¶2Once incorporated into a final judgment of divorce, the husband and wife's settlement agreement loses its character as an independent settlement agreement and becomes part of the judgment. Ex parteCarstens, 728 So.2d 128, 134 (Ala. 1998). With respect to its own judgment of divorce, a trial court has the discretion to make prospective modifications of support obligations when there has been a material change in circumstances that is substantial and continuing. Wells v.Wells, 648 So.2d 617, 619 (Ala.Civ.App. 1994); State ex rel. Pritchettv. Pritchett, 771 So.2d 1048, 1051 (Ala.Civ.App. 2000). That does not appear to have been what occurred in this case; rather, the trial court made it clear that it *848 was "clarifying" terms of the parties' settlement agreement that it previously had concluded were unambiguous. For this reason, and also based on the facts of this case, I concur.
801 So. 2d 841
Amie v. Conrey
Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
Decided May 11, 2001
This page is marked noindex.
Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · decided 2001-05-11
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently May 2011
10 state decisions
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
“material change of circumstances that is substantial and continuing.”
quoted by 1 later decision, including Volovecky v. Hoffman
Relies on 728 So. 2d 128 - Ex Parte Carstens · 648 So. 2d 617 - Wells v. Wells · 771 So. 2d 1048 - State Ex Rel. Pritchett v. Pritchett
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 2001-05-11
View the full empirical analysis of this case →