Waltman v. Waltman
| Decision Date | 18 May 1988 |
| Citation | 528 So.2d 867 |
| Parties | Inez Gesile WALTMAN v. John Thomas WALTMAN. Civ. 6264. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Joseph C. Sullivan, Jr., and Manley L. Cummins III of Hamilton, Butler, Riddick, Tarlton & Sullivan, Mobile, for appellant.
David S. Conrad, Mobile, for appellee.
This is a divorce case.
The parties were divorced in January 1985 by the Circuit Court of Mobile County. The divorce decree, which incorporated the terms of the parties' written agreement, required the husband to pay the wife alimony of $400 per month and to maintain medical and hospital insurance coverage for the wife.
In 1987 the husband filed a motion to modify the divorce decree, seeking to terminate his alimony and insurance obligations thereunder. Following ore tenus proceedings, the trial court granted the husband's motion.
The wife appeals. We affirm.
The matter of alimony, as well as the requirement that the husband provide medical insurance for the wife, is entrusted to the discretion of the trial court. This court will not set aside its judgment regarding the same unless an abuse of that discretion is established. Craig v. Craig, 516 So.2d 695 (Ala.Civ.App.1987); Phillips v. Phillips, 515 So.2d 8 (Ala.Civ.App.1987).
It has long been the law in this state that the award of periodic alimony may be modified by the trial court at any time upon a showing of a material change in circumstances. See Hartigan v. Hartigan, 272 Ala. 67, 128 So.2d 725 (1961).
Since the sole purpose of periodic alimony is the support of the dependent former spouse, the trial court may terminate periodic alimony when, for any reason, it is no longer necessary for such support. Allen v. Allen, 477 So.2d 457 (Ala.Civ.App.1985).
However, the burden is upon the party seeking modification to show that a material change in circumstances has occurred. Jeffcoat v. Jeffcoat, 423 So.2d 888 (Ala.Civ.App.1982). Moreover, where the provision for periodic alimony is based upon the agreement of the parties, as it was in this case, such provision should not be modified without close scrutiny, especially where a short time period, also as in this case, separates the divorce hearing and the hearing for modification. Jeffcoat, 423 So.2d 888; Roberts v. Roberts, 395 So.2d 1035 (Ala.Civ.App.1981).
With these legal principles in mind, we can only conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the husband showed a material change in circumstances, justifying the termination of his alimony and insurance obligations under the divorce decree. We would note that the parties in brief treat the husband's insurance obligation as being subject to modification, as alimony. Therefore, this court will also treat the insurance obligation in this way.
The record reveals that, approximately ten months prior to the parties' divorce, the wife was seriously injured in an automobile accident which rendered her a quadriplegic. She required extensive hospital and rehabilitative care.
In their written divorce agreement the husband agreed to pay the wife $400 per month alimony and to keep the wife "insured medically for any and all medical, hospital, doctor, drug, and any other such costs and shall be responsible for the cost of any medically related bills, whether insured against or not." There was evidence that, at the time the divorce was executed the husband was already providing the wife with medical insurance, but that he apparently knew that such existing insurance would expire in January 1987.
In March 1985 the wife filed suit against General Motors Corporation and other defendants for the injuries she received in the automobile accident, claiming damages for her past, present, and future medical expenses. That suit was settled in early 1987. Under the terms of the structured settlement agreement, the wife was essentially provided with compensation for the rest of her life. Among other things, General Motors Corporation purchased a 1.1 million dollar annuity for the wife.
At the ore tenus proceedings in this case, the husband presented the testimony of a CPA whom he had requested review the wife's structured settlement with General Motors. The CPA's written...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knight v. Knight
...; Trammell v. Trammell, 589 So.2d 743 (Ala.Civ.App.1991). This abbreviated statement found its genesis in Waltman v. Waltman, 528 So.2d 867 (Ala.Civ.App.1988). In Waltman, this court stated that because the sole purpose of periodic alimony is the support of the dependent spouse, the trial c......
-
O'Neal v. O'Neal
...Trammell v. Trammell, 589 So.2d 743 (Ala.Civ.App.1991). This abbreviated statement found its genesis in Waltman v. Waltman, 528 So.2d 867 (Ala.Civ.App.1988). In Waltman, this court stated that because the sole purpose of periodic alimony is the support of the dependent spouse, the trial cou......
-
Clements v. Clements
...alimony is intended for the sole purpose of the recipient spouse's support. Spears, 903 So.2d at 138 (citing Waltman v. Waltman, 528 So.2d 867, 868 (Ala.Civ.App.1988)). Lastly, the trial court did not commit reversible error by failing to include the amount of health insurance paid by the h......
-
Albertson v. Albertson
...alimony is the support of the dependent former spouse. Trammell v. Trammell, 589 So.2d 743 (Ala.Civ.App.1991); Waltman v. Waltman, 528 So.2d 867 (Ala.Civ.App.1988). The function of periodic alimony is to provide support to the dependent former spouse until she becomes self-supporting. Harri......