McAliley v. McAliley
| Decision Date | 13 May 1994 |
| Citation | 638 So.2d 10 |
| Parties | Michael Lex McALILEY v. Barbara Lynn McALILEY. AV92000696. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Michael Lex McAliley, pro se.
David J. Harrison, Geneva, for appellee.
This is a divorce case.
After less than one year of marriage, Barbara Lynn McAliley sought a divorce from Michael Lex McAliley, alleging incompatibility. Following ore tenus proceedings, the trial court divorced the parties, and, inter alia, ordered a property division, awarded the wife $200 per month alimony in gross for 16 months in lieu of an automobile, and awarded the wife $300 for attorney fees. The husband's post-judgment motion was denied; hence, this appeal.
The record reveals that the husband failed to object at trial to properly preserve error on at least two of his issues, and therefore, those issues are not properly preserved or presented for appellate review. Bill Steber Chevrolet-Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Morgan, 429 So.2d 1013 (Ala.1983). See also Merchants & Planters Bank & Trust Co. of Arkadelphia, Arkansas v. Ensley, 502 So.2d 686 (Ala.1986). Additionally, to support his argument for those issues, he cites court rules, mere general propositions of law, having little or no relevance to the issues he attempts to argue. An appellate court will not consider issues which are not properly delineated and it will not search out errors which have not been properly preserved or assigned. Ex parte Riley, 464 So.2d 92 (Ala.1985). See also McLemore v. Fleming, 604 So.2d 353 (Ala.1992).
The husband's brief substantially fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 28, A.R.App.P. in numerous aspects, leaving this court with nothing to review on appeal. Lockett v. A.L. Sandlin Lumber Co., 588 So.2d 889 (Ala.Civ.App.1991). He fails to properly cite supporting authority. He fails to clearly and unambiguously present and argue his issues in brief. The content of the husband's brief is so disjointed and unintelligible that the wife's counsel was able to frame a response to only one issue. Bishop v. Robinson, 516 So.2d 723 (Ala.Civ.App.1987). Although he appeals pro se, he must comply with legal procedures and court rules. Black v. Allen, 587 So.2d 349 (Ala.Civ.App.1991). The rules are no more forgiving to pro se litigants than to those represented by counsel. Black, supra.
The only issue properly presented concerns the property division and the alimony award. The husband argues that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the wife the alimony, and he claims that the award would financially "cripple" him. When a trial court receives ore tenus evidence in a divorce proceeding, its judgment is presumed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Personnel Bd. v. State Dept. of Mental Health and Mental Retardation
...not be addressed on appeal. West Town Plaza Assocs., Ltd. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 619 So.2d 1290, 1294 (Ala.1993); McAliley v. McAliley, 638 So.2d 10 (Ala.Civ.App.1994). The Department did not cross-appeal the dismissal of its appeal to circuit court. Normally, we would not address the is......
-
Coastal Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Cope
...at trial. Therefore, this issue has not been properly preserved and is not properly presented for appellate review. McAliley v. McAliley, 638 So.2d 10 (Ala.Civ.App.1994). Coastal and James argue that the trial court erred in allowing the deputy sheriff who arrested James, Ivey, and Herrin t......
-
Springer v. Damrich
...to properly preserve error ... [,] those issues are not properly preserved or presented for appellate review." McAliley v. McAliley, 638 So.2d 10, 10 (Ala.Civ.App.1994). Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred as to this IV. Award of an Attorney Fee "Whether to award an a......
-
Cheek v. Dyess
...or developed by argument or citation to authority. Accordingly, we have not considered or addressed the issue. See McAliley v. McAliley, 638 So.2d 10 (Ala.Civ.App.1994)(holding that an appellate court will not consider issues that are not properly For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the t......
-
Alabama's Appellate Standards of Review in Civil Cases
...are not properly delineated and it will not search out errors which have not been properly preserved or assigned." McAliley v. McAliley, 638 So. 2d 10 (Ala. 1983); Ex parte Riley, 464 So. 2d 92 (Ala. 1985). Another threshold consideration is Ala. R. App. P. 45's harmless error rule:Rule 45.......