Mitchell v. Mitchell
| Decision Date | 08 April 1987 |
| Citation | 506 So.2d 1009 |
| Parties | John Roger MITCHELL v. Charlotte Ann MITCHELL. Civ. 5715. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Thomas E. Bryant, Jr., Mobile, for appellant.
Al Seale of Seale, Marsal & Seale, Mobile, for appellee.
This is a periodic alimony modification case.
By the terms of the January 1980 judgment which divorced the parties, the husband wsas ordered to pay to the wife $300 each month as alimony. In July 1986 the wife sought an increase in those payments. She averred in her motion to modify that the circumstances changed after the rendition of the divorce judgment, that her health has continued to deteriorate, that she has not been able to find employment, that the cost of living has materially increased in the past six years, that the husband's income has substantially increased, and that he is well able to pay a sum more commensurate with the wife's needs. The only averment in the husband's answer was that the wife's motion failed to set out material facts upon which relief could be granted. An evidentiary hearing was held ore tenus before the trial court. The alimony payments were increased to $425 per month, and the husband appealed after his motion to reconsider was overruled by the trial court.
No transcript of the trial evidence, or an authorized substitute therefor, is contained in the record. Consequently, we are required to conclusively presume that the final judgment of the trial court was supported by the ore tenus testimony. Maker v. Maker, 487 So.2d 948 (Ala.Civ.App.1986); Jones v. Jones, 464 So.2d 125 (Ala.Civ.App.1985).
As we understand it, the husband argues that the grounds averred by the wife in her motion to modify were inadequate upon which to base the modification judgment.
All that is essential is that a claim for relief contain (1) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief and (2) a demand for judgment for the relief to which the pleader deems himself entitled. Rule 8(a), A.R.Civ.P. That rule is complied with if the claim for relief gives to the opponent fair notice of the pleader's claim and the grounds upon which it rests. Carter v. Calhoun County Board of Education, 345 So.2d 1351 (Ala.1977). The discovery process bears the burden of filling in the factual details. 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1215, p. 110 (1969). A fair reading and study of the Alabama Rules of Civil...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allison v. State
...is not before the appellate court, we conclusively presume that the court's judgment is supported by the evidence. Mitchell v. Mitchell, 506 So.2d 1009 (Ala.Civ.App.1987)." Newman v. State, 623 So.2d 1171, 1172 "[T]his Court will not assume error, and the burden is on the appellant 'to affi......
-
Crum v. Johns Manville, Inc.
...475 So.2d 517, 519 (Ala.1985). Discussing the issue whether a pleading complies with Rule 8, this court wrote in Mitchell v. Mitchell, 506 So.2d 1009 (Ala. Civ.App.1987): "[Rule 8] is complied with if the claim for relief gives to the opponent fair notice of the pleader's claim and the grou......
-
Mabry v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co.
...legal conclusions is not prohibited, as long as the requisite fair notice is provided thereby to the opponent."Mitchell v. Mitchell, 506 So.2d 1009, 1010 (Ala. Civ. App.1987). Furthermore, "pleadings are to be liberally construed in favor of the pleader." Adkison v. Thompson, 650 So.2d 859,......
-
Smith v. Smith
...the grounds upon which that claim rests. Christy v. Smith Mountain, Inc., 855 So.2d 1103 (Ala.Civ.App.2003)(citing Mitchell v. Mitchell, 506 So.2d 1009 (Ala. Civ.App.1987)). The husband sued SouthTrust alleging a breach of contractual duties found in the UCC. The husband also sued SouthTrus......