Paulson v. Paulson
Decision Date | 13 September 1996 |
Citation | 682 So.2d 1060 |
Parties | Sabina Susan Priscilla PAULSON v. Kenneth Donald PAULSON. 2940924. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Daniel F. Carmichael, Jr., Enterprise, for Appellant.
Donald C. McCabe, Daleville, for Appellee.
After 19 years of marriage, the husband sued for a divorce, alleging incompatibility. The wife answered and counterclaimed, alleging that the husband was guilty of marital misconduct. Each party sought custody of the two children born of the marriage--daughters who, at the time of trial, were 13 and 16 years old.
Following ore tenus proceedings, the trial court divorced the parties, divided the marital property, and provided for child custody, support, and visitation. The court awarded each party the custody of one of the children; the wife was given custody of the younger daughter, and the husband was given custody of the older daughter. The court ordered the husband to pay the wife $340 per month in child support for the younger daughter, and it ordered the wife to pay the husband $85 per month in child support for the older daughter.
The court awarded each party one-half of the funds on deposit in the name of either party in any financial institution. It awarded the husband one of the parties' two automobiles, a camper, a television, a CD player, a VCR, his tools, and his personal effects. The court awarded the wife the other automobile, her personal effects, and all household goods, furniture, and furnishings not specifically awarded to the husband. The trial court awarded the wife alimony of $400 per month for four years and ordered the husband to pay $4,000 toward the wife's attorney fee.
On appeal, the wife contends that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to award her a portion of the husband's military retirement pay and by failing to award her, or to reserve jurisdiction to award her, periodic alimony. She also claims that the trial court erred by failing to comply with Rule 32, Ala.R.Jud.Admin., in computing child support.
The husband, who was 47 years old at the time of trial, is a retired lieutenant colonel in the United States Army. His military retirement pay is $2,375 per month. He has a bachelor of science degree in business accounting. He also has a commercial pilot's license and is currently employed by Flagship Airlines with a monthly salary of $1,500.
The wife, who was 39 years old at the time of trial, has taken several college courses but does not have a degree. During the marriage, she worked sporadically as a substitute teacher or as a clerical aide. Her parents live in Texas, and she has a Texas real estate license. She has not worked outside the home since 1988. At trial, she testified that she was unemployed and that her parents were providing a majority of her support.
In her counterclaim for divorce, the wife alleged that the husband had engaged in marital misconduct, including adultery, physical abuse, and habitual drunkenness. The husband denied the allegations of adultery and drunkenness. He admitted that the wife had sustained physical injuries as the result of confrontations with him, but he maintained that in each of those confrontations, the wife had been the aggressor and had threatened him with a knife or a gun. The husband claimed that, on those occasions, he had injured the wife when he attempted to shove her away from him or to remove weapons from her. The testimony of the parties' children tended to support the husband's version of the incidents.
The ore tenus rule requires that we accord the trial court's judgment a presumption of correctness; that presumption is based, in part, on the trial court's unique ability to observe the parties and witnesses firsthand and to judge their credibility. Hall v. Mazzone, 486 So.2d 408 (Ala.1986). The issues raised by the wife with respect to the property division and periodic alimony are matters that lie within the sound discretion of the trial court, and that court's judgment will not be disturbed on appeal unless there has been a palpable abuse of discretion. Montgomery v. Montgomery, 519 So.2d 525 (Ala.Civ.App.1987).
On appeal, issues of alimony and property division must be considered together. The trial court's judgment will not be set aside absent a finding that it is so unsupported by the evidence as to amount to an abuse of discretion. Parrish v. Parrish, 617 So.2d 1036 (Ala.Civ.App.1993). In dividing the marital property and awarding alimony, the trial court should consider the following factors:
"(1) the earning ability of the parties; (2) their probable future prospects; (3) their age, ..., health, and station in life; (4) the duration of the marriage; and (5) the conduct of the parties with reference to the cause of divorce."
Echols v. Echols, 459 So.2d 910, 911-12 (Ala.Civ.App.1984).
In Ex parte Vaughn, 634 So.2d 533, 536 (Ala.1993), our supreme court held that "disposable military retirement benefits ... accumulated during the course of the marriage constitute marital property and, therefore, are subject to equitable division as such." This court has observed that Fowler v. Fowler, 636 So.2d 433, 437 (Ala.Civ.App.1994)(quoted in Schado v. Schado, 648 So.2d 1169, 1171 (Ala.Civ.App.1994) (citation omitted)(emphasis added by the court in Schado ).
The wife is relatively young. There was no evidence presented at trial that she was not in good health. She was awarded alimony totalling $19,200 for four years--a period, we note, that is long enough to obtain a college degree or to pursue vocational training. There was evidence that, if believed by the trial court, indicated that the wife had initiated many of the violent confrontations between the parties. Under the circumstances, we find no plain and palpable abuse of the court's discretion in failing to award the wife a portion of the husband's military retirement pay.
The wife argues that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to award her periodic alimony or to reserve the right to make such an award in the future. She assumes, as the husband does, that the following provision in the divorce judgment constitutes an award of alimony in gross, rather than an award of periodic alimony:
In order to constitute alimony in gross, the award must satisfy two requirements: the time and amount of payment must be certain, and the right to alimony must be vested. Trammell v. Trammell, 523 So.2d 437 (Ala.Civ.App.1988). An award of alimony in gross has the effect of a final judgment; without reservation of control by the trial court, it is not modifiable. Hager v. Hager, 293 Ala. 47, 299 So.2d 743 (1974). The intent to award alimony in gross should be unequivocally expressed or necessarily inferred from the language used. Trammell, supra. However, P. Davis and R. McCurley, Alabama Divorce, Alimony & Child Custody Hornbook § 18-6 at 206 (3d ed. 1993). Periodic alimony, on the other hand, is an allowance for future support and maintenance and is modifiable upon a showing of a material change in circumstances. Griffin v. Griffin, 479 So.2d 1283 (Ala.Civ.App.1985).
Because...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte Killough
...life; (4) the duration of the marriage; and (5) the conduct of the parties with reference to the cause of divorce. Paulson v. Paulson, 682 So.2d 1060, 1063 (Ala.Civ.App.1996), citing Echols v. Echols, 459 So.2d 910, 911-12 The wife argues that the trial court did not consider all the requir......
-
Pate v. Pate
...payable at $250 per month." Thus, that provision was in the nature of a property division or alimony in gross. See Paulson v. Paulson, 682 So.2d 1060 (Ala.Civ.App.1996) (discussing the difference between periodic alimony and alimony in gross). The wife filed a notice of appeal. The husband ......
-
Phillips v. Phillips
...Isom, Hamilton, for appellee. THOMPSON, Judge. AFFIRMED. NO OPINION. See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(A), A.R.App. P.; Paulson v. Paulson, 682 So.2d 1060 (Ala.Civ.App.1996); Duckett v. Duckett, 669 So.2d 195 (Ala.Civ.App.1995); and Scudder v. Scudder, 485 So.2d 743 ROBERTSON, P.J., and YATES, J......
-
Fowler v. Fowler
...the right to award other or further periodic alimony at some later date, should circumstances warrant. See Paulson v. Paulson, 682 So.2d 1060, 1064 (Ala.Civ. App.1996); Davis v. Davis, 636 So.2d 456, 457 ...