Nelson v. Nelson
Decision Date | 06 August 1993 |
Citation | 628 So.2d 798 |
Parties | William Earl NELSON v. Loretta B. NELSON. AV92000486. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Hayes D. Brown of Johnston, Trippe & Brown, Birmingham, for appellant.
Cindy S. Schuessler, Florence, for appellee.
L. CHARLES WRIGHT, Retired Appellate Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment after remand. For facts pertinent to the original appeal, see Nelson v. Nelson, 611 So.2d 1113 (Ala.Civ.App.1992).
In that appeal we determined that the trial court erred in awarding the wife one-half of the husband's retirement plan. We remanded that portion of the judgment to the trial court for further proceedings. In doing so, we stated the following:
The husband's retirement plan was valued at $93,009. The husband had contributed $46,504 to the plan, and his employer contributed the rest. On remand, the trial court awarded the wife $23,250 in alimony in gross, to be paid in two annual payments of $11,625 each. The husband appeals.
The husband asserts that the trial court's award on remand was made in error. He contends that the award to the wife was based on the value of his retirement plan. He insists that the trial court did "indirectly" that which Kabaci v. Kabaci, 373 So.2d 1144 (Ala.Civ.App.1979), and its progeny prohibit it from doing "directly."
Retirement benefits may not be made the basis of either alimony in gross or a property settlement in a divorce action. Kabaci; Cole v. Cole, 538 So.2d 21 (Ala.Civ.App.1987). However, such retirement benefits may be considered as an asset of the husband in effecting an equitable property division or in awarding alimony in gross. King v. King, 601 So.2d 1025 (Ala.Civ.App.1992). The husband's retirement plan may not be considered a basis for an award of alimony in gross if the husband's retirement plan is the only resource from which he can satisfy the award. Thompson v. Thompson, 532 So.2d 1027 (Ala.Civ.App.1988). This is because an award of alimony in gross must be payable out of the husband's present estate as it exists at the time of the divorce. Thompson.
In this instance we find that the husband had ample assets, other than his retirement plan, with which to satisfy the award of alimony in gross. We find no error in the trial court's award. As we view it, the trial court did exactly what this court suggested that it might do.
The husband further asserts that the award of alimony in gross made the prior property division inequitable.
In the original appeal we addressed the equities surrounding the division of property and found the following:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wilkinson v. Wilkinson
...an award of alimony in gross to the wife equal to one-half of the husband's contribution to his retirement plan. In Nelson v. Nelson, 628 So.2d 798 (Ala.Civ. App.1993), the husband's retirement plan was valued at $93,009. The husband had contributed $46,504 to the plan. The trial court awar......
-
Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, No. 2011255 (Ala. Civ. App. 12/12/2003)
...an award of alimony in gross to the wife equal to one-half of the husband's contribution to his retirement plan. In Nelson v. Nelson, 628 So. 2d 798 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993), the husband's retirement plan was valued at $93,009. The husband had contributed $46,504 to the plan. The trial court a......
-
Jackson v. Jackson
...they existed as an asset for one of the parties could be considered in effecting a property award. See, for example, Nelson v. Nelson, 628 So.2d 798 (Ala.Civ.App.1993); Nelson v. Nelson, 611 So.2d 1113 (Ala.Civ.App.1992); Rowe v. Rowe, 601 So.2d 1048 (Ala.Civ.App.1992); and King v. King, 60......
-
Byrd v. Byrd
...(Ala.Civ.App.1993) (employer-sponsored stock purchase plan); Nelson v. Nelson, 611 So.2d 1113 (Ala.Civ.App.1992), after remand, 628 So.2d 798 (Ala.Civ.App.1993) (401(k) plan); Rowe v. Rowe, 601 So.2d 1048 (Ala.Civ.App.1992) (state civil service plan); Shelton v. Shelton, 595 So.2d 900 (Ala.......