Horwitz v. Horwitz

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Decided September 10, 2004

This page is marked noindex.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · decided 2004-09-10

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently September 2016

10 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"`[i]f the ability of a party to pay [spousal] support is so exceeded that the [payor] is unable to meet his own cost of self-maintenance without sinking into insolvency, the best interests of the [payee spouse] are not served.'"”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 943 So. 2d 123 - Horwitz v. Horwitz

Relies on Dothard v. Cook · 578 So. 2d 1354 - Cook v. Cook

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2004-09-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1

¶2I concur with all parts of the main opinions except I dissent from the reversal of the amount of monthly payments the trial court ordered the father to make on his past-due periodic alimony. "The issue before the court . . . is whether the husband currently has the financial ability to comply with the terms of the trial court's latest order." See Cook v. Cook,578 So.2d 1354, 1357 (Ala.Civ.App. 1991).

¶3 "[I]f the ability of a party to pay [spousal] support is so exceeded that the [payor] is unable to meet his own cost of self-maintenance without sinking into insolvency, the best interests of the [payee spouse] are not served. Pruett v. Pruett, 333 So.2d 580 (Ala.Civ.App. 1976)."

578 So.2d at 1358.

¶4MURDOCK, J., concurs.