Roden v. Roden

Decision Date13 February 1985
PartiesMarcia Ann RODEN v. Billy Don RODEN. Civ. 4462.
CourtAlabama Court of Civil Appeals

Robert B. French, Jr., Fort Payne, for appellant.

Stephen M. Kennamer, Scottsboro, for appellee.

ROBERT M. PARKER, Retired Circuit Judge.

This is a divorce case.

The parties were married in 1969 when the wife was fifteen and the husband was thirty. Three children were born to this union, Cindy, age twelve, Michael, age ten, and Douglas, age five. The husband is an iron worker, and the wife was a housewife until their separation in 1983, and since that time she has had some employment. The wife filed an action for divorce on March 2, 1983, on grounds of incompatibility of temperament, and the husband filed a counterclaim on the same grounds. On April 20, 1984, after an ore tenus hearing, the trial court granted the divorce with custody of the children with the wife, $115 per week child support to be paid by the husband, and specific visitation rights granted to the husband. The personal property of each party was awarded to them respectively; the house, with mortgage, was awarded to the husband; the wife was awarded an eight acre tract of land; the wife was also awarded $1,000 to balance the equities in the real estate and another $1,000 for her interest in the contents of the home retained by the husband.

The sole issue presented on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in its findings of fact and judgment thereon. In its judgment the court found:

"The Court is satisfied that the direct result of the break-up of this marriage was the marital indiscretions of the Plaintiff. Obviously, there were some contributing causes from the Defendant, but they were not of such nature as to justify the separation of this family, especially in view of the grave adverse effects it has had upon the children. It is quite clear that the primary remote cause of the failure of this marriage was the age differential. Although, this result is not inevitable, it is certainly predictable and foreseeable and probable."

The evidence reveals this marriage was apparently on sound basis until the wife, over the husband's objection, began to frequent skating rinks in 1982. To further state the evidence would serve no purpose.

There are no fixed standards for determining the amount of alimony or for dividing the parties' property. Each case must be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. Hutton v. Hutton, 284 Ala. 91, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Beckwith v. Beckwith
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • August 7, 1985
    ...duration of the marriage, and the conduct of the parties. Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 474 So.2d 104 (Ala.Civ.App.1985); Roden v. Roden, 466 So.2d 142 (Ala.Civ.App.1985); Warren, supra. An award of alimony is not mandatory, George v. George, 447 So.2d 802 (Ala.Civ.App.1984), but it rests withi......
  • Hutchinson v. Hutchinson
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • June 26, 1985
    ...only for a plain and palpable abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Bradley v. Bradley, 467 So.2d 255 (Ala.Civ.App.1985); Roden v. Roden, 466 So.2d 142 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). The trial court is not bound by fixed standards in determining alimony and property division, but determines each case on its......
  • Croft v. Croft
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • July 15, 1987
    ...determining that the mother did not violate the separation agreement by refusing to allow the husband's visitation. See, Roden v. Roden, 466 So.2d 142 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). We, therefore, affirm the trial court's denial of the husband's petition for rule The husband's second contention of err......
  • City of Brighton v. Gibson
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • January 16, 1987
    ...to the trial court ore tenus. Under such circumstances we will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Roden v. Roden, 466 So.2d 142 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). Its judgment is presumed to be correct and will not be reversed unless it is so unsupported by the evidence that it is pl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT