In a case that demonstrates the limits of alimony awards, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals recently heard the case of Larry Shearry v. Christy Spivey, as personal representative of the Estate of Charlotte Shearry. Finding its roots at the heart of Jefferson County, this case illustrates the complex considerations of alimony, cast against a dramatic backdrop of loss, contempt, and the violation of a court order.

Larry and Charlotte Shearry’s contentious divorce proceedings began in late 2018, when the wife filed for legal separation and the husband filed a counterclaim for divorce. Initially, the trial court granted the wife $3,000 each month in interim spousal support through a pendente lite order and ordered both parties to avoid withdrawing unnecessary funds from their retirement accounts. In late 2023, the trial court entered a final divorce judgment, which was amended to its current state on December 29, 2023. In the amended judgment, the husband was ordered to pay $1,400 per month in periodic alimony, and the wife was awarded $57,500 from the husband’s 401(k) account. In addition, the trial court found the husband in civil and criminal contempt for failing to comply with the spousal support grant in the pendente lite order. For the missed payments, the trial court entered a spousal-support arrearage judgment of $72,000, with $5,175 accruing in interest. Further, the husband was ordered to pay $39,875 in the wife’s attorney’s fees, and sign documents to allow the wife to obtain COBRA insurance. 

The husband, not satisfied with the amended judgment, appealed, asserting that the trial court erred in the division of the couple’s marital property. However, while the appeal was pending, the wife passed away, leaving Christy Spivey, the personal representative of the wife’s estate, to dispute the husband’s motion.

On appeal, the wife’s death had a significant impact on the Court’s analysis of the husband’s claims. Future alimony payments and COBRA insurance coverage both became moot upon the wife’s death, as she could not personally benefit from any such payments or coverage. However, the Court was still able to properly review both the finding of contempt and the alimony in the period between the entry or the amended judgment and the wife’s death.

On review of the alimony award, the Court found that the trial court had exceeded its discretion in awarding $1,400 per month in periodic alimony. While the wife’s income was insufficient to provide for her expenses due to her serious health conditions, the husband was unable to pay the award. Citing Lacy v. Lacy, 126 So. 3d 1029, 1032 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013), the Court held that an award of periodic alimony must come from the current earnings of the payor spouse. The husband’s Social Security benefits, when compared to his own monthly living expenses, did not leave enough additional income for the husband to pay the award. As property division and alimony are intrinsically linked, the Court remanded both matters.

Although the husband succeeded in his other claims, the Court rejected his arguments against the trial court’s finding of contempt. The Court found that the pendente lite order, providing for both the interim spousal support and the preservation of the retirement account, had been agreed upon by both parties. Any errors in the application of the agreement rendered the agreement voidable but not void. Looking at the evidence, the Court found that the husband had withdrawn over $102,000 from his 401(k) account. This amount could have reasonably been used to pay the spousal support, but the husband failed to do so. Accordingly, he was in violation of the mutually agreed upon pendente lite order, and the Court affirmed the contempt finding.

The case of Larry Shearry v. Christy Spivey, as personal representative of the Estate of Charlotte Shearry demonstrates several key facets of property distribution and divorce proceedings. While certain issues, like future alimony payments and insurance coverage, become moot when the ultimate beneficiary is no longer able to directly benefit, other interests transcend the life span of the parties. Findings of contempt, and entitlements prior to the death of a party, remain relevant, and courts maintain authority to hear such matters.

If you have a Federal Criminal case, a State Criminal case, a Municipal Case or a Family Law case in the Northern District of Alabama, Middle District of Alabama, Southern District of Alabama, or any federal jurisdiction in the Eleventh Circuit, including Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, contact Joe Ingram or Joe Ingram Law LLC at 205-825-LAWS.