216 So. 3d 1254
Ala. Civ. App.2016Background
- Husband (Eric Jackson) appealed a divorce decree awarding wife (Debbie Jackson) the marital home, a 2014 Chevrolet Cruz, personal items, and accounts in her name; husband received a Pleasant Grove lot, a 2004 Lincoln Navigator (subject to transfer), and his own accounts.
- The decree did not assign values to awarded property; husband later claimed the marital-home equity was $235,000 and that he received only ~5% of marital estate value.
- No transcript of the ore tenus trial exists in the appellate record; husband failed to timely file a Rule 10(d) statement of the evidence and his late requests to do so were denied.
- The trial-court clerk supplemented the record with trial exhibits after the husband had filed his brief; husband sought further extensions but the court declined to suspend appellate deadlines again.
- Husband argued the property division was inequitable and that denial of a later Rule 10(d) opportunity violated due process; the appellate court found no good cause to excuse his Rule 10(d) default and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Husband) | Defendant's Argument (Wife/Respondent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether division of marital property was inequitable/abuse of discretion | Trial court erred by awarding wife the marital home and giving husband only the Pleasant Grove lot and minimal share | Trial court’s division is within its broad discretion and need only be equitable, not equal | Affirmed; no palpable abuse shown and discretion respected |
| Whether husband is entitled to a share of marital-home equity | Husband contends home equity ~ $235,000 and he got no interest | Wife relies on trial court’s award and evidence heard ore tenus | Denied — court presumed oral evidence supported the judgment because no transcript/statement was provided |
| Whether appellate review is permitted without transcript or Rule 10(d) statement | Husband sought to rely on weight of evidence and exhibits to show error | Appellee and court relied on rule that absent transcript or timely Rule 10(d) statement, oral testimony is presumed to support judgment | Court refused to consider weight-of-evidence challenge; affirmed due to missing transcript/statement |
| Whether denial of untimely Rule 10(d) relief violated due process | Husband argued denial deprived him of due process | Court found no good cause for delay and enforcing appellate rules did not deny due process | Denied — enforcement of procedural rules upheld; appeal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Falkenburg v. Falkenburg, 549 So.2d 502 (Ala.Civ.App.1989) (where oral testimony is untranscribed and no Rule 10(d) statement is filed, appellate court must presume evidence supports trial court)
- Adams v. Adams, 335 So.2d 174 (Ala.Civ.App.1976) (appellant cannot rely on weight/sufficiency of evidence on appeal when transcript or Rule 10(d) statement is absent)
- Montgomery v. Montgomery, 519 So.2d 525 (Ala.Civ.App.1987) (property division in divorce rests within trial court's discretion and must be equitable)
- Jordan v. Jordan, 523 So.2d 1078 (Ala.Civ.App.1988) (appellate court will not reverse solely because it might have reached a different result)
- Austin v. Austin, 408 So.2d 138 (Ala.Civ.App.1981) (appellate reversal for inequitable property division requires showing trial court's decision is unjust and palpably wrong)