Kreitzberg v. Kreitzberg
131 So. 3d 612
Ala. Civ. App.2013Background
- This appeal challenges a March 1, 2012 remand judgment dividing marital property and revising alimony after this court’s Kreitzberg v. Kreitzberg reversal; there are two appeals and a contempt ruling.
- The prior Kreitzberg decision reversed the $2,500 monthly alimony and instructed remand to adjust alimony and property division in light of retirement income and the husband’s separate ExxonMobil stock.
- Ore tenus evidence showed the husband’s inheritance assets (ExxonMobil stock, cash, CDs, savings bonds) were largely in his name and not shared; wife challenged the treatment of those assets.
- On remand, the trial court awarded the wife $1,310.50 monthly alimony and an $84,000 additional property award, while other provisions remained, which the husband challenged.
- The appellate court affirmed the remand judgment, holding the property division equitable and not clearly improper for considering remand instructions and the husband’s separate estate.
- Separately, the contempt appeal upheld a finding of contempt for failure to pay alimony during the appeal and an $8,500 attorney-fee award, with retroactive calculation of arrears based on the reduced alimony amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equity of remand property division | Kreitzberg argues the remand division is inequitable and uses his separate estate. | Kreitzberg contends the court balanced equities and erred by misreading remand guidance. | Affirmed; division deemed equitable and properly balanced remand equities. |
| Authority to award on remand and retroactivity | Kreitzberg argues remand did not authorize the new alimony amount or retroactive effects. | Kreitzberg argues the remand order authorized recalibration and retroactive application. | Affirmed; remand authorized recalibration and arrearage retroactively to the reversed judgment date. |
| Contempt for nonpayment during pendency | Kreitzberg asserts offsets from wife’s withdrawals negate contempt. | Kreitzberg asserts failure to pay alimony was willful despite offsets. | Affirmed; willful nonpayment during pendency supported contempt. |
| Attorney-fee award in contempt | Kreitzberg argues $8,500 is inequitable under Peebles v. Miley. | Kreitzberg argues discretion supports award considering conduct and costs. | Affirmed; no abuse of discretion in awarding $8,500. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kreitzberg v. Kreitzberg, 80 So.3d 925 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) (reversed alimony and remanded for equity-based adjustment of property division and alimony)
- Harmon v. Harmon, 928 So.2d 295 (Ala.Civ.App.2005) (property division need not be equal, but must be equitable)
- Golden v. Golden, 681 So.2d 605 (Ala.Civ.App.1996) (factors for equitable property division include earnings, health, marriage length, and conduct)
- Albertson v. Albertson, 678 So.2d 118 (Ala.Civ.App.1995) (interrelation of property division and alimony; consider future prospects)
- Ex parte Drummond, 785 So.2d 358 (Ala.2000) (court may consider numerous factors in marital-property decisions)
- Myrick v. Myrick, 714 So.2d 311 (Ala.Civ.App.1998) (relevant conduct in breakdown of marriage may be considered)
- Foster v. Foster, 733 So.2d 454 (Ala.Civ.App.1999) (retroactivity principle for remand-imposed support orders)
- Ex parte McWhorter, 716 So.2d 720 (Ala.Civ.App.1998) (retroactive effect of remand orders in family-law context)