Marsh v. Marsh

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Marsh v. Marsh

612 So. 2d 494, 1992 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 499, 1992 WL 282078

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama

DecidedOctober 16, 1992

Docket2910462

StatusPublished

This text of 612 So. 2d 494 (Marsh v. Marsh) 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

Marsh v. Marsh, 612 So. 2d 494, 1992 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 499, 1992 WL 282078 (Ala. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBERTSON, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from a proceeding to modify a divorce decree.

The husband contends on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to retroactively terminate the husband’s alimony obligation.

Our supreme court has held, and it is well-settled law in this state, that past-due installments of alimony “become a debt of record, a vested estate of the wife beyond the power of the court to destroy, whatever the hardship to the petitioner. The trial court’s jurisdiction to modify the decree is limited to its prospective operation.” Whitt v. Whitt, 276 Ala. 685, 688,166 So.2d 413, 416 (1964). See also Cartron v. Cartron, 565 So.2d 656 (Ala.Civ.App.1990); Waltman v. Waltman, 528 So.2d 867 (Ala.Civ.App.1988). The judgment is affirmed.

Due to the hardships suffered by the husband, the wife’s request for an attorney’s fee is denied.

AFFIRMED.

THIGPEN and RUSSELL, JJ., concur.

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

ROBERTSON, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from a proceeding to modify a divorce decree.

The husband contends on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to retroactively terminate the husband’s alimony obligation.

Our supreme court has held, and it is well-settled law in this state, that past-due installments of alimony “become a debt of record, a vested estate of the wife beyond the power of the court to destroy, whatever the hardship to the petitioner. The trial court’s jurisdiction to modify the decree is limited to its prospective operation.” Whitt v. Whitt, 276 Ala. 685, 688,166 So.2d 413, 416 (1964). See also Cartron v. Cartron, 565 So.2d 656 (Ala.Civ.App.1990); Waltman v. Waltman, 528 So.2d 867 (Ala.Civ.App.1988). The judgment is affirmed.

Due to the hardships suffered by the husband, the wife’s request for an attorney’s fee is denied.

AFFIRMED.

THIGPEN and RUSSELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

612 So. 2d 494, 1992 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 499, 1992 WL 282078, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marsh-v-marsh-alacivapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack