Shamblin v. Shamblin

Decision Date09 August 1978
Citation361 So.2d 580
PartiesSara C. SHAMBLIN v. Billy M. SHAMBLIN. Civ. 1453.
CourtAlabama Court of Civil Appeals

Robert F. Prince, McDuffie, Holcombe & Prince, Tuscaloosa, for appellant.

Robert V. Wooldridge, Jr., Tuscaloosa, for appellee.

HOLMES, Judge.

This is a divorce case. The wife appeals and contends that the trial court erred to reversal in its division of property and award of alimony in gross. We find no such abuse of discretion by the trial court and affirm.

Viewing the record with the attendant presumption of correctness, we find the following pertinent facts: The parties were married in 1969. The wife worked most of her adult life as a cosmetologist. She ceased work in 1973. She now suffers from arthritis. The husband is employed and earns in excess of $20,000 per year.

During the marriage, the husband and wife entered into several joint enterprises. These enterprises were in large measure real estate transactions. Both parties apparently received benefits from these transactions.

After an Ore tenus hearing, the trial court entered a decree dividing the entire assets of the parties and made an award of alimony in gross to the wife. This decree in part provides as follows:

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant have the exclusive use of the home of Plaintiff and Defendant which is located at 82 Riverdale, for a period of six months from the date of this Decree. During this six months period, the mortgage payments shall be paid by the Plaintiff. Further, during this same period of six months, the utilities of said 82 Riverdale shall be paid by the Plaintiff, but not the telephone bills.

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the said 82 Riverdale shall be sold at the end of a period of six months from the date of this Decree. The Plaintiff and the Defendant shall join in the sale of the said property. From the gross sales price the expense of the sale shall be subtracted. Likewise, the balance owed on the mortgage shall be paid from the gross sales price. Further, from the gross sales price shall be paid that certain $8,500.00 which is owed by Plaintiff and Defendant to the First National Bank of Tuskaloosa. Then the balance of the gross sale which remains shall be divided such that the Plaintiff shall receive 1/4 of the remainder and the Defendant shall receive 3/4 of the remainder.

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant shall have her choice of either of the following lots of property, and the Plaintiff shall have the other:

"LOT ONE : That certain note owed to Plaintiff and Defendant by Indian Lakes which is a debt receivable in the approximate amount of $10,500.00; or,

"LOT TWO : Lot Number 122 Covey Chase, together with the balance owed to the grantor on the purchase money mortgage, and also the duty to pay the amount of $3,500.00 owed to First National Bank of Tuskaloosa.

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for a period of six (6) months from the date of this Decree the Plaintiff shall pay unto the Defendant as alimony in gross the sum of one Hundred and No/100 ($100.00) Dollars per month. Thereafter, the Plaintiff shall pay as alimony in gross unto the Defendant for the following period of eighteen (18) months the sum of $150.00 per month. Thereafter, the Plaintiff shall pay as alimony in gross unto the Defendant for the following period of twenty-four (24) months the sum of $100.00 per month. Thereafter, the Plaintiff shall not be indebted to pay any further sums to the Defendant as alimony or otherwise.

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff and Defendant shall share equally the proceeds from those two income tax refunds received by the Plaintiff from the State of Alabama and from the U. S. Internal Revenue Service, which sum totals approximately $1,054.00.

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that of the two automobiles which were obtained by Plaintiff and Defendant and which they still possess, the Plaintiff shall receive the exclusive rights, title and interest to the 1976 Grand Prix, together with the indebtedness owed on it, and the Defendant shall receive the exclusive right, title and interest to the 1974 Cadillac.

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the furniture owned by Plaintiff and Defendant, which is located in the residence at 82 Riverdale shall be equitably divided by the parties by their mutual agreement. If, however, such an equitable division cannot be agreed on, then upon petition by either or both parties, the Court will effect an equitable division."

To summarize, the wife was given exclusive use of the family home for six months...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Wren v. Wren
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • October 9, 1985
    ...Determination of a wife's separate estate is for the trier of the fact after review of the evidence in each case. Shamblin v. Shamblin, 361 So.2d 580 (Ala.Civ.App.1978). Although there is no specific finding in the judgment that the money in question was the wife's separate estate, there is......
  • Foreman v. Foreman
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • January 2, 1980
    ...estate. This is not the law. The determination of what is the wife's separate estate is for the trial court. Shamblin v. Shamblin, Ala.Civ.App., 361 So.2d 580 (1978). Furthermore, when both parties submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the circuit court as to property, which was held ......
  • McLain v. McLain
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • December 9, 1981
    ...the determination of what constitutes the wife's separate estate is a matter to be determined by the trial court. Shamblin v. Shamblin, 361 So.2d 580 (Ala.Civ.App.1980). In the present case, there was sufficient evidence for the trial judge to conclude that the home was not the wife's separ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT