Rel: July 26, 2024
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 SPECIAL TERM, 2024 _________________________
CL-2023-0319 _________________________
Jamie B. Crocker
v.
Brian S. Crocker
Appeal from Shelby Circuit Court (DR-22-900263)
FRIDY, Judge.
Jamie B. Crocker ("the wife") appeals from a judgment of the Shelby
Circuit Court ("the trial court") that divorced her and Brian S. Crocker
("the husband"), divided the parties' assets, and awarded her periodic
alimony. For the reasons discussed herein, we reverse the trial court's CL-2023-0319
judgment and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
Procedural History
In April 2022, the husband sued the wife for a divorce. The wife
answered the husband's complaint and pleaded a counterclaim for a
divorce. The trial court tried the action on February 9, 2023, and entered
a final judgment on April 11, 2023. Among other things, the judgment
awarded each party one-half of the funds in an account at America's First
Federal Credit Union ("America's First"), divided the parties' other
property, and awarded the wife periodic alimony in the amount of $1,000
per month.
On May 11, 2023, the wife filed both a postjudgment motion and a
notice of appeal. Among other things, the wife's postjudgment motion
asserted that the trial court had erred in awarding the husband one-half
of the funds in the America's First account because, she said, that account
contained funds that were her separate property. She asserted that those
funds were her separate property because, she said, she had received
them as part of a settlement of a personal-injury claim against a third
party arising out of an automobile accident and the funds constituted
2 CL-2023-0319
compensation for the pain and suffering that she had sustained. She also
asserted that none of the settlement funds had been expended during the
parties' marriage.
Pursuant to Rule 4(a)(5), Ala. R. App. P., the wife's notice of appeal
was held in abeyance pending a ruling on her postjudgment motion. On
August 9, 2023, the trial court entered an order granting the wife's
postjudgment motion in part and denying it in part. The only pertinent
portion of that order is a provision correcting the name of America's First
in the original judgment. Upon the trial court's adjudication of the wife's
postjudgment motion, her notice of appeal became effective. See Rule
4(a)(5), Ala. R. App. P.
Background
The parties married in May 1995 and had one child, who had
reached the age of majority before the husband commenced this action.
The husband testified that an insurance company employed him as an
agent and that he also worked a second, part-time job as a basketball
referee. He further testified that he had earned approximately $84,000
per year from his employment as an insurance agent and that he had
earned approximately $20,000 per year from his work as a basketball
3 CL-2023-0319
referee. The husband testified that the source of all but approximately
$10,000 of the approximately $115,000 in the America's First account
was the wife's settlement of a personal-injury action arising from an
automobile accident in which she had been injured. He testified that he
did not know the source of the approximately $10,000 in that account
that was not part of her settlement and that he had never accessed any
of the funds in that account. He admitted that he had not been a plaintiff
in the wife's personal-injury action, that he had not asserted any claim
in that action, and that the settlement pertained solely to the wife's claim
in that action.
The wife testified that she had suffered disabling injuries in an
automobile accident in July 2019 and that she had had to cease working
in December 2019. She said that she had then begun receiving Social
Security disability benefits in the amount of $2,334 per month and
disability-insurance benefits in the amount of $2,207 per month. She
testified that Social Security had paid her a lump-sum amount for her
past lost wages but that she had had to pay that lump-sum amount to
her disability-insurance carrier. She said that she had commenced a
personal-injury action against a third party seeking recovery for the pain,
4 CL-2023-0319
suffering, and loss of future wages that the accident had caused, that she
was the only plaintiff in that personal-injury action, and that she had
settled her claim before the trial of her personal-injury action for a net
amount of $101,000 after paying her attorney and her medical bills. She
testified that the settlement funds were compensation for the pain,
suffering, and loss of future wages that the accident had caused. She said
that she had deposited the $101,000 in the America's First account. At
some point, the wife added the husband, the parties' child, and the wife's
mother as joint owners of the America's First account. The wife testified
that neither she nor any of the other persons listed as owners on that
account had spent any of the money in the America's First account.
The trial court's judgment awarded each of the parties one-half of
the funds in the America's First account, stating:
"7. The Court received testimony from both parties regarding an account held by the Wife at [America's First]. The Wife contends that the same is not part of the marital estate because the contents of the account represent the proceeds from a lawsuit settlement received by the Wife as the result of an automobile accident; however, the evidence demonstrates that these funds were commingled and are marital property subject to division. These funds were, in fact, placed in an account which the Husband is an owner of. The Court hereby awards the Wife one-half of the total amount currently held in the [America's First] account and, likewise,
5 CL-2023-0319
awards the Husband the remaining one-half [of] the total amount currently held in the [America's First] account."
Standard of Review
An appellate court will presume that a divorce judgment based on
ore tenus evidence is correct. See Baggett v. Baggett, 855 So. 2d 556, 559
(Ala. Civ. App. 2003). "Such a judgment will be reversed only where it is
unsupported by the evidence so as to be plainly and palpably wrong."
