 (Ala.Civ.App.1992); Rolls v. Rolls, 623 So.2d 744 (Ala.Civ.App.1993); Crowe v. Crowe, 602 So.2d 441, 443 (Ala.Civ.App.1992) (fault can be con......
-
Killingsworth v. Killingsworth
...(fault can be considered in the division of property, even if the divorce is not granted on the basis of fault); and Murray v. Murray, 598 So.2d 921 (Ala.Civ.App.1992). At trial, the husband asked the trial court to award to the wife the parties' marital home, while expressing a willingness......
-
Brasfield v. Brasfield
...case is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed except for an abuse of discretion. Murray v. Murray, 598 So.2d 921 (Ala.Civ.App.1992); Smith v. Smith, 470 So.2d 1252 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). Factors to be considered by the trial court in a divorce action in making......
-
Carter v. Carter, 2031104.
...conduct of the parties in regard to the cause of the divorce; and the source, value, and types of marital properties. Murray v. Murray, 598 So.2d 921 (Ala.Civ.App.1992); Rolls v. Rolls, 623 So.2d 744 (Ala.Civ.App.1993); Crowe v. Crowe, 602 So.2d 441, 443 (Ala. Civ.App.1992) (fault can be co......