Seamon v. Seamon

• Decision Date: 05 July 1991
• Citation: 587 So.2d 333
• Parties: Carla Jean SEAMON v. Jimmy SEAMON. 2900208.
• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

Page 333

587 So.2d 333

Carla Jean SEAMON v. Jimmy SEAMON.

2900208.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

July 5, 1991.

J. Cliff Heard of Benkwith & Heard, Montgomery, for appellant.

J. Myron Smith, Prattville, for appellee.

RUSSELL, Judge.

The wife appeals from a final decree of the trial court which divorced the parties and divided the property, but did not grant alimony to the wife or reserve the right to do so. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

The dispositive issue is whether the trial court erred in not awarding alimony to the wife.

We note that, after an ore tenus proceeding, the judgment of the trial court is presumed correct and may be set aside only when it is determined to be plainly and palpably wrong. Euler v. Euler, 515 So.2d 710 (Ala.Civ.App.1987). The grant of alimony is also a matter which rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and the trial court's judgment will be reversed only on a showing of abuse of that discretion. Brannon v. Brannon, 477 So.2d 445 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). The trial court's decision, however, is subject to this court's review and revision. Kenchel v. Kenchel, 440 So.2d 567 (Ala.Civ.App.1983).

The record indicates that the parties were married on May 22, 1985, that this is the fourth marriage of the wife and the third marriage of the husband, and that there were no children born of the marriage. The wife has a daughter by a prior marriage. At the time of the hearing the wife and her daughter were living with the wife's parents.

The wife was thirty-six years old at the time of the hearing, and testimony indicated that she had developed "chronic fatigue immune deficiency syndrome," which has rendered her unable to work and, at times, unable to function normally. The wife testified that she had some of the symptoms of the disease prior to the marriage, that the disease was diagnosed during the marriage, and that she is now unable to live alone. The wife had worked full-time as a cosmetologist since 1974, and she continued to work part-time after the marriage until May 1988.

The wife testified that her name is listed with her parents on two accounts totaling $27,000. She denied an ownership interest in the funds, but stated that she was to be able to use the funds to meet her parents' needs if something happened to them. The wife also testified that, because she was living with her parents, she had no expenses for rent or utilities; however, she would have expenses for a car payment, car insurance, gas and oil, clothes, cosmetics, premiums for medical insurance, food, and a contribution to the cost of utilities. She also testified in response to questioning that $850 would not be enough to meet her expenses if she lived alone.

The husband has worked with the same employer for twenty-three years and earned almost $50,000 in 1989. He testified that he had approximately $6,000 in cash, $11,000 in an IRA, part interest in a vacation home in Florida, and the marital residence, which he valued at $120,000 with mortgages of $33,000. The marital residence was built on a lot that the husband owned at the time of the marriage.

The trial court ordered the marital residence sold, after the husband constructs a rear deck on the house and increases a mortgage by an additional $2,500 to pay for the cost of construction. It ordered the sale proceeds disbursed as...