Spuhl v. Spuhl
Decision Date | 17 January 2014 |
Docket Number | 2120483. |
Citation | 144 So.3d 397 |
Parties | Cheri Denise SPUHL v. Robert SPUHL. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Amy S. Creech of Rhodes & Creech, Huntsville, for appellant.
William P. Burgess, Jr., and Rebekah L. Graham of William P. Burgess, Jr., P.C., Huntsville, for appellee.
This is the third time that Cheri Denise Spuhl (“the wife”) and Robert Spuhl (“the husband”) have been before this court in connection with the division of their marital property and the award of periodic alimony to the wife in their divorce case. See Spuhl v. Spuhl, 99 So.3d 339 (Ala.Civ.App.2012) (“ Spuhl I ”); and Spuhl v. Spuhl, 120 So.3d 1071 (Ala.Civ.App.2013) (“ Spuhl II ”). In Spuhl I, this court reversed the judgment of the trial court as to the property division and the award of periodic alimony and remanded the cause for the trial court to exercise its discretion in dividing the parties' marital assets, including the husband's military-retirement benefits, and in awarding periodic alimony. 99 So.3d at 342.
In Spuhl II, the wife asserted that the trial court's failure to divide the husband's military-retirement benefits as a marital asset resulted in an inequitable division of the marital property. We agreed with the wife, noting that the purpose of a property settlement in a divorce action is to give “ ‘each spouse the value of [his or her] interest in the marriage.’ ” Spuhl II, 120 So.3d at 1075 (quoting Pattillo v. Pattillo, 414 So.2d 915, 917 (Ala.1982)). We explained:
Id. at 1076. We then remanded the cause “for the trial court to equitably divide the marital assets” and, because the award of periodic alimony is considered in conjunction of marital property, Henderson v. Henderson, 800 So.2d 595, 597 (Ala.Civ.App.2000), “to reconsider its award of periodic alimony.” Id.
On the second remand, the trial court held a hearing, allowing the parties to argue their positions before entering another judgment. On February 1, 2013, the trial court awarded the wife $2,250 in monthly periodic alimony—the same amount of periodic alimony it had initially ordered in the original divorce judgment. It also awarded the wife, as periodic alimony, “an additional amount equal to 28% of the [h]usband's disposable [military-]retirement benefits.” Subsequently, in response to the husband's motion to alter, amend, or vacate the February 1, 2013, judgment, the trial court, on April 10, 2013, entered an amended judgment (“the April 2013 judgment”) reducing the wife's periodic alimony to $1,600 a month. The trial court also awarded the wife 28% of the husband's military-retirement benefits as a property settlement, as opposed to periodic alimony, payable to the wife each month when the husband received his retirement pay.
The wife appeals from the April 2013 judgment. In Spuhl I, we set forth the following facts relevant to this appeal:
As mentioned, on the second remand the trial court ultimately awarded the wife 28% of the husband's “disposable [military-]retirement benefits.” The wife's share of the benefits are payable to her directly from the United States Army as retirement benefits are paid to the husband. The trial court ordered the wife to receive those payments until the death of the husband, at which time the wife is to receive benefits pursuant to the Survivor Benefit Plan, as mandated by the Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act, 10 U.S.C. § 1408. In addition to awarding the wife a portion of the husband's military-retirement benefits, however, the trial court also reduced the amount of the wife's monthly periodic alimony from $2,250 to $1,600. The wife filed this timely appeal.
“Our standard of review regarding a property division and an award of periodic alimony is well settled.
“
“Stone v. Stone, 26 So.3d 1232, 1236 (Ala.Civ.App.2009).
“
“Pate v. Pate, 849 So.2d 972, 976 (Ala.Civ.App.2002).”
Spuhl II, 120 So.3d at 1074–75.
In this case, the wife asserts that the trial court erroneously based its award of periodic alimony on what it believed were the wife's “reasonable and necessary” monthly expenses, rather than by considering other relevant factors such as the parties' disparate incomes; their future prospects; their previous standard of living; and the reason for the breakdown of the marriage, which, she said, included the husband's affair. See Pate, 849 So.2d at 976. In support of her assertion that the trial court used an improper standard in determining the amount of periodic alimony awarded to her, the wife points to the trial court's explanation for awarding the wife $2,250 in periodic alimony in the original...
To continue reading
Request your trial- T.M. v. C.M. (Ex parte T.M.), 2150570.
-
Klamer v. Klamer
...for the basic necessities of life, but also to maintain the lifestyle the parties enjoyed during the marriage. See Spuhl v. Spuhl, 144 So. 3d 397 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). The husband's objections to the wife's monthly budget did not effectively contradict the wife's evidence indicating that s......