Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 So. 3d 1042

Docket 2070164.

Stuart v. Stuart

John B. STUART v. Brenda B. STUART.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Decided June 13, 2008.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · decided 2008-06-13

Relies on 671 So. 2d 710 - Kiefer v. Kiefer · 784 So. 2d 299 - Bush v. Bush · 950 So. 2d 1098 - Brabham v. Brabham

Decided 2008-06-13

¶1John B. Stuart, pro se.

¶2W. Donald Bolton, Jr., Foley; and Oliver J. Latour, Jr., Foley, for appellee.

¶3BRYAN, Judge.

¶4AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.

¶5See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(C), Ala. R.App. P.; Bush v. Bush,784 So.2d 299, 300 (Ala.Civ.App.2000); Kiefer v. Kiefer,671 So.2d 710, 711 (Ala.Civ.App.1995); and Bridges v. Bridges,607 So.2d 289, 290 (Ala.Civ.App.1992).

¶6THOMPSON, P.J., and PITTMAN, J., concur.

¶7*1043 MOORE, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with writing, which THOMAS, J., joins.

¶8MOORE, Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

¶9I concur with the no-opinion affirmance with regard to the denial of John B. Stuart's petition to modify his periodic-alimony obligation. I dissent, however, from the no-opinion affirmance with regard to the trial court's denial of a credit to Stuart for his mistaken overpayment of alimony, because I believe that Stuart proved his entitlement to a credit and that the trial court's denial of that credit is inequitable. See generally DeBlanc v. Mitchell,368 So.2d 1138, 1139 (La.Ct.App. 1979), and Brabham v. Brabham,950 So.2d 1098, 1103 (Miss.Ct.App.2007).

¶10THOMAS, J., concurs.

/1/so3d/1042 · .json · Public domain