Case Law Rohling v. Rohling

Rohling v. Rohling

Document Cited Authorities (32) Cited in (12) Related

Gary L. Jester, Florence, for appellant Robert Joseph Rohling.

Terry L. Mock, Andrew L. McGee, and Bruce Gordon, Tuscumbia, for appellants Andrew L. McGee, Terry L. Mock, and Bruce Gordon.

Lindsey Mussleman Davis of Holt, Mussleman, Morgan & Alvis, Florence, for appellee Lylie Alexandra Rohling.

PITTMAN, Judge.

These appeals seek review of a judgment entered by the Lauderdale Circuit Court ("the trial court") in a divorce action brought by Robert Joseph Rohling ("the husband") against Lylie Alexandra Rohling ("the wife"). We have consolidated the appeals for the purpose of addressing them in a single opinion.

In appeal no. 2160859, the husband seeks review of that judgment insofar as it awarded the wife alimony in gross, awarded the wife periodic alimony, awarded the wife child support, awarded the wife a share of the husband's retirement accounts, and ordered the husband to maintain life insurance on his life for the benefit of the wife and the parties' two minor daughters ("the children"). In appeal no. 2160860, Andrew L. McGee, Terry L. Mock, and Bruce Gordon, the attorneys who represented the husband in the divorce action, seek review of the trial court's judgment insofar as it ordered them or the husband to pay fees charged by the wife's expert witness.

Procedural History

In April 2015, the husband sued the wife for a divorce; thereafter, the wife counterclaimed for a divorce. At the wife's behest, the trial court appointed a guardian ad litem for the children. The action was tried on September 7, 2016; October 6, 2016; November 1, 2016; February 16, 2017; and February 24, 2017. On April 13, 2017, the trial court entered a final judgment. Among other things, the judgment dissolved the parties' marriage on the ground of incompatibility, awarded the parties joint legal custody of the children, awarded the mother "primary physical custody" of the children, and awarded the husband visitation that would result in the children's being in his care approximately one-half of the time. In addition, the judgment provided, in pertinent part:

