K.J.P. v. B.W.P. (Appeal from Madison Circuit Court: DR-22-900949).

• Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
• Decided: May 16, 2025
• Docket: CL-2024-0809
• Status: Published

Opinion

Rel: May 16, 2025

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, 2024-2025 _________________________

CL-2024-0809 _________________________

K.J.P.

v.

B.W.P.

Appeal from Madison Circuit Court (DR-22-900949)

LEWIS, Judge.

K.J.P. ("the wife") appeals from a judgment entered by the Madison

Circuit Court ("the trial court") divorcing her from B.W.P. ("the

husband") to the extent that the judgment divided the parties' property.

We affirm the trial court's judgment. CL-2024-0809

Procedural History

On November 4, 2022, the husband filed a complaint seeking a

divorce from the wife. On January 26, 2023, the wife answered the

complaint and counterclaimed for a divorce. The husband thereafter filed

a reply to the wife's counterclaim. After a trial on August 7, 2024, the

trial court entered a judgment on August 15, 2024, that, among other

things, divorced the parties, divided the parties' property and debts,

declined to award either party alimony, and awarded sole custody of the

parties' children to the husband. With respect to the division of the

parties' property and debt, the judgment specifically provided:

"14. The [w]ife is hereby awarded the following property: the personal property as listed below, together with all of the [w]ife's personal property and effects:

"A) 2011 Toyota Sienna, which has an indebtedness thereon, and the [w]ife shall make all payments, forever holding the [h]usband harmless.

"B) All items on '[the wife's] Exhibit 14,' with the exception of those items disagreed/marked out by the [h]usband.

"C) All checking, savings, and money market accounts in her individual name.

"15 The [h]usband is awarded the following personal property as listed below, together with all of the [h]usband's

2 CL-2024-0809

personal property and effects together with the following property:

"A) 2003 Honda Accord, which is paid for.

"B) Ford Bronco, which is paid for.

"C) All items of personal property owned by him prior to the marriage, inherited by him, given to him by his family and/or by the [w]ife, his personal items and belongings; and

"D) All checking, savings, and money market accounts in his individual name.

"….

"16. The [p]arties are joint owners of real estate located [in] Madison [County]…. The evidence presented showed that the property is in the parties' joint names, with the [h]usband solely liable for the indebtedness thereon. Accordingly, the property, and any equity therein, shall be awarded to the [h]usband, with the [h]usband paying all indebtedness thereon, and forever holding the [w]ife harmless therefrom. The [w]ife shall execute a Statutory Warranty Deed to the [h]usband, conveying all interest she has therein, upon entry of this Order. The [h]usband's counsel shall be responsible for the drafting of said Deed.

"17. The evidence revealed that the [w]ife previously liquidated her retirement account, during this action, and that the [h]usband is employed with the City of Huntsville. Accordingly, each party shall be awarded his or her individual retirement accounts and/or benefits, received through employment or otherwise.

3 CL-2024-0809

"9. The [h]usband is ORDERED to pay and be responsible for all debts in his individual name and is further Ordered to indemnify and hold the [w]ife harmless from any and all liability thereon until the same have been paid in full ….

"20. The [w]ife is ORDERED to pay and be responsible for all following debts in her individual name, and is further Ordered to indemnify and hold the [h]usband harmless from any and all liability thereon until same have been paid in full ….

"21 The [p]arties are ORDERED to close any joint credit card accounts presently held in the joint names of the parties, and are further Ordered to remove the other [party's] name from said accounts. Neither party shall charge on any credit account herein assumed to be paid by the other party. In the event any such charge has been made after the date on which this Order was entered, the party making said charge shall be solely responsible for payment of any such charge."

On September 16, 2024, the wife filed a postjudgment motion; that

motion was denied on September 26, 2024. The wife filed her notice of

appeal with this court on October 18, 2024.

Evidence

The parties were married in 2009. At the time of the trial, the

husband was 43 years old, and the wife was 44 years old. The husband

testified that he graduated from high school and attended some college

courses. He testified that he is in good health and is employed by the

4 CL-2024-0809

City of Huntsville, earning $5,489.04 monthly. The wife testified that

she graduated from college and is employed by Oakwood Health as an

outreach executive, earning $42,000 per year. She testified that she also

has the potential to earn bonuses.

According to the husband, the first problems in the parties'

marriage occurred in 2010 when the wife began abusing Klonopin,

muscle relaxers, and alcohol. He testified that he reported the wife's drug

abuse to her physician and that the physician stopped prescribing the

Klonopin. The husband testified that, in 2016, the wife began staying up

all night sitting on the floor surrounded by multiple Bibles. He testified

that the wife believed that a church had placed surveillance cameras and

listening devices in their home and that a traveling evangelist was

following her. According to the husband, one day he came home from

work, and the wife had taken their two young children and left the

marital home. He testified that the wife would not answer her cellular

telephone. Ultimately, the husband located the wife in Kentucky, and

the wife's father telephoned a mobile crisis unit to take the wife to

Vanderbilt University Hospital. The wife was hospitalized in the mental-

health ward there for three weeks and was diagnosed with bipolar

5 CL-2024-0809

disorder. The husband testified that he filed for a legal separation after

that incident, but he later dismissed the action. He testified that the wife

returned home and worked multiple jobs.

The husband testified that another incident happened on Mother's

Day in 2021. He testified that he telephoned the wife's cellular telephone,

and someone answered and stated that the telephone had been left at a

bar in Tennessee. According to the husband, he and the parties' children

drove to Tennessee and witnessed the wife and a homeless man digging

through a dumpster. He testified that he telephoned the police and that

the police located the wife the next day. The husband testified that the

wife told the police that her house had burned down. He also testified

that the wife told him that the homeless man had driven her to her hotel,

that she smoked marijuana with two 17-year-old males, and that the

marijuana had been laced with methamphetamine. The wife asked one

of the 17-year-old males to telephone her cellular telephone. The

husband later texted that number pretending to be the wife, and the male

texted an explicit photograph. The husband admitted that he told other

people that the wife received an explicit photograph on her cellular

telephone.

6 CL-2024-0809

According to the husband, the wife was admitted to another mental-

health facility for three weeks. She then resided at a drug-rehabilitation

center for three weeks, before moving into a halfway house. The husband

testified that he filed for a divorce as a result of that incident; however,

he later dismissed the action. The wife moved back into the marital home

in July 2021, and the wife began teaching as a substitute.

The husband testified that the incident that led to the filing of the

present action occurred around Halloween 2022. He testified that the

wife took their children to Tennessee and left them with her mother.

According to the husband, the wife reported to the Alabama Department

of Human Resources that he had abused the children. However, the

children were ultimately returned to the husband. He testified that the

wife did not telephone him to let him know where she was until around

Thanksgiving 2022. According to the husband, the wife informed him

that she had been arrested several times, once for driving under the

influence and once for indecent exposure. He testified that the wife

informed him that she had been living in a homeless camp with a

homeless man. The husband testified that, in December 2022, the wife

7 CL-2024-0809

came to the marital home asking for money and threatened to burn down

the marital home.

The wife admitted that she drank alcohol throughout the month of

December in 2022 and that, at one point, she purchased a round of drinks

for all the people in a bar. She admitted that she charged $24,000 on a

credit card from November 2022 until February 2023 on hotel bills,

alcohol, gas, vaping products, and eating out. She testified that she had

traveled in the state of Tennessee with the homeless man she had met.

The husband testified that the wife began living with her

grandfather in Tennessee in February or March 2023. He testified that

she obtained a job and began attending their children's sporting events.

He testified that the wife has given their children some clothing and

shoes but has not provided monetary support. The wife testified that,

between November 2022 and July 2023, she paid over $13,000 toward

family expenses such as the car-insurance premium for all three vehicles

and the cellular-telephone bills for the parties and one of the parties'

children.

The husband testified that the marital home is valued at $359,300

and that the mortgage balance is $213,204. He testified that the monthly

8 CL-2024-0809

payment on the mortgage note is $1,360. The husband testified that the

wife owned a house before the parties married, that the parties sold that

home in 2019, and that the parties realized approximately $30,000 in

proceeds from that sale. He testified that they used approximately

$15,000 to pay marital bills and used the remaining funds to make a

down payment on the marital home. However, the wife admitted that

she had not made a down payment on the home she bought prior to the

marriage; that she became pregnant "a few months after [she] bought the

home" and thereafter "became a stay-at-home mom"; and that the

husband had worked overtime to pay that mortgage. The husband

testified that the wife did not pay "a dime" toward the marital home. The

wife testified, though, that she had borne the primary responsibility for

keeping up the marital home and that the husband had not helped her

around the house. She testified that she contributed to the marital home

financially during the times in which she was employed.

According to the husband, he drives a 2003 Honda Accord and owns

a classic Ford Bronco that is valued at $15,000. He testified that he has

a retirement account with the State of Alabama; the wife testified that

the value of that account is $33,000. The husband testified that the

9 CL-2024-0809

parties' joint bank account has less than $1 in it and that he has very

little savings. He testified that his finances are tight and that he could

not afford to buy the wife out of the house or to refinance the house at a

higher interest rate. He testified that the wife told him that she opened

credit cards in his name in 2020; he stated that, by the time of the trial,

he had paid off all the credit cards that were in his name. According to

the wife, the parties lived paycheck to paycheck throughout their

marriage.

The wife testified that she is feeling better and that she would not

have any incidents such as the ones she had in the past. She testified

that, at the time of the trial, she was living in an apartment. According

to the wife, her monthly expenses total $5,436. She testified that she

pays $1,777 for the apartment, and that amount includes some services.

According to the wife, she spends $800 on groceries for her and the

parties' children. In addition to the $24,000 the wife charged on her

USAA credit card, the wife testified that she also had balances of $1,500

and $8,000 on other credit cards. According to the wife, she became

overwhelmed by credit-card debt, and she obtained a debt-consolidation

loan in the amount of $27,061.10, with a monthly payment in the amount

10 CL-2024-0809

of $521.24. The wife also admitted that she cashed out her retirement

account to pay attorney's fees after she was charged with driving under

the influence. She testified that the charge was expunged because her

blood-alcohol level was under the legal limit.

The wife testified that she cannot afford to pay her bills, but she

has earned bonuses that will be paid beginning in August. The wife

testified that her father paid two of her loan payments but that, once she

begins receiving bonuses, she will make the payments. According to the

wife, "for right now," her mother is paying for tutoring for one of the

children. She also testified that someone had paid her car payment "for

right now." The wife testified that her grandfather helped her pay for

groceries the month preceding the trial.

According to the wife, the husband's viewing of pornography and

practice of growing marijuana in the marital home caused problems in

the marriage. She testified that the lights that the husband used for

growing the marijuana interfered with her sleeping. The wife also

testified that the husband tracked the frequency of the parties' sexual

activity and confronted her with the data if it had been three or more

days in between that activity.

11 CL-2024-0809

Discussion

On appeal, the wife's sole argument is that the trial court's division

of property was inequitable.

" ' "The issues of property division and alimony are interrelated, and, therefore, they must be considered together on appeal. Albertson v. Albertson, 678 So. 2d 118, 120 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). When the trial court fashions a property division following the presentation of ore tenus evidence, its judgment as to that evidence is presumed correct on appeal and will not be reversed absent a showing that the trial court exceeded its discretion or that its decision is plainly and palpably wrong. Roberts v. Roberts, 802 So. 2d 230, 235 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001); Parrish v. Parrish, 617 So. 2d 1036, 1038 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993); and Hall v. Mazzone, 486 So. 2d 408, 410 (Ala. 1986). A property division is required to be equitable, not equal, and a determination of what is equitable rests within the broad discretion of the trial court. Parrish, 617 So. 2d at 1038. In fashioning a property division and an award of alimony, the trial court must consider factors such as the earning capacities of the parties; their future prospects; their ages, health, and station in life; the length of the parties' marriage; and the source, value, and type of marital property. Robinson v. Robinson, 795 So. 2d 729, 734 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001)." ' "

Coleman v. Coleman, [Ms. CL-2024-0680, Mar. 7, 2025] ___ So. 3d ___,

___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2025) (quoting Edwards v. Edwards, 377 So. 3d 535,

540 (Ala. Civ. App. 2022), quoting in turn Stone v. Stone, 26 So. 3d 1232,

1236 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009)).

12 CL-2024-0809

At the time of the trial, both parties were gainfully employed and

had housing. The wife had a college degree and also testified that she

had the benefit of financial support from multiple family members. Both

parties were relatively young. They had been married approximately 13

years at the time the divorce action was commenced.

The evidence indicated that the husband made the majority of the

financial contributions to the marriage, even working overtime to help

pay the mortgage on the first home in which the parties lived. The wife

testified that the parties had lived paycheck to paycheck, and the

husband testified that he had little savings and could not afford to buy

the wife out of the marital home. The wife had charged $24,000 on a

credit card from November 2022 to February 2023 on hotel bills, alcohol,

gas, vaping products, and eating out. The wife even admitted that, on

one occasion, she purchased a round of alcoholic drinks for all the people

in a bar. She also cashed out her retirement account during the pendency

of this action, and there is no evidence indicating the amount that was in

that account. The husband testified that the wife also opened credit cards

in his name and that he had paid off the balances of those cards.

13 CL-2024-0809

The wife specifically argues that the trial court should have

awarded her a portion of the husband's retirement account. She asserts

that although there was no evidence concerning her own retirement

account, it likely accrued before the marriage. However, it is the

appellant's burden of showing error on the record. Cameron v. Cameron,

259 So. 3d 662, 667 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). In Cameron, this court

explained that

"because the parties failed to introduce evidence of the value of most of the assets, including the marital residence, specifically included in the judgment dividing the marital property or the items of personal property that were awarded to the parties, we are unable to conduct a meaningful review of whether the property division is equitable. Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial court's judgment dividing the marital property is plainly and palpably wrong."

259 So. 3d at 667-68. Similarly, in the present case, there is no evidence

concerning the time of accrual of the wife's retirement account that she

cashed out during the pendency of this action, and there is no evidence of

the value of that retirement account. Therefore, "we are unable to

conduct a meaningful review of whether the property division is

equitable" and "cannot say that the trial court's judgment [declining to

award the wife a portion of the husband's retirement account] is plainly

and palpably wrong." Id. at 668.

14 CL-2024-0809

The wife also argues that the trial court erred in declining to award

her a portion of the equity in the marital home. However, given the wife's

conduct leading to the demise of the parties' marriage, the husband's

financial contributions to the marital home, the evidence indicating that

the husband could not afford to buy the wife out of the marital home, and

the fact that we do not know the value of the retirement account that the

wife cashed out during the pendency of this action, we cannot conclude

that the trial court exceeded its discretion in awarding the husband the

entirety of the equity in the marital home.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the trial court's judgment. The

husband's request for an attorney's fee on appeal is denied.

AFFIRMED.

Edwards, Hanson, and Fridy, JJ., concur.

Moore, P.J., concurs in the result, without opinion.