Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

644 So. 2d 974

Avera v. Avera

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Decided July 29, 1994

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · decided 1994-07-29

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 2007

3 state decisions

Relies on Welch v. Welch · 634 So. 2d 533 - Ex Parte Vaughn · Fowler v. Fowler

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1994-07-29

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

THIGPEN, Judge.

¶1This divorce case involves military retirement benefits.

¶2The parties divorced in August 1993, and, inter alia, the trial court divided the assets accumulated by the parties during over 20 years of marriage. The trial court found that the assets were limited to personal effects and furniture. The judgment was silent regarding the military retirement benefits accumulated by the parties during the marriage. The wife’s post-judgment motion requested the trial court to reconsider the property division and to specifically consider the military retirement benefits accumulated during the course of the marriage as divisible marital property. After the trial court denied her post-judgment motion without a hearing, she appealed.

¶3The dispositive issue is whether the military retirement benefits, the only substantial property accumulated during the marriage, are subject to division in the divorce.

¶4This case was decided while Ex parte Vaughn, 634 So.2d 533 (Ala.1993), was pending. In that ease, our Supreme Court expressly overruled the prohibition against dividing military benefits in a divorce proceeding. Therefore, the judgment in this case must be reversed and the cause remanded for the trial court to reconsider the property division without that prohibition. See Byrd v. Byrd, 644 So.2d 31 (Ala.Civ.App.1994); Fowler v. Fowler, 636 So.2d 433 (Ala.Civ.App.1994). See also Welch v. Welch, 636 So.2d 464 (Ala.Civ.App.1994). Nothing in this opinion should be construed to mandate the division of the military retirement benefits accumulated by the parties during the course of this marriage. The trial court may take additional evidence or reconsider the evidence submitted to make its discretionary determination regarding the property division.

¶5REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

ROBERTSON, P.J., and YATES, J., concur.
/644/so2d/974 · .json · Public domain