Walker v. Walker
216 So. 3d 1262
Ala. Civ. App.2016Background
- Married 1994; multiple real properties (marital residence on Sand Mountain, 1-acre and 32-acre Sand Mountain tracts, and Dug Out Valley properties) and a construction business were marital assets. Marriage lasted ~17 years; one child who reached majority during proceedings.
- Wife filed for divorce in 2011; parties purportedly had a settlement, but this court (Walker) reversed the initial 2012 judgment because the agreement lacked a meeting of the minds about the Sand Mountain conveyance and remanded for trial on all issues.
- On remand the trial court held a full trial (Jan. 2015) and entered a final divorce decree dividing property largely to husband (business, Dug Out Valley and most Sand Mountain tracts) and awarding the marital residence and one acre to wife; no periodic alimony awarded.
- Wife moved to alter/amend and to recuse the judge; husband moved (postjudgment) to sell the residence and later sought reimbursement for mortgage payments he made during the litigation.
- Trial court denied recusal, amended the decree (sua sponte while wife’s timely Rule 59 motion was pending) to reimburse the husband $10,000 for mortgage payments, and otherwise denied the wife’s challenges. Wife appealed; this court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court exceeded remand scope by reentering a judgment similar to the reversed judgment | Trial court improperly reentered a judgment substantially like the reversed one (disregarded remand) | Trial court held a full trial on remand and entered a judgment supported by the evidence; differences exist regarding Sand Mountain parcels | Affirmed — remand permitted a full trial; court complied with instructions and evidence supports judgment |
| Recusal of trial judge | Judge should recuse for entering a judgment similar to one reversed by this court | Denied; adverse rulings alone do not establish bias | Affirmed — no evidence of bias; disagreement with rulings insufficient for recusal |
| Equity of property division and denial of periodic alimony | Division left wife with disproportionate debt and little assets; she needed periodic alimony | Husband’s business debts and low reported income, but evidence showed wife’s financial misconduct contributed to debts; trial court considered statutory factors | Affirmed — wide discretion to trial court; ore tenus presumption applies; wife failed to show inequity or entitlement to alimony |
| Amendment of decree to reimburse mortgage payments (timeliness/jurisdiction) | Husband’s postjudgment motion was untimely; court lacked jurisdiction to grant new relief after Rule 59 period | Husband raised unreimbursed mortgage payments at trial; while husband’s motion was untimely, wife had a timely Rule 59 motion pending and trial court may correct omissions while such a motion is pending | Affirmed — trial court could correct omission sua sponte while timely Rule 59 motion was pending and award reimbursement; not new relief beyond trial issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Walker, 144 So.3d 359 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013) (prior reversal and remand for trial where settlement lacked meeting of the minds)
- Ex parte Bland, 796 So.2d 340 (Ala. 2000) (appellate standard for overturning discretionary divorce rulings)
- Turnbo v. Turnbo, 938 So.2d 425 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006) (factors and deference in property division/alimony decisions)
- Shewbart v. Shewbart, 64 So.3d 1080 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (factors required to analyze periodic alimony claims)
- Burgess v. Burgess, 99 So.3d 1237 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012) (limits on amending judgments post-judgment to grant new relief)
- Henderson v. Koveleski, 717 So.2d 803 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998) (trial court may correct errors in judgment while a timely postjudgment motion is pending)