Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

873 So. 2d 1154

Moore v. Moore

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Decided October 25, 2002

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · decided 2002-10-25

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently July 2003

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"The trial court awarded the wife periodic alimony of $4,000 per month for 12 months, beginning on October 1, 2001, or until the wife was employed in her profession as a nurse anesthetist. The wife was awarded the beach condominium and its contents, the Robalo boat, the personal watercraft, and the 2000 [Chevrolet] Tahoe. She was awarded her jewelry and the furnishings of four rooms in the marital home — the kitchen, the living room, the master bedroom, and the front foyer. The wife was also given the use of the residence at 403 Dunleith Boulevard until she remarried or cohabited with a member of the opposite sex, in which event the property *Page 1165 would be sold and the net proceeds divided equally between the parties. The husband was ordered to pay the indebtedness on the property at 403 Dunleith Boulevard. The wife was also awarded the house in which her mother was residing at 201 Dunleith Boulevard. The wife was ordered to pay the mortgage indebtedness on that property. The trial court's judgment provides that if the wife is ever in default on the mortgage payment for more than 60 days, the title to that property shall immediately vest in the husband. "In the original judgment, the wife was given 25% of the husband's pension and profit-sharing account. After a hearing on the husband's postjudgment motion, however, the trial court reduced the wife's share to 23%. "The husband was awarded the marital home and those contents not specifically awarded to the wife. He was or”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 873 So. 2d 1161 - Ex Parte Moore

“conclud[ing] that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award the wife an attorney fee.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 873 So. 2d 1161 - Ex Parte Moore

Relies on Ex Parte Bland · Ex Parte Durbin · Ex Parte Wallace

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2002-10-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

CRAWLEY, Judge,

¶1concurring as to Part II and dissenting as to Part I.

¶2I concur in the holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award the wife an attorney fee. However, I dissent from the holding that the trial’s court property-division and periodic-alimony awards were inequitable.

¶3*1161The wife received a substantial marital-property award. Although the monthly periodic-alimony payments of $4,000 from the husband were to end in 12 months, the trial court compensated for the lack of a monthly payment by awarding the wife the use of a $200,000 house on which the husband was ordered to pay the indebtedness and by ordering the husband to make the payments on the wife’s $30,000 vehicle. The majority’s reversal of the property-division and periodic-alimony awards constitutes, in my opinion, a substitution of this court’s judgment for that of the trial court. See Ex parte Durbin, 818 So.2d 404 (Ala.2001); Ex parte Bland, 796 So.2d 340, 343 (Ala.2000); Ex parte Wallace, 795 So.2d 719 (Ala.2000).

THOMPSON, Judge,

¶4concurring as to Part I and dissenting as to Part II.

¶5I agree with the main opinion that the trial court’s property division and alimony award were inequitable. However, given the disparity in the parties’ incomes, I believe the trial court erred in refusing to award the wife an attorney fee. Therefore, I concur as to Part I of the main opinion, but I dissent as to Part II.

/873/so2d/1154 · .json · Public domain