Title: PEYRAVY v. PEYRAVY
Citation: 2003 OK 92, 84 P.3d 720
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: October 28, 2003

PEYRAVY v. PEYRAVY Annotate this Case PEYRAVY v. PEYRAVY 2003 OK 92 84 P.3d 720 Case Number: 97180 Decided: 10/28/2003 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA ALI PEYRAVY, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. JULIANA PEYRAVY, Defendant/Appellant. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION I Honorable Roy D. Moore, Trial Judge ¶0 The appellee, Ali Peyravy, filed for a divorce from his wife of twenty-two years, the appellant, Juliana Peyravy. After a trial on the merits, the trial court issued a divorce decree, divided the personal property and debt, and determined custody of the couple's two minor children. The trial court also awarded the wife $24,000.00 support alimony payable at a rate of $4000.00 per month for six months. The wife appealed, raising numerous allegations of error. The Court of Civil Appeals modified the trial court's award of support alimony by increasing it to $360,000.00 payable at a rate of $4000.00 per month for ninety months. The appellate court also reversed the trial court regarding attorney fees and the calculation of the husband's income for purposes of child support and remanded. We granted certiorari to determine whether the trial court's award of support alimony is supported by the evidence. We hold that the trial court's award of support alimony was insufficient and an abuse of discretion. CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OPINION VACATED IN PART; TRIAL COURT REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Dennis Butler, Lawton, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellee, James R. Gotwals, Mary L. Gutierrez, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Defendant/Appellant. KAUGER, J,: ¶1 The only issue presented on certiorari 1 is whether the trial court's award of support alimony is supported by the evidence. We hold that the trial court's award of support alimony was insufficient and an abuse of discretion. FACTS ¶2 This cause concerns a dispute over the support alimony awarded to the appellant, Juliana Peyravy (wife), in her divorce from the appellee, Ali Peyravy (husband). The couple was married on February 9, 1979, and had three children who were born on September 29, 1979, September 26, 1983, and January 4, 1985, respectively. ¶3 On August 15, 2000, the husband filed for divorce, seeking a determination of custody of the minor children and a division of real and personal property. The wife filed an answer and counterclaim for divorce on January 2, 2001. She sought a division of real and personal property, custody of the minor children and temporary and permanent child support and support alimony as well as payment of her attorney fees. A temporary order hearing was held on January 9, 2001, and the trial court awarded the wife temporary custody of the two minor children and $3000.00 a month for temporary support. ¶4 When the divorce was filed, the 44-year-old husband operated the family's two corporations ---- Friends, Inc. and Peyravy Properties. 2 Friends, Inc. operates and owns several Subway stores in Lawton, Oklahoma, and the surrounding area. Peyravy Properties owns the real property on which the Subway stores are located and collects rent from the stores. The wife attributed the net value of the companies together at nearly $968,000.00. According to the husband, his average monthly income paid by the corporations is $9,100.00 a month. The husband also apparently enjoys benefits provided by the corporations such as paid vacation trips, the use of vehicles, insurance, gasoline, etc. ¶5 The 52-year-old wife was financially dependent on her husband when the divorce was filed. According to the wife, her monthly expenses exceeded $10,000.00.3 Although she is a licenced practical nurse, she quit working full-time outside the home upon the birth of their first child. In 1984, the wife fell down some stairs and broke her foot which has caused a permanent limp and pain in her hip. In 1987, she was diagnosed with systemic lupus which causes pain, swelling, arthritis, fatigue, sensitivity to sunlight, heat and cold which has limited her ability to work full time outside the home. Nevertheless, the wife expressed a desire to go back to school and learn another skill in order to become self-sufficient. ¶6 After a trial on the merits, the trial court divided the personal property and debts and issued a divorce decree which was filed on November 27, 2001. The trial court awarded custody of the minor children to the wife and found that the husband was responsible for child support in the amount of $1,197.46 payable for twenty-four months. The court also required the husband to maintain health insurance on the children and to pay the wife's health insurance for six months. ¶7 The court awarded the husband the family businesses known as Friend's, Inc. and Peyravy Properties, subject to indebtedness. It also awarded him a Ford Expedition, subject to