Rose v. Rose
| Decision Date | 24 September 1986 |
| Citation | 496 So.2d 85 |
| Parties | Sylvia ROSE v. Jerry ROSE. Civ. 5354. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
W.A. Kimbrough, Jr., of Turner, Onderdonk & Kimbrough, Mobile, for appellant.
No brief for appellee.
This post-divorce litigation concerns the nonpayment of life insurance premiums.
The 1980 judgment which divorced the parties made a detailed division of their property and provided periodic alimony for the wife. The husband was awarded all of the assets of the Stanley-Rose Company with the exception of the policy in question, insuring the husband's life, which was to remain the property of the wife. The husband was ordered to deliver the policy to the wife. It was provided that the husband would not be responsible for the repayment of any loans which were made against the policy prior to the divorce, but he was prohibited from further borrowing against the insurance policy. The husband was directed to pay and be responsible for the premiums due on the policy.
We glean from a colloquy between counsel and from the March 12, 1986, judgment in this cause that the trial court terminated the payment of periodic alimony by the husband to the wife on June 11, 1984.
The present litigation concerning the failure of the husband to pay the life insurance premiums upon that policy is not a paragon of clarity. Nevertheless, it is not disputed that he did not pay the 1984 and 1985 annual premiums of $1,021, and that, during each of those years, the premium was automatically charged against the loan value of the policy because of such premium nonpayment.
On March 12, 1986, the trial court again awarded that particular life policy to the wife, held her responsible for the payment of the premiums as of the termination of alimony on June 11, 1984, and awarded a judgment against the husband for post-divorce loans caused to be made by the husband against that policy, including the 1984 and 1985 annual premiums. The wife appealed, and she presently contends that the divorce judgment provision for the payment of the premiums on the policy was not subject to modification. The husband has not provided us with the benefit of any argument on his behalf.
The wife was the absolute owner of that insurance policy under the provisions of the divorce judgment. There were no restrictions upon her ownership except that the husband was not responsible for the repayment of the then outstanding policy loans. The husband was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henning v. Henning
...provision or a part of the property settlement between the parties and, therefore, was not modifiable. See, e.g., Rose v. Rose, 496 So.2d 85, 86 (Ala.Civ.App.1986). The only witnesses at the trial were the former husband and the former wife. Several exhibits were admitted into evidence; how......
-
Kahn v. Kahn
...a divorce judgment, is not modifiable if the provision is treated as part of a property division or as alimony in gross. Rose v. Rose, 496 So.2d 85 (Ala.Civ.App.1986). However, if the provision is contingent in nature, that is, if the obligation terminates upon the dependent former spouse's......
-
Rothenburg v. Rothenburg
...cannot be modified, except for clerical errors, after the lapse of thirty days from the entry of the divorce judgment. Rose v. Rose, 496 So.2d 85 (Ala.Civ.App.1986). At the trial, the former wife testified that she inherited the stock and that she agreed to share the questioned securities w......