Brand v. Brand
| Decision Date | 04 January 1984 |
| Citation | 444 So.2d 866 |
| Parties | Stanley BRAND, Sr. v. Ella Mae BRAND. Civ. 3900. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
George M. Higginbotham, Bessemer, for appellant.
Anthony D. Snable, Pleasant Grove, for appellee.
This is a divorce case.
After an ore tenus contested trial, a finding of facts was made by the trial court in the final judgment. We primarily include them as the facts of the case.
The husband is sixty-six years of age. He has not worked since 1972 because of a back injury. Otherwise, he is apparently in good health. His sole employment has been as a manual laborer. The total monthly income of the husband is $706.50, which includes social security benefits of $529.
The wife is fifty-seven years of age. She is a high school graduate and completed one year of college. Except for her high blood pressure, she is in good health. Although presently unemployed, she recently worked as a delicatessen employee and as a private cook.
The parties were married in 1968. No children were born of this marriage. Each party has children by previous marriages. They lived together until 1982 when conflicts over church, bingo and other matters caused their separation. Both parties testified that they are incompatible.
When the parties married, the husband owned a home. He completed its construction in 1955. After 1968 the following improvements were made to the house and lot: a one-half bath, awnings, a carport, a concrete patio, a utility shed and a chain link fence. The residence has a market value of $40,000.
Other than household items and furniture, the assets accumulated during the marriage, and their value, included: a 1965 Buick automobile-$300, a 1977 Chevrolet truck-$3,000, a boat and motor-$1,000, and an unimproved lot in Jonesboro-$1,000.
The trial court divorced the parties for incompatibility, with a finding that each party was equally at fault in causing the conditions leading to that ground for the divorce. The wife was awarded the unimproved lot, furniture for a bedroom, living room and dining room, and $12,000 as alimony in gross. The husband appeals and, through able counsel, contends that the trial court abused its discretion in the alimony in gross award.
Where a trial court hears and observes the parties as they testify, its finding of fact is presumed to be correct and will not be reversed upon an appeal unless it is not supported by the evidence, or unless it is palpably wrong. Puckett v. Puckett, 437 So.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Golson v. Golson
...unjust. Stricklin v. Stricklin, 456 So.2d 809 (Ala.Civ.App.1984); Abrell v. Abrell, 454 So.2d 1024 (Ala.Civ.App.1984); Brand v. Brand, 444 So.2d 866 (Ala.Civ.App.1984); Mansell v. Mansell, 437 So.2d 588 (Ala.Civ.App.1983). If there is legal evidence to support the trial court's determinatio......
-
Nowell v. Nowell
...wrong. Stricklin v. Stricklin, 456 So.2d 809 (Ala.Civ.App.1984); Abrell v. Abrell, 454 So.2d 1024 (Ala.Civ.App.1984); Brand v. Brand, 444 So.2d 866 (Ala.Civ.App.1984). Moreover, the award of alimony and the division of property--the two matters complained of by the wife--are committed to th......
-
Brannon v. Brannon
...Stricklin v. Stricklin, 456 So.2d 809 (Ala.Civ.App.1984); Abrell v. Abrell, 454 So.2d 1024 (Ala.Civ.App.1984); Brand v. Brand, 444 So.2d 866 (Ala.Civ.App.1984). Moreover, the matters of which the wife complains--the award of alimony and child support and the division of property--are all co......
-
Hanna v. Hanna
...No fixed standards or mathematical formulae govern the determination of alimony or the division of property. Brand v. Brand, 444 So.2d 866 (Ala.Civ.App.1984). Instead, trial courts should consider many factors in making property or alimony awards, including the age and health of the parties......