Title: Ex Parte Drummond

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

785 So. 2d 358 (2000)
Ex parte Mark S. DRUMMOND.
(Re Rhonda B. Drummond v. Mark S. Drummond).
1990033.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
September 15, 2000.
*359 Stephen R. Arnold and William M. Bowen, Jr., of White, Dunn & Booker, Birmingham, for petitioner.
Julie Katz Callaway of David Cromwell Johnson & Associates, Birmingham, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Mark S. Drummond and Rhonda B. Drummond were divorced by the Jefferson Circuit Court. Rhonda appealed from the divorce judgment. The Court of Civil Appeals concluded that the trial court, in dividing the parties' marital property, had not considered as marital property an inheritance Mark had received from his grandmother's estate. It held that Rhonda should have been allowed to share in that property, on the basis that the evidence showed the inheritance had been used for the common benefit of the parties to the marriage. Thus, the Court of Civil *360 Appeals reversed the property-division portion of the trial court's judgment, and because property-division and alimony awards are usually so closely related, it reversed the alimony award as well. Drummond v. Drummond, 785 So. 2d 353 (Ala.Civ.App.1999). We granted Mark's petition for certiorari review, to consider the Court of Civil Appeals' ruling regarding the trial court's order dividing the parties' property and awarding alimony. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals insofar as that judgment reversed those two portions of the trial court's judgment, and remand.
The facts of the case were adequately summarized in the Court of Civil Appeals' opinion:
785 So. 2d  at 354-55.
On appeal, Rhonda claimed the division of property was inequitable and also challenged that portion of the judgment awarding custody of the daughters to Mark and that portion awarding an attorney fee. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the award of custody and the attorney-fee award, but reversed those portions of the judgment dividing the marital property and awarding alimony.
The standard appellate courts apply in reviewing a trial court's judgment awarding alimony and dividing property is well established:
*361 Morgan v. Morgan, 686 So. 2d 308, 310 (Ala.Civ.App.1996). More recently, the Court of Civil Appeals has stated:
Bushnell v. Bushnell, 713 So. 2d 962, 964-65 (Ala.Civ.App.1997).
"`[P]roperty divisions are not required to be equal, but must be equitable in light of the evidence, and the determination as to what is equitable rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.'" Morgan v. Morgan, 686 So. 2d 308, 310 (Ala. Civ.App.1996) (quoting Duckett v. Duckett, 669 So. 2d 195, 197 (Ala.Civ.App.1995)). Rhonda contends that Mark was allowed to keep numerous bank and investment accounts that had been set up in his name alone. The total value of the accounts in question was approximately $1.2 million.[1] She argues that the trial court did not consider these accounts when it entered its final judgment of divorce and that in failing to consider the accounts the court violated § 30-2-51, Ala.Code 1975. That section reads, in pertinent part:
Rhonda claims that the inheritance Mark received from his grandmother's estate was put into various bank accounts, which she says were used for the common benefit of the marriage, specifically for the purpose of paying taxes and providing gifts for the children.
The Court of Civil Appeals held:
785 So. 2d  at 357.
Mark argues that the inheritance should have been kept separate for two reasons. First, he says the inheritance had not been used for the common benefit of the marriage and that there was no proof that it had been. Second, he argues that awarding any part of his inheritance to Rhonda would violate § 30-2-52, Ala. Code 1975, which reads:
Relying on § 30-2-52, Mark alleged that Rhonda had been unfaithful during the marriage and therefore was not entitled to share in his inheritance. The Court of Civil Appeals correctly noted that the trial court's judgment makes no finding of adultery or other misconduct by Rhonda. Although Mark contends that the record contains substantial evidence indicating Rhonda had been unfaithful, § 30-2-52 begins with the specific premise that "the divorce is in favor of either spouse for the misconduct of the other spouse." Because the trial court made no finding of misconduct, § 30-2-52 is not applicable.
The Court of Civil Appeals concluded, from "the record and the numerous exhibits," that assets the court did not divide, or income from those assets, "[was] indeed used for the common benefit of the parties during the marriage," or were "funded by moneys that were part of the marital estate." 785 So. 2d  at 357. Although we acknowledge that there is support in the record for this conclusion, we do not agree with the Court of Civil Appeals' conclusion that the trial court should have made a property distribution from the inheritance and gift accounts.
Section 30-2-51 states that if a party does not use his or her inheritance or gifts for the common benefit of the parties to the marriage, then the trial judge may not consider the inheritance or gifts when making a property division. Nothing in the statute states that if one party's inheritance or gifts are used for the parties' common benefit then the trial judge must consider the inheritance or gifts when making the property division. In fact, the statute leaves such a determination to the discretion of the trial judge. "[T]he judge, upon granting a divorce, at his or her discretion, may order to a spouse an allowance out of the estate of the other spouse, taking into consideration the value thereof and the condition of the spouse's family." Section 30-2-51(a), Ala.Code 1975. Rhonda was given the family home, valued at $800,000 to $900,000; a Lexus automobile; attorney fees of more than $40,000; alimony in gross of $50,000; and periodic alimony of $4,000 a month. We cannot say the trial judge abused his discretion.
Further, nothing indicates the trial judge did not consider Mark's inheritance *363 and gifts when he made his ruling. The trial judge did not specifically state in his order that he had considered Mark's inheritance when making the property division. The order simply delineated what property would go to which spouse. Although the trial judge did not indicate the grounds upon which he based the Drummonds' divorce, the record contains evidence suggesting that Rhonda's conduct was a major factor contributing to the breakdown of the marriage.
Myrick v. Myrick, 714 So. 2d 311, 315 (Ala. Civ.App.1998).
Finally, we note that the trial judge, who heard oral testimony from the parties and from other witnesses, was best able to determine the credibility to be afforded that testimony. Appellate courts can only review the record. Consequently, the trial court must be left with some discretion to determine which witnesses it deems more credible than others. Once the trial court makes that determination, it is not for the reviewing court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.
After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court did not plainly or palpably abuse its discretion in dividing the parties' property as it did. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals insofar as that judgment reversed the property-division and alimony portions of the trial court's judgment, and we remand the case with instructions for the Court of Civil Appeals to reinstate those portions of that trial judgment.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
HOOPER, C.J., and MADDOX, COOK, BROWN, JOHNSTONE, and ENGLAND, JJ., concur.
SEE and LYONS, JJ., concur in the result.
HOUSTON, J., recuses himself.
[1]  It is impossible to get an exact figure on the total amounts in question. The records for these accounts were not well kept, and the record does little to help us estimate the total.