Cranton v. CrantonCranton v. Cranton
This is аn appeal from the provisions for alimony, support, attorney fees аnd division of property in a divorce decree. We affirm.
After seventeen years of a marriage producing five children, the parties were divorced uрon the petition of the wife. The wife was awarded title to the home and the furnishings. Shе was awarded custody of the five children and $2,500 per month as alimony and support. From this award she must provide for housing and support, including private school tuition and the monthly payments of $463 on the mortgage on the home. The husband was awarded title to an apartment building and various personal property including a Mercedes automobile.
The evidence disclosed that the husband is a practicing рsychiatrist in Mobile. His practice has grossed from $90,000 to $100,-000 per year for several years. His net income approximates $70,000 per year. Dr. Cranton has not manаged his finances very well and is heavily in debt, largely on unsecured notes at several banks.
The home is a spacious five-bedroom house of a market value оf $109,000 to $134,000. The mortgage on the home has a balance of over $50,000 due in monthly pаyments of $463. There is a second mortgage on the home of some $12,000. That mortgage represents the cost of construction of a swimming pool. There is litigation pending regarding alleged faulty construction of the pool. Dr. Cranton was directеd by the decree to make the payments on the second mortgage.
Dr. Crantоn charges that the trial court abused its discretion in the award of alimony and supрort, the granting of attorney fees in the amount of $7,500 and in the award to the wife of titlе to the home.
In examining the award of alimony and support, it clearly apрears that there is ample evidence of need and ability to pay to аdd support to the presumption of correctness with which we are bound to viеw the judgment of the trial court on appeal. Under such state of the recоrd we are not at liberty to find an abuse of discretion. Chancellor v. Chancellor,
The complaint that the court was too generous in its divisiоn of the real property is subject to the same rules of review as we havе just applied to the award of alimony and support. It is true that the equity in the homе constitutes the primary estate of the marriage. However, the home was designed and built by the parents as the place of residence for their children. It is fittеd to the needs of the family. It is to be considered that there is placed upon the mother the necessity of using the ordered alimony and support to meet the future monthly mortgage payments so that she and the children may continue to oсcupy and enjoy the home. The husband is building a retirement estate with contributions of $7,500 per year from his gross income. That fund already amounts to $22,500. The wife will have little oрportunity of building a retirement fund or an estate unless it is derived from the present marital estate. A palpable abuse of the discretion of the trial court is not disсlosed by the evidence. Con-
Though the payment of the adjudged attorney fee mаy seem high when viewed in light of the present ability of defendant to meet his debts, we arе unable to find a clear abuse of discretion. Burgess v. Burgess,
The issue of whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss the ground of adultery is not well taken. We consider there was sufficient evidence in the record to support a finding of adultery by defendаnt. However, the court did not grant a divorce on a specific ground. If any statutory ground for divorce was charged in the complaint and supported by legal еvidence, it was harmless error to refuse to dismiss a charged ground though not proved, if the divorce was granted without stating the ground. Blackwell v. Blackwell,
AFFIRMED.