Holness v. Holness

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Holness v. Holness

578 So. 2d 1358, 1991 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 78, 1991 WL 17337

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama

DecidedFebruary 15, 1991

Docket2900096

StatusPublished

This text of 578 So. 2d 1358 (Holness v. Holness) 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

Holness v. Holness, 578 So. 2d 1358, 1991 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 78, 1991 WL 17337 (Ala. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

THIGPEN, Judge.

This is a divorce case.

After an ore tenus proceeding, the trial court divorced the parties and made a property division. After the husband’s post-trial motion was denied, he appealed.

The single issue raised by the husband in this appeal concerns the division of the property. Specifically, he argues that the [1359]*1359granting of the marital home to the wife was against the evidence in the case.

Initially we note that there is no transcript of the testimony presented to the trial court, nor was there an effort by the parties to supply a statement of the evidence pursuant to Rule 10, A.R.App.P. Further, the only authority cited by the husband, Woodham v. Woodham, 539 So.2d 293 (Ala.Civ.App.1988), supports the presumption of correctness that attaches to the trial court’s findings where evidence is presented ore tenus. He provides no other authority and gives us nothing to review on appeal.

The husband’s brief totally fails to comply with Rule 28, A.R.App.P. That failure places him in a perilous position. We are allowed to dismiss the husband’s appeal under Rule 2, A.R.App.P. Alternatively, we may affirm the judgment of the trial court. Cummins v. Slayton, 545 So.2d 783 (Ala.Civ.App.1989). Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The wife’s request for an attorney’s fee is granted in the amount of $500.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTSON, P.J., and RUSSELL, J., concur.

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

THIGPEN, Judge.

This is a divorce case.

After an ore tenus proceeding, the trial court divorced the parties and made a property division. After the husband’s post-trial motion was denied, he appealed.

The single issue raised by the husband in this appeal concerns the division of the property. Specifically, he argues that the [1359]*1359granting of the marital home to the wife was against the evidence in the case.

Initially we note that there is no transcript of the testimony presented to the trial court, nor was there an effort by the parties to supply a statement of the evidence pursuant to Rule 10, A.R.App.P. Further, the only authority cited by the husband, Woodham v. Woodham, 539 So.2d 293 (Ala.Civ.App.1988), supports the presumption of correctness that attaches to the trial court’s findings where evidence is presented ore tenus. He provides no other authority and gives us nothing to review on appeal.

The husband’s brief totally fails to comply with Rule 28, A.R.App.P. That failure places him in a perilous position. We are allowed to dismiss the husband’s appeal under Rule 2, A.R.App.P. Alternatively, we may affirm the judgment of the trial court. Cummins v. Slayton, 545 So.2d 783 (Ala.Civ.App.1989). Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The wife’s request for an attorney’s fee is granted in the amount of $500.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTSON, P.J., and RUSSELL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

578 So. 2d 1358, 1991 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 78, 1991 WL 17337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holness-v-holness-alacivapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack