Cameron v. Cameron
259 So. 3d 662
Ala. Civ. App.2016Background
- Parties married in April 2009 after living together since 2003; marriage lasted seven years. Both had adult children; wife disabled from a 2013 motor-vehicle accident and received a $58,000 settlement.
- Husband (55) is a long‑time truck driver with reported gross income around $68,000–$74,000 and a 401(k) he funded before the marriage (≈$292,468). Wife (50) had not worked since losing job in 2012 and had minimal bank funds at trial.
- Husband purchased the marital residence in 1995–96 (mortgage balance ≈ $52,000; payment $648/mo). Husband paid most household bills; wife contributed $400/mo toward mortgage for part of the relationship and gave $4,000 from her settlement to husband.
- Marital property awarded: wife received the house, minivan, camper, one boat, jewelry/clothes; husband received multiple vehicles/boats, his 401(k) entirely, savings, tax refund; husband ordered to continue mortgage payments.
- Trial court found irretrievable breakdown largely due to husband’s unwillingness to reconcile and expressly criticized husband’s credibility; awarded alimony (initially gross $10,000, $1,000/mo periodic, and rehabilitative alimony), later reduced periodic alimony to $856.50/mo and removed rehabilitative alimony on post‑judgment motion.
- Husband appealed contesting property division, alimony affordability, and failure to recuse the trial judge; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Husband's Argument | Wife's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether property division was inequitable | Division favored wife (husband awarded mortgage liability with no residence equity); trial court abused discretion | Trial court exercised discretion; division equitable under facts | Affirmed — appellate court cannot review meaningfully because parties failed to present valuations for many assets, so no plain and palpable abuse shown |
| Whether periodic alimony and obligations were excessive given husband’s ability to pay | Husband lacks financial ability to pay monthly alimony + mortgage + COBRA; trial court miscalculated income/expenses | Wife demonstrated need; award within trial court discretion | Affirmed — court found husband had ability to pay based on W‑2 and trial court calculations; award did not plainly cripple him |
| Whether husband’s 401(k) was divisible marital property | Husband argued assets division wrong (implicitly asserting retirement should be shared) | Wife relied on law that retirement pre‑dating marriage is nonmarital | 401(k) not marital — retirement account premised on pre‑marriage accumulation; not divisible here |
| Whether trial judge should have recused for alleged posttrial comment | Husband claimed judge made a biased statement and should recuse | Wife/record: no affidavit or record support; statements in brief not evidence | Denial of recusal affirmed — alleged comment not in record and not supported by admissible evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Drummond, 785 So.2d 358 (Ala. 2000) (trial court has broad discretion on alimony and property division)
- Brasili v. Brasili, 827 So.2d 813 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002) (retirement funds accumulated before marriage are nonmarital)
- Combs v. Combs, 4 So.3d 1141 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) (appellate review of property division limited when valuations and liability evidence are absent)
- Rubert v. Rubert, 709 So.2d 1283 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998) (purpose of periodic alimony is to maintain former spouse’s marital standard without crippling payor)
- Fell v. Fell, 869 So.2d 486 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) (property division need not be equal but must be equitable)
- Russell v. Russell, 777 So.2d 731 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000) (factors trial court must consider in alimony and property division)