Rabion v. Rabion

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Rabion v. Rabion

551 So. 2d 1080, 1989 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 281, 1989 WL 100561

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama

DecidedAugust 30, 1989

DocketCiv. 7037

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 551 So. 2d 1080 (Rabion v. Rabion) 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

Rabion v. Rabion, 551 So. 2d 1080, 1989 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 281, 1989 WL 100561 (Ala. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBERTSON, Judge.

This is a divorce case.

After 42 years of marriage, the husband filed for divorce on the grounds of incompatibility and requested that the trial court make an equitable distribution of the marital assets. After receiving ore tenus evidence, the court divorced the parties on February 15, 1989. The court ordered, inter alia, that the husband pay $400 monthly [1081]*1081periodic alimony to the wife. The wife’s post-trial motion was denied and she appeals.

The single issue the wife raises on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding her only $400 per month periodic alimony.

At the outset, we note our limited standard of review in divorce cases where the trial court receives ore tenus evidence. The judgment of the trial court is presumed correct and will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is plainly and palpably wrong or unjust. Lucero v. Lucero, 485 So.2d 347 (Ala.Civ.App.1986). It is well settled that the matter of which the wife complains, periodic alimony, lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Brannon v. Brannon, 477 So.2d 445 (Ala.Civ.App.1985).

In its final judgment of divorce, the trial court noted many factors it considered in making its alimony award. The factors included the ages and health of the parties, their financial circumstances and standard of living, the length of the marriage, the conduct of the parties, and the potential earning ability of the parties. These factors have been recognized as appropriate factors to be considered. Brannon, supra; and Echols v. Echols, 459 So.2d 910 (Ala.Civ.App.1984).

The cases are legion on this subject and it would contribute nothing to existing law to supply a detailed summary of the facts in this appeal. Suffice it to say that after thoroughly reviewing the record in this appeal with the attendant legal presumptions, we are not persuaded that the trial court abused its discretion in making the alimony award. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is due to be affirmed.

The husband’s request for attorney’s fee in this appeal is denied.

AFFIRMED.

INGRAM, P.J., and RUSSELL, J., concur.

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

ROBERTSON, Judge.

This is a divorce case.

After 42 years of marriage, the husband filed for divorce on the grounds of incompatibility and requested that the trial court make an equitable distribution of the marital assets. After receiving ore tenus evidence, the court divorced the parties on February 15, 1989. The court ordered, inter alia, that the husband pay $400 monthly [1081]*1081periodic alimony to the wife. The wife’s post-trial motion was denied and she appeals.

The single issue the wife raises on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding her only $400 per month periodic alimony.

At the outset, we note our limited standard of review in divorce cases where the trial court receives ore tenus evidence. The judgment of the trial court is presumed correct and will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is plainly and palpably wrong or unjust. Lucero v. Lucero, 485 So.2d 347 (Ala.Civ.App.1986). It is well settled that the matter of which the wife complains, periodic alimony, lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Brannon v. Brannon, 477 So.2d 445 (Ala.Civ.App.1985).

In its final judgment of divorce, the trial court noted many factors it considered in making its alimony award. The factors included the ages and health of the parties, their financial circumstances and standard of living, the length of the marriage, the conduct of the parties, and the potential earning ability of the parties. These factors have been recognized as appropriate factors to be considered. Brannon, supra; and Echols v. Echols, 459 So.2d 910 (Ala.Civ.App.1984).

The cases are legion on this subject and it would contribute nothing to existing law to supply a detailed summary of the facts in this appeal. Suffice it to say that after thoroughly reviewing the record in this appeal with the attendant legal presumptions, we are not persuaded that the trial court abused its discretion in making the alimony award. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is due to be affirmed.

The husband’s request for attorney’s fee in this appeal is denied.

AFFIRMED.

INGRAM, P.J., and RUSSELL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

551 So. 2d 1080, 1989 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 281, 1989 WL 100561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rabion-v-rabion-alacivapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack