Pilgrim v. Pilgrim
| Decision Date | 07 February 1992 |
| Citation | 596 So.2d 942 |
| Parties | Madeline O. PILGRIM v. John J. PILGRIM. 2900724. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Thomas A. Deas, Mobile, for appellant.
W. Gregory Hughes, Mobile, for appellee.
L. CHARLES WRIGHT, Retired Appellate Judge.
Following oral proceedings, the trial court divorced the parties, effected a property division, awarded the wife temporary periodic alimony, ordered the husband to pay child support for the two minor children, and awarded the wife attorney fees. The wife appeals, contending that the division of property and award of alimony were inequitable and an abuse of discretion.
The award of periodic alimony and the division of marital property are matters of judicial discretion and will not be reversed on appeal except for palpable abuse. Grimsley v. Grimsley, 545 So.2d 75 (Ala.Civ.App.1989). Factors which the trial court should consider in determining an award of alimony and in dividing marital property include the future prospects of the parties, their ages, health, station in life, how long they were married, and the conduct of the parties in regard to the cause of the divorce. Grimsley. The court should also consider those factors when determining the duration and the amount of alimony. Warren v. Warren, 386 So.2d 1166 (Ala.Civ.App.1980). If the trial court does not grant an award of periodic alimony in the divorce decree or reserve the right to do so upon future consideration, its power to grant it is lost. Coby v. Coby, 489 So.2d 597 (Ala.Civ.App.1986).
The record reveals that the parties were married for approximately 11 years. The husband is 44 and a practicing attorney. The wife is 35 and unemployed. Both are in good health. The wife, however, complains of monthly migraine headaches.
The wife's educational background includes two semesters of college. She worked in the Probate Court of Mobile County for four years and earned a gross pay of $800 per month. She left the probate office after her first year of marriage. Except for a two-week temporary position, the wife has not been employed since 1981. The wife is a homemaker and has been the primary custodian of the parties' two minor children. She testified that it was doubtful she could obtain meaningful employment given the ages of the children (seven and three) and her present lack of marketable skills.
The husband is a sole practitioner with a primary emphasis in domestic law. The court found that his average gross monthly income for the preceding 18 months had been $10,351. His testimony, however, was that his average income for the last six months was only $6,609.95 and that his average monthly expenses were $12,751.68.
The husband filed the complaint for divorce on the ground of incompatibility. The wife counter-claimed and sought the divorce on the grounds of incompatibility and adultery. We consider it unnecessary to relate all the allegations the parties have charged against each other. Suffice it to say that neither party appears completely faultless. The evidence revealed that the husband had engaged in an extramarital affair with a court employee. Both parties are accustomed to a high standard of living. However, the record discloses that their income was never as high as their standard of living.
The husband was ordered to pay $1,200 in monthly periodic alimony for two years and $1,469 per month as child support. The wife was responsible for one-half of any expenses not covered by health insurance for the children and one-half of the expenses for the enrollment of the children in a private school. She was awarded an automobile and ordered to assume the $400 per month payment on the automobile. The court ordered the marital home to be sold and the proceeds divided equally. The husband was ordered to pay the mortgage payments for two months after the divorce. Thereafter, if the wife chose to remain in the home she would be responsible for the mortgage payments. If she elected to move from the home, pending the sale, she would be obligated to pay one-half of the mortgage....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phillips v. Phillips
...to the cause of the divorce" is among the factors a trial court should consider in dividing marital property. Pilgrim v. Pilgrim, 596 So. 2d 942, 943 (Ala. Civ. App. 1992). The wife asserts that the trial court should have considered the husband's adultery and abuse. As discussed, the trial......
-
Crenshaw v. Crenshaw
...it to "enter an order reserving the power to award alimony in the future, should circumstances warrant"); Pilgrim v. Pilgrim, 596 So.2d 942, 944 (Ala.Civ. App.1992) ("we find that the trial court erred in not reserving the right to award periodic alimony based upon future considerations"); ......
-
Carter v. Carter
...in the divorce decree or reserve the right to do so upon future consideration, its power to grant it is lost." Pilgrim v. Pilgrim, 596 So.2d 942, 943 (Ala.Civ.App.1992). In determining whether to grant alimony, the trial court considers several factors. "These factors include the source of ......
-
Schado v. Schado
...The failure to award, or to reserve the right to award, alimony prevents any future consideration of the issue. Pilgrim v. Pilgrim, 596 So.2d 942 (Ala.Civ.App.1992). It was undisputed that the wife had not worked since 1985 and that she was unemployed at the time of the hearing. Although sh......