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.

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.