star-pagination">*Page 974 salary but he does not foresee ever being able to earn more than $15,000 to $20,000 a year above his expenses in Hartselle. He contends that the $800 per month alimony payment amounts to two-thirds of his projected net income and greatly exceeds his present earnings.

The supreme court said in Whittle v. Whittle, 272 Ala. 32, 34,128 So.2d 92, 93 (1961):

"The granting or denying of an application for modification of a decree of alimony or maintenance on the ground of a change in the financial circumstances or needs of a party rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and an order denying modification will not be disturbed on review unless that discretion has been abused." (Citations omitted.)

The burden of proving a change in the financial circumstances of a party as a basis for modifying an alimony award is on the party seeking such change. Clarke v. Clarke, 47 Ala. App. 558,258 So.2d 902 (1972).

In the case at bar the husband had the burden of proving changed financial circumstances since he was the modification movant. We do not believe he sustained that burden.

Although the evidence concerning the financial status of the husband at the time of the hearing is, to say the least, confusing, we have gleaned from the record evidence to the effect that the doctor's monthly income while in Hartselle has increased by leaps and bounds. His gross income in May 1976, his first month in Hartselle, was $345; in June it was $1,200; in July $1,300 to $1,400; in August approximately $3,000; and in September and October about $4,000 each. In addition to this, approximately $7,000 from Medicare, Medicaid and insurance patients is due to be paid the doctor. Also, the several thousand dollars he earned from the hospital emergency room in Hartselle was not included in his gross income.

Considering the present income of the husband, his obviously considerable potential for earning money (the rapidity with which his gross earnings increased monthly after beginning a new practice in a new city speaks for itself), his equities in real estate, and his jewelry collection, we are unable to say that the trial court plainly erred in refusing to modify the $800 a month alimony payment the husband is required to make to his ex-wife. Consequently, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

The wife's motion for an attorney's fee for the representation she received on this appeal is denied.

AFFIRMED.

HOLMES, J., and PAUL, Retired Circuit Judge, sitting by special appointment, concur.

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress