The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has remanded a divorce case back to the trial court for further clarification on property valuations. This decision affects Mary Hager and Kennon Hager, who are in the midst of a contentious divorce. The court's ruling is significant as it highlights the importance of clear asset valuations in divorce proceedings.
In May 2017, Mary Hager filed for divorce from Kennon Hager in the Etowah Circuit Court. The couple's divorce trial took place over multiple days in 2023 and 2024. On December 3, 2024, the trial court issued a judgment that divorced the couple and divided their marital property. The couple owned two radiology clinics and a real estate company, which were central to the property division dispute. The valuation of these assets was heavily contested, with estimates varying widely.
Kennon Hager, a radiologist, operates Advanced Imaging Gadsden, LLC, and Advancing Imaging Alabama, LLC. The couple also co-owned 820 Properties, LLC, which owned the buildings housing the clinics. The trial court awarded Kennon the clinics and the real estate company, while Mary was awarded a total of $1.3 million in cash for her share of the businesses and property. However, the value of the assets was unclear, leading to disputes over the fairness of the division.
After the trial court's decision, Kennon filed a post-judgment motion arguing that the division of property was not equitable. He claimed that the trial court's decision to value retirement accounts as of June 30, 2022, instead of at the time of the divorce filing was unfair. He also contended that the requirement to pay Mary $1.6 million within 90 days was financially impossible. Mary responded by requesting a more equitable division of the marital assets.
The trial court issued an amended judgment, but the couple continued to contest the property division. Both parties argued that the trial court failed to provide specific findings of fact regarding the value of their main assets, which hindered their ability to appeal the decision effectively. The court ruled that the lack of clear valuations made it difficult to determine if the property division was equitable.
The court stated, "the trial court's failure to make written findings relating to the values of AIG/AIA; 820 Properties; the gun collection; and the wife's jewelry... prevents this court from determining whether the trial court's division of the marital estate is equitable." This ruling echoes previous cases where the court found that without specific findings, it could not adequately assess the fairness of a property division.
The court remanded the case to the trial court, instructing it to specify the values assigned to the contested assets, including the radiology clinics, the real estate company, and the couple's personal property. The trial court must report back to the appeals court within 28 days with the required information.
This ruling has significant implications for the Hagers and potentially for other couples going through divorce proceedings in Alabama. It underscores the necessity for trial courts to provide clear valuations of marital assets to ensure equitable property divisions. Without these valuations, disputes may prolong the divorce process and complicate appeals.
As for what happens next, the trial court will need to conduct further proceedings to determine the values of the contested assets. This remand does not preclude the possibility of further appeals once the trial court has clarified the asset valuations. The outcome of this case may set a precedent for how asset valuations are handled in future divorce cases in Alabama.