Nichols v. Nichols

Decision Date28 December 2001
Citation824 So.2d 797
PartiesMary Jane NICHOLS v. John C. NICHOLS.
CourtAlabama Court of Civil Appeals

J. Michael Manasco, Montgomery, for appellant.

Nathan G. Watkins, Jr., of Pruitt, Pruitt & Watkins, P.A., Livingston, for appellee. THOMPSON, Judge.

Mary Jane Nichols (the "wife") and John C. Nichols (the "husband") were married on November 26, 1967. On May 26, 1998, the wife filed a complaint for divorce and a request for a temporary restraining order. In her complaint, the wife requested that the trial court prohibit the disposal of any of the parties' assets until further order of the trial court. On that same date the court issued a temporary order prohibiting the parties from disposing of any assets other than their respective personal individual retirement accounts or monies in their personal checking accounts. On June 8, 1998, the husband filed his answer and a counterclaim.

The trial court conducted a hearing in December 2000 and on January 31, 2001, entered a judgment of divorce. Both parties filed postjudgment motions; the trial court modified the divorce judgment on February 21, 2001. The wife appealed.

The parties were married on November 26, 1967. At the time of the trial, the wife was 68 years old and the husband was 69 years old. One child, a son, John D. Nichols, was born of the marriage. Both parties had previously been married. The wife had been widowed since 1965; the three sons from her previous marriage resided with the parties during their marriage. The husband's first marriage had ended in divorce. One child, a daughter, was born of that marriage; the husband's daughter never resided with the parties. All of the parties' children had reached the age of majority at the time of the trial in this matter.

Although the wife is originally from Alabama, she and her first husband lived in Alexandria, Virginia. Soon after her first husband died, the wife sold her home in Alexandria and returned to Sumter County, where her parents resided. The wife used the proceeds from the sale of the Alexandria home, along with the insurance proceeds from her first husband's death, to build a house in Sumter County.

According to the testimony of the husband, at the time of the parties' marriage he owned an automobile and had $10,000 in savings; the wife's testimony reveals she had no knowledge of the money he had in savings. In October 1968, less than a year after the parties were married, the couple purchased their first home from the husband's previous employer for $1.

When the parties first married, the husband worked as a sales manager at the Allison Lumber division of American Can. The husband later worked as a salesperson with Bellamy Lumber Company, and after that he owned a hardware store. The husband then started John C. Nichols, Inc. That corporation was eventually merged into AT & N Lumber Services, Inc. (AT & N). AT & N prospered, with expanded operations in York, Alabama (AT & N II), and Thomasville, Georgia (AT & N III). The wife served as a corporate officer of AT & N, but was removed as an officer after she filed her complaint for a divorce. At some point during the parties' marriage, the husband also acquired a controlling interest in Ohio River Transload Service, Inc. ("Ohio River"). After the husband retired in 1997, he sold AT & N II and AT & N III. The husband financed the sales of these two businesses and, at the time of the divorce trial, the husband was receiving monthly payments from buyers.

At the time the wife filed her petition for a divorce, the husband still controlled Ohio River and AT & N. According to the record, Ohio River, at a minimum, listed on its balance sheet the following assets: a house, an automobile, and notes receivable for the sale of three forklifts. The record indicates that Ohio River's only liability was a note payable to AT & N.1 Ohio River's balance sheet also included the accumulated depreciation on the house, the automobile, and some equipment.2 The husband still owned AT & N at the time of the trial in this matter. Although two divisions of the business had been sold, AT & N still had substantial assets at the time of the trial. These assets included equipment, real property, notes receivable, and stock.

Although the wife worked mainly inside the home during the parties' marriage, she had worked outside the home for approximately a year and a half at a school cafeteria. The wife suffered multiple back injuries in a 1992 car accident. She received a $110,000 settlement as a result of that accident. The wife's testimony indicates that she, among other things, used the settlement proceeds to repay credit-card debts, to assist the two younger children with expenses, to remodel portions of the parties' home, and to purchase a coat for herself.

During the marriage the parties acquired approximately 890 acres of real property known as the "North of Livingston" property. They also acquired 26 acres of real property in Coatopa, Alabama, (the "Coatopa" land), and 478 acres of real property in Ward (the "Ward" land). Of the Ward land, the husband had inherited 300 acres and a house from his mother. The marital home was built on additional property acquired by the parties in Livingston, Alabama.

The record indicates that the family used the Ward property for hunting and for other purposes before and after the husband's mother died. The husband testified that he maintained an account (the "farm account") separate from the family accounts. According to the husband, income derived from Ward property inherited from his mother was placed in the farm account and the expenses associated with that property were paid from that account. The record indicates that following the death of the husband's mother, timber was cut from the Ward land. According to the record, the husband received payment for the sale of the timber by check. The husband testified that the check was deposited into a bank account, but he was sure it was not deposited into the AT & N account. From the proceeds from the sale of the timber, the husband leased a family car for $12,500 and paid debts. Hay was grown on and sold from the property. The proceeds from the sale of the hay was deposited into the farm account. The record also indicates that although the upkeep for the Ward house was paid from the account, both before and after the divorce was filed, family expenses were also paid from the farm account. According to the testimony of the bookkeeper for the family businesses, those expenses include household expenses for the Livingston house such as satellite television, termite control, and insurance. The parties built a barn on the Ward property. According to the husband's testimony, he borrowed the money used to build the barn from AT & N, but subsequently paid it back. After the divorce action was filed, the husband paid support payments to the wife from the farm account. According to both the testimony of the wife and the husband, many of the parties' family expenses were paid through AT & N. The parties housekeeper was paid with checks issued from AT & N. Although the wife was an officer in AT & N and signed documents for the company, she was not employed by AT & N; however, she received a paycheck from AT & N.

