Rieger v. Rieger

• Decision Date: 31 December 2013
• Docket Number: 2120067.
• Citation: 147 So. 3d 421
• Parties: James S. RIEGER v. Katrina E. RIEGER.
• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

147 So.3d 421

James S. RIEGER

v.Katrina E. RIEGER.

2120067.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

Dec. 31, 2013.

Amy S. Creech of Rhodes & Creech, Huntsville, for appellant.

Susan C. Conlon of Slayden & Conlon, Huntsville, for appellee.

Opinion

DONALDSON, Judge.

James S. Rieger(“the husband”) appeals from a judgment of the Morgan Circuit Court(“the trial court”) divorcing him from Katrina E. Rieger(“the wife”).Among other allegations of error, the husband contends that the financial obligations imposed upon him pursuant to the judgment exceed his ability to pay.For the reasons discussed herein, we affirm the judgment in part, reverse the judgment in part, and remand this case to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Facts and Procedural History

The husband and the wife married in 1997.The marriage produced 1 child who was 14 years old at the time the judgment of divorce was entered.The wife filed a complaint for a divorce on June 21, 2011, and the husband filed an answer and counterclaim for a divorce on July 14, 2011.The case was heard ore tenus before the trial court on June 25, 2012.

At the time of trial, the husband was 51 years old and the wife was 47 years old.Testimony was presented at trial regarding the wife's history of extensive health problems.Neither party presented any evidence regarding the status of the husband's health.

The husband was the primary wage earner throughout the marriage.At the time of trial, the husband owned two businesses.He testified that one of those businesses was “idle” and had not generated income during the marriage.¹The husband's other business, JSR Insurance Services, LLC was the primary source of income generated during the marriage.

Both parties testified that, throughout the marriage, the husband had paid the family's expenses, such as the mortgages on their two jointly owned properties, utility bills, telephone bills, and storage-unit payments.The husband also paid automobile-, life-, and health-insurance premiums for the parties and for their child.During the parties' separation and the divorce proceedings, the husband continued to pay those marital expenses as well as his personal expenses, which included rent for his apartment, groceries, and other necessary expenditures.Both parties testified that the husband was able to satisfy those financial obligations during the marriage and throughout the parties' separation without having to borrow money.

The husband testified that the wife had been capable of working outside the home during the marriage and that he had encouraged her to work.The wife testified that, in preparation for trial, she had created a detailed financial statement regarding the husband's finances, which involved obtaining financial data and entering it into a computer program over an extended period.She testified that she would not, however, be able to do that type of activity on a daily basis.The wife testified that she was “capable of doing anything to try to keep [the parties'] daughter in the same lifestyle that she had.”However, the wife testified that she was “not able to work outside of the home” and that she could not lift anything that weighed more than five pounds.She denied that the husband had ever encouraged her to work outside the home.

In 1999, the Social Security Administration determined the wife to be 100% disabled, and she receives a monthly benefit as a result of that determination of $1,815.She also receives a $900 monthly benefit on behalf of the parties' minor child.Those monthly benefits total $2,715.According to the CS–42 “Child–Support Guidelines” form prepared by the trial court, the wife's individual Social Security benefit accounts for approximately 11% of the parties' adjusted gross monthly income; the husband's income accounts for the remaining 89%.The wife testified that her Social Security benefit was used at her discretion “almost like a [petty-]cash fund” and that she had never made any financial contribution toward the family's expenses.

Both parties testified that the husband had done the majority of the household cooking and cleaning throughout the marriage.The husband testified that he was primarily responsible for taking the daughter to and from school and other activities.Both parties testified that the wife had not contributed to the housekeeping responsibilities and that she often plays computer games and talks on the telephone for hours at a time.

During the marriage, the parties jointly owned two parcels of real property: the marital residence and a parcel of unimproved land.The record shows that, at the time of trial, the marital residence had a fair-market value of $195,000 with a mortgage indebtedness of $184,000.The monthly mortgage payment on the marital residence was $1,475.The unimproved property consists of 125.5 acres.The husband testified that he had listed the unimproved property for sale at $3,000 per acre and that that price was “roughly 20 or 25% below market value.”He testified that the parties owed $310,000 on the unimproved property and that the monthly mortgage payment on that property was $2,200.

The record further reveals that the parties had received a notification that a “balloon loan” used to finance the purchase of the unimproved property was scheduled to mature two days after trial.The notification stated that if the loan was not satisfied by the maturity date, the mortgagee would initiate foreclosure proceedings.The husband testified that he was actively seeking refinancing options for the loan.

Both the husband and the wife testified that the family had taken multiple vacations over the years, including one to Europe in 2009, which the husband testified cost $40,000.The husband occasionally spent up to $1,000 per month on clothes, and the wife apparently spent a similar amount, as reflected in a “standard-of-living budget”she submitted at trial.The parties also employed a housekeeper.

The wife testified that there had never been any financial restrictions placed on her throughout the marriage and that the husband had never compelled her to follow a budget.According to the budget she submitted at trial, the wife would need $15,760 per month in order to maintain the standard of living that she had enjoyed during the marriage, $4,000 of which accounted for “expenses” for the parties' minor child.The wife testified that in preparing her budget for trial, she had relied on the husband's representations to her regarding the amount of household expenses.

On July 11, 2012, the trial court entered a final judgment divorcing the parties.The trial court's judgment ordered the husband to maintain and “pay and be responsible for all premiums” for “major medical and hospitalization (and dental if available) insurance coverage for the parties' child, which coverage shall be maintained for so long as such group insurer allows.”The trial court ordered the parties to pay equally toward medical expenses for the minor child that were not covered by health insurance.The court ordered the husband and the minor child to attend joint counseling and required the husband to pay the cost of the counseling.The trial court also ordered the husband to maintain a life-insurance policy in the amount of “not less than $500,000 with the [wife] being named as beneficiary” for the use and benefit of the parties' minor child for as long as child support and/or alimony are payable.The judgment awarded the marital residence to the wife, and it required the husband to sign a deed conveying his interest in that property to the wife.The husband was ordered to pay the $1,475 monthly mortgage payment on the marital residence.The judgment awarded to the wife the furnishings, household goods, and contents of the residence.The husband was awarded the unimproved property, and the wife was required to sign a deed conveying her interest in that property to the husband.The husband was ordered to pay the $2,200 monthly mortgage payment on that property as well.

The judgment awarded the wife $6,500 per month in periodic alimony “until such time as the [wife] dies, remarries or cohabits with a member of the opposite sex to whom she is not married as provided by statute, whichever event shall occur first.”The judgment awarded each party“all right, title and interest in and to any financial accounts” held in his or her individual name, including retirement or pension accounts.Each party was ordered to “pay and be responsible for those debts and credit card accounts in their individual names.”

The judgment ordered the husband to pay $1,206 per month in child support as calculated “pursuant to Rule 32, [Ala. R. Jud. Admin.].”In calculating the husband's child-support obligation, the trial court specifically adjudicated the husband's monthly gross income to be $15,052 and also determined that “this amount represents the [husband's] average [monthly] net income for the years 2010–2012.”

Both parties filed postjudgment motions to alter, amend, or vacate the final judgment pursuant to Rule 59, Ala. R. Civ. P.The husband alleged that the amount of alimony awarded to the wife was “unjust, inequitable, and financially crippling.”He contended that the trial court had specifically found in the judgment that his monthly gross income was $15,052; that federal income tax on that income was 20% and self-employment tax was 8%, which left him with an average monthly net income of $10,838; and that his court-ordered financial obligations, which totaled $12,211, exceeded his monthly net income “rendering it impossible for him to maintain the court ordered payments.”The husband also requested that the court amend the judgment to delete the requirement that he pay the mortgage on the marital residence.

After a hearing on the parties' motions, the trial court entered an amended order on August 30, 2012, deleting the requirement that the husband pay the $1,475 monthly mortgage on the marital...