Kyser v. Kyser
| Decision Date | 29 August 1984 |
| Citation | 456 So.2d 816 |
| Parties | Pauline M. KYSER v. Phillip M. KYSER. Civ. 4279. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
John L. Capell, III, of Capell, Howard, Knabe & Cobbs, Montgomery, for appellant.
Richard S. Manley, of Manley & Traeger, Demopolis, for appellee.
This is a divorce case.
After an ore tenus hearing, the trial court divorced the parties. The wife, through able counsel, appeals, contending that the trial court erred in failing to award the wife alimony and in the division of property.
We find no such abuse of discretion as to require reversal and affirm.
Viewing the record with the attendant presumptions, the following is revealed:
The parties were married in October of 1982 and were divorced shortly thereafter, in January 1984. In fact, divorce proceedings were begun in the eleventh month of the marriage. At the time of the divorce, the husband was seventy-eight years of age and the wife, fifty-six.
The husband has assets totaling over $800,000 and a yearly income of more than $40,000. The wife is retired from the Social Security Administration with a monthly retirement income of approximately $1,100. Along with $13,000 worth of stock, the wife also has a $40,000 certificate of deposit from the sale of a home in May of 1983 that she owned prior to the marriage.
During the marriage, the parties jointly purchased a lot, borrowing 100% of the funds needed for the purchase. There was also evidence that the daily living expenses of the couple were provided from the husband's Social Security check and the wife did not contribute any of her income to the joint checking account.
The husband filed for divorce and alleged incompatibility of temperament and an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage relationship. There was no evidence of marital misconduct by either party.
The trial court ordered the wife to execute a quitclaim deed conveying her interest in the jointly owned lot and the husband was ordered to pay the indebtedness due on the property. The divorce decree also ordered the husband to pay the attorney's fees of the wife. Alimony was not awarded.
The areas of alimony and property division are matters that fall within the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, and the trial court's decision in regard to these subjects will not be disturbed on appeal absent a plain and palpable abuse of discretion. Rothchild v. Rothchild, 434 So.2d 794 (Ala.Civ.App.1983). It is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nowell v. Nowell
...trial court, which will not be reversed absent a showing that it has abused its discretion. Stricklin, 456 So.2d at 810; Kyser v. Kyser, 456 So.2d 816 (Ala.Civ.App.1984); Abrell, 454 So.2d at We cannot say that the award to the wife of $500 per month as periodic alimony for the next ten yea......
-
Brannon v. Brannon
...and palpably wrong. Nowell, 474 So.2d 1128; Golson, 471 So.2d at 429; Duke v. Duke, 457 So.2d 432 (Ala.Civ.App.1984); Kyser v. Kyser, 456 So.2d 816 (Ala.Civ.App.1984); Stricklin, 456 So.2d at 810; Abrell, 454 So.2d at We find no error in the trial court's award to the wife of periodic alimo......
-
Morrison v. Morrison
...of the trial court and will not be reversed absent a showing of abuse of discretion. Stricklin, 456 So.2d at 810; Kyser v. Kyser, 456 So.2d 816 (Ala.Civ.App.1984); Abrell, 454 So.2d at 1025. In making a division of property, a trial court should consider several factors, including the lengt......
-
Golightly v. Golightly
...reversed, absent a showing that it has abused its discretion. Stricklin v. Stricklin, 456 So.2d 809 (Ala.Civ.App.1984); Kyser v. Kyser, 456 So.2d 816 (Ala.Civ.App.1984); Abrell v. Abrell, 454 So.2d 1024 No abuse of the trial court's discretion is shown by its failure to give the husband cre......