
    Caroline COOK v. George COOK.
    2040079.
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    Jan. 6, 2006.
    Rehearing Denied Aug. 11, 2006.
    David K. Hogg of Merrill, Harrison & Adams, Dothan, for appellant.
    Valerie D. Judah, Dothan, for appellee.
   BRYAN, Judge.

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.

THOMPSON, Judge,

dissenting.

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.  