Williams v. Williams
Citation | 591 So.2d 879 |
Parties | Walter WILLIAMS v. Rowena C. WILLIAMS. 2900689. |
Decision Date | 06 December 1991 |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Walter L. Williams, pro se.
No brief for appellee.
L. CHARLES WRIGHT, Retired Appellate Judge.
The parties were divorced in October 1990. The judgment of divorce provided the following pertinent provision:
In March 1991 the wife filed a petition to modify. She requested a sale of the house and an equal distribution of the proceeds pursuant to the original decree. She alleged that a material change in circumstances had occurred in that she and the minor child were contemplating moving into her mother's home because the mother was in poor health and in need of assistance. She further alleged that the mortgage payments were creating a substantial economic hardship.
Following oral proceedings, the trial court ordered a sale of the property. The husband appeals pro se and alleges that the court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition because the provisions contemplating the sale were a property settlement and therefore not modifiable. He contends that under the terms of the decree the home could not be sold until after July 1, 1994.
As a general rule, property settlements are not modifiable. Culverhouse v. Culverhouse, 389 So.2d 937 (Ala.Civ.App.1980). "If a property settlement's provisions directing and governing the property's sale are ambiguous, then a judgment clarifying such matters is not a modification of the agreement." Lloyd v. Lloyd, 508 So.2d 276 (Ala.Civ.App.1987).
The ordered sale of the property in this instance was not a modification of the parties' property settlement but rather was a clarification of the pertinent provisions. The original decree authorized a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stender v. Stender
...interpreting or clarifying the property settlement does not constitute a modification of the property settlement. Williams v. Williams, 591 So.2d 879, 880 (Ala.Civ.App.1991) ; see also Granger v. Granger, 804 So.2d 217, 219 (Ala.Civ.App.2001) ; Grayson v. Grayson, 628 So.2d 918 (Ala.Civ.App......
-
Laymon v. Laymon (Ex parte Laymon)
...or clarifying the property settlement does not constitute a modification of the property settlement. Williams v. Williams, 591 So. 2d 879, 880 (Ala. Civ. App. 1991) ; see also Granger v. Granger, 804 So. 2d 217, 219 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001) ; Grayson v. Grayson, 628 So. 2d 918 (Ala. Civ. App. ......
-
Dunn v. Dunn
...interpreting or clarifying the property settlement does not constitute a modification of the property settlement. Williams v. Williams, 591 So.2d 879, 880 (Ala.Civ.App. 1991); see also Granger v. Granger, 804 So.2d 217, 219 (Ala.Civ.App.2001); Grayson v. Grayson, 628 So.2d 918 (Ala.Civ. App......
-
Martin v. Martin
...in a divorce judgment is well settled. Generally, the property provisions of a divorce judgment are not modifiable. Williams v. Williams, 591 So.2d 879 (Ala.Civ.App.1991). After "thirty days have elapsed from the date of a divorce decree," a property division may be modified only for the pu......