Title: Ex Parte LaMoreaux

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

845 So. 2d 801 (2002)
Ex parte James Wood LaMOREAUX.
(In re James Wood LaMoreaux v. Linda Lightfoot LaMoreaux. Linda Lightfoot LaMoreaux v. James Wood LaMoreaux).
1000522.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
June 14, 2002.
*802 Robert F. Prince of The Prince Patterson Law Firm, Tuscaloosa, for petitioner.
Robert J. Lee of Brinyark & Nelson, P.C., Tuscaloosa, for respondent.
JOHNSTONE, Justice.
James Wood LaMoreaux and Linda Lightfoot LaMoreaux were divorced by the Tuscaloosa County Circuit Court. The husband appealed the judgment of the trial court to the Court of Civil Appeals, where he argued, among other contentions, that the trial court had erred in the division of the parties' marital property by considering stock gifted to the husband by his family and not used regularly for the common benefit of the couple during their marriage, § 30-2-51(a), Ala.Code 1975.
Without opinion, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. LaMoreaux v. LaMoreaux, 845 So. 2d 800 (Ala.Civ.App.2000). The husband petitioned this Court for certiorari review, which we granted. In his petition, the husband asserts that the no-opinion affirmance by the Court of Civil Appeals conflicts with its decision in Durbin v. Durbin, 818 So. 2d 396 (Ala.2000), rev'd on other grounds, Ex parte Durbin, 818 So. 2d 404 (Ala.2001). We reverse the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals affirming the property division in the judgment of the trial court, and we remand this cause for further proceedings.
The husband sued for a divorce and for custody of the parties' two minor daughters. The wife answered and counterclaimed for a divorce on the ground of adultery and for custody of the minor daughters. After a bench trial on oral testimony and documentary evidence, the trial court entered a judgment of divorce and awarded the wife, amidst other relief, custody the parties' minor daughters, periodic alimony, and child support. The trial court divided the parties' real property:
The trial court awarded the husband all of his 118 shares of the P.E. LaMoreaux and Associates ("PELA") stock now at issue, but ordered him to pay $20,000 to the wife's attorneys as their fee.
Both the husband and the wife moved to alter, to amend, or to vacate the judgment. Following a hearing on the parties' motions, the trial court entered an amended judgment:
The trial court awarded the wife the marital residence and the North River Yacht Club lot, both previously ordered sold and the net proceeds divided between the parties, and ordered the husband to pay one-half of the wife's previously incurred medical expenses, an additional $25,000 to the wife's attorneys, an additional $32,000 in alimony in gross, and an additional $500 per month in periodic alimony. The husband appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed without opinion. LaMoreaux, supra.
The husband testified that, during their 17 year marriage, he and the wife had maintained separate bank accounts; that the wife did not have access to any of his bank accounts or to any of his stock accounts; that he had a Merrill Lynch checking account from which he paid the household expenses; and that he deposited his salary into the Merrill Lynch account. When the wife's attorney asked the husband whether there were "[a]ny other monies coming into this account from any other sources," the husband replied, "Not that I know of."
The husband testified that his family had gifted him about 118 shares of stock in the family-owned corporation, PELA; that he received about one-half of the shares before the marriage and the remaining shares during the marriage; that, in the years when the corporation made a profit, the corporation paid dividends to the stockholders; and that he had received PELA stock dividends in the nine years before the trial. He did not testify what he had done with the PELA stock dividends. While the husband and the wife each called an expert to testify about the value of the husband's PELA stock, the experts did not offer any testimony about the husband's disposition of his PELA stock dividends. Nor did the wife, or any other witness, testify about the husband's disposition of his PELA stock dividends.
The husband argues that, because his PELA stock or dividends were not regularly used for the parties' common benefit during the marriage, the trial court erred in considering the value of his PELA stock in dividing the marital property, and that, therefore, the Court of Civil Appeals erred in affirming the judgment of the trial court.
Morgan v. Morgan, 686 So. 2d 308, 310 (Ala.Civ.App.1996). More recently, the Court of Civil Appeals has stated:
Ex parte Drummond, 785 So. 2d 358, 360-61 (Ala.2000). See also Ex parte Durbin, 818 So. 2d  at 401.
Section 30-2-51(a), Ala.Code 1975, provides:
This statute does not differentiate between gifts acquired before the marriage and gifts acquired during the marriage. The time of acquisition affects only "property" acquired otherwise than by "inheritance or gift." See Goodson v. Goodson, 588 So. 2d 481 (Ala.Civ.App.1991); Mangina v. Mangina, 585 So. 2d 1383 (Ala.Civ. App.1991); Prestwood v. Prestwood, 523 So. 2d 1071 (Ala.Civ.App.1988); Burns v. Burns, 473 So. 2d 1085 (Ala.Civ.App.1985).
That the inheritance or gift property at issue in Durbin v. Durbin, supra, was acquired before the marriage was not critical to that decision. That portion of Durbin v. Durbin, addressing the treatment of inheritance or gift property turns on the provision of this statute conditioning the inclusion of inheritance or gift property in the marital estate on the regular use of that property or its income for the common benefit of the parties during the marriage. Only that portion of Durbin v. Durbin addressing the treatment of property not acquired by inheritance or gift cites the acquisition of the property during the marriage as the statutory basis for including the property in the marital estate. Durbin v. Durbin, 818 So. 2d  at 402.
Addressing the treatment of the inheritance or gift property, the Durbin v. Durbin court states:
Durbin v. Durbin, 818 So. 2d  at 400-01 (emphasis added), rev'd on other grounds, 818 So. 2d 404.
In this case, the record is devoid of evidence that the husband's gifted PELA stock or his PELA stock dividends were "used regularly for the common benefit of the parties during their marriage," § 30-2-51(a). Therefore, the trial court erred in considering the value of the husband's PELA stock in dividing the marital property. Consequently, the division of martial property is so unsupported by the evidence as to be unjust and palpably wrong. Ex parte Drummond, supra. See also Ex parte Durbin, supra. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals insofar as it affirmed that aspect of the judgment of trial court dividing the marital property, and we remand this cause for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
MOORE, C.J., and SEE, LYONS, BROWN, and WOODALL, JJ., concur.
STUART, J., concurs in the result.
HARWOOD, J., recuses himself.