In a case that highlights the complex issues of marital property division during divorce proceedings, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals recently heard the appeal of Catherine S. Cauthen v. Carey Lee Cauthen, Jr. Arising from Baldwin County, this case addresses the appeals of both the husband and the wife, demonstrating the intricate nature of property classification and division through six main points of contention. If you need a Divorce Lawyer, Please contact us about your case.
In her appeal, the wife raised three primary issues. First, the wife asserted that the trial court had included separate assets in the marital property division. Specifically, the wife was concerned with the classification of a farm, a condominium, and a beach property, all of which she had received as gifts prior to the marriage. The Court found that the trial court had excluded these assets from the marital property division, emphasizing that assets acquired before marriage typically remain separate. Additionally, the wife argued that the proceeds from the sale of her separate property condominiums, deposited into her checking account, should also be deemed separate property. The trial court had considered these funds as marital property, because they were used for marital expenses. On appeal, the Court reiterated the importance of the use of funds when determining their status, finding that funds used for marital purposes could be classified as marital property. Finally, the wife raised issues regarding her acquisition of a property with a loan from her father, secured by her pickup truck. The Court found this acquisition was a violation of the status quo order, with precedent suggesting that violating such orders impacts asset division and contempt findings.
The husband’s cross-appeal also raised three main issues. First, the husband challenged the trial court’s failure to find the wife in contempt for failing to pay a bill and incurring living expenses related to her status quo order violation. In response, the Court cited precedent where selective enforcement of duties was scrutinized. The husband also challenged the trial court’s evaluation of the pickup truck, alleging a factual mistake about the vehicle. The Court held that an erroneous valuation required the value to be recalculated. Finally, the husband challenged the wife’s conduct, alleging financial misrepresentation and seeking attorney fees. The trial court denied the husband’s request for attorney fees but awarded part of the joint account depletion. The Court found that the lower court’s decision reflected established principles of attorney fees and conduct in the context of marital disputes.
The Court’s response to each individual issue emphasizes the complexities of marital property division. Divorce proceedings are inherently complicated, and further muddled when distinguishing between separate and marital property and enforcing court orders. The case of Catherine S. Cauthen v. Carey Lee Cauthen, Jr. illustrates the delicate nature of divorce proceedings, demonstrating the importance of enlisting the help of an experienced attorney to navigate this maze.
If you have a Family Law case or Divorce Case, contact Joe Ingram or Ingram Law LLC at 205-335-2640 or 205-506-5590. Get Relief * Get Results.