Bush v. Bush
| Decision Date | 06 October 2000 |
| Parties | William Brent BUSH v. Mary Loyd BUSH. Mary Loyd Bush v. William Brent Bush. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Wayne P. Turner of Turner, Wilson & Sawyer, Montgomery, for appellant/cross appellee William Brent Bush.
Donna Armstrong Bland, Montgomery, for appellee/cross appellant Mary Loyd Bush.
William Brent Bush and Mary Loyd Bush were divorced in February 1995. The divorce judgment incorporated an agreement of the parties. That agreement provided, in pertinent part, that the husband would pay the wife $2,750 in monthly periodic alimony for four years and that, for as long as he was paying periodic alimony, the husband would maintain a $250,000 life insurance policy on himself with the wife as the beneficiary.
In January 1999, the wife filed a petition requesting that the trial court modify the periodic-alimony provision so that she would receive $2,750 per month until she died or remarried and requesting that the court extend the husband's obligation to maintain the life insurance policy until she died or remarried. The wife also asked that the husband be required to pay her attorney fees incurred in regard to her petition. Following the presentation of ore tenus evidence, the trial court ordered the husband to pay the wife $2,000 monthly periodic alimony until she dies or remarries. The husband filed a postjudgment motion, arguing that the trial court had erred by removing the four-year limit on his periodic-alimony obligation. The wife filed a postjudgment motion, arguing that the trial court had erred by not extending the husband's obligation to maintain the life insurance policy and by not awarding her attorney fees. The court denied those postjudgment motions. The husband appeals, and the wife cross-appeals.
The husband argues that the trial court erred by modifying his periodic-alimony obligation from a four-year period to until the wife dies or remarries. He argues that the wife failed to show a material change in circumstances that would justify the extension of his periodic-alimony obligation. Periodic alimony is a matter resting within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its judgment regarding alimony is presumed correct and will not be reversed absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. Brannon v. Brannon, 477 So.2d 445 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). The trial court may modify an award of periodic alimony upon a showing of a change in circumstances. Boudreaux v. Boudreaux, 550 So.2d 1030 (Ala.Civ.App.1989).
Since the divorce, the wife has been diagnosed with spondyloarthropathy, a disease that causes inflammation in the joints and inflammatory back pain. The wife has had a history of rheumatoid diseases ever since adolescence. The husband argues that the wife's condition is no worse now than it was at the time of the divorce, and, therefore, he argues, her disease is not a material change in circumstances. We disagree. The wife presented evidence indicating that at the time of the divorce the extent of her illness was unknown and she was planning to become employed. The wife testified that her illness had progressed rapidly and that she did not respond to a variety of treatments. The wife testified that her chronic pain prevents her from being employed. She testified that she decided to file the modification petition because she was unable to be employed. We conclude that the wife did present evidence of a material change in circumstances and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by extending the husband's periodic-alimony obligation beyond four years.
The wife first argues on her cross-appeal that the trial court erred by ordering the husband to pay $2,000 monthly periodic alimony instead of the $2,750 per month that was ordered in the divorce judgment. Among the factors the trial court may consider in determining the amount of alimony to be awarded are each spouse's earning ability, age, health, and conduct, and the length of the marriage. Martin v. Martin, 624 So.2d 192 (Ala.Civ. App.1993). The trial court's award of periodic alimony is presumed to be correct. Brannon, supra.
The husband contends that the divorce judgment awarded the wife a large amount of monthly periodic alimony because it was to be paid for only four years. The husband testified that since the divorce he has remarried and now has two children. He testified that his current salary is $97,201 per year;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knight v. Knight
...to order a divorcing spouse to maintain a life-insurance policy for the benefit of the other spouse. See, e.g., Bush v. Bush, 784 So.2d 299, 300 (Ala.Civ.App.2000)." Ratliff v. Ratliff, 5 So.3d 570, 584 (Ala.Civ.App.2008).The husband has not argued that the trial court abused its discretion......
-
Rodgers v. Rodgers
...but the decision whether to award periodic alimony rests in the sound judicial discretion of the trial court. Bush v. Bush, 784 So.2d 299, 300 (Ala.Civ.App.2000). "In exercising its discretion, the trial court is guided by equitable considerations. SeeKillingsworth v. Killingsworth, 925 So.......
-
Turney v. Turney
...a separate award for the benefit of the wife, see Lackey, supra; Sellers v. Sellers, 893 So.2d 456 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004); Bush v. Bush, 784 So.2d 299, 300 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000); and Strong v. Strong, 709 So.2d 1259 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998), it cannot order the payor spouse to maintain a life-i......
-
Alexander v. Alexander
...to order a divorcing spouse to maintain a life-insurance policy for the benefit of the other spouse. See, e.g., Bush v. Bush, 784 So.2d 299, 300 (Ala.Civ.App.2000).”Ratliff, 5 So.3d at 584 (emphasis added); see also Powell v. Powell, 628 So.2d 832 (Ala.Civ.App.1993). To conclude that Ratlif......