Anjanette Anderson v. William Anderson ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • REL: December 9, 2022
    Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter.
    Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue,
    Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections
    may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.
    ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
    OCTOBER TERM, 2022-2023
    _________________________
    2200969
    _________________________
    Anjanette Anderson
    v.
    William Anderson
    Appeal from Lauderdale Circuit Court
    (DR-19-900280)
    MOORE, Judge.
    Anjanette Anderson ("the wife") appeals from a judgment entered
    by the Lauderdale Circuit Court ("the trial court") divorcing her from
    William Anderson ("the husband"). We affirm the judgment.
    2200969
    The Judgment
    On July 23, 2021, after a trial at which it received ore tenus
    evidence, the trial court entered a judgment divorcing the parties on the
    ground of incompatibility of temperament. The judgment, among other
    things, awards the husband the marital residence, divides the parties'
    personal property, requires each party to pay his or her individual debts,
    and denies either party alimony.         The judgment further awards the
    husband sole custody of the parties' two minor children, requires the
    husband to maintain health-insurance coverage for the benefit of the
    minor children, and declines to award the husband any child support. On
    August 18, 2021, the wife filed a postjudgment motion, arguing, among
    other things, that the trial court had erred in failing to award her periodic
    alimony, in awarding the husband the marital residence, and in dividing
    the parties' personal property. The trial court denied the postjudgment
    motion on August 20, 2021. The wife filed a timely notice of appeal on
    September 2, 2021.
    2
    2200969
    The Issues
    On appeal, the wife argues that the trial court erred in dividing the
    marital property and in failing to award her periodic alimony.
    Analysis
    Under Ala. Code 1975, § 30-2-51(b)(1), a trial court, when divorcing
    parties, shall make an equitable division and distribution of the marital
    property.   "Equitable division and distribution involves the 'fair ...
    allocation' of marital property." Corriveau v. Corriveau, [Ms. 2200425,
    Nov. 19, 2021] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2021) (quoting Black's
    Law Dictionary 679 (11th ed. 2019)). When a trial court receives oral
    testimony, this court presumes the correctness of the trial court's
    judgment, and this court may reverse that judgment only when the
    appellant shows that the trial court abused its broad discretion in
    dividing the marital property. See Sumerlin v. Sumerlin, 
    964 So. 2d 47
    (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). "A property division that favors one party over
    another does not necessarily indicate an abuse of discretion by the trial
    court." Fell v. Fell, 
    869 So. 2d 486
    , 496 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003).
    3
    2200969
    The salient evidence regarding the division of the marital property
    is as follows. At the time of the trial, the husband was 60 years old and
    the wife was 54 years old. The parties had been married for over 29 years
    at the time of their separation on October 1, 2019. The parties had three
    children, two of whom were minors at the time of the trial. The parties
    separated in October 2019 following an incident at a local motel. The
    husband testified that he had found the wife staying at the motel and
    that, when he entered her motel room, he had found her clad in lingerie.
    According to the husband, the wife had said that she had been drinking
    wine with her friends. The wife testified that she had been staying at the
    motel to protect herself from the husband, who she described as abusive.
    The husband denied that he had ever physically abused the wife and the
    wife did not produce any evidence to corroborate her allegations of abuse.
    The wife also claimed that the parties' minor children had been abusing
    her and had been forcing her to stay in a locked bedroom in the marital
    residence, claims that the husband also denied. The husband testified
    that, to the contrary, the parties' children had left the marital residence
    in 2014 because of alleged physical abuse by the wife and that the State
    4
    2200969
    Department of Human Resources had twice investigated the wife for
    allegedly abusing the children.
    Before their separation, the parties had lived together with the two
    minor children in the marital residence in Florence. The parties did not
    own any other real property. The husband testified that the marital
    residence had been purchased 31 years ago and that he and the wife had
    lived together in the marital residence from the time of their marriage in
    1990 until the wife moved out in October 2019. According to the husband,
    the mortgage payments on the note securing the mortgage of the marital
    residence, which were $620 per month at the time of the trial, were paid
    from a joint checking account. The wife testified that she had directly
    deposited her paycheck into that account, but the husband testified that
    the wife would subsequently withdraw those funds from the account, and,
    thus, he said, she had not contributed to the payment of the mortgage
    note. The wife disputed that testimony, but she did not proffer any direct
    evidence demonstrating any contributions that she had made toward the
    payment of the mortgage note. The wife also did not testify that she had
    made or had contributed to any improvements to the marital residence.
    5
    2200969
    The husband testified that, at the time of the trial, the marital residence
    had a fair market value of $108,000 and that $25,000 was still owed on
    the mortgage note. The wife testified that the mortgage-note balance was
    $27,000. At one point during the trial, the wife requested half of the
    equity in the marital residence, but she later testified that "with the
    equity of the home I'll just give it to the [parties' children]."
    During the marriage, the husband worked as a law-enforcement
    officer and the wife worked as a nurse. The husband testified that he had
    also owned a profitable car-wash business but that he had sold that
    business in 2008. When the husband worked overtime, the wife would
    care for the parties' children. The husband retired in 2018 and, at the
    time of the trial, was receiving approximately $2,000 a month in Social
    Security disability benefits.     The husband also owns an individual
    retirement account ("IRA") that, at the time of the trial, had a balance of
    $552,000. According to the husband, the wife had worked at a local
    hospital until it closed and, upon its closing, had received a retirement
    "payout." Neither party specified the amount of the payout, but the
    husband testified that, at one point, the wife had deposited $15,000 into
    6
    2200969
    her separate bank account, the funds of which, he said, he had not
    accessed. After the hospital closed, the wife worked as a traveling nurse,
    earning $60 per hour. The husband testified that, in 2019, when the
    parties separated, the wife was earning approximately $3,500 every two
    weeks. The wife stated that she had been unemployed since October 2019
    and that she could no longer work as a nurse because, she said, in April
    2019 she had suffered a mental breakdown and her nursing license had
    been revoked by the State Board of Nursing. The wife testified that, since
    March 2020, she had been living in Louisiana with her fiancé, who, she
    said, supports her financially and provides her with health-insurance
    coverage.
    The parties had accumulated various automobiles and recreational
    vehicles over the years, including a boat and several automobiles in
    salvageable condition. The husband testified that he had purchased all
    the automobiles and recreational vehicles, but the wife testified that she
    had contributed to the purchase of a 2004 GMC Yukon Denali
    automobile. The wife requested that the trial court award her the Yukon
    Denali and the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro automobile that she regularly
    7
    2200969
    drove. The wife testified that she was not claiming any interest in the
    recreational vehicle, including the boat or the salvageable automobiles.
    The husband testified that, before they separated, the parties had
    had a joint savings account and a joint checking account.       The wife
    testified that she had directly deposited her paycheck into the joint
    checking account and that the husband would then give her $200 per
    week as spending money. Although the checking account was a joint
    account, the wife claimed that she could not access the account without
    the husband's permission. The husband, on the other hand, testified that
    the wife had not contributed to the joint checking account and that he
    had not limited her spending to $200 per week; instead, the husband said,
    although the wife's paycheck was deposited into the joint checking
    account, she would immediately withdraw that money for her own use.
    He testified further that the wife had withdrawn all the funds in that
    account when she left the family in October 2019. The husband testified
    that, in the 10 years preceding their separation, the wife had separated
    herself financially from the family and had used her wages solely for her
    own benefit, purchasing designer-brand clothing and accessories. The
    8
    2200969
    husband testified that, since 2008, he had paid most of the family's
    expenses and all the marital debts out of his salary as a law-enforcement
    officer, which was $42,000 per year, and from the proceeds he had
    received from the sale of the car-wash business. The husband testified
    that the wife took all of her personal property with her when she left in
    October 2019 and that he had noticed that $6,000 worth of custom fishing
    rods and fishing reels were also missing.
    The husband testified that, after the wife left the family in October
    2019, he had cared for the minor children without any financial support
    from the wife. The husband testified that he pays $800 per month for a
    health-insurance policy that covers the minor children and himself, that
    he had purchased a 2011 Chevrolet Malibu automobile for one of the
    minor children and had been making the payments on that automobile,
    and that he pays for the minor children's automobile insurance. The wife
    claimed that the minor children had changed the name on her credit
    cards without her permission and had made unapproved charges totaling
    $35,000 on those credit cards. The husband testified that the minor
    9
    2200969
    children had charged only $700 on the wife's credit cards for clothes for
    school just before the wife left the marital residence in October 2019.
    In her brief to this court, the wife asserts that the husband received
    the entirety of the marital property with the lone exception of her
    personal automobile. The wife overlooks the evidence indicating that she
    had separated herself financially from the husband in the 10 years before
    the parties separated; that she had used her retirement payout solely for
    her own personal benefit; that, when she left the family, she had taken
    with her all of her personal property as well as all the funds in the parties'
    joint checking account, which was estimated by the husband to be
    between $5,000 and $6,000; that she was relieved of the duty to repay the
    mortgage note associated with the marital residence, which had a
    balance of approximately $25,000; and that she was not ordered to pay
    any child support for the benefit of the parties' minor children. The wife
    nevertheless argues that she should have received a portion of the equity
    in the marital residence and a portion of the funds in the husband's IRA.
    From the conflicting evidence in the record, the trial court could
    have determined that the equity in the marital residence was
    10
    2200969
    approximately $80,000 and that the wife had not directly contributed to
    the payments on the debt for that marital asset, which, it could have
    determined, were made solely with funds contributed by the husband.
    See Courtright v. Courtright, 
    757 So. 2d 453
    , 456 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000)
    (requiring a court to consider the source of the marital property when
    dividing the marital estate). The trial court could also have determined
    that the wife had disclaimed any interest in the equity in that asset
    because the wife had testified that, if her award of marital property
    included any part of the value of the marital residence, she would give
    that money to the parties' children. Based on those determinations, the
    trial court could have exercised its discretion to determine that the wife
    should not be awarded any part of the equity in the marital residence.
    See Lo Porto v. Lo Porto, 
    717 So. 2d 418
    , 421 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998)
    (quoting Pattillo v. Pattillo, 
    414 So. 2d 915
    , 917 (Ala. 1982)) ("The purpose
    of the division of marital property is to give 'each spouse the value of [his
    or her] interest in the marriage.' ").
    When deciding whether to award a spouse an interest in the
    retirement benefits of the other spouse, a trial court is guided by the same
    11
    2200969
    factors relating to the overall division and distribution of the marital
    estate.   See § 30-2-51(b).   The court can consider the source of the
    retirement benefits; any contributions, financial or otherwise, that the
    spouse of the retiree made toward the accumulation of those benefits; any
    debts or liabilities owed by the retiree and the spouse under the divorce
    judgment or otherwise; the age, health, future prospects, and ability to
    earn of the retiree and the spouse; the cause of the breakdown of the
    marriage; and any other factor weighing on the determination of the
    equities of the case. See Kline v. Kline, [Ms. 2200164, Oct. 8, 2021] ___
    So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2021). The term "retirement benefits" includes
    a party's interest in a retirement account. See § 30-2-51(b)(1).
    Based on its consideration of the evidence and its own independent
    weighing of the evidence, the trial court could have determined that it
    would be inequitable to award the wife any portion of the husband's IRA.
    In addition to the evidence indicating that the wife had treated her own
    retirement payout as her separate property, some evidence in the record,
    although disputed, indicates that the wife had long separated herself
    financially from the husband before the trial, and one view of the
    12
    2200969
    evidence indicates that the wife had abandoned the family and had
    assumed a relationship with another man, whom she described as her
    fiancé. Furthermore, the evidence was undisputed that the husband had
    retired in 2018 and that his sole source of income was $2,000 per month
    in Social Security disability benefits.     The trial court could have
    determined that the husband, who was 60 years old at the time of the
    trial and evidently disabled, would be depending on his IRA and Social
    Security disability benefits to support himself for the remainder of his
    life. Although the wife testified that she could not work, the trial court
    could have disbelieved her testimony and determined that she could earn
    sufficient funds to support herself. Additionally, the trial court did not
    award the husband any child support, so his IRA and Social Security
    disability benefits would also be needed to support the parties' minor
    children, at least until they reached the age of majority.      The wife
    presented almost no evidence of any nonfinancial contributions to the
    marriage. At one point, the husband testified that the wife had cared for
    the parties' children while he was working a great deal of overtime, but
    the trial court also heard evidence indicating that the husband had been
    13
    2200969
    the sole caretaker of the parties' minor children after the wife separated
    from the family in October 2019 and that he would continue that role as
    their sole custodian. Thus, the trial court could have discounted the
    wife's nonfinancial contributions to the marriage.
