¶2This is a divorce case.
¶3The circuit court divorced the parties on the grounds of the husband's adultery and the "incompatibility" of the parties. The trial court made an award of periodic alimony to the wife and effectuated a division of property.
¶4The wife appeals, contending in the main that the trial court erred to reversal in its awards to the wife.
¶5We find no error requiring reversal and affirm.
¶6The cases are legion which hold that the awards which the wife disputes are subjects which fall within the sound judicial discretion of the trial court and that the trial court's decision thereon will not be disturbed on appeal except where such discretion was plainly and palpably abused. See generallyLucero v. Lucero, 485 So.2d 347 (Ala.Civ.App. 1986). Periodic alimony: Edge v. Edge, 494 So.2d 71 (Ala.Civ.App. 1986);Brannon v. Brannon, 477 So.2d 445 (Ala.Civ.App. 1985). Division of property: Golson v. Golson, 471 So.2d 426 (Ala.Civ.App. 1985); Brannon, 477 So.2d 445.
¶7Equally well established is the "ore tenus" rule. When the trial court personally hears the evidence, as in the instant appeal, the judgment appealed from is presumed to be correct on appeal. The judgment cannot be altered on appeal if it is supported by legal evidence unless the trial court's decision was palpably wrong. Sayles v. Sayles, 495 So.2d 1131 (Ala.Civ.App. 1986); Crosslin v. Crosslin, 494 So.2d 431 (Ala.Civ.App. 1986).
¶8This court pretermits a summary of the evidence. Little or nothing would be contributed to the law by stating the pertinent facts. This is so because of the vast number of cases on the same legal subjects.
¶9Suffice it to say that after a review of all the testimony and the entire record before the court, we are not persuaded that the adjudication of the matters disputed by the *9 wife is of such character as to constitute a plain abuse of judicial discretion. Simply stated, the trial court was not plainly and palpably wrong.
¶10In addition to the above, the wife complains of certain evidentiary rulings by the trial court. Quite frankly, we do not find any reversible error. However, if error was committed, clearly, such would fall within the purview of Rule 45, Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure.
¶11This case is due to be affirmed.
¶12AFFIRMED.
¶13BRADLEY, P.J., and INGRAM, J., concur.