From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cook v. Cook

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
Aug 11, 2006
949 So. 2d 145 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006)

Opinion

No. 2040079.

January 6, 2006. Rehearing Denied August 11, 2006.

Appeal from Houston Circuit Court (DR-03-840); Charles L. Little, Judge.

David K. Hogg of Merrill, Harrison Adams, Dothan, for appellant.

Valerie D. Judah, Dothan, for appellee.


AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.

See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(C), Ala. R.App. P.; Rule 45, Ala. R.App. P.; Ex parte O'Daniel, 515 So.2d 1250 (Ala. 1987); Johnson v. Langley, 495 So.2d 1061 (Ala. 1986); Harmon v. Harmon, 928 So.2d 295 (Ala.Civ.App. 2005); Green v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 906 So.2d 961, 963 (Ala.Civ.App. 2005); Walls v. Walls, 860 So.2d 352 (Ala.Civ.App. 2003); Baggett v. Baggett, 855 So.2d 556 (Ala.Civ.App. 2003); Parrish v. Parrish, 617 So.2d 1036 (Ala.Civ.App. 1993).

The appellant's and appellee's requests for attorney's fees on appeal are denied.

CRAWLEY, P.J., and PITTMAN, J., concur.

THOMPSON, J., dissents, with writing, which MURDOCK, J., joins.


I must respectfully dissent. I note that although the trial court purported to award the wife one-half of the husband's retirement benefits that had been accumulated during the parties' 20-year marriage, that award was a nullity. See Crawford v. Crawford, 876 So.2d 1167, 1168 (Ala.Civ.App. 2003) ("an award . . . [of] Tier I [railroad retirement] benefits is prohibited by federal law"). After careful consideration, I have concluded that the property division, even if it properly included those Tier I railroad retirement benefits, disproportionately favors the husband and is inequitable.

MURDOCK, J., concurs.


Summaries of

Cook v. Cook

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
Aug 11, 2006
949 So. 2d 145 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006)
Case details for

Cook v. Cook

Case Details

Full title:Caroline COOK v. George COOK

Court:Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Date published: Aug 11, 2006

Citations

949 So. 2d 145 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006)