indebtedness, the proceeds of an expected tax refund of $27,000.00, his IRA valued at approximately $33,000.00, and his personal property. The trial court found that the wife was entitled to the home in Tulsa, subject to indebtedness,4 a timeshare condominium in Colorado, her IRA accounts valued at approximately $39,728.00, a Toyota Camry, and her personal property. ¶8 The court also awarded the wife $200,000.00 alimony in lieu of property division payable at a rate of $2,000.00 per month. Support alimony of $24,000.00 was ordered to be paid at $4,000.00 per month for six months. The husband was ordered to pay most of the credit card debt incurred prior to the date of separation, and the wife was held responsible for the credit card debt she incurred after the date of separation. ¶9 The wife appealed on December 26, 2001, arguing numerous allegations of error. On April 11, 2003, the Court of Civil Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, affirmed in part, modified in part and reversed in part and remanded with instructions. It affirmed the trial court's ruling regarding venue, alimony in lieu of property division, and a motion for a continuance. However, it modified the trial court's award of support alimony from $24,000.00 to $360,000.00, determined that evidence of some of the husband's corporate benefits should have been considered to calculate his income for child support purposes, and reversed and remanded the trial court's rulings regarding attorney fees. ¶10 On April 30, 2003, the husband filed a petition for certiorari, arguing that the evidence in the record does not support an increase of support alimony from $24,000.00 to $360,000.00. The Court of Civil Appeals increased the alimony payments by fifteen times. Because we think this amount is excessive, we granted certiorari on July 1, 2003. ¶11 THE TRIAL COURT'S AWARD OF SUPPORT ALIMONY WAS INSUFFICIENT AND AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION. ¶12 The husband argues that under the facts and circumstances presented, the amount of support alimony awarded by the trial court was adequate.5 The wife insists that the trial court abused its discretion in its award of support alimony of only $24,000.00. ¶13 In a divorce action, the trial court is vested with wide discretion in dividing property and awarding alimony.6 On appeal, this court will not disturb the trial court's judgment regarding property division or alimony absent an abuse of discretion or a finding that the decision is clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence.7 In awarding alimony, although each case depends on its own facts and circumstances,8 it must be reasonable.9 ¶14 Alimony is an allowance made by the court for the maintenance of a party.10 Ability to pay is not the sole criterion for an award of alimony.11 Support alimony is awarded based on the recipient's demonstrated need.12 A consideration of appropriate factors to base support alimony include: demonstrated need during the post-matrimonial economic readjustment period; the parties' station in life; the length of the marriage and the ages of the parties; the earning capacity of each spouse; the parties' physical condition and financial means; the mode of living to which each spouse has become accustomed during the marriage; and evidence of a spouse's own income-producing capacity and the time necessary to make the transition for self-support.13 ¶15 Here, the parties had been married for twenty-two years when the divorce was granted. The husband supported the family. Although the wife was an LPN and was willing to obtain training to supplement her income in the future, her health clearly inhibited her ability to work full time outside the home. We have not previously addressed a case that was factually identical to the present one. However, we have reviewed alimony awards where the husband's income was significantly more than the wife's; and the wife had some means of self-support. In most cases, the alimony award was significantly more than $24,000.00. ¶16 For example, in Mocnik v. Mocnik, ¶17 Similarly, in Aronson v. Aronson, ¶18 Based on the length of the marriage, the age of the parties, the ability of the husband to pay, the needs of the wife for living expenses and her current income potential, the trial court clearly abused its discretion when it only awarded the wife $24,000.00 in support alimony. On the record presented, this amount is insufficient to provide the wife the necessary opportunity for post-marital economic readjustment. ¶19 Divorce cases are of equitable cognizance. Therefore, ordinarily this Court orders the disposition the trial court should have made. CONCLUSION ¶20 In a divorce action, the trial court is vested with wide discretion in dividing property and awarding alimony. CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OPINION VACATED IN PART; TRIAL COURT REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. WATT, C.J., OPALA, V.C.J., HODGES, KAUGER, SUMMERS, BOUDREAU, WINCHESTER, J.J. concur. LAVENDER, HARGRAVE, J.J., dissent. FOOT