Court Opinion

ID: 7787040
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-30 21:24:39.797689+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:52.023627
License: Public Domain

I must respectfully dissent. I note that although the trial court purported to award the wife one-half of the husband's retirement benefits that had been accumulated during the parties' 20-year marriage, that award was a nullity. SeeCrawford v. Crawford, 876 So.2d 1167, 1168
(Ala.Civ.App. 2003) ("an award . . . [of] Tier I [railroad retirement] benefits is prohibited by federal law"). After careful consideration, I have concluded that the property division, even if it properly included those Tier I railroad retirement benefits, disproportionately favors the husband and is inequitable.
 MURDOCK, J., concurs. *Page 146