Kreitzberg v. Kreitzberg, 2100269 (ala.civ.app. 9-2-2011)
80 So. 3d 925
Ala. Civ. App.2011Background
- After nearly 35 years of marriage, Kreitzberg filed for divorce and the court awarded alimony and divided assets.
- The husband testified to significant inheritances (ExxonMobil stock, cash, savings bonds, and aunt’s estate) held in his name; much was kept separate from the marital estate.
- The trial court found the ExxonMobil stock to be the husband’s separate property and not used regularly for the common benefit of the marriage.
- The court awarded the wife $2,500 monthly alimony and ordered property division including retirement accounts, vehicles, and a portion of the house equity.
- The husband appealed, challenging alimony amount and the property division; the wife cross-appealed arguing the inheritance was not properly excluded from the marital estate.
- The appellate court ultimately affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for adjustments consistent with retirement-income constraints; the cross-appeal was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alimony award at issue under §30-2-51 | Kreitzberg asserts alimony exceeds permissible limits. | Kreitzberg contends alimony is appropriate given needs and standards. | Alimony award reversed for exceeding §30-2-51(b)(3) limit. |
| Property division in light of alimony | Alimony and property division should be integrated and fair. | Division should reflect retirement income and separate assets. | Judgment reversed insofar as it divided property; remanded to adjust both alimony and property division. |
| Retirement-benefit awards and burden of proof | Wife should be entitled to retirement assets earned during marriage. | Husband contends sufficient proof of pre-marital retirement assets was not provided. | Court affirmed equalization of IRA amount but declined broader retirement-asset award due to preservation of issues for trial on remand. |
| ExxonMobil stock as separate property | Stock may be marital asset given dividends and use in taxes. | Stock remains separate property not used for the marriage. | Stock upheld as husband’s separate estate; cross-appeal affirmed on this point. |
| Asset treatment of inherited funds | Inherited funds should be treated as marital if used for common benefit. | Inheritance was not used regularly for the common benefit. | Inherited assets not used for common benefit; cross-appeal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weichman v. Weichman, 628 So. 2d 867 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993) (marital asset determination when contributions affect ownership)
- Hull v. Hull, 887 So. 2d 904 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) (inheritances not used for common benefit limit divisão)
- Miller v. Miller, 47 So. 3d 262 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (alimony payable from current earnings; retirement-income considerations)
- Murphy v. Murphy, 624 So. 2d 620 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993) (danger of alimony in gross circumventing §30-2-51(a))
- Payne v. Payne, 48 So. 3d 651 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (burden to prove retirement benefits accrued during marriage)