Holmes v. Holmes
Decision Date | 27 January 1982 |
Citation | 409 So.2d 867 |
Parties | Ola Mae Catherine HOLMES v. Durward E. HOLMES. Civ. 2938. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Marion F. Walker, Birmingham, for appellant.
E. Ray Large, Birmingham, for appellee.
This is a divorce case.
On May 5, 1981, the parties to this case were divorced.The trial court awarded the residence of the parties to the husband.The wife was awarded $3,000 as alimony in gross and the furniture was divided between the parties.
The wife appeals, contending that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award her any interest in the residence.She also contends the trial court abused its discretion in awarding only $3,000 as alimony in gross and in failing to award any periodic alimony.We find no abuse of discretion and affirm.
The record, viewed with the attendant presumptions, reveals the following: The parties to this divorce action had been married approximately eight and one-half years.Both parties had been previously married.At the time of trial the husband was sixty-two years old and in good health.The wife was sixty and had some health problems.The husband was employed as a bus driver for Trailways, Inc., and had been so employed for thirty-eight years.Though the wife had been employed on a full-time basis when the parties married, at the time of the divorce the wife was working only on a part-time basis for minimum wage.
Except for a period of eleven months, the husband lived in the wife's home in Birmingham from the time of the marriage until May, 1977.In May, 1977, the husband bought a home in Trussville, Alabama.Though the deed was in the name of both the husband and wife, the wife contributed nothing toward the purchase price.The Trussville home was purchased with proceeds from the sale of property the husband had owned prior to the marriage and the proceeds from the sale of property the husband had purchased after the marriage along with proceeds from a loan.
Both the division of property and the award and amount of periodic alimony and alimony in gross are matters within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal except upon a showing of plain and palpable abuse of that discretion.Armstrong v. Armstrong, 391 So.2d 124(Ala.Civ.App.1980);Williams v. Williams, 389 So.2d 141(Ala.Civ.App.1980);Weeks v. Weeks, 373 So.2d 848(Ala.Civ.App.1979).After reviewing the record, this court concludes that no action taken by the trial court in the case before us constituted such an abuse of discretion as to require reversal.
We reach the conclusion that there was no abuse of discretion in failing to award the wife any share of the home after considering the length of the marriage, the fact that the husband's funds were used to purchase the home and the fact that the wife...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Knight v. Knight
...So.2d 1331, 1332 (Ala.Civ.App.1984) ; Groenendyke v. Groenendyke, 491 So.2d 959, 961 (Ala.Civ.App.1986) (same); and Holmes v. Holmes, 409 So.2d 867, 868 (Ala.Civ.App.1982) (same)." ' " 'A trial court's determination as to alimony and the division of property following an ore tenus presentat......
-
Myers v. Myers
...1331, 1332 (Ala. Civ. App. 1984) ; Groenendyke v. Groenendyke, 491 So.2d 959, 961 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986) (same); and Holmes v. Holmes, 409 So.2d 867, 868 (Ala. Civ. App. 1982) (same)." Knight v. Knight, 226 So.3d 688, 693 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). Furthermore, a trial court's determination as t......
-
Crippen v. Crippen
...to one party, when that asset is virtually the entire marital property, is not necessarily an abuse of discretion. See Holmes v. Holmes, 409 So.2d 867 (Ala.Civ.App.1982); Roberts v. Roberts, 399 So.2d 316, 317 (Ala.Civ.App.1981); Hudson v. Hudson, 391 So.2d 664 (Ala.Civ.App.1980); Eubanks v......
-
Wailes v. Wailes
...within the trial court's discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal except for palpable abuse of that discretion. Holmes v. Holmes, 409 So.2d 867 (Ala.Civ.App.1982). The exercise of this discretion, however, is judicial and not arbitrary and is reversible on appeal. Mack v. Mack, 389 So......