    The evidence as to the parties' personal property was limited. The
    husband testified that the wife had withdrawn all the funds in their joint
    checking account when she left the family in October 2019 and that she
    had taken a 2010 Chevrolet Camaro automobile, which was awarded to
    the wife in the divorce judgment. In addition, the husband indicated that
    the wife had taken all of her other personal property with her and that
    she might have taken $6,000 worth of his custom fishing rods and fishing
    reels as well. The specific nature of the personal property that the wife
    allegedly took is not disclosed in the record, but the husband testified
    that, over the years, the wife had purchased many luxury items with her
    own funds, so the trial court could have inferred that the wife had
    retained those items. The wife specifically testified that she did not want
    any interest in the salvageable automobiles and boat. The judgment
    essentially provided that each party would retain the personal property
    14
    2200969
    in his or her possession. Given the scant evidence on this point, the
    record does not indicate that the trial court abused its discretion by
    dividing the parties' personal property as it did.
    Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the
    wife periodic alimony. In her postjudgment motion, the wife argued to
    the trial court that it had erred in denying her "alimony" because, she
    asserted, she was not working, she did not have a sufficient estate to
    provide for herself, and the parties had been married for more than 29
    years at the time of their separation. We infer that by making that
    argument, the wife was referring to periodic alimony, which is an
    allowance for future support, as opposed to alimony in gross, which is "a
    monetary award intended to settle the parties' property rights in the
    marital estate." Jones v. Jones, [Ms. 2200988, June 30, 2022] ___ So. 3d
    ___, ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2022).      On appeal, the wife reiterates the
    arguments she made in her postjudgment motion, citing Ala. Code 1975,
    § 30-2-57, which governs solely periodic and rehabilitative alimony and
    not alimony in gross. In her brief, the wife mentions alimony in gross, in
    passing, but she does not develop any argument that she should have
    15
    2200969
    been awarded alimony in gross, see May v. May, 
    292 So. 3d 385
    , 388 (Ala.
    Civ. App. 2019) (stating that this court will not consider an undeveloped
    argument as a basis for reversing a judgment), which argument this court
    could not have considered because any alleged error in failing to award
    alimony in gross was not first raised in the trial court. See Andrews v.
    Merritt Oil Co., 
    612 So. 2d 409
    , 410 (Ala. 1992) ("This Court cannot
    consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal; rather, our review
    is   restricted   to    the   evidence        and   arguments   considered   by
    the trial court."). In response to the argument the wife made to the trial
    court and now makes to this court on appeal -- that she should have been
    awarded periodic alimony -- the wife testified that, at the time of the trial,
    she was cohabiting with her fiancé, who, she said, was financially
    supporting her. Under Ala. Code 1975, § 30-2-55, alimony is not payable
    when a former spouse is cohabiting with another adult individual in that
    type of relationship.
    For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is
    affirmed.
    AFFIRMED.
    16
    2200969
    Edwards, Hanson, and Fridy, JJ., concur.
    Thompson, P.J., dissents, with opinion.
    17
    2200969
    THOMPSON, Presiding Judge, dissenting.
    The record contains disputed evidence with regard to the marriage
    of Anjanette Anderson ("the wife") and William Anderson ("the
    husband"), such as who contributed to the purchase of the marital
    residence and the parties' level of commitment to the marriage in the last
    few years preceding the divorce. However, undisputed evidence was
    presented that the parties had been married for 29 years and that, until
    the parties separated, the wife had lived in the marital residence and had
    helped to care for the parties' two minor children.          Additionally,
    undisputed evidence was presented indicating that the wife could no
    longer work in her chosen profession and that she was dependent on
    another for financial support and health insurance.
    "[T]he judgment of a trial court following an ore tenus
    proceeding is presumed to be correct and will not be reversed
    absent plain and palpable error. Hamby v. Hamby, 
    575 So. 2d 580
     (Ala. Civ. App. 1991). Further, matters involving alimony
    and property settlement incident to divorce are within the
    sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on
    appeal except where such discretion was palpably abused.
    Kelley v. Kelley, 
    579 So. 2d 1362
     (Ala. Civ. App. 1991). The
    issues concerning alimony and property division are
    interrelated, and the entire judgment must be considered in
    determining whether the trial court abused its discretion.
    Montgomery v. Montgomery, 
    519 So. 2d 525
     (Ala. Civ. App.
    18
    2200969
    1987). The property division need not be equal, but must be
    equitable [in light of the evidence], and a determination of
    what is equitable rests within the broad discretion of the trial
    court. Daugherty v. Daugherty, 
    579 So. 2d 1377
     (Ala. Civ.
    App. 1991); Kelley, 
    supra."
    Parrish v. Parrish, 
    617 So. 2d 1036
    , 1038 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993). It is well
    established that a property division "that favors one party over the other
    is not in and of itself an abuse of discretion." See Boykin v. Boykin, 
    628 So. 2d 949
    , 952 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993)(citing Jordan v. Jordan, 
    547 So. 2d 574
     (Ala. Civ. App. 1983)). However, a property division that heavily
    favors one party over another at the end of a lengthy marriage
    necessitates careful scrutiny of the facts to ensure that the property
    division is equitable.
    After considering the evidence presented, I cannot conclude that the
    property division in this case is equitable. "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.' Pattillo v. Pattillo, 
    414 So. 2d 915
    , 917
    (Ala. 1972)." Spuhl v. Spuhl, 
    120 So. 3d 1071
    , 1075 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013).
    In Adams v. Adams, 
    778 So. 2d 825
     (Ala. Civ. App. 2000), the trial court
    awarded the wife approximately 16% of the value of the marital property
    19
    2200969
    and the husband approximately 84% of the value of the marital property.
    This court held "that the property award to the wife [was] so
    disproportionate as to be inequitable" and reversed the judgment. 
    778 So. 2d at 827
    .
    In this case, after a 29-year marriage, the wife was awarded a 2010
    Chevrolet Camaro automobile, her remaining retirement funds, and her
    personal property, the total value of which constitutes less than 10% of
    the value of the marital property. The husband was awarded a 2014
    Chevrolet Silverado automobile, a 2004 GMC Yukon Denali automobile,
    the marital residence with equity in the amount of $83,000, his
    retirement account in the amount of $552,000, and his personal property.
    In my opinion, the trial court's failure to award the wife any part of the
    equity in the marital residence or the husband's retirement account -- the
    two largest assets in the marriage valued at approximately $635,000 --
    resulted in an inequitable division of marital property. See Stewart v.
    Stewart, 
    62 So. 3d 523
    , 530 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010)(holding that property
    division was inequitable when the husband was awarded $46,000 in the
    marital property and the wife was "essentially awarded nothing"). Like
    20
    2200969
    the wife in Stewart, the wife in this case was "essentially awarded
    nothing" from a 29-year marriage; therefore, I would reverse the portion
    of the trial court's judgment addressing property division and alimony
    and would remand the case to allow the trial court to enter an equitable
    judgment.1
    Additionally, I cannot agree with the main opinion that the trial
    court could infer that the wife disclaimed any interest in the equity in the
    marital residence from her statement that she would give any funds she
    received from her interest in the marital residence to the children. Unlike
    her statement that she did not "want" the salvageable vehicles or the
    boat, which indicates that she did not claim any interest in those items,
    the wife's statement about the marital residence indicates that she
    1Although    evidence was presented from which the trial court could
    have concluded that the wife was not entitled to periodic alimony, see §
    30-2-55, Ala. Code 1975, evidence was also presented from which the trial
    court could conclude that the wife qualified for an award of alimony in
    gross, see § 30-2-57, Ala. Code 1975. Thus, reversal of the alimony award
    in light of its interrelationship to the property division is proper. See
    Powell v. Powell, 
    628 So. 2d 832
    , 834 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993)(recognizing
    that "funds paid into a retirement plan are an asset of the husband which
    may be considered by the court in effecting an equitable property division
    or an award of alimony in gross").
    21
    2200969
    believes that she does have an interest in that property. I cannot agree
    that the wife's testimony that she would give the children any funds she
    received from the equity in the marital residence negates "the value of
    [her] interest in the marriage." Spuhl, 
    120 So. 3d at 1075
    .
    For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.
    22