Peterman v. Peterman
Decision Date | 06 May 1987 |
Citation | 510 So.2d 822 |
Parties | Tony G. PETERMAN v. Betty J. PETERMAN. Civ. 5656. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Joel W. Ramsey of Ramsey, Baxley & McDougle, Dothan, for appellant.
William G. Hause and Charles D. Decker of Hardwick, Hause, Segrest & Northcutt, Dothan, for appellee.
This is a periodic alimony modification case.
The parties were divorced in February 1976. The divorce judgment adopted therein the provisions of an agreement of the parties which divided their property, awarded the custody of their three minor children to the wife, and ordered the husband to pay $155 per month to the wife as periodic alimony and also to pay to her the amount of $115 per month for each child for support.
The three children have reached their majority and are married. The husband is no longer required to pay child support.
He petitioned that the periodic alimony payments be terminated. His averment therein as to a material change in the circumstances was that the wife is now employed full time and, including the alimony paid to her by him, has a greater monthly income than does the husband. After an ore tenus trial before the trial court, a judgment was entered which denied the husband's petition for alimony modification, and the husband timely appealed.
The wife's yearly base pay from her permanent government job increased by 235.8% in the ten-year period after the divorce, from $8,341 in 1976 to $28,011 in 1986. She was only employed for twenty hours per week in 1976, but now works full time. During that same period of time, the husband's annual salary increased 88.5%, from $16,791 to $31,655. There was no evidence before the trial court concerning either party's expenses.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stack v. Stack
...able to support herself. Termination of periodic alimony is not mandated even where a recipient is self-supporting. Peterman v. Peterman, 510 So.2d 822 (Ala.Civ.App.1987). The record reflects that since the judgment of divorce, the mother and the father have had a substantial increase in th......
-
RoMe. Samples SCOTT III v. SCOTT
...evidence before the circuit court to support its decision against a charge of arbitrariness and abuse of discretion. Peterman v. Peterman, 510 So.2d 822 (Ala.Civ.App.1987).’ ” Id. (quoting Ex parte Smith, 673 So.2d at 422). We conclude that evidence presented to the trial court supports the......
-
Turner v. Turner
...evidence before the [trial] court to support its decision against a charge or arbitrariness and abuse of discretion. Peterman v. Peterman, 510 So.2d 822 (Ala.Civ.App.1987)." Ex parte Smith, 673 So.2d 420, 422 (Ala. The trial court granted the divorce on the ground of the husband's adultery.......
-
Smith v. Smith
...that a trial court do so in a modification proceeding. Preble v. Preble, 589 So.2d 1301 (Ala.Civ.App.1991); Peterman v. Peterman, 510 So.2d 822 (Ala.Civ.App.1987). The trial court's discretionary authority in these matters is so broad that even if this husband had proven changed circumstanc......