Capper v. Capper
| Decision Date | 23 May 1984 |
| Citation | 451 So.2d 359 |
| Parties | Sharon Duquet CAPPER v. Robert Neil CAPPER. Civ. 4160. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Reggie Copeland, Jr. of Nettles, Barker & Janecky, Mobile, for appellant.
Thomas A. Deas, Mobile, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order terminating alimony.
Sharon Duquet Capper and Robert Neil Capper were divorced in Mobile County Circuit Court on April 15, 1977. The final decree of divorce granted custody of the couple's two minor children to Mrs. Capper and ordered Mr. Capper to pay $950 per month in child support. On May 13, 1982, the court modified its original decree, reclassifying $300 of the $950 monthly child support as alimony and ordering Mr. Capper to pay tuition, books and uniforms for his minor children's parochial school education. Mr. Capper appealed here, asserting that the court's order as amended violated his rights under Article 1, Section 3 of the Alabama Constitution. We held that he was responsible for his children's educational expenses even though incurred at a parochial school, 428 So.2d 86.
On August 17, 1983, Mr. Capper petitioned for modification, averring that his ex-wife was living openly or cohabiting with another man and requesting that her alimony be terminated pursuant to § 30-2-55, Code of Alabama 1975. After an ore tenus hearing the trial court granted his petition, ordering that the $300 per month in alimony be terminated. After her motion for reconsideration was denied, Mrs. Capper appealed here.
The sole issue before us on appeal is whether there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court's determination that Mrs. Capper was cohabiting or living with another man within the meaning of § 30-2-55.
Section 30-2-55 provides that:
As stated in Hicks v. Hicks, 405 So.2d 31 (Ala.Civ.App.1981), though the party seeking relief under § 30-2-55 must prove more than an occasional post-marital indiscretion, he need not prove a habitual living arrangement between the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stack v. Stack
...inferences to be drawn therefrom, we conclude that the determination of the trial court was plainly and palpably wrong. Capper v. Capper, 451 So.2d 359 (Ala.Civ.App.1984). Establishing cohabitation requires that proof be presented indicating some permanency of relationship. Hicks v. Hicks, ......
-
Bishop v. Bishop, 2090628.
...inferences therefrom, the trial court was palpably wrong. Rutland v. Rutland, 494 So.2d 662 (Ala.Civ.App.1986); Capper v. Capper, 451 So.2d 359 (Ala.Civ.App.1984); Penn v.Penn, 437 So.2d 1053 (Ala.Civ.App.1983); Peterson v. Peterson, 403 So.2d 236 (Ala.Civ.App.), cert. denied,403 So.2d 239 ......
-
Bishop v. Bishop, 2090628
...inferences therefrom, the trial court was palpably wrong. Rutland v. Rutland, 494 So. 2d 662 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986); Capper v. Capper, 451 So. 2d 359 (Ala. Civ. App. 1984); Penn v. Penn, 437 So. 2d 1053 (Ala. Civ. App. 1983); Peterson v. Peterson, 403 So. 2d 236 (Ala. Civ. App.), cert, denie......
-
McCluskey v. McCluskey
...was plainly and palpably wrong after considering all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences arising thereunder. Capper v. Capper, 451 So.2d 359 (Ala.Civ.App.1984); Richardson v. Hunte, 435 So.2d 1315 (Ala.Civ.App.1983). In many of the cases which we have reviewed on appeal since the ......