Baggett, 855 So. 2d at 559.
Analysis
The wife first argues that the trial court erred in awarding the
husband one-half of the funds in the America's First account. She argues
that the undisputed evidence showed that the source of $101,000 of those
funds was a personal-injury settlement for her pain and suffering caused
by an automobile accident. In Smith v. Smith, 959 So. 2d 1146, 1150 (Ala.
Civ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Rel: July 26, 2024
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 SPECIAL TERM, 2024 _________________________
CL-2023-0319 _________________________
Jamie B. Crocker
v.
Brian S. Crocker
Appeal from Shelby Circuit Court (DR-22-900263)
FRIDY, Judge.
Jamie B. Crocker ("the wife") appeals from a judgment of the Shelby
Circuit Court ("the trial court") that divorced her and Brian S. Crocker
("the husband"), divided the parties' assets, and awarded her periodic
alimony. For the reasons discussed herein, we reverse the trial court's CL-2023-0319
judgment and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
Procedural History
In April 2022, the husband sued the wife for a divorce. The wife
answered the husband's complaint and pleaded a counterclaim for a
divorce. The trial court tried the action on February 9, 2023, and entered
a final judgment on April 11, 2023. Among other things, the judgment
awarded each party one-half of the funds in an account at America's First
Federal Credit Union ("America's First"), divided the parties' other
property, and awarded the wife periodic alimony in the amount of $1,000
per month.
On May 11, 2023, the wife filed both a postjudgment motion and a
notice of appeal. Among other things, the wife's postjudgment motion
asserted that the trial court had erred in awarding the husband one-half
of the funds in the America's First account because, she said, that account
contained funds that were her separate property. She asserted that those
funds were her separate property because, she said, she had received
them as part of a settlement of a personal-injury claim against a third
party arising out of an automobile accident and the funds constituted
2 CL-2023-0319
compensation for the pain and suffering that she had sustained. She also
asserted that none of the settlement funds had been expended during the
parties' marriage.
Pursuant to Rule 4(a)(5), Ala. R. App. P., the wife's notice of appeal
was held in abeyance pending a ruling on her postjudgment motion. On
August 9, 2023, the trial court entered an order granting the wife's
postjudgment motion in part and denying it in part. The only pertinent
portion of that order is a provision correcting the name of America's First
in the original judgment. Upon the trial court's adjudication of the wife's
postjudgment motion, her notice of appeal became effective. See Rule
4(a)(5), Ala. R. App. P.
Background
The parties married in May 1995 and had one child, who had
reached the age of majority before the husband commenced this action.
The husband testified that an insurance company employed him as an
agent and that he also worked a second, part-time job as a basketball
referee. He further testified that he had earned approximately $84,000
per year from his employment as an insurance agent and that he had
earned approximately $20,000 per year from his work as a basketball
3 CL-2023-0319
referee. The husband testified that the source of all but approximately
$10,000 of the approximately $115,000 in the America's First account
was the wife's settlement of a personal-injury action arising from an
automobile accident in which she had been injured. He testified that he
did not know the source of the approximately $10,000 in that account
that was not part of her settlement and that he had never accessed any
of the funds in that account. He admitted that he had not been a plaintiff
in the wife's personal-injury action, that he had not asserted any claim
in that action, and that the settlement pertained solely to the wife's claim
in that action.
The wife testified that she had suffered disabling injuries in an
automobile accident in July 2019 and that she had had to cease working
in December 2019. She said that she had then begun receiving Social
Security disability benefits in the amount of $2,334 per month and
disability-insurance benefits in the amount of $2,207 per month. She
testified that Social Security had paid her a lump-sum amount for her
past lost wages but that she had had to pay that lump-sum amount to
her disability-insurance carrier. She said that she had commenced a
personal-injury action against a third party seeking recovery for the pain,
4 CL-2023-0319
suffering, and loss of future wages that the accident had caused, that she
was the only plaintiff in that personal-injury action, and that she had
settled her claim before the trial of her personal-injury action for a net
amount of $101,000 after paying her attorney and her medical bills. She
testified that the settlement funds were compensation for the pain,
suffering, and loss of future wages that the accident had caused. She said
that she had deposited the $101,000 in the America's First account. At
some point, the wife added the husband, the parties' child, and the wife's
mother as joint owners of the America's First account. The wife testified
that neither she nor any of the other persons listed as owners on that
account had spent any of the money in the America's First account.
The trial court's judgment awarded each of the parties one-half of
the funds in the America's First account, stating:
"7. The Court received testimony from both parties regarding an account held by the Wife at [America's First]. The Wife contends that the same is not part of the marital estate because the contents of the account represent the proceeds from a lawsuit settlement received by the Wife as the result of an automobile accident; however, the evidence demonstrates that these funds were commingled and are marital property subject to division. These funds were, in fact, placed in an account which the Husband is an owner of. The Court hereby awards the Wife one-half of the total amount currently held in the [America's First] account and, likewise,
5 CL-2023-0319
awards the Husband the remaining one-half [of] the total amount currently held in the [America's First] account."
