Question of whether trial court erred when it awarded property purchased during the marriage to the wife.

Divorce hearing was held in 06/10. Transcript of proceedings ends during direct examination of wife after a discussion was held off the record. No other testimony was presented. Both wife and husband filed written summary of their testimony. In 10/10, the trial court entered a divorce judgment dividing real and personal property. Each was awarded real property owned prior to the marriage and the wife was awarded a farm purchased during the marriage. The husband appealed.

The properties in questions consisted of three parcels. One parcel was inherited by the wife and the other two were purchased in using an equity line from one of the properties owned by the husband. Both parties contributed monies towards the building of the home on the farm. The husband believed that he should be awarded equity in the farm. The wife argued that she contributed money to improvement of husband’s rental property which offset the husband’s financial contributions to the farm. The trial court’s judgment did not address the husband’s rental property as divisible marital asset. Husband also argued that property owned by him prior to the marriage remained on the farm.

The Court stated that “Because such a determination affects the analysis of whether the division of property was equitable, we remand the cause with instructions to the trial court to clarify its division of personal property.

Remanded.

Question of whether court erred by requiring Husband to refinance marital residence when he was unable to do so.

Question of whether court erred by entering a judgment that differed from the parties’ settlement agreement.

Question of whether court erred by awarding Wife attorney fee based on Husband’s motions filed with court.

Wife filed complaint for divorce which Husband responded with an answer and counterclaim. In 02/11, the parties announced that a settlement had been reached on all issues. In 03/11, the Husband filed a Motion for Relief and the trial court entered a judgment based on the parties’ settlement agreement. In 04/11 a hearing was held. The court made three (3) changes to the divorce judgment and required the Husband to pay attorney fee to the Wife. The Husband appealed.

The Husband argued that he was unable to refinance the marital residence. It was found that the Husband only contacted one bank and that he sought to refinance more than he was required by the divorce judgment. Husband did not provide sufficient proof of inability to fulfill obligation to secure financing. The Court determined that the trial court did not err when it chose not to set aside the settlement agreement on this basis.

As to the question of whether the court erred by entering a judgment that differed from the settlement agreement, the Court stated that “A court can adopt or reject parts of an agreement as it deems proper from the situation of the parties as it is shown by the evidence. However, there was no evidence presented in this case.” The court reversed the trial court’s judgment to the extent that it differed from the parties’ settlement agreement.

The Court also found that the Husband’s motions had “substantial justification” and reversed the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Question of whether the Court erred when it denied DHR a hearing on its post judgment motion.

In 2010, man files for divorce alleging that he was not the father of three children born to marriage and request paternity testing. DHR intervened pursuant to Title IV-D of the Social Security Act and sought child support from husband. Husband’s responded that wife filed support petition in family court which had been closed. The trial court denied DHR’s motion to intervene. DHR filed a motion to alter, amend or vacate the denial to intervene. The trial court denied this motion without a hearing and DHR appealed.

DHR alleged mother had assigned her rights to collect child support to DHR. Appeals Court stated that if true, then DHR’s post judgment motion had merit and trial court “exceeded its discretion by failing to hold a post judgment hearing.”

Reversal.

Question of whether the Court erred in granting an increased award of attorney’s fees.

Couple divorced in 2005. Children and child support awarded to father with mother awarded visitation. In 2008, the mother filed a petition to temporarily suspend child support obligation due to lost employment. Child support was reduced.

In 2010, father filed a petition to modify child support and an award of attorney’s fees due to mother’s increase in income. Child support was increased and mother was ordered to pay unpaid medical and extracurricular expenses. Father was awarded attorney’s fees.

Post Judgment motions were filed resulting in a decrease in the child support and an increase in the award of attorney’s fees to the father based on his contempt motion. The mother appealed.

The Appeals Court agreed that the Court could not award attorney’s fees to the bather on the basis of his contempt motion since the mother was not found to be in contempt. Case was remanded for trial court to enter a new judgment omitting an award of a fee for contempt motion.

Reversal.

