Pruett v. Pruett
| Decision Date | 02 June 1976 |
| Citation | 333 So.2d 580 |
| Parties | Laura Burford PRUETT v. James Garnett PRUETT. Civ. 748. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
T. W. Thagard, Jr. and Charles S. Coody, Montgomery, for appellant.
James W. Cameron, Montgomery, for appellee.
Laura Burford Pruett, hereafter called plaintiff, appeals from an award for child support and attorney's fee contained in a judgment of divorce. We affirm.
After some 14 years of marriage and the birth of four children, plaintiff sought divorce for incompatibility. Judgment of divorce was granted.
Plaintiff was granted monthly child support of $325.00 and $250.00 for attorney's fee. Defendant was directed to maintain life insurance policies in the amount of $150,000.00 upon his life with the children as beneficiaries. He was directed to maintain policies of insurance presently in force upon the lives of the children. He was directed to maintain a major medical insurance policy for the children. In addition, the right to claim the children for income tax dependents was granted to plaintiff.
Defendant is employed as a commission insurance salesman. His income before expenses and retirement deductions was approximately $20,000.00 in 1974. His gross income per year after retirement and expenses was approximately $16,000.00. His monthly income before taxes was calculated to be between $1,350.00 and $1,500.00.
Plaintiff has a sizeable estate in stocks derived from gifts and inheritance. Further inheritance is pending settlement. Her income in 1974 was some $19,000.00 before taxes. Plaintiff was given title to the $95,000.00 home in which the family has lived for some four years. There is an unpaid balance of $16,000.00 to $18,000.00 owed on the home. The primary source of funds invested in the home came from gifts to plaintiff from her father. The personal funds of plaintiff have apparently substantially contributed to the life-style of the family throughout the marriage.
Plaintiff on appeal submits that the award of $325.00 per month support for four children is so little as to be an abuse of discretion by the trial court.
We have carefully reviewed the record to determine if the award is so unsupported by the evidence as to be unjust and palpably wrong. Such is the test placed upon a reviewing court in order to overcome the presumption of correctness which accompanies a judgment rendered by the trial court after oral hearing. Sellers v. Sellers, 50 Ala.App. 158, 277 So.2d 616.
Considering the income of defendant after reasonable estimate of deduction for taxes, state, federal and F.I.C.A., together with the cost of implementing the total award given by the judgment, we are unable to find error. The actual cost of the award, including support and insurance is above $400.00...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. Wilson, 2150259
...insolvency, the best interests of the children are not served. The equities of each must be weighed by the court.'" Pruett v. Pruett, 333 So.2d 580, 582 (Ala. Civ. App. 1976)."In the case before us, the problem described above is not a factor. The father is able to pay the extra child suppo......
-
Travis v. Travis
...up all of his income. Sides v. Sides, 284 Ala. 39, 221 So.2d 677 (1969); Leo v. Leo, 280 Ala. 9, 189 So.2d 558 (1966); Pruett v. Pruett, 333 So.2d 580 (Ala.Civ.App.1976); Sellers v. Sellers, 50 Ala.App. 158, 277 So.2d 616 (1973). To continue to require Mr. Travis each month to pay an averag......
-
Plaskett v. Plaskett
...fees. Such matter is within the discretion of the trial court. Smith v. Smith, 57 Ala.App. 615, 330 So.2d 439 (1976); Pruett v. Pruett, 333 So.2d 580 (Ala.Civ.App.1976). We find no error in this AFFIRMED. BRADLEY and HOLMES, JJ., concur. 1 Sitting by order of the Chief Justice pursuant to §......
-
Ex parte Boley, 79-810
...insolvency, the best interests of the children are not served. The equities of each must be weighed by the court. Pruett v. Pruett, 333 So.2d 580, 582 (Ala.Civ.App.1976). In the case before us, the problem described above is not a factor. The father is able to pay the extra child support ne......