from Baldwin Circuit Court (DR-14-900216)
Blanc Swift ("the wife") appeals from a judgment
entered by the Baldwin Circuit Court ("the trial
court") divorcing her from David Dauphin Swift, Sr.
("the husband"), to the extent that the judgment
divided the parties' property. We affirm in part and
reverse in part.
February 24, 2014, the wife filed a complaint seeking a
divorce from the husband. The husband answered the complaint
on February 28, 2014.
trial, the trial court entered a judgment on November 18,
2016, divorcing the parties; ordering the husband to pay the
wife $5, 000 per month in periodic alimony; awarding the
husband the parties' boat, all his business interests,
the vehicles in his possession, the parties' house
located in Lillian ("the Lillian house"), and the
contents of the Lillian house, with the exception of any
items inherited from the wife's family; and awarding the
wife the parties' condominium located in Fairhope
("the Fairhope condo"), the contents of the
Fairhope condo, with the exception of any items inherited
from the husband's family, certain real property owned by
the parties located in Conecuh County ("the Conecuh
County property"), and the vehicles in her possession.
The parties were ordered to divide their United Bank shares,
with the husband receiving 90% of the total shares and the
wife receiving the remaining 10%, and "[a]ll retirement
accounts, investment accounts, annuities, IRAs, and other
accounts, " with the wife receiving 35% of the funds in
those accounts and the husband receiving the remaining 65%.
The husband was ordered to "maintain in full force and
effect a policy of insurance on his life, with [the wife
named] as beneficiary in a benefit amount of no less than
$350, 000." Finally, the divorce judgment provided:
"12. Any personal property not otherwise disposed of by
this Order shall be equally divided between the parties. If
the parties cannot mutually agree upon such division, the
parties shall compile a list of all such unresolved items.
The husband shall have first choice of one item, the wife the
next choice of one item, with this process continuing until
all items are selected."
December 16, 2016, the wife filed a motion titled
"Motion to Alter Amend or Vacate Pursuant to Rule 59[,
Ala. R. Civ. P.]." On February 14, 2017, the trial court
entered an order granting the wife's motion in part and
stating, in pertinent part:
"Specifically, with regard to the personal property of
the parties, each party is to receive any and all items that
were given to them or inherited from his or her own family
members and the joint personal property that was acquired
during the marriage as wedding presents or specific items of
sentimental value are to be divided equally. If the parties
cannot mutually agree upon such division, the parties shall
compile a list of all such unresolved items. The husband
shall have first choice of one item, the wife the next choice
of one item, with this process continuing until all items are
March 21, 2017, the wife filed her notice of appeal to this
court. That appeal was docketed as appeal no. 2160470. This
court subsequently dismissed that appeal as being from a
nonfinal judgment. See Swift v. Swift (No. 2160470,
Aug. 1, 2017), ___ So.3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2017) (table).
August 2, 2017, the wife filed a motion for clarification and
a separate motion requesting the trial court to award her the
property set forth on a list attached to the motion or to set
the matter for a hearing. The husband filed responses to both
August 21, 2017, this court issued the certificate of
judgment in Swift. On September 28, 2017, the trial
court entered an order stating, in pertinent part, that
"[t]he Husband shall receive any and all property
located in the Lillian House and any property that is
currently in his possession" and "[t]he Wife shall
receive any and all property located in the Fairhope condo
and any property that is currently in her possession."
On October 4, 2017, the wife filed her notice of appeal.
husband testified that the parties had married on December 6,
1975, and that they had had two children together, both of
whom were adults at the time of the trial.
to the husband, his annual income from all sources in 2014
was $358, 570. He testified that the parties' income had
been derived primarily from his employment with Swift Supply,
Inc., a corporation that sells lumber and building materials.
At the time of the trial, the husband owned 10% of the shares
of Swift Supply and was the chairman of the board of that
company. He testified that his base salary is $142, 000. The
husband also owns a one-third interest in Palustris Products,
LLP, which owns a one-half interest in various timberlands
and tracts of real property, as well as a one-half interest
in Swift Lumber, Inc. The husband's two brothers own the
remaining two-thirds interest in Palustris. The husband
testified that Palustris is a longtime Swift family asset.
The husband also testified that he owns a one-third interest
in Swift Brothers, LLC, which owns certain timberland, as
well as a one-half interest in a house in Baldwin County, and
that his two brothers own the remaining two-thirds interest
in Swift Brothers. The husband testified that his interest in
Swift Brothers had been inherited.
husband testified that he had been the chairman of the board
of United Bank ("the bank") for approximately 15
years and had been on the board for several years before he
began serving as the chairman. He receives fees of $28, 000
per year as a result of his position as chairman of the board
of United Bank. He testified that he owns 31, 772 shares in
the bank, that the wife owns 8, 217 shares, and that Swift
Brothers owns shares as well. He testified that the shares
were valued at $8.01 per share at the time of the trial.
According to an exhibit introduced by the husband, he had
inherited all but 4, 079 of his total bank shares; therefore,
using the value of $8.01 per share, the value of the
husband's inherited shares is $221, 820.93 of the
parties' $320, ...