At the time of the trial, the wife's income consisted of a $550 monthly Social Security payment. The husband received $13,223.22 monthly from a combination of Social Security payments and payments from the sale of the divisions of his businesses.

In its findings of fact, the trial court found that the wife's "separate estate" consisted of one-half interest in the marital residence in Livingston, Alabama; a house and 4 acres in Coatopa, Alabama; one-half interest in 30 acres in Coatopa, Alabama; one-half interest in 368 acres north of Livingston, Alabama; and one-half interest in 58 acres located near Ward, Alabama; a checking account with funds of approximately $6,000 and an IRA account valued at approximately $26,000. The trial court held that the husband had the following "separate estate": one-half interest in the marital residence in Livingston, Alabama; one-half interest in Coatopa property; one-half interest in 58 acres near Ward, Alabama; 120 acres located near Ward Alabama; 510 acres north of Livingston, Alabama; and 300 acres of land and a house in Ward, Alabama, that the husband inherited from his mother, Mary Nichols. The trial court also found that the husband has cash and investments valued as of December 1, 2000, at $763,823.89. The trial court divorced the parties on the basis of incompatibility. In fashioning a property division and alimony award, the trial court valued the marital estate3 between $1,629,983.43 and $2,500,000. The trial court noted that the wife and the husband were both retired and drawing Social Security; however, it noted that the husband was receiving substantial income from several sources. According to the trial court, neither party had any earned income other than the income received from the investments of the husband.

In its judgment and its amended judgment, the trial court awarded the wife a property settlement and alimony in gross in the amount of $407,495.85 out of what it determined to be the marital estate. In partial satisfaction of the property settlement and alimony in gross, the trial court awarded the wife the husband's one-half interest in the Livingston house and the husband's one-half interest in the Coatopa land and timber on that land. The trial court awarded all other property to the husband.

In its judgment, as a basis for fashioning its property division, the trial court stated that "[the wife] worked in the home[,] ... [and that the husband] was the major financial contributor and most of the property acquired [during the parties' marriage] was through [the husband's] hard work and sound management." According to the trial court, "[t]he [marital] assets that have been accumulated by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 cases
  • Morgan v. Morgan
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • 5 Junio 2020
    ...the parties lies within the discretion of the trial court. [Ex parte] Durbin, 818 So. 2d 404 (Ala. 2001)." Nichols v. Nichols, 824 So. 2d 797, 802 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001) (emphasis added).The above-quoted discussion in Nichols is rooted in our supreme court's explanation of the operation of §......
  • Morgan v. Morgan
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • 11 Julio 2014
    ..."regularly for the common benefit of the parties during the marriage." See § 30–2–51, Ala.Code 1975.’ " (quoting Nichols v. Nichols, 824 So.2d 797, 802 (Ala.Civ.App.2001) )). A trial court is free to consider the conduct of the parties regarding the cause of the divorce in its division of t......
  • Davis v. Davis
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • 21 Octubre 2016
    ...equal, it must be equitable in light of the facts of the case. Proctor v. Proctor , 712 So.2d 328 (Ala. 1997)." Nichols v. Nichols , 824 So.2d 797, 802 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001) ; Vardaman v. Vardaman , 167 So.3d 342, 346 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014).The husband did not develop this argument on appeal......
  • Vardaman v. Vardaman
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • 7 Noviembre 2014
    ...between the parties lies within the discretion of the trial court. [ Ex parte Durbin ], 818 So.2d 404 (Ala.2001).”Nichols v. Nichols, 824 So.2d 797, 802 (Ala.Civ.App.2001).In T.K.T. v. F.P.T., this court affirmed a judgment awarding the wife in that case a one-half interest in property that......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • § 6.02 Property Acquired by Gift
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Divorce, Separation and the Distribution of Property Title CHAPTER 6 Types of Property That Frequently Are Designated Separate Property by Statute
    • Invalid date
    ...for some other purpose, such as obtaining refinancing.110 --------Notes:[12] See, e.g.: Alabama: Ala. Code § 30-2-51; Nichols v. Nichols, 824 So.2d 797 (Ala. App. 2001). Arizona: Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 25-211. Arkansas: Ark. Rev. Stat. § 9-12-315. California: Cal. Fam. Code § 770. Delaware......
  • § 6.03 Inherited Property
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Divorce, Separation and the Distribution of Property Title CHAPTER 6 Types of Property That Frequently Are Designated Separate Property by Statute
    • Invalid date
    ...property was considered the husband's separate property. --------Notes:[111] See § 3.03 supra. See, e.g.: Alabama: Nichols v. Nichols, 824 So.2d 797 (Ala. App. 2001). Alaska: Julsen v. Julsen, 741 P.2d 642 (Alaska 1987). Arkansas: Ark. Stat. Ann. § 9-12-315. California: Cal. Fam. Code § 770......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT