McCreless v. Valentin
121 So. 3d 999
| Ala. Civ. App. | 2012Background
- McCreless and Valentin divorced in 2005; settlement incorporated into the divorce judgment, including debts and child support provisions, but no explicit spousal support award.
- Valentin was obligated to pay McCreless’s student loan of $300/month; McCreless was to pay any amount over $300/month; both debts appeared in a seven-item list within the property settlement.
- The divorce judgment was modified three times before the 2011 modification; 2006 modification stated Valentin’s $300/mo spousal support was not modified, though the wording treated the student loan as a property settlement.
- 2009 modification explicitly held the $300/mo student-loan award was a property settlement, not periodic alimony; 2011 modification later argued it terminated upon McCreless’s remarriage in 2007.
- McCreless remarried in 2007; McCreless filed a fourth modification petition in 2011 seeking, among other things, a hearing on the classification of the student-loan award, child support calculations, and income imputation.
- Judge did not hold a hearing on McCreless’s post-judgment motions; the parties submitted stipulations and documentary evidence on remaining issues at the August 2011 hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the post-judgment denial warranted a hearing on alimony vs. property settlement. | McCreless argues the loan award is property settlement; motion required a hearing under Rule 59(g). | Valentin contends the 2009 modification already classified the award as property settlement; no further hearing required. | Remanded for hearing on classification; denial of hearing was error. |
| Whether income imputation to McCreless was proper. | There was no voluntary underemployment evidence; imputation unsupported. | Court properly imputed income given employment history and earning potential. | Imputation of income reversed; remanded for hearing on underemployment and income amount. |
| Whether the work-related childcare expenses were correctly calculated. | Expenses likely higher ($180–$260/month) than $48 reflected in records. | Evidence supported lower amount; calculation reasonable. | Remanded to determine the monthly amount of work-related childcare expenses. |
| Whether the 300/month student-loan award was subject to modification after remarriage. | Award should remain, as property settlement, non-modifiable after 30 days. | Remarriage terminated the obligation as alimony (if treated as alimony). | The award is property settlement, not modifiable alimony; but the court reversed the termination on remand for underemployment and child-care issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. Knight, 559 So.2d 564 (Ala. 1990) (preferences for reviewing without deference when evidence is stipulated)
- Kitchens v. Maye, 623 So.2d 1082 (Ala. 1993) (harmless error standard for denial of hearings on post-judgment motions with sparse record)
- Ex parte British Steel Corp., 426 So.2d 409 (Ala. 1982) (appellate court reviews evidence without presumption of trial-court findings when record is documentary)
- Doyle v. Doyle, 579 So.2d 651 (Ala. Civ. App. 1991) (underemployment standard and imputation framework)
- Winfrey v. Winfrey, 602 So.2d 904 (Ala. Civ. App. 1992) (voluntary underemployment prerequisite for income imputation)