Rel: November 21, 2025
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2025-2026 _________________________
CL-2025-0216 _________________________
Johnny Morris Young, Jr.
v.
Michelle Morace Young
_________________________
CL-2025-0253 _________________________
Appeals from Baldwin Circuit Court (DR-21-900077) CL-2025-0216 and CL-2025-0253
MOORE, Presiding Judge.
In appeal number CL-2025-0216, Johnny Morris Young, Jr. ("the
husband"), appeals from a judgment entered by the Baldwin Circuit
Court ("the trial court") divorcing him from Michelle Morace Young ("the
wife"). In appeal number CL-2025-0253, the wife cross-appeals from that
same judgment. In both appeals, we reverse the trial court's judgment
and remand the case for the trial court to make those findings necessary
to comply with Ala. Code 1975, § 30-2-57(a) and (b).
Procedural History
On October 25, 2024, the trial court entered a judgment divorcing
the parties. In the judgment, the trial court, among other things, divided
the parties' considerable marital estate and awarded the wife periodic
alimony. Regarding the alimony award, the divorce judgment provides:
"Due to length of marriage and adultery on part of the [h]usband, the
[h]usband shall pay to the [w]ife the total sum of $2,500.00 per month in
the form of periodic alimony until such time as the [w]ife remarries,
cohabitates, or dies or the [h]usband dies[,] whichever comes first."
On November 22, 2024, the husband filed a postjudgment motion.
He asserted, among other things, that, in awarding alimony to the wife,
2 CL-2025-0216 and CL-2025-0253
the trial court failed to comply with § 30-2-57. The wife also timely filed
a postjudgment motion. On December 15, 2024, a hearing was conducted
on the parties' postjudgment motions. On January 28, 2025, the wife's
counsel, as directed by the trial court, filed a proposed order on the
parties' postjudgment motions based on the trial-court judge's
statements at the December 15, 2024, hearing. On February 3, 2025, the
husband filed a response to the proposed order in which he asserted,
among other things, that he had "objected to the periodic alimony
[awarded] and [had] complained that the [trial court had] failed to comply
with [§] 30-2-57… in its award of alimony" and that "[t]he [trial court]
made no mention of that in its order"; the husband later submitted a
proposed order on the parties' postjudgment motions. On February 14,
2025, the trial court entered an order on the parties' postjudgment
motions in which it made certain amendments to the divorce judgment,
none of which addressed the alimony award.
On March 25, 2025, the husband filed his notice of appeal to this
court. On April 8, 2025, the wife filed her notice of cross-appeal. See
Rule 4(a)(2), Ala. R. App. P. This court entered an order consolidating
the parties' appeals ex mero motu.
3 CL-2025-0216 and CL-2025-0253
Issues
In his appeal, the husband argues, among other things, that the
trial court erred in awarding alimony to the wife without complying with
§ 30-2-57. The wife argues in her cross-appeal that the trial court's award
of alimony is inequitable.
Discussion
We find dispositive the husband's argument that, in awarding
alimony to the wife, the trial court failed to comply with § 30-2-57.
Section 30-2-57 provides, in pertinent part:
"(a) Upon granting a divorce or legal separation, the court shall award either rehabilitative or periodic alimony as provided in subsection (b), if the court expressly finds all of the following:
"(1) A party lacks a separate estate or his or her separate estate is insufficient to enable the party to acquire the ability to preserve, to the extent possible, the economic status quo of the parties as it existed during the marriage.
"(2) The other party has the ability to supply those means without undue economic hardship.
"(3) The circumstances of the case make it equitable.
"(b) If a party has met the requirements of subsection (a), the court shall award alimony in the following priority:
4 CL-2025-0216 and CL-2025-0253
"(1) Unless the court expressly finds that rehabilitative alimony is not feasible, the court shall award rehabilitative alimony to the party for a limited duration, not to exceed five years, absent extraordinary circumstances, of an amount to enable the party to acquire the ability to preserve, to the extent possible, the economic status quo of the parties as it existed during the marriage.
