Dunnam v. Dunnam

381 So. 2d 654
CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama
DecidedMarch 19, 1980
DocketCiv. 2070
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 381 So. 2d 654 (Dunnam v. Dunnam) 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
Dunnam v. Dunnam, 381 So. 2d 654 (Ala. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

This is a divorce case.

The Circuit Court of Houston County divorced the parties and ordered the husband to pay the wife periodic alimony of $150 per month. In addition, the husband was required to pay the reasonable medical expense of the wife. The trial court also awarded the wife's attorney a fee. The husband appeals, contending the trial court abused its discretion in the award to the wife. We find no abuse of discretion and affirm.

We do not deem it necessary or prudent to set out in detail the facts as presented at the ore tenus hearing before the trial judge. Suffice it to say the following is pertinent.

The parties were married for over twenty-five years. The wife, since the marriage, has never been employed outside the home. The record reveals that she has no readily marketable skills. Additionally, she has some health problems. The husband is retired from the military. He nets approximately $300 in retirement income. Additionally, he earns another $300 per month working two or three days a week.

Awards of this nature in a divorce case are within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal absent a showing of a manifest abuse of discretion.Malkove v. Malkove, Ala.Civ.App., 349 So.2d 52 (1977); 8 Ala. Digest Divorce Key 286 (3). *Page 655

In view of the length of the marriage, the relative earning capacity of the parties, and the wife's physical condition, we find no such abuse as to require reversal.

The wife has requested that a $400 attorney's fee be awarded for representation on appeal. A $400 fee is awarded.

The case is due to be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

WRIGHT, P.J., and BRADLEY, J., concur.

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

Related

Waldrop v. Waldrop
475 So. 2d 1202 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1985)
Ratliff v. Ratliff
465 So. 2d 427 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1985)
Keimer v. Keimer
462 So. 2d 381 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1984)
Smith v. Smith
429 So. 2d 1080 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1983)
Taylor v. Taylor
408 So. 2d 117 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
381 So. 2d 654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunnam-v-dunnam-alacivapp-1980.