Panayiotou v. Panayiotou

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Panayiotou v. Panayiotou

419 So. 2d 242, 1982 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 1285

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama

DecidedAugust 25, 1982

DocketCiv. 3224

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 419 So. 2d 242 (Panayiotou v. Panayiotou) 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

Panayiotou v. Panayiotou, 419 So. 2d 242, 1982 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 1285 (Ala. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

WRIGHT, Presiding Judge.

, This is a divorce case. The only material issue is whether the division of property and award of alimony in gross with attorney fees constituted an abuse of the discretion of the trial court.

We have carefully reviewed the evidence heard orally by the court. It discloses that the parties cohabited for some two months prior to their marriage. The marriage lasted an additional two months. The testimony of the parties as to contribution to the marriage and their financial circumstances was sharply in conflict. To relate such conflicts here would serve no precedential purpose.

This court has repeatedly said in divorce cases that the judgment of the trial court entered after oral hearing of the testimony will not be reversed on appeal unless found to be so arbitrary and unjust as to constitute an abuse of judicial discretion. Gamble v. Gamble, 53 Ala.App. 168, 298 So.2d 254, cert. denied, 292 Ala. 721, 298 So.2d 260 (1974); Goodwin v. Goodwin, 364 So.2d 678 (Ala.Civ.App.1978). We find no such abuse of discretion. Neither do we find prejudicial error in the charged violation of the best evidence rule. Having found no material error or abuse of discretion, the judgment is affirmed.

Appellee is granted a fee of $300.00 for use of her attorneys on appeal.

AFFIRMED.

BRADLEY and HOLMES, JJ., concur.

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

WRIGHT, Presiding Judge.

, This is a divorce case. The only material issue is whether the division of property and award of alimony in gross with attorney fees constituted an abuse of the discretion of the trial court.

We have carefully reviewed the evidence heard orally by the court. It discloses that the parties cohabited for some two months prior to their marriage. The marriage lasted an additional two months. The testimony of the parties as to contribution to the marriage and their financial circumstances was sharply in conflict. To relate such conflicts here would serve no precedential purpose.

This court has repeatedly said in divorce cases that the judgment of the trial court entered after oral hearing of the testimony will not be reversed on appeal unless found to be so arbitrary and unjust as to constitute an abuse of judicial discretion. Gamble v. Gamble, 53 Ala.App. 168, 298 So.2d 254, cert. denied, 292 Ala. 721, 298 So.2d 260 (1974); Goodwin v. Goodwin, 364 So.2d 678 (Ala.Civ.App.1978). We find no such abuse of discretion. Neither do we find prejudicial error in the charged violation of the best evidence rule. Having found no material error or abuse of discretion, the judgment is affirmed.

Appellee is granted a fee of $300.00 for use of her attorneys on appeal.

AFFIRMED.

BRADLEY and HOLMES, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

419 So. 2d 242, 1982 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 1285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/panayiotou-v-panayiotou-alacivapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack