Williams v. Williams

Supreme Court of Alabama

Williams v. Williams

74 So. 2d 582, 261 Ala. 328, 1954 Ala. LEXIS 478

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedAugust 30, 1954

Docket1 Div. 484

StatusPublished

Cited by24 cases

This text of 74 So. 2d 582 (Williams v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams v. Williams, 74 So. 2d 582, 261 Ala. 328, 1954 Ala. LEXIS 478 (Ala. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

CLAYTON, Justice. '

This is an appeal by Thomas J. Williams, who for convenience will be referred to herein as the husband, from a decree of *330 Circuit Court of Mobile County, in •'equity, whereby certain real and personal property was awarded to Naomi Williams, who will be referred to as the wife.

The original bill filed by the wife against the husband prayed for an accounting from the husband for the alleged sale of certain . cattle and pecans during the period from February 14, 1944 to August 25, 1949, the day the bill w.as filed, and following such accounting for a division between the husband and wife of the remaining cattle, in accordance with the result of the accounting, so as to balance accounts between them.

The wife’s claim of right to relief was based upon two contracts between the parties dated February 2, 1944 and February 14, 1944, and a decree of the Circuit Court of Mobile County, in Equity, dated February 14, 1944.

-The husband filed an answer and cross bill, in which he denied any debt due tlie wife by account or otherwise, and averred Ithat the intention of the parties in making ..said contracts was to provide continuing maintenance.and support for the wife and children following .’the decree of divorce which was expected to be and was obtained immediately after execution of the contract of February 14, 1944; that the t parties subsequently were remarried on July 18, 1944, and resumed cohabitation as man -and wife, and continued such from said date until October 2, 1949, when the wife -.summarily ejected, the husband from the family home and willfully abandoned him; that both husband an,d wife affirmatively or tacitly agreed; understood and intended hat said contracts and decree were abrogated by the remarriage and resumption of. cohabitation; that the herd of cattle was owned and managed .as his own,’ with full knowledge and consent of the wife and that he is the sole owner; that he is the sole owner of the tractors; trucks, automobile, farm machinery, etc.; that of the 1395 acres of land and the family home in Grand Bay, record title to. all of which is now in the wife, he claimed.at least an undivided one-half interest in 600 acres íbecause the entire purchase price.Of it and other lands was paid from his own personal • funds derived from operation of his farms, and he claimed an undivided one-half interest in the family home because he paid one-half the cost of purchase and development, all under such circumstances as to justify the court in making a decree in keeping with his claim; that title to lands purchased was put in the wife’s name because of litigation in which the husband was involved at the time.

A brief delineation of events leading to this litigation may be stated as follows: In July 1918, Thomas J. Williams, an enlisted man in the United States Navy, married Naomi Berthaut, the daughter of a well-to-do owner and manager of a ship building and ship repair business at Algiers, Louisiana. The wife’s father was . not. pleased with his daughter’s marriage and did not visit nor correspond with her for some years. Following the husband’s discharge’from the Navy, he was given vocational training by the Veterans’ Administration at Pascagoula, Mississippi, where the couple bought a home for $500, with money provided by the wife. In 1922, they sold the home in Pascagoula and applied the proceeds of the sale on the purchase price of 80 acres of land in Mobile County, Alabama, near Grand Bay, upon • which they built a home. Both husband and wife worked in the fields and their . income from farming, together with the •husband’s compensation as a disabled veteran, constituted all their income until -1927. The wife and her father became reconciled in October, 1927, at which time he ' gave her a check for $1,000'. Subsequently, he gave her other substantial checks, including one for $2,500 in March, 1929, which paid most of the purchase price of • the home in Grand Bay, after which time he paid the wages of a maid for his daughter and bought groceries, clothes for the children, and other supplies on the occasions of his frequent visits and helped them financially until his death in 1939.

.. ’Beginning about 1929 or 1930, the Wil- . Hams began buying tax titles to land in the • vicinity óf Grand Bay'and continued to buy : lands by quit-claim and otherwise until at *331 the institution of the’present suit a total of about 1,395 acres and the home in Grand Bay had been acquired; and they engaged in cattle, pecan and farming operations. Mrs. Williams’ father died in 1939 leaving her a considerable estate. Through the years until 1944, the husband and wife used a joint bank account, into which was deposited income from farm operations, as well as money received by the wife from her father and from his estate. All lands bought were paid for by check on the joint account until 1944, and thereafter out of the personal account of Mrs. Williams, which was a part of her separate estate.

The list of conveyances in the transcript entitled “Realty Acquisition Record,” does not contain the names of the grantees in any instances. We cannot know with exactness in every case whether the grantee of the lands, when first bought by the Williams, was the husband or the wife, or the husband and wife jointly. But this is not a matter that is essential for our decision. The husband was record owner of one-half undivided interest in 240 acres in section 19, immediately before execution of the contract of February 14, 1944, and the Equity decree of the same date, and the wife was record owner of the rest of the lands at that time. The husband executed a statutory warranty deed conveying to the wife the 240 acres in section 19 on February 14, 1944.

This marriage proved typical of those which under adversity border on the sublime in fortitude, but cannot weather the storm of luxury.

In December 1943, the husband asked his wife for a divorce. The wife gave him $4,000 in cash, executed two contracts fixing their respective rights in real and personal property and submitted same, together with testimony relative to the infidelity of the husband, to the Chancellor for a decree.

Perhaps a clearer understanding of the situation of the parties at the beginning of the instant suit can be gained by setting out herein verbatim the two contracts and the decree of February 14; 1944. So, here they are: >

Contract of February 2, 1944.

“State of Alabama

County of Mobile

“Know All Men By These Presents that whereas an action for divorce is pend-, ing in the. Circuit Court of 'Mobile County, Alabama, in Chancery, in which Naomi Berthaut Williams, hereinafter called the wife, is Complainant, and Thomas James Williams, hereinafter called the husband, is Respondent, and

“Whereas, the said parties deem it to-the best interest, welfare and benefit of themselves and their children, who > are hereinafter .named,’ to effect a settlement of their respective rights and property'rights,

“Now Therefore, ..in consideration of the premises and the .mutual covenants.

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