Standard of Review
An appellate court will presume that a divorce judgment based on
ore tenus evidence is correct. See Baggett v. Baggett, 855 So. 2d 556, 559
(Ala. Civ. App. 2003). "Such a judgment will be reversed only where it is
unsupported by the evidence so as to be plainly and palpably wrong."
Baggett, 855 So. 2d at 559.
Analysis
The wife first argues that the trial court erred in awarding the
husband one-half of the funds in the America's First account. She argues
that the undisputed evidence showed that the source of $101,000 of those
funds was a personal-injury settlement for her pain and suffering caused
by an automobile accident. In Smith v. Smith, 959 So. 2d 1146, 1150 (Ala.
Civ. App. 2006), this court adopted the analytic approach for determining
whether a personal-injury settlement can be divided between spouses in
a divorce. "Under the analytic approach, 'to the extent that its purpose is
to compensate an individual for pain, suffering, disability, disfigurement,
or other debilitation of the mind or body, a personal injury award
constitutes the separate nonmarital property of an injured spouse.' "
6 CL-2023-0319
Smith, 959 So. 2d at 1149 (quoting Hardy v. Hardy, 186 W.Va. 496, 501,
413 S.E.2d 151, 156 (1991)). "[T]he portion of a personal-injury
settlement intended to compensate the injured spouse for loss of future
wages is deemed to be that spouse's separate property under the analytic
approach." Smith, 959 So. 2d at 1149. However, economic losses, such as
past wages and medical expenses, which diminish the marital estate, are
divisible as marital property when recovered in a personal-injury award
or settlement under the analytic approach. See Smith, 959 So. 2d at 1149.
In the present case, both the husband and the wife testified that
the source of most of the funds in the America's First account was the
wife's personal-injury settlement. The husband testified that the source
of all but approximately $10,000 was the wife's personal-injury
settlement. The wife testified that the source of $101,000 in the America's
First account was her personal-injury settlement; that the settlement
funds were compensation for her pain, suffering, and loss of future wages
caused by her automobile accident; and that the husband, who was not a
plaintiff in her personal-injury action, did not receive any portion of the
settlement funds as compensation for loss of the wife's consortium. Under
the analytic approach, that evidence established that the wife's
7 CL-2023-0319
settlement funds were her separate property rather than marital
property.
The issue then becomes what is the legal effect of the wife's
depositing her settlement funds into the America's First account. The
trial court found that the settlement funds "were commingled and are
marital property subject to division." The record does not contain any
evidence indicating the source of the approximately $10,000 to $14,000
that was already in the America's First account when the wife deposited
her settlement funds into that account. The trial court apparently
assumed that the approximately $10,000 to $14,000 that was in that
account before the wife deposited her settlement funds was marital
property, but the record does not contain any evidence supporting that
finding. The husband testified that he did not know the source of the
funds that were in the account before the wife deposited her settlement
funds into it, and the wife was not asked about the source of those funds.
Section 5-24-11(b), Ala. Code 1975, applies to bank accounts with
multiple owners. That Code section provides:
"(b) During the lifetime of all parties, an account belongs to the parties in proportion to the net contribution of each to the sums on deposit, unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a different intent. As between parties married to
8 CL-2023-0319
each other, in the absence of proof otherwise, the net contribution of each is presumed to be an equal amount."
As noted above, in the present case, the undisputed evidence showed that
the wife contributed at least $101,000 of the funds in the America's First
account by depositing that amount, which she received as a settlement of
her personal-injury claim, into the account. That undisputed evidence
overcame the presumption that the parties' contribution to the account
was equal. Consequently, we conclude that the trial court erred in
awarding the husband a portion of the $101,000 contributed to the
account by the wife and, therefore, we reverse the trial court's judgment
insofar as it divided the parties' property.
The wife also argues that the trial court erred in awarding her only
$1,000 per month in periodic alimony and in awarding the husband
property of greater value than it awarded her. On appeal, the division of
property and the award of alimony are interrelated, and the entire
judgment must be considered in determining whether the trial court
abused its discretion as to either issue. See Baggett, 855 So. 2d at 559.
Therefore, because we have reversed the trial court's judgment insofar as
it divided the parties' property, we must also reverse the trial court's
judgment insofar as it determined the amount of the wife's periodic
9 CL-2023-0319
alimony so that, on remand, the trial court can consider both the division
of the parties' property and the award of periodic alimony together.
Moreover, because we are reversing the judgment's division of the
parties' property on other grounds, we do not reach the wife's argument
that the trial court erroneously awarded the husband property of greater
value than it awarded her.
Conclusion
We reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the cause for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Moore, P.J., and Edwards, Hanson, and Lewis, JJ., concur.