Morgan v. Morgan

• Decision Date: 18 December 1919
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 947
• Parties: MORGAN v. MORGAN.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

84 So. 754

203 Ala. 516

MORGAN v. MORGAN.

6 Div. 947

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 18, 1919

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Hugh A. Locke, Judge.

Bill or petition by W. Barnes Morgan against Mrs. Leila J. Morgan now Mrs. Leila J. Lavender, for modification of a decree heretofore rendered, granting alimony to respondent. From a decree overruling demurrers, respondent appeals. Affirmed.

John W Altman, M.H. Murphy, and Jerome Edmundson, all of Birmingham for appellant.

Edgar Allen, of Birmingham, for appellee.

ANDERSON C.J.

The appellee filed a petition or supplemental bill, seeking a modification of the permanent alimony decreed against him in favor of his former wife, upon the ground that she had remarried. While the decree was for the fixed sum of $4,000, it was made payable periodically, no execution was directed for the collection of same, and the future control of same was expressly reserved by the court. The decree recites as follows:

"As to any matter affecting the welfare and custody of W. Barnes Morgan, Jr., the child of the marriage of complainant and respondent, and as to any and all matters, if any there be, necessary in the enforcement of the terms of this decree, the cause is reserved." This reservation was sufficiently broad to retain control of the question of alimony, as well as the allowance to the child. Jones v. Jones, 131 Ala. 445, 31 So. 91. It is also a well-settled proposition that when the court reserves the future control of its decree of alimony, it has the right to subsequently change or modify the same so as to meet or cover changes that may arise since the rendition of same. Ortman v. Ortman, 82 So. 417, and cases cited; 1 R.C.L. p. 946, § 92. It is true that most of the authorities cited deal with indefinite monthly or yearly allowances and not alimony in bulk, but the alimony in question, while for a fixed sum, was divided into periodical future payments, except as to a partial cash payment, and the trial court reserved the right to control and regulate the same. We do not wish to be understood, however, as intimating that the rule would be different in case the alimony was payable in one lump sum, with a reservation in the decree if the trial court attempted to change or modify same before it had been paid.

The petition and exhibits show that the wife remarried within a few months after the decree of divorce and before the first periodical payment matured. The allowance of permanent alimony to the wife is intended for her maintenance and support, to be based...