"5. CHILD SUPPORT. The evidence showed that the Husband receives a salary from Rohling Dental Laboratory, LLC reported on his W–2 at $96,658.22 ( [Husband]'s Ex. 17). Also, the Husband testified that over the course of any given year he would make various income draws from the business (Schedule K–1 for Partnership or S Corporation), which even in the down-year of 2016 still averaged approximately $7,000 per year, for a total annual income of $103,658.22 (or $8,638 per month). Compare [Husband]'s Ex. 18 (CS Income Affidavit dated February 23, 2017) where the Husband calculated his monthly gross income to be $8,054.83. Again, these specific income figures for the Husband are for 2016 based on gross sales of approximately $678,000 per year for Rohling Dental Laboratory, LLC, according to the trial testimony and exhibits.
"Prior to 2016, the business averaged more in gross sales. Other testimony and financial analysis prove actual average gross sales from 2010 through 2015 were $1,002,112.00. Based on average gross sales for 2010 through 2015, the Husband calculated his income at $136,572 per year or $11,381 per month (Joint Exhibit, [Husband]'s Ex. # 1 & [Wife]'s Ex. # 1, CS Income Affidavit dated September 17, 2016).
"The Wife found employment as a legal assistant with the law firm of Yates & Spry[,] reporting monthly income that varied from $2,356.00 ( [Wife]'s Ex. 10) to $2,513.00 ( [Wife]'s Ex. 11) per month. The Wife lost her job with that firm while this matter was pending, then was hired by Attorney Gary Wilkinson at a rate of $1,733.00 per month ( [Wife]'s Ex. 25).
"This Court finds that the amount of income of $11,381.00 per month is properly attributed to the Husband based on the totality of testimony and evidence at trial. For purposes of the child support calculation, this Court defaults to the amount provable for five (5) of the past six (6) years, as opposed to calculating the child support obligation based on the anomaly of 2016. Further, using empirical data from 2010 through 2015 to calculate the Husband's income ( [Husband]'s Ex. 1) takes into account his discretion to make income draws as he sees fit, thereby allowing him to adjust his weekly or monthly income at will.
"The Wife's income, on the other hand, is $1,733.00 per month.
"Health Insurance for the children is paid directly through the Husband's business as a business expense and, based on the testimony at trial, should not be deducted from the child support calculation as part of the Husband's income or salary from the business. To do so would represent a deviation from well-established pattern and practice. Multiple CS–42 Child–Support Guidelines forms and income affidavits were admitted into evidence by both parties, and at no time did either party claim any manner of ‘health-insurance costs’ (line 6) to offset the amount of child support owed. Because the insurance is a benefit of the Husband's employment that he does not directly pay, the premium is not included for purposes of Rule 32 Child Support calculation.
"Therefore, the Husband shall pay to the Wife as child support ... the sum of Fifteen Hundred Fifty Dollars and No/100 ($1,550.00) per month, commencing on the 1st day of May, 2017 ....
"6. CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGE. After the Husband filed his Petition for Divorce, the parties continued to jointly occupy the marital residence. The Wife moved out of the marital residence and established her own residence on or about July 9, 2016. The Husband remained to make repairs and provide upkeep to the marital residence to facilitate sale of the home and division of their home's equity, which was accomplished ....
"Therefore, based on the facts and evidence, the Husband owes retroactive child support from July 2016 through April 2017 (ten months) in the amount of $15,500.00. The retroactive child support shall be paid at the rate of Five Hundred Dollars and No/100 ($500.00) per month, beginning April 15, 2017. ...
"The total amount of child support due each month is $2,050.00 beginning May 1, 2017, and then on the 1st day of each month thereafter until the arrearage is paid in full.
"7. HEALTH INSURANCE. The [husband] shall continue to provide major medical health insurance coverage for the minor children. ...
"8. ST. JOSEPH SCHOOL TUITION. The [parties' younger] child ... currently attends St. Joseph School. By the testimony of both parties and the recommendation of the Guardian Ad Litem ..., it is in the best interest of the [parties' younger] child ... to remain in her present school environment at St. Joseph School. The Husband testified that he is willing to continue to pay the tuition for [the parties' younger child] to attend St. Joseph School. Therefore, based on express consent and agreement to pay by the Husband, the Husband shall continue to pay the tuition for [the parties' younger child] to attend St. Joseph School for so long as [she] attends St. Joseph School, which goes through 8th grade. At which point, the parties intend for both children to attend Florence City Schools.
"....
"13. DEBTS. Each party shall be responsible for any and all debts in their sole name, free and clear of any contribution from the other party, unless specifically addressed. The indebtedness from the marriage assigned to each party was based on testimony at trial where each party agreed to assume the debts assigned.
"The Husband, by consent and agreement from his testimony, shall be responsible for the remaining balances owed on the following debts:
"A) Bank Independent Mortgage (related to Rohling Properties, LLC)
"B) Best Buy credit card ...
"C) Lowe's credit card ...
"D) BBVA Compass Bank card ... (1990 Regal Valanti Boat Loan) ($11,000.00)
"E) Fifth Third Bank secured by the 2010 Lincoln Navigator ($13,500.00)
"F) Bank of America credit card ... ($22,000.00)
"G) U.S. Government for any unpaid tax obligation, specifically $22,000.00 for tax year 2014 and $6,000.00 for 2015 related to the Husband using monies from 401(k) or other retirement accounts for business operations
