Gabbert v. Gabbert
Decision Date | 24 May 1928 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 59 |
Citation | 117 So. 214,217 Ala. 599 |
Parties | GABBERT v. GABBERT. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; William M. Walker Judge.
Petition of T.M. Gabbert to modify a decree rendered in a suit for divorce, alimony, and custody of a child instituted by Frances M. Gabbert against T.M. Gabbert. From a decree denying relief, the petitioner appeals and applies for mandamus. Appeal dismissed; mandamus denied.
William Vaughan, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Oliver Henderson, of Birmingham, for appellee.
On the 12th day of September, 1927, the appellant filed a petition, in the equity division of the circuit court, for a modification of the decree in so far as it fixed the amount to be paid, on the ground that the decree in this respect and in prohibiting modification was improvidently entered; that petitioner was at that time under the age of 21 years, and because of the change in his circumstances he is unable to meet the payments. The petition was dismissed, and from the order dismissing the petition this appeal is prosecuted, and along with the submission of the case on appeal, the appellant submits, in the alternative, a petition for the writ of mandamus.
The appellant's contention is: (1) That the decree in so far as it fixes the amount of alimony to be paid, and the manner of its payment, is interlocutory and never became final in the sense that it is beyond the power of the court to modify it so as to conform to the equities of the case arising through a change in the conditions and circumstances surrounding the parties; (2) that the court is without power to abdicate its authority, and the decree in respect to the assertion that it may not be modified is void.
On the other hand, the appellee contends: (1) That the court exhausted its jurisdiction, without reservation, and the decree is final, and the court is without power to modify it; (2) that on the showing made, assuming authority in the court to modify or alter the decree, the petition was properly dismissed.
The question of controlling importance--the power of the court to modify a final decree after the adjournment of the term or the statutory period over which the plenary and inherent power of the court extends--is a vexed question and one upon which the authorities, including our own decisions, appear to be in conflict.
In some of the states the jurisdiction of courts of equity or chancery, in respect to questions involving divorce, alimony, the custody of children, the duties arising from the relation of the parties, and the manner of its enforcement, is founded on a system materially different from ours; and others have statutes that preserve the court's jurisdiction to modify final decrees in this class of cases. The decisions of such courts cannot be looked to as authority upon the question here. A thorough analysis of the decisions of many different courts touching the question will be found in the case of Ruge v. Ruge, by the Supreme Court of the State of Washington, reported in 97 Wash. 51, 165 P. 1063, L.R.A.1917F, 721, 728.
The rule of Smith v. Smith, supra, with slight modifications, was approved in the recent case of Smith v. Rogers, 215 Ala. 581, 112 So. 190, to quote from the opinion in that case:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Williams v. Williams, 1 Div. 484
...parties, whether such power be expressly reserved or not. Sullivan v. Sullivan, 215 Ala. 627, 111 So. 911, overruled in Gabbert v. Gabbert, 217 Ala. 599, 117 So. 214, but reaffirmed in Epps v. Epps, 218 Ala. 667, 120 So. 150; Aiken v. Aiken, 221 Ala. 67, 127 So. 819; Ex parte Allen, 221 Ala......
-
State v. Worthington
...of alimony and support, and take such power away from the court of chancery having general jurisdiction in this respect. Gabbert v. Gabbert, 217 Ala. 599, 117 So. 214; parte Pruitt, 207 Ala. 261, 92 So. 426; State ex rel. Sellers v. Murphy, 207 Ala. 290, 92 So. 661; Hall v. Kirkland, 225 Al......
-
Whitt v. Whitt
...parties, whether such power be expressly reserved or not.--Sullivan v. Sullivan, 215 Ala. 627, 111 So. 911, overruled in Gabbert v. Gabbert, 217 Ala. 299, 117 So. 214, but reaffirmed in Epps v. Epps, 218 Ala. 667, 120 So. 150. See Colton v. Colton, 252 Ala. 442, 41 So.2d 398, and cases cite......
-
Rodgers v. Rodgers
...is no vested right to the future payment of periodic alimony. Hager v. Hager, 293 Ala. 47, 299 So.2d 743 (1974) ; Gabbert v. Gabbert, 217 Ala. 599, 117 So. 214 (1928)." Ivey v. Ivey, 378 So.2d 1151, 1152 (Ala.Civ.App.1979). An Alabama trial court's authority to award periodic alimony to a s......