Barefield v. Barefield

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Barefield v. Barefield

357 So. 2d 999, 1978 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 870

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama

DecidedApril 19, 1978

DocketCiv. 1353

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 357 So. 2d 999 (Barefield v. Barefield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barefield v. Barefield, 357 So. 2d 999, 1978 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 870 (Ala. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

WRIGHT, Presiding Judge.

Defendant appeals from the alimony and property division provisions of a divorce decree. The issue is whether the awards of alimony and property are excessive and constitute an abuse of discretion. Our review of the evidence brings us to the conclusion that the judgment of the trial court is supported by legal evidence and is not so unjust as to be an abuse of discretion. Romei v. Romei, 53 Ala.App. 391, 300 So.2d 834 (1974). We affirm.

In order that our affirmation may be better understood we will give a brief factual background: The marriage of the parties had endured for thirty-one years. There was a son born who is now of age. As is the case in many marriages today, as the “golden” years approached, the relationship that had survived the “struggling” years began to deteriorate and incompatibility set in. The wife charged that neglect and rumors of other women caused her to seek satisfaction through divorce.

Plaintiff was trained as a secretary prior to her marriage and had worked to aid defendant through college. At his insistence she did not work after he became able to support the family except for some part-time work in recent years.

The husband is employed by the Agricultural Extension Service. His present salary is $1,450 gross and $1,040 net per month. There is a home valued at $35,000 with an indebtedness of $3,000. The wife works for a church and nets $58 per week. The husband could retire in February 1978 with retirement pay of ten to fifteen percent less than his present salary. The court ordered the home be given in fee to the wife. She is obligated to pay the remaining indebtedness. The husband was directed to pay her $1,500 lump sum and $375 per month periodic alimony until the mortgage on the home is paid and $275 per month thereafter until the wife dies or remarries. The wife was given a 1970 Volkswagen and the husband a 1975 Pontiac. He. was ordered to pay costs and $675 as attorney fees.

Without calculation of percentage, it may readily be seen that the wife has béen given less than one-third of the income of the husband as alimony. Though she has been given the marriage home in entirety, the evidence disclosed that the husband had inherited real estate of approximately equal value. His retirement income is assured while she has no retirement benefits.

There is little precedential value in repeating at length what has been said in many previous cases concerning the discretionary authority of the trial court in the division of property and award of alimony in divorce cases. Novak v. Novak, 339 So.2d 77 (Ala.Civ.App.1976). There is nothing in the judgment of the trial court so unreasonable in light of the evidence as to constitute an abuse of discretion. We must therefore affirm.

The wife having requested that we grant her an attorney’s fee on appeal, it is the judgment of the court that she be awarded the sum of $325.

AFFIRMED.

BRADLEY and HOLMES, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WRIGHT, Presiding Judge.

Defendant appeals from the alimony and property division provisions of a divorce decree. The issue is whether the awards of alimony and property are excessive and constitute an abuse of discretion. Our review of the evidence brings us to the conclusion that the judgment of the trial court is supported by legal evidence and is not so unjust as to be an abuse of discretion. Romei v. Romei, 53 Ala.App. 391, 300 So.2d 834 (1974). We affirm.

In order that our affirmation may be better understood we will give a brief factual background: The marriage of the parties had endured for thirty-one years. There was a son born who is now of age. As is the case in many marriages today, as the “golden” years approached, the relationship that had survived the “struggling” years began to deteriorate and incompatibility set in. The wife charged that neglect and rumors of other women caused her to seek satisfaction through divorce.

Plaintiff was trained as a secretary prior to her marriage and had worked to aid defendant through college. At his insistence she did not work after he became able to support the family except for some part-time work in recent years.

The husband is employed by the Agricultural Extension Service. His present salary is $1,450 gross and $1,040 net per month. There is a home valued at $35,000 with an indebtedness of $3,000. The wife works for a church and nets $58 per week. The husband could retire in February 1978 with retirement pay of ten to fifteen percent less than his present salary. The court ordered the home be given in fee to the wife. She is obligated to pay the remaining indebtedness. The husband was directed to pay her $1,500 lump sum and $375 per month periodic alimony until the mortgage on the home is paid and $275 per month thereafter until the wife dies or remarries. The wife was given a 1970 Volkswagen and the husband a 1975 Pontiac. He. was ordered to pay costs and $675 as attorney fees.

Without calculation of percentage, it may readily be seen that the wife has béen given less than one-third of the income of the husband as alimony. Though she has been given the marriage home in entirety, the evidence disclosed that the husband had inherited real estate of approximately equal value. His retirement income is assured while she has no retirement benefits.

There is little precedential value in repeating at length what has been said in many previous cases concerning the discretionary authority of the trial court in the division of property and award of alimony in divorce cases. Novak v. Novak, 339 So.2d 77 (Ala.Civ.App.1976). There is nothing in the judgment of the trial court so unreasonable in light of the evidence as to constitute an abuse of discretion. We must therefore affirm.

The wife having requested that we grant her an attorney’s fee on appeal, it is the judgment of the court that she be awarded the sum of $325.

AFFIRMED.

BRADLEY and HOLMES, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

357 So. 2d 999, 1978 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barefield-v-barefield-alacivapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack