Watson v. Watson
| Decision Date | 22 December 1969 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 6 |
| Citation | 45 Ala.App. 306,229 So.2d 807 |
| Parties | Dallas L. WATSON, III, as Administrator of the Estate of Dallas L. Watson, Jr., Deceased, v. Lillie Grice WATSON. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
A. A. Smith, Hartford, Farmer & Farmer, Dothan, for appellant.
H. K. & J. F. Martin, Dothan, for appellee.
This is an appeal by the administrator of the estate of Dallas L. Watson, Jr., deceased, from a decree made by the Law and Equity Court of Houston County, Alabama, in Equity, during the lifetime of the decedent, granting a divorce and making a property award to Lillie Grice Watson, the former wife of decedent. Lillie Grice Watson was the complainant in the divorce proceeding, and the ground alleged and proved to the satisfaction of the trial court was cruelty.
Dallas L. Watson, Jr. and Lillie Grice Watson were married on April 8, 1965, and lived together until September 21, 1968, at which time there was an altercation and separation. We do not think it necessary to discuss the evidence as it relates to the alleged cruelty. With commendable candor, appellant says in his brief, 'We concede that in law he should not have struck his wife and that on this point the Court was justified in awarding a divorce to the wife.'
The evidence discloses that at the time of the marriage and divorce the decedent (respondent in the divorce proceeding) was a wealthy man. His net worth was well in excess of $200,000.00, his holdings consisting mainly of rental buildings and farm acreage. The trial court awarded the complainant alimony in gross, real estate and personal property, to the value of about $70,000.00, or about one-third in value of the estate. It is this award to which appellant strenuously objects and to which he addresses his brief and argument.
There was an attempt by decedent's lawyers in the trial of the divorce case and by appellant in his brief to give the impression that Mrs. Watson was an adventuress whose emotion was avarice, not love. There was evidence that immediately after the marriage she busied herself with ascertaining the location and nature of her husband's holdings. On the other hand we think it equally probable that the decedent married her to get the benefit of her services. For many years she had been a secretary--bookkeeper and at one time had made as much as $500.00 per month, although at the time of the marriage her salary was $50.00 per week. The evidence is clear to the fact that she rendered considerable service to her husband in connection with the management of his affairs and that, without the help of a servant, she prepared his meals and kept the house satisfactorily.
At the time of the marriage the decedent was about fifty years old and the appellee about sixty-five years old, and the decedent was afflicted with hypertension and a cardiac disease from which he died about four years later. From these facts we deduce that the love emotion played no great part with either ot the participants and that each of them received about what was bargained for.
The making of an allowance to the wife from the husband's estate is a matter within the sound discretion of the court, and if an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cranton v. Cranton
...to support his wife and five children in relation to his income and the manner to which they have become accustomed. Watson v. Watson, 45 Ala.App. 306, 229 So.2d 807 (1969); Ortman v. Ortman, 203 Ala. 167, 82 So. 417 The complaint that the court was too generous in its division of the real ......
-
Weeks v. Weeks
...had no separate estate except the one-half interest in the house where she and the children were living. We held in Watson v. Watson, 45 Ala.App. 306, 229 So.2d 807, 'When permanent alimony is awarded in gross, the amount thereof usually varies from one-half of the husband's estate to one-t......
-
Hendrix v. Hendrix
...the wife of from one-third to one-half of the husband's estate can be sustained, depending upon the circumstances. See Watson v. Watson, 45 Ala.App. 306, 229 So.2d 807; Frazier v. Frazier, 273 Ala. 53, 134 So.2d 205; Phillips v. Phillips, 221 Ala. 455, 129 So. Acceptable criteria for the tr......
-
Scarbrough v. Scarbrough
...of permanent alimony usually varies from one-half to one-third of the husband's estate, although there is no fixed rule. Watson v. Watson, 45 Ala.App. 306, 229 So.2d 807. As set out earlier, the record tends to show that the wife is gainfully employed, while the husband earns $120 per week ......