Case ID: so3d_1/html/1042-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BRYAN, Judge. MOORE, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John B. STUART v. Brenda B. STUART.
    2070164.
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 13, 2008.
    John B. Stuart, pro se.
    W. Donald Bolton, Jr., Foley; and Oliver J. Latour, Jr., Foley, for appellee.
   BRYAN, Judge.

AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.

See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(C), Ala. R.App. P.; Bush v. Bush, 784 So.2d 299, 300 (Ala.Civ.App.2000); Kiefer v. Kiefer, 671 So.2d 710, 711 (Ala.Civ.App.1995); and Bridges v. Bridges, 607 So.2d 289, 290 (Ala.Civ.App.1992).

THOMPSON, P.J., and PITTMAN, J., concur.

MOORE, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with writing, which THOMAS, J., joins.

MOORE, Judge,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I concur with the no-opinion affirmance with regard to the denial of John B. Stuart’s petition to modify his periodic-alimony obligation. I dissent, however, from the no-opinion affirmance with regard to the trial court’s denial of a credit to Stuart for his mistaken overpayment of alimony, because I believe that Stuart proved his entitlement to a credit and that the trial court’s denial of that credit is inequitable. See generally DeBlanc v. Mitchell, 868 So.2d 1138, 1139 (La.Ct.App. 1979), and Brabham v. Brabham, 950 So.2d 1098, 1103 (Miss.Ct.App.2007).

THOMAS, J., concurs.