203 So. 3d 108
Ala. Civ. App.2016Background
- Kala Dollar (wife) and Kevin Dollar (husband) married in 1995 and separated in November 2013; wife filed for divorce and husband counterclaimed.
- Trial court entered pendente lite relief awarding the wife temporary possession of the home and $500/month alimony; final hearing followed.
- Final judgment: divorce granted; each party kept retirement accounts in their own names; wife awarded $15,000 lump sum (including $5,000 alimony-in-gross and $10,000 property settlement), $1,000/month periodic alimony for 60 months, continuation of medical coverage for 3 years, one-half of net proceeds from sale of the marital home, an $8,000 vehicle, and $2,500 attorney fee. Husband received his retirement accounts (~$45,000), other assets, and one vehicle.
- Wife is disabled (cervical/focal dystonia), receives SSDI ($1,100–$1,200/month), presented monthly needs exceeding income; husband earns about $1,000/week and has capacity to pay.
- Wife appealed arguing (1) trial court erred by not dividing husband’s retirement benefits equally and (2) periodic alimony award was improperly limited to 60 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by not allocating part of husband's retirement to wife | Dollar: retirement should be divided or she should receive an equitable share of husband’s retirement | Husband/trial court: no requirement to divide retirement accounts; wife already has retirement and other assets; overall division is equitable | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; trial court may consider but need not divide retirement (award left intact) |
| Adequacy of lump-sum alimony-in-gross ($5,000) | Dollar: husband could pay more; $5,000 inadequate | Husband: award was within discretion given overall property division and wife’s assets | Affirmed — wife’s bare assertion insufficient to show inequity |
| Periodic alimony amount/duration ( $1,000/month for 60 months ) | Dollar: needs are ongoing due to disability; husband can pay; limitation to 60 months is unsupported | Husband: trial court discretion; evidence that wife performed some activities and trial court credibility findings support limit | Reversed in part — court found need is likely permanent and husband can pay; temporal 60-month limit vacated (periodic alimony to continue without 60-month cap on remand) |
| Attorney fees on appeal | Dollar requested appellate attorney fees | Husband opposed | Granted — $2,000 awarded to wife for appeal fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Schado v. Schado, 648 So.2d 1169 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994) (division of property and alimony considered together; appellate review for abuse of discretion)
- Ex parte Yost, 775 So.2d 794 (Ala. 2000) (trial court may consider retirement accounts but is not required to divide them)
- Shewbart v. Shewbart, 64 So.3d 1080 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (factors guiding periodic-alimony awards and discretionary nature)
- Hewitt v. Hewitt, 637 So.2d 1382 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994) (periodic-alimony necessity and discretion; needs and ability to pay standard)
- Kluever v. Kluever, 656 So.2d 887 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995) (reversal where time limitation on periodic alimony unsupported by evidence)
- Baggett v. Baggett, 855 So.2d 556 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) (periodic alimony and property division must be considered together)