Rogers v. Rogers
| Decision Date | 12 June 1985 |
| Citation | 473 So.2d 537 |
| Parties | Jerry ROGERS v. Gail V. ROGERS. Civ. 4719. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Gordon F. Bailey, Jr. and Paula I. Cobia of Bolt, Isom, Jackson & Bailey, Anniston, for appellant.
Robert C. Dillon of Merrill, Porch, Doster & Dillon, Anniston, for appellee.
This is a divorce case.
After an ore tenus hearing, the trial court entered a judgment of divorce and awarded the wife both alimony in gross and periodic alimony. The husband contends on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion. We find no abuse in the trial court's action and affirm.
The parties were married approximately five years. The wife's two previous marriages ended in divorce; the husband has also been married twice before, and his last marriage ended with the death of his second wife. The wife is thirty-five years of age and in good health; the husband is thirty-seven years of age but has suffered two heart attacks and had triple bypass surgery in early 1984.
Prior to this marriage the wife had an automobile which was not paid for, a small savings account, and her personal effects. She lived with her parents. The husband had substantial assets, including approximately $70,000 in savings, a house with a mortgage, a clock collection, and substantial annual income.
During the marriage the husband purchased several items of jewelry for his wife. They made substantial improvements on the house, paid for from their joint funds. Wife's approximate net weekly earnings were about $185. Except for $50, these earnings went into the parties' joint checking account. Wife's present income is about the same as before the divorce.
Noting that the wife had enjoyed a lifestyle provided by her husband which involved a higher standard of living than that which she had previously known, a proper factor for the court to consider, Langford v. Langford, 441 So.2d 962 (Ala.Civ.App.1983), the court awarded the wife $10,000 alimony in gross, $250 per month for two years as periodic alimony, and her various personal effects.
Also, she was held responsible for a debt she had incurred at her credit union, and had to pay her own attorney's fees. The husband was given the remainder of their goods, including the marital home, which he owned before this marriage, and was held responsible for any joint marital debts.
Husband argues in brief that the trial court erred in the amount of alimony in gross and periodic alimony awarded to the wife.
An award...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kilgore v. Kilgore
...rights and relations of the parties and is based on the value of the wife's inchoate rights in her husband's estate. Rogers v. Rogers, 473 So.2d 537 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). In order to constitute alimony in gross, the award must satisfy two requirements: the time and amount of payment must be c......
-
Lacey v. Ward
...cases. Kilgore v. Kilgore, 572 So.2d 480 (Ala.Civ.App.1990); Trammell v. Trammell, 523 So.2d 437 (Ala.Civ.App.1988); Rogers v. Rogers, 473 So.2d 537 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). The bellwether case of definition must be the supreme court case of Hager v. Hager, 293 Ala. 47, 299 So.2d 743 (1974). In ......
-
Boley v. Boley
...of the parties and attempts to compensate the wife for the loss of inchoate property rights in her husband's estate. Rogers v. Rogers, 473 So.2d 537 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). To constitute alimony in gross, the time and amount of payment must be certain, and the right to alimony must be nonmodifi......
-
Beckwith v. Beckwith
...but it rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and is subject to being set aside only for gross abuse. Rogers v. Rogers, 473 So.2d 537 (Ala.Civ.App.1985); Scott v. Scott, 460 So.2d 1331 Additionally, when the trial court exercises its discretion in a divorce case after personal......