"....
"The Wife, by consent and agreement from her testimony at trial, shall be responsible for the remaining balances owed on the following debts ( [Wife's] Ex. 17):
"A) Belk credit card ... ($1,721.54)
"B) Sears Premier Card ... ($1,593.69)
"C) Bank of America Visa credit card ... ($7,811.73)
"D) Advantage Mastercard (American Aviator) ... ($1,480.00)
"E) Loft Clothing Store (Loveloft) credit card ....
"....
"16. BOAT. The Husband is awarded all right, title, and interest in and to the 1990 Regal Villante Boat ... (‘boat’) and, based on the trial testimony of both parties, the boat shall be sold as soon as reasonably possible. All proceeds from sale of the boat shall be applied to the debt obligations assumed by the Husband, beginning with BBVA Compass Bank card ... (1990 Regal Valanti Boat Loan) ($11,000.00)
"....
"17. LIFE INSURANCE. The Husband at his expense shall maintain the current life insurance policy on his life with Northwestern Mutual with a death benefit of $1,000,000.00 payable to the Wife as primary beneficiary and payable to the parties' children in equal amounts as secondary co-beneficiaries. ... After the Husband has paid in full the amounts required of him in Paragraph 20 of this Final Decree, then he shall be entitled to reduce the death benefit to $500,000.00, and the death benefit shall be maintained in full force and effect so long as child support and/or periodic alimony is payable by the Husband under the terms of this Final Decree.
"....
"18. PERIODIC ALIMONY. The Husband shall pay to the Wife as periodic alimony the sum of Eight Hundred Dollars and no/100 ($800.00) per month commencing on the 1st day of May, 2017 and on the 1st day of each month thereafter
...
5 cases
Document | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals – 2020
Horne-Ballard v. Ballard
"...opinion in this action. In making her argument on this issue, the wife urges this court to reexamine the holding of Rohling v. Rohling, 266 So. 3d 51 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018). In that case, the husband argued, among other things, that the trial court in that case had erred in accepting into ev..."
Document | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals – 2020
A.M. v. M.G.M.
"...this court has observed that such a calculation is a reliable basis for determining the value of a business. See Rohling v. Rohling, 266 So. 3d 51, 70 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018). Moreover, in Blasdel v. Blasdel, 110 So. 3d 865, 872 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012), this court observed, in pertinent part, t..."
Document | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals – 2020
Horne-Ballard v. Ballard
"...opinion in this action. In making her argument on this issue, the wife urges this court to reexamine the holding of Rohling v. Rohling, 266 So. 3d 51 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018). In that case, the husband argued, among other things, that the trial court in that case had erred in accepting into ev..."
Document | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals – 2019
Bittick v. Bittick
"...court is not required to deviate from the child-support guidelines merely because it has awarded joint custody. Rohling v. Rohling, 266 So. 3d 51, 66 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018). We see no reason to require a trial court exercising its discretion in setting a child-support obligation in a case in..."
Document | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals – 2020
Klamer v. Klamer
"...available."The Court now turns its attention to the valuation of [the] Husband's business, Medicare Advantage Specialists (‘MAS’). In Rohling v. Rohling, (Ala. Civ. App. 2018), the Court of Civil Appeals specifically addressed the issue of calculation engagements in regards to their admissi..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals – 2020
Horne-Ballard v. Ballard
"...opinion in this action. In making her argument on this issue, the wife urges this court to reexamine the holding of Rohling v. Rohling, 266 So. 3d 51 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018). In that case, the husband argued, among other things, that the trial court in that case had erred in accepting into ev..."
Document | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals – 2020
A.M. v. M.G.M.
"...this court has observed that such a calculation is a reliable basis for determining the value of a business. See Rohling v. Rohling, 266 So. 3d 51, 70 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018). Moreover, in Blasdel v. Blasdel, 110 So. 3d 865, 872 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012), this court observed, in pertinent part, t..."
Document | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals – 2020
Horne-Ballard v. Ballard
"...opinion in this action. In making her argument on this issue, the wife urges this court to reexamine the holding of Rohling v. Rohling, 266 So. 3d 51 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018). In that case, the husband argued, among other things, that the trial court in that case had erred in accepting into ev..."
Document | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals – 2019
Bittick v. Bittick
"...court is not required to deviate from the child-support guidelines merely because it has awarded joint custody. Rohling v. Rohling, 266 So. 3d 51, 66 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018). We see no reason to require a trial court exercising its discretion in setting a child-support obligation in a case in..."
Document | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals – 2020
Klamer v. Klamer
"...available."The Court now turns its attention to the valuation of [the] Husband's business, Medicare Advantage Specialists (‘MAS’). In Rohling v. Rohling, (Ala. Civ. App. 2018), the Court of Civil Appeals specifically addressed the issue of calculation engagements in regards to their admissi..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex