Jimmy Woods v. Linda F. Woods

THIGPEN, Judge Following a marriage of approximately two years, Linda F. Woods and Jimmy Woods divorced on the grounds of
incompatibility. The trial court, inter alia, divided the parties' personal property, and awarded the wife $18,000 as alimony
in gross and $750 in attorney fees. The husband appeals, contending that the trial court erred in allowing the introduction
of certain checks which were not produced pursuant to the parties' pre-trial discovery motions, and that the trial court abused
its discretion in its awards of alimony in gross and attorney fees. Where a party fails to provide or permit discovery ordered by a court, the choice of sanctions to be imposed is largely within
the discretion of the trial court, and this choice will not be disturbed on appeal absent a gross abuse of that discretion.
Tucker v. Tucker, 416 So. 2d 1053 (Ala. Civ. App. 1982). In the instant case, each party sought to compel the other to permit
inspection and copying of all documents intended to be used at the trial. The husband responded that "the cancelled checks
are so voluminous and of such a great number that it would be impracticable, expensive, burdensome and inequitable for the
[husband] to produce the same; however, copies of the checks are available at the [husband's] attorney's office at all reasonable
times." It is significant to note that the evidence deemed objectionable and prejudicial to the husband was from the parties'
joint account, that they were either issued by him or at his request, and that they had been in his possession prior to trial,
but were considered too voluminous to copy. Copies of the documents were obtained from the bank and were used by the wife
during trial. In this case, we hold that the Judge did not err in failing to sanction the wife. The fact that the husband
had access to his own copies of the checks convinces us that there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.
See Eady v. Friese Materials Corp., 567 So. 2d 857 (Ala. 1990).