## Facts

- The parties divorced after a 41-year marriage.
- The wife (age 59) was in good health, had minimal employment during the marriage, and earned multiple degrees between 1988 and 1990.
- The wife lived with the parties’ adult daughter (age 37), who had emotional problems, had always lived with her parents, and had never been employed.
- The husband (age 62) was in poor health, retired in 1994 after more than 30 years of employment, and created an investment account intended to support the family in retirement.
- The investment account balance was about $426,000 at separation and about $367,542 at divorce; the parties agreed the account generated $1,960 in net monthly income, and the husband was expected to receive $1,200 per month in Social Security at age 65.
- During a one-year separation, the husband voluntarily deposited $1,000 per month into an account for the wife; the wife routinely overdrew that account by $500 to $700 monthly.
- The trial court awarded the wife the marital home and lot (about $50,000–$56,000), furnishings (about $2,000), two vehicles (about $3,000 each), and required the husband to pay the $3,000 mortgage debt; the wife also received periodic alimony.
- The trial court awarded the husband the entire investment account (about $367,542) and other assets, including two vehicles; the result left the wife with a small fraction of the marital estate.
- The wife appealed, arguing the property division was inequitable.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by entering a property division so disproportionate that it was inequitable, particularly by awarding the husband the entire investment/retirement account after a long marriage.
2. Whether the wife’s demonstrated spending and overdraft history could justify denying her a meaningful share of the marital estate.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed and remanded.
- It held the property division was so disproportionate as to be inequitable and therefore constituted an abuse of discretion.
- It concluded that the wife’s potential post-divorce misuse of assets could be considered but could not be decisive in denying her a fair share, especially given the length of the marriage and the parties’ economic circumstances.
- It directed the trial court on remand to reconsider and enter a more equitable division of marital property consistent with the appellate court’s reasoning.

## Legal Principles

- In divorce, marital property must be divided equitably, not necessarily equally, but a gross disparity may be reversed as plainly and palpably wrong.
- In assessing equity, courts consider factors such as the parties’ future prospects, ages, health, station in life, length of the marriage, and, when appropriate, conduct.
- Evidence that a spouse may waste or mismanage assets after divorce may be relevant but should not control the property division.
- Property division and alimony are interrelated and must be evaluated together; periodic alimony does not automatically cure an otherwise severely imbalanced allocation of marital assets, including retirement resources.

## Conclusion

The appellate court reversed the divorce judgment’s property division because awarding the husband virtually all liquid and retirement assets after a 41-year marriage, based largely on anticipated mismanagement by the wife, was inequitable and exceeded the trial court’s discretion; the case was remanded for a more equitable distribution.


Adams v. Adams, 778 So. 2d 825 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000)