"(2) In cases in which the court expressly finds that rehabilitation is not feasible, a good- faith attempt at rehabilitation fails, or good-faith rehabilitation only enables the party to partially acquire the ability to preserve, to the extent possible, the economic status quo of the parties as it existed during the marriage, the court shall award the party periodic installments of alimony for a duration and an amount to allow the party to preserve, to the extent possible, the economic status quo of the parties as it existed during the marriage as provided in subsection (g)."
The husband argues that the trial court erred by failing to make
the express findings required by § 30-2-57. He cites in support of his
argument Patrick v. Patrick, [Ms. CL-2024-0286, Nov. 22, 2024] ___ So.
3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2024), and White v. Jones, 397 So. 3d 569 (Ala. Civ.
App. 2024). In Patrick, this court reversed a divorce judgment entered
by the Madison Circuit Court that, among other things, ordered
Jonathan Patrick to pay to Morgan Patrick periodic alimony in the
amount of $1,500 per month "'for a period of thirty six (36) months or
5 CL-2025-0216 and CL-2025-0253
until the [payee] shall die, marry, or said rehabilitative alimony
terminates otherwise by law, whichever shall occur first. ' " ___ So. 3d at
___. Although neither party had argued that the judgment should be
reversed based on the Madison Circuit Court's failure to make express
findings as required by § 30-2-57(a) or (b), this court noted that " ' this
court has reversed a trial court's judgment and remanded the case for it
to enter … mandated findings as to a judgment … ex mero motu. ' " ___
So. 3d at ___ (quoting Merrick v. Merrick, 352 So. 3d 770, 775 (Ala. Civ.
App. 2021)). Because the divorce judgment at issue in Patrick did not
contain the express findings that § 30-2-57(a) requires to support an
award of either periodic alimony or rehabilitative alimony and, to the
extent that an award of periodic alimony was intended, omitted an
express finding that rehabilitative alimony was not feasible, as required
in § 30-2-57(b), this court reversed the judgment and remanded the case
for the entry of a new judgment in compliance with § 30-2-57. ___ So. 3d
at ___.
In White, the Mobile Circuit Court entered a judgment of divorce
that awarded $500 per month in periodic alimony for 180 months to
Kimberly K. Jones. 397 So. 3d at 570.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Rel: November 21, 2025
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2025-2026 _________________________
CL-2025-0216 _________________________
Johnny Morris Young, Jr.
v.
Michelle Morace Young
_________________________
CL-2025-0253 _________________________
Appeals from Baldwin Circuit Court (DR-21-900077) CL-2025-0216 and CL-2025-0253
MOORE, Presiding Judge.
In appeal number CL-2025-0216, Johnny Morris Young, Jr. ("the
husband"), appeals from a judgment entered by the Baldwin Circuit
Court ("the trial court") divorcing him from Michelle Morace Young ("the
wife"). In appeal number CL-2025-0253, the wife cross-appeals from that
same judgment. In both appeals, we reverse the trial court's judgment
and remand the case for the trial court to make those findings necessary
to comply with Ala. Code 1975, § 30-2-57(a) and (b).
Procedural History
On October 25, 2024, the trial court entered a judgment divorcing
the parties. In the judgment, the trial court, among other things, divided
the parties' considerable marital estate and awarded the wife periodic
alimony. Regarding the alimony award, the divorce judgment provides:
"Due to length of marriage and adultery on part of the [h]usband, the
[h]usband shall pay to the [w]ife the total sum of $2,500.00 per month in
the form of periodic alimony until such time as the [w]ife remarries,
cohabitates, or dies or the [h]usband dies[,] whichever comes first."
On November 22, 2024, the husband filed a postjudgment motion.
He asserted, among other things, that, in awarding alimony to the wife,
2 CL-2025-0216 and CL-2025-0253
the trial court failed to comply with § 30-2-57. The wife also timely filed
a postjudgment motion. On December 15, 2024, a hearing was conducted
on the parties' postjudgment motions. On January 28, 2025, the wife's
counsel, as directed by the trial court, filed a proposed order on the
parties' postjudgment motions based on the trial-court judge's
statements at the December 15, 2024, hearing. On February 3, 2025, the
husband filed a response to the proposed order in which he asserted,
among other things, that he had "objected to the periodic alimony
[awarded] and [had] complained that the [trial court had] failed to comply
with [§] 30-2-57… in its award of alimony" and that "[t]he [trial court]
made no mention of that in its order"; the husband later submitted a
proposed order on the parties' postjudgment motions. On February 14,
2025, the trial court entered an order on the parties' postjudgment
motions in which it made certain amendments to the divorce judgment,
none of which addressed the alimony award.
On March 25, 2025, the husband filed his notice of appeal to this
court. On April 8, 2025, the wife filed her notice of cross-appeal. See
Rule 4(a)(2), Ala. R. App. P. This court entered an order consolidating
the parties' appeals ex mero motu.
3 CL-2025-0216 and CL-2025-0253
Issues
In his appeal, the husband argues, among other things, that the
trial court erred in awarding alimony to the wife without complying with
§ 30-2-57. The wife argues in her cross-appeal that the trial court's award
of alimony is inequitable.
Discussion
We find dispositive the husband's argument that, in awarding
alimony to the wife, the trial court failed to comply with § 30-2-57.
Section 30-2-57 provides, in pertinent part:
"(a) Upon granting a divorce or legal separation, the court shall award either rehabilitative or periodic alimony as provided in subsection (b), if the court expressly finds all of the following:
"(1) A party lacks a separate estate or his or her separate estate is insufficient to enable the party to acquire the ability to preserve, to the extent possible, the economic status quo of the parties as it existed during the marriage.
"(2) The other party has the ability to supply those means without undue economic hardship.
"(3) The circumstances of the case make it equitable.
"(b) If a party has met the requirements of subsection (a), the court shall award alimony in the following priority:
4 CL-2025-0216 and CL-2025-0253
"(1) Unless the court expressly finds that rehabilitative alimony is not feasible, the court shall award rehabilitative alimony to the party for a limited duration, not to exceed five years, absent extraordinary circumstances, of an amount to enable the party to acquire the ability to preserve, to the extent possible, the economic status quo of the parties as it existed during the marriage.
"(2) In cases in which the court expressly finds that rehabilitation is not feasible, a good- faith attempt at rehabilitation fails, or good-faith rehabilitation only enables the party to partially acquire the ability to preserve, to the extent possible, the economic status quo of the parties as it existed during the marriage, the court shall award the party periodic installments of alimony for a duration and an amount to allow the party to preserve, to the extent possible, the economic status quo of the parties as it existed during the marriage as provided in subsection (g)."
The husband argues that the trial court erred by failing to make
the express findings required by § 30-2-57. He cites in support of his
argument Patrick v. Patrick, [Ms. CL-2024-0286, Nov. 22, 2024] ___ So.
3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2024), and White v. Jones, 397 So. 3d 569 (Ala. Civ.
App. 2024). In Patrick, this court reversed a divorce judgment entered
by the Madison Circuit Court that, among other things, ordered
Jonathan Patrick to pay to Morgan Patrick periodic alimony in the
amount of $1,500 per month "'for a period of thirty six (36) months or
5 CL-2025-0216 and CL-2025-0253
until the [payee] shall die, marry, or said rehabilitative alimony
terminates otherwise by law, whichever shall occur first. ' " ___ So. 3d at
___. Although neither party had argued that the judgment should be
reversed based on the Madison Circuit Court's failure to make express
findings as required by § 30-2-57(a) or (b), this court noted that " ' this
court has reversed a trial court's judgment and remanded the case for it
to enter … mandated findings as to a judgment … ex mero motu. ' " ___
So. 3d at ___ (quoting Merrick v. Merrick, 352 So. 3d 770, 775 (Ala. Civ.
App. 2021)). Because the divorce judgment at issue in Patrick did not
contain the express findings that § 30-2-57(a) requires to support an
award of either periodic alimony or rehabilitative alimony and, to the
extent that an award of periodic alimony was intended, omitted an
express finding that rehabilitative alimony was not feasible, as required
in § 30-2-57(b), this court reversed the judgment and remanded the case
for the entry of a new judgment in compliance with § 30-2-57. ___ So. 3d
at ___.
In White, the Mobile Circuit Court entered a judgment of divorce
that awarded $500 per month in periodic alimony for 180 months to
Kimberly K. Jones. 397 So. 3d at 570. Subsequently, the Mobile Circuit
6 CL-2025-0216 and CL-2025-0253
Court entered an amended judgment containing the express findings
required by § 30-2-57(a). Id. at 570. This court reversed the judgment,
however, based on the Mobile Circuit Court's failure to comply with § 30-
2-57(b). Id. at 571. We stated, in pertinent part:
"The general purpose of making specific findings of fact is to allow the trial court 'to carefully review the evidence and to perfect the issues for review on appeal.' Ex parte Vaughn, 495 So. 2d 83, 87 (Ala.1986). Section 30-2-57(b)[, Ala. Code 1975,] requires a trial court that has found the general elements necessary to award alimony pursuant to § 30-2-57(a) to focus on the nature and duration of the alimony that should be awarded. The legislature evidently intended that a trial court could not award periodic alimony without first carefully reviewing the evidence to determine if rehabilitative alimony would be the more appropriate remedy. The legislature further intended that an appellate court could not assume that the trial court had impliedly made the necessary findings so that appellate review would be directed mainly to determining whether the evidence supported the express findings made by the trial court and whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding periodic alimony instead of rehabilitative alimony."
Id. Because the Mobile Circuit Court had failed to expressly find that
rehabilitative alimony was not feasible or to make any of the other
findings that would justify an award of periodic alimony rather than
rehabilitative alimony pursuant to § 30-2-57(b), we reversed the
judgment and remanded the case for the Mobile Circuit Court to make
those findings necessary to comply with § 30-2-57(b). Id.
7 CL-2025-0216 and CL-2025-0253
In the present case, the trial court did not make the express
findings required by § 30-2-57. The wife argues that the husband waived
the statutory requirements. During the postjudgment hearing, the
husband's counsel did not respond to an inquiry from the trial-court judge
regarding her classification of the alimony award; 1 however, the
husband's counsel did not thereby concede that the trial court had
complied with § 30-2-57. The husband maintained throughout the
postjudgment proceedings that the trial court had not made the express
findings necessary to support the alimony award.
The wife also argues on appeal that certain statements made by the
trial-court judge during the postjudgment hearing satisfied § 30-2-57.
Even if oral statements of a trial-court judge could be considered binding
express findings within the meaning of § 30-2-57, which we do not decide,
the trial-court judge in this case did not make any statement indicating
that she had determined that rehabilitative alimony was not feasible or
that she had decided against awarding the wife only rehabilitative
1The trial-court judge asked the parties: "Is it either one of your
positions that's about alimony that I make a specific finding or did I already do that that it's not rehabilitative on the alimony?" The wife's counsel responded: "You said permanent periodic." The trial-court judge responded: "Okay." 8 CL-2025-0216 and CL-2025-0253
alimony based on the reasons set forth in § 30-2-57(b). Like in White,
this court cannot assume that the trial court impliedly made those
necessary findings. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's judgment,
and we remand the case to the trial court with instructions that it enter
a new judgment in compliance with § 30-2-57.
Because we are reversing the judgment on this basis, we pretermit
any discussion of the remaining arguments raised by the husband and
the wife in their respective appeals. See Lopez v. Rodriguez, 379 So. 3d
455, 462 (Ala. Civ. App. 2023).
CL-2025-0216 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH
INSTRUCTIONS.
CL-2025-0253 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH
Edwards, Hanson, Fridy, and Bowden, JJ., concur.