141 So. 3d 1047
Ala. Civ. App.2013Background
- Antoinette Cahill Smith (“the former wife”) appeals from a post-divorce judgment and the court affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands.
- The divorce occurred in 1993; the couple used marital funds to purchase a poultry farm.
- The Gold Kist equity account, tied to the former husband’s poultry-farm operation, was valued upon Gold Kist’s conversion in 2004, and the former husband received 36,472 shares.
- The 1993 divorce judgment did not dispose of the equity account or the farm’s goodwill.
- In 2009 the former wife asserted that the equity account and related funds were marital property and sought a share and damages; the trial court later entered a judgment on partial findings in favor of the former husband on those claims.
- This Court had previously remanded to allow consideration of the equity account and related assets, including potential good will, as well as amendments and other claims; on remand, the trial court awarded the equity account, funds, and goodwill to the husband, which this court reversed and remanded for value-based awards to both parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the equity account and goodwill were marital assets not disposed by the divorce | Smith contends the equity account and goodwill were marital assets. | Cahill contends the equity account was non-marital or disposed by the divorce. | Reversed; remand to value and split assets equally. |
| Whether the conversion claim supports damages to Smith | Smith asserts she owned a half-interest and that conversion occurred. | Cahill argues no conversion or damages; trial court found against Smith. | Reversed; remand to determine damages, offset by half-ownership value. |
| Whether the fraudulent-suppression claim was properly decided | Smith argues Cahill fraudulently suppressed the equity-account existence. | Cahill contends no reasonable reliance or suppression shown. | Affirmed in favor of Cahill; fraud claim not sustained. |
| Whether the amendment adding a fraudulent-transfer claim was properly disallowed | Smith seeks to add a fraudulent-transfer claim against Cahill and his present wife. | Cahill argues Rule 15(a) discretion allowed disallowance; amendment untimely. | Affirmed; amendment properly disallowed under Rule 15(a). |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Cahill, 72 So.3d 692 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) (remand to address equity account and related claims; equity not disposed in divorce)
- Ex parte Davis, 495 So.2d 672 (Ala.1986) (divorce decree not disposing of jointly owned assets leaves parties in pre-divorce positions)
- Hocutt v. Hocutt, 491 So.2d 247 (Ala.Civ.App.1986) (ownership unchanged when divorce decree omits asset)
- Dominex, Inc. v. Key, 456 So.2d 1047 (Ala.1984) (allocation of marital assets rests in discretion; division need not be equal)
- Ex parte Durbin, 818 So.2d 404 (Ala.2001) (appellate review of trial court’s remand directions; not to substitute judgment)
- Janda v. Janda, 984 So.2d 434 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (fraud/ownership issues; trial court credibility determinations given deference)
- Pike v. Reed, 47 So.3d 253 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (mitigation of damages when property is converted and later comes back to owner)
- Smith v. Smith, 892 So.2d 384 (Ala.Civ.App.2003) (equitable division may consider assets as a whole; not every asset must be separately allocated)