The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has once again addressed the contentious divorce proceedings between Jonathan Patrick (the husband) and Morgan Patrick (the wife), affirming the trial court’s amended judgment concerning property division and rehabilitative alimony. This marks the second time the parties have appeared before the appellate court in this case stemming from the Madison Circuit Court.
The initial appeal resulted in a reversal of the alimony award and property division because the trial court failed to include the necessary factual findings required by Alabama Code § 30-2-57. On remand, the trial court issued an amended judgment, maintaining the same financial awards but adding the requisite findings to support the rehabilitative alimony. The husband, representing himself, appealed the amended ruling, but the appellate court ultimately affirmed the judgment.
Background of Marital Discord and Addiction
The couple married in 2013 and share an eight-year-old child. The divorce action began in January 2023. Testimony at trial painted a stark picture of the marriage breakdown, heavily influenced by the wife’s documented struggles with alcohol abuse.
The husband testified that he only became aware of the wife’s drinking problem after she moved to Alabama. The wife acknowledged having an “alcohol problem,” admitting to recent hospitalization for detoxification and a history of alcohol-related health issues, including pancreatitis. She conceded drinking between one and a half to two pints of alcohol daily. Furthermore, the wife was evasive regarding court-ordered alcohol testing, claiming she lacked funds to comply.
The wife attempted to shift some blame, alleging the husband “enabled” her by purchasing alcohol, though she also admitted to having “inappropriate” relationships, including “sexting” and sexual encounters with two men she met online—one in Germany (D.H.) and one in Finland (J.L.).
The husband, who holds a master’s degree and works at the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) earning approximately $178,000 annually, claimed he only purchased alcohol for the wife after she asked him to help her “taper off” or when she threatened to damage his property.
Property Division and Alimony Details
The trial court granted the husband sole legal and physical custody of the child, awarding the wife supervised visitation, with both parties splitting the supervision costs.
In the property division, the husband received the marital residence (valued by the court at $270,000), the 2015 Kia Sedona, and a 2019 Honda Insight. He was made solely responsible for the mortgage debt on the house and the outstanding loans on both vehicles. The wife was awarded a fully paid-for 2021 Kia Sorento and all personal property in her possession.
Crucially, the court ordered the husband to pay the wife half of the home’s equity, amounting to $25,730.55. Additionally, the wife was awarded 25% of the portion of the husband’s Retirement Systems of Alabama (RSA) account earned during the marriage.
The trial court also ordered the husband to pay the wife $1,500 per month in “rehabilitative alimony” for 36 months, finding that the wife lacked a sufficient separate estate and that the husband had the ability to pay without undue hardship.
Appellate Review: House Valuation and Financial Burden
On appeal, the husband raised several key arguments. First, he contested the $270,000 valuation of the marital home, arguing the trial court improperly relied on the testimony of the wife’s real estate expert, who had not physically inspected the property. The Court of Civil Appeals disagreed, noting that the husband failed to object to the testimony at trial. Furthermore, the court pointed out that it could not reweigh the evidence, and the trial court may have relied solely on the wife’s own testimony valuing the home between $260,000 and $270,000.
The husband’s more significant contention involved the overall financial impact of the judgment. He calculated that the required payments—alimony, visitation fees, debt assumption, and the equity buyout—would leave him with only about $1,068 per month after covering basic expenses, potentially pushing him near the poverty level.
However, the appellate court scrutinized the husband’s financial projections. Based on his net monthly income of $9,202.38, the court found that the required payments ($1,500 alimony plus half the visitation costs, about $190) left him with roughly 70% of his income to cover his own expenses. The court concluded that the evidence did not support the claim of undue financial hardship, noting that the husband’s calculation seemed to overstate the burden or neglect to account for the significant assets he retained, particularly his RSA account balance of over $63,000.
The court also noted that during the original trial, the husband had stated he was “willing to take all of that debt, whatever it amounts to,” suggesting he may have invited the error regarding debt allocation.
Adultery and Final Conclusion
The husband also challenged the trial court’s decision to grant the divorce on the grounds of “incompatibility of temperament” rather than the wife’s admitted adultery. The appellate court determined that a trial judge is not obligated to grant a divorce on the grounds of adultery if other evidence supports the finding. Since the record supported the trial court’s consideration of the adultery evidence when dividing property and awarding alimony, the court found no palpable error in basing the divorce on incompatibility.
Ultimately, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the amended judgment, concluding the husband failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in its determinations.
Notably, Judge Bowden filed a dissent, arguing that the combined financial obligations imposed on the husband consumed 85% of his net monthly income when considering all obligations, including child tuition and uncontested living expenses, which she argued constituted “undue economic hardship.”