determining that property division was inequitable when husband was left with no assets from which to pay the property settlement ordered to the wife without negating the award to the husband
How later courts described this case
- determining that property division was inequitable when husband was left with no assets from which to pay the property settlement ordered to the wife without negating the award to the husband
- observing that the trial court “awarded the wife periodic alimony in the form of a requirement that the husband pay for her health insurance for 36 months”
- conduct leading to the breakdown of the marriage is a factor for the trial court to consider in fashioning a property division and alimony award
- " 'A trial court's failure to follow the guidelines or to make written a finding that application of the guidelines would be unjust, is reversible error.' " (quoting State ex rel. Waites v. Isbell, 718 So.2d 85, 86 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998) )
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
The division of marital assets appears to inequitably favor the wife, particularly in light of the fact that the trial court made no finding of fault against the husband. If the $51,820 property settlement awarded to the wife is to be paid from the husband's $98,500 retirement account, it will contravene the statute. On remand, the *Page 736
court may consider utilizing a "Qualified Domestic Relations Order" (QDRO) to ensure that the husband's retirement account will not be penalized by an unintended and unavoidable tax consequence, or the court may determine, based on the husband's reported gross receipts from his business, that he has ample resources to pay the property award. In any event, on remand the trial court should fashion a more equitable division of the marital assets.