Courtright v. Courtright

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Courtright v. Courtright

820 So. 2d 823, 2001 WL 1346482

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama

DecidedNovember 2, 2001

Docket2000682

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 820 So. 2d 823 (Courtright v. Courtright) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Courtright v. Courtright, 820 So. 2d 823, 2001 WL 1346482 (Ala. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

This is the second time these parties have been before this court. Patricia J. Courtright (the "wife") and George D. Courtright (the "husband") were divorced by a judgment of the trial court, and the wife appealed the judgment as to the property division and the award of alimony. A recitation of the pertinent facts of the first appeal is set forth in Courtright v. Courtright, 757 So.2d 453 (Ala.Civ.App. 2000) (hereinafter "Courtright I"). In Courtright I, this court reversed the trial court's judgment and instructed it, on remand, to fashion an equitable property division and alimony award. Courtright I, 757 So.2d at 457.

The trial court conducted a hearing on November 20, 2000, during which it considered new evidence. That hearing went beyond the scope of this court's remand instructions in Courtright I. See Ex parte Jones,774 So.2d 607, 608 (Ala.Civ.App. 2000) ("`[o]n remand, the issues decided by the appellate court become [the] law of the case and the trial court's duty is to comply with the appellate mandate "according to its true intent and meaning, as determined by the directions given by the reviewing court"'").

Following the hearing, on December 6, 2000, the trial court entered a judgment that revised its original divorce judgment. Because the trial court considered new evidence in fashioning its December 6, 2000, judgment on remand, we must reverse. The case is remanded for the trial court to fashion an equitable property division and alimony award based upon the evidence that was before the court at the time of its original divorce judgment. All other matters raised by the parties at the November 20, 2000, hearing fall outside the scope of this court's remand order.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Yates, P.J., and Crawley, Pittman, and Murdock, JJ., concur. *Page 824

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

This is the second time these parties have been before this court. Patricia J. Courtright (the "wife") and George D. Courtright (the "husband") were divorced by a judgment of the trial court, and the wife appealed the judgment as to the property division and the award of alimony. A recitation of the pertinent facts of the first appeal is set forth in Courtright v. Courtright, 757 So.2d 453 (Ala.Civ.App. 2000) (hereinafter "Courtright I"). In Courtright I, this court reversed the trial court's judgment and instructed it, on remand, to fashion an equitable property division and alimony award. Courtright I, 757 So.2d at 457.

The trial court conducted a hearing on November 20, 2000, during which it considered new evidence. That hearing went beyond the scope of this court's remand instructions in Courtright I. See Ex parte Jones,774 So.2d 607, 608 (Ala.Civ.App. 2000) ("`[o]n remand, the issues decided by the appellate court become [the] law of the case and the trial court's duty is to comply with the appellate mandate "according to its true intent and meaning, as determined by the directions given by the reviewing court"'").

Following the hearing, on December 6, 2000, the trial court entered a judgment that revised its original divorce judgment. Because the trial court considered new evidence in fashioning its December 6, 2000, judgment on remand, we must reverse. The case is remanded for the trial court to fashion an equitable property division and alimony award based upon the evidence that was before the court at the time of its original divorce judgment. All other matters raised by the parties at the November 20, 2000, hearing fall outside the scope of this court's remand order.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Yates, P.J., and Crawley, Pittman, and Murdock, JJ., concur. *Page 824

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

820 So. 2d 823, 2001 WL 1346482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/courtright-v-courtright-alacivapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack