Edward Coker “Husband” appeals an award of lump sum alimony to Angela Coker “Wife” in the trial court’s final judgment and decree of divorce, and the subsequent denial of his motion for new trial thereon.1 For the reasons that follow, we reverse that portion of the decree which awarded alimony.The evidence presented at the bench trial of this case showed that the parties were married in 1981 and separated in 2005. They have no children. Beginning in 1986, the couple resided in a mobile home they owned, located on a 154-acre tract of land owned by Husband’s family in Bartow County; they paid no rent for use of the land. At one time, the couple expected that Husband would be given a parcel of the tract containing at least five acres, but in 2001, the entire tract was conveyed to Coker Investment, LLC “the LLC”, which is owned by Husband and other members of his family. Husband owns an 8.34 percent interest in the LLC; the LLC’s only asset is the 154-acre parcel, with an appraised value of 1.2 million dollars, and Husband’s share of the LLC thus has a value of $100,800. Wife presently lives with her parents, and earns $45,000 per year in the printing industry. Husband remains in the trailer situated on the LLC property and normally earns $36,000 per year working as an excavator. However, due to lack of work, Husband’s employer does not currently pay him this amount; rather, Husband receives $500 per week to remain on standby for work opportunities. Nonetheless, the trial court determined Husband’s annual income to be $30,000, and awarded Wife lump sum alimony in the amount of $36,500, to be paid from Husband’s separate estate by October 31, 2008; the divorce decree was filed of record on July 18, 2008. The court also found that the only marital property was the mobile home, which had been appraised for $4,000 several years earlier, but had since deteriorated, and ordered that Husband pay Wife $1,500 as an equitable division of that property.
Wife stipulated that the LLC was not marital property and was not subject to equitable division. The trial court’s final judgment and decree of divorce finds Husband’s percentage interest in the LLC to be an asset of his separate estate. No evidence was presented that Husband had other assets. In the divorce decree, the trial court specifically found that Husband’s interest in the LLC cannot be transferred.2 Other than the couple having been allowed to live on the property without paying rent, and Husband having been allowed to continue to do so, there was no evidence that any member of Husband’s family assisted him financially. Accordingly, the undisputed evidence before the trial court was that Husband’s separate estate consisted solely of an asset that could not be transferred or otherwise converted into cash, and a $500 a week income. Nonetheless, the trial court ordered that, from that separate estate, Husband must pay $36,500, in the space of three-and-a-half months.
