Opinion ID: 1731508
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Payment of Debts Incurred during Separation

Text: It is apparent from the evidence that a number of the debts incurred by Mrs. Leo were for goods purchased on her own account, on her own contract, and not on the basis of credit extended to Mr. Leo, nor was there any expressed or implied assent on his part to pay these debts or the loans made to Mrs. Leo. Mrs. Leo testified that she borrowed $1000 from her sister in order to go to the Mayo Hospital. The evidence shows that Mr. Leo paid the expenses of this trip including the Mayo bill. Mrs. Leo testified she did not get any money from Mr. Leo for this trip as he had not been around for several weeks. Clearly, this loan was credit extended to Mrs. Leo and there was no expressed or implied assent on the part of Mr. Leo to pay this loan. This item of $1000 should be stricken from the debts ordered to be paid by Mr. Leo. The same reason would apply to the loan of $1000 made to Mrs. Leo by the Merchants Bank, since under Mrs. Leo's testimony this loan was made solely to her, Ward Faulk let me have the money. This loan was made at approximately the same time as the loan by Mrs. Leo's sister, and according to Mrs. Leo was used for living expenses. I am used to living a lot better than some people, I guess. Likewise, the only inference from the evidence is that credit for the mink stole, $1400, the dining room suite, $977.16, and $608.04 for a stereo record player, was extended solely to Mrs. Leo. The learned trial court erred in decreeing that these debts incurred by Mrs. Leo should be paid by Mr. Leo. Frazier v. Frazier, 273 Ala. 53, 134 So.2d 205. This phase of the decree will also be reversed to the extent of eliminating the above mentioned debts from those to be paid by Mr. Leo and one is hereby rendered accordingly. The remaining items or debts ordered to be paid by the decree of the court consist largely of medical and hospital expenses, and the evidence shows that Mr. Leo has in the past always taken care of these expenses. In fact, the record shows that in 1963 and in 1964, Mr. Leo paid medical expenses for Mrs. Leo of around $3,400 each year and Mr. Leo testified that since 1959 he has paid medical expenses for Mrs. Leo totaling around $28,000. We find this significant paragraph in the partial report of the Deputy Register before whom a reference was held in connection with fixing alimony pendente lite: It also further appears    that the difference between his (Mr. Leo's) gross income and gross expenditures is being presently satisfied through assets which are being rapidly depleted through excessive medical expenses of the complainant (Mrs. Leo) and living expenses of the parties.