Though we have often stated that the division of property and awards of alimony in divorce cases are matters within the discretion of the trial court, Waid v. Waid, 540 So.2d 764 (Ala.Civ.App. 1989); Weatherly v. Weatherly, 469 So.2d 653 (Ala.Civ.App. 1985), we have also said that such awards must not be arbitrary or unjust. Echols v. Echols, 459 So.2d 910 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984); Dees v. Dees, 390 So.2d 1060 (Ala.Civ.App. 1980); Long v. Long, 56 Ala. App. 648, 324 So.2d 789 (Ala.Civ.App. 1975). While the division of property in divorce actions need not be equal, such divisions must be equitable under the circumstances of each case. Johnson v. Johnson, 446 So.2d 622 (Ala.Civ.App. 1983); Kilpatrick v. Kilpatrick, 411 So.2d 158 (Ala.Civ.App. 1982).
In dividing marital property and awarding alimony, the trial court should consider the following factors: (1) the earning abilities of the parties; (2) their probable future prospects; (3) their ages, health, and station in life; (4) the duration of the marriage; and (5) the conduct of the parties with reference to the cause of divorce. Paulson v. Paulson, 682 So.2d 1060, 1063 (Ala.Civ.App. 1996), citing Echols v. Echols, 459 So.2d 910, 911-12 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984). The wife argues that the trial court did not consider all the required factors, specifically the earning capacities and future prospects of the parties, their ages and health, the length of the marriage, the standard of living the parties enjoyed during the marriage, and the conduct of the parties.
Further, Schado indicates that "[t]he division of property in a divorce proceeding need not be equal, but must be equitable," and that the factors "that the trial court should consider in dividing marital property and setting alimony payments include ‘(1) the earning ability of the parties; (2) their probable future prospects; (3) their age, sex, health and station in life; (4) the duration of the marriage; and (5) the conduct of the parties with reference to the cause of divorce.’ " Id. (quoting Echols v. Echols, 459 So.2d 910, 911–12 (Ala.Civ.App.1984) ). Under the judgment, the wife was awarded a total lump-sum payout of $15,000 (including the $10,000 "property settlement" and the $5,000 alimony-in-gross award), continuation medical-insurance coverage for three years, her own retirement account (which was shown to be worth approximately $34,000), her own financial accounts (which were worth approximately $29,000 but which may have included certain funds that could have been classified as the wife's separate estate), one-half of the net proceeds from the sale of the marital home (as to which the parties jointly paid $59,000 toward its acquisition in 2012) after payment of closing costs and the "property settlement," and a motor vehicle valued at approximately $8,000.
The division of property in a divorce proceeding need not be equal, but must be equitable.”Schado v. Schado, 648 So.2d 1169, 1170 (Ala.Civ.App.1994) (citations omitted; quoting Echols v. Echols, 459 So.2d 910, 911–12 (Ala.Civ.App.1984)). In addition to the factors cited in Schado, the trial court may also consider “the source, value, and type of property owned” by the parties, and it is always to be remembered that, in this area of law, “[e]ach case is decided on its own facts and circumstances.”
In fashioning a property division, the trial court considers the parties' earning abilities; their probable future prospects; their ages, health, and station in life; the duration of the marriage; and the conduct of the parties with regard to the breakdown of the marriage. Echols v. Echols, 459 So.2d 910 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984)."Roberts v. Roberts, 802 So.2d 230, 235 (Ala.Civ.App. 2001).
On appeal, issues of alimony and property division must be considered together, and the trial court's judgment will not be disturbed absent a finding that it is so unsupported by the evidence as to amount to an abuse of discretion.Id. An equitable division of marital assets is not necessarily an equal division, and the trial court is judge of what is equitable. Parrish,supra. Some factors the trial court should consider in dividing marital property and setting alimony payments include "`(1) the earning ability of the parties; (2) their probable future prospects; (3) their age, sex, health and station in life; (4) the duration of the marriage; and (5) the conduct of the parties with reference to the cause of divorce.'" Echols v. Echols, 459 So.2d 910, 911-12 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984), quoting Stewart v. Stewart, 341 So.2d 490 (Ala.Civ.App. 1977). The husband argues in his cross-appeal that the court erred in awarding a substantial portion of his retirement account to the wife, alleging that the parties did not meet the requirements of § 30-2-51, Ala. Code 1975, because they had not been married for 10 years at the time the divorce was filed.
In dividing marital property and awarding alimony, the trial court should consider the following factors: (1) the earning abilities of the parties; (2) their probable future prospects; (3) their ages, health, and station in life; (4) the duration of the marriage; and (5) the conduct of the parties with reference to the cause of divorce. Paulson v. Paulson, 682 So.2d 1060, 1063 (Ala.Civ.App. 1996), citing Echols v. Echols, 459 So.2d 910, 911-12 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984). A thorough review of the record shows more than sufficient testimony to affirm the trial court's ruling as to the property division.
Id. A property division is required to be equitable, but not necessarily equal; the trial court makes the determination of what is equitable. Duckett v. Duckett, 669 So.2d 195 (Ala.Civ.App. 1995); Parrish, supra. Some factors the trial court should consider in dividing marital property and setting alimony payments include "(1) the earning ability of the parties; (2) their probable future prospects; (3) their age, . . . health and station in life; (4) the duration of the marriage; and (5) the conduct of the parties with reference to the cause of [the] divorce." Echols v. Echols, 459 So.2d 910, 911-12 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984). The parties were married for approximately three years in the early 1970s and then were divorced. They remarried on May 26, 1976; they separated in February 1998. No children were born of either of the parties' marriages.
Id. An equitable division of marital assets is not necessarily an equal division, and the trial court is the judge of what is equitable. Parrish, supra. Some factors the trial court should consider in dividing marital property and setting alimony payments include "(1) the earning ability of the parties; (2) their probable future prospects; (3) their age, . . . health and station in life; (4) the duration of the marriage; and (5) the conduct of the parties with reference to the cause of divorce." Echols v. Echols, 459 So.2d 910, 911-12 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984). The parties are 54 years of age, and they were married for 34 years.
In fashioning a property division, the trial court considers the parties' earning abilities; their probable future prospects; their ages, health, and station in life; the duration of the marriage; and the conduct of the parties with regard to the breakdown of the marriage. Echols v. Echols, 459 So.2d 910 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984). In its judgment, the trial court awarded the wife the marital residence, valued at $135,000; one-half of the proceeds of the sale of the parties' $300,000 property in Chelsea; her personal property and a portion of the furniture in the marital residence; the vehicle she drives, subject to the indebtedness on that vehicle; and $20,000 as a property settlement.