Terwilliger v. Terwilliger
20 ALW 44-5
In the Court of Civil Appeals
(Affirmation of Court’s Decision to Decline Jurisdiction)

Question of whether Alabama or Texas was a convenient forum

Parties married in 2004 and had three (3) children. In 2009, mother moves to Texas with children. Mother files divorce action in Alabama, but dismisses it. In 2010, father files a divorce action in Alabama and mother is served. Shortly after service, mother files action in Texas.

Upon learning about Texas action, the AL judge contacted TX judge regarding jurisdictional issues. Alabama judge then entered a notice stating that since AL was not the home state of the children, the Court declined to exercise jurisdiction since TX was the “more appropriate and convenient forum.”

Father appealed based on financial circumstances along – mother made more than he did. The Court of Appeals found that the record supported the State Court’s decision – oldest child was enrolled in TX school, children were active in TX church and family members lived near by.

Judgment affirmed.

Stanbridge v. Stanbridge

Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama

Case No: DR-2010-1811

Summary: My client, wife and mother of three, was married for 24 years and had primarily been a housewife. Upon being retained to represent my client, and as a result of reviewing financial records, and planning and preparing the case for possible trial, I was able to secure an alimony property settlement of $140,000.00 in cash over ten years and all equity from the sale of the marital home.

Disposition: $140,000 alimony over ten years and all equity in the marital home.

Divorce should be a division of assets and to determine who shall have custody of the children. If you want to be smart about divorce, do your homework and keep your emotions out of it. Take some basic steps to prepare for divorce:

• Gather and organize all financial records and make copies of everything, one for yourself and a second for your attorney.
• Close, or at least freeze, access to all joint accounts.
• Keep a written record of all expenses run up before and during separation, including bills jointly paid and improvements made to the house.
• Document your net worth and keep a record of cash flow during separation.
• If you suspect your soon-to-be ex is hiding assets, you may have to hire a forensic accountant to sniff out the stash.
• Before you sit down to a settlement conference, make a list of all items you want covered in the agreement. Consider the tax ramifications of forced sales of stock or other investments, and consult with a financial planner as needed.
• If there's something you know your former spouse will want in the property settlement, don't give it away in a futile gesture of goodwill — use it as a bargaining chip and trade it for something you want. The business side of divorce is hardball — and don't forget it.
• Plan to settle out of court. The attorney fees will be significantly less, and the majority of cases don't go to court. Check the settlement against your wish list before signing off.

Closing joint credit accounts and opening an account in your name only isn't difficult and should be done as soon as possible after you decide to split. The Web sites of major banks offer excellent information on the wise use of credit, including Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup. Of course, divorce is rarely that simple.

Any Alabama divorce lawyer will be familiar with the kind of stress that a family can experience when they're going through a divorce. The stress can be especially hard on the children in the picture. However, a new study indicates that this concern about children whose parents have divorced, may not entirely be accurate after all. In fact, the study finds that parents who decide to stay together for the sake of the children, could actually be doing them more harm than good.

The research was conducted by scientists at the Montclair State University in New Jersey. Researchers analyzed the results of a survey of more than 7,000 married couples and their children. These couples were surveyed in 1987, and the survey included questions about household tasks, in-laws, money and other common factors that feature in household arguments. Then, the same couples and children were interviewed again in 1992 and 1993. The children included in this survey were at least 10 years old. In the second survey, the researchers took note of whether the parents had divorced in the five years since the first survey. The third survey was conducted between 2001 and 2002. The children were now between 18 and 32 years of age. These children were asked questions about their happiness levels, as well as the kind of contentment they had in their current personal relationships.

The study results were not that surprising to Alabama divorce attorneys. Children, who grew up in a toxic environment with their parents constantly arguing with each other, fared worse than those children whose parents were divorced. Even when the researchers took into consideration other contributing factors, like whether the children had adjustment problems, they continued to find the same results.

That doesn't necessarily mean that children who come from divorced families are well adjusted automatically. There's definitely a period of transition, which lasts between one and two years, when the child has trouble dealing with this new situation. However, children are made of resilient material, and are able to bounce back from such situations eventually.