Case ID: so3d_29/html/0223-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. THOMPSON, Presiding Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dawn W. TURNER v. Halron W. TURNER.
    2070671.
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 26, 2009.
    Certiorari Denied Aug. 14, 2009
    Alabama Supreme Court 1081332.
    Bryan S. Brinyark and Christopher L. Frederick of Brinyark, Lee, Hickman & Hocutt, P.C., Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
    Thomas II. Nolan, Jr., of Wright, Green, P.C., Mobile; and E. Tatum Turner of Turner, Onderdonk, Kimbrough & Howell, Chatom, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.

See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F), Ala. R.App. P.; Rule 52(a), Ala. R. Civ. P.; Ala.Code 1975, § 10-10-7 and § 30-5-7; Ex parte Fann, 810 So.2d 631, 636 (Ala.2001); Whitten v. Whitten, 592 So.2d 183, 186 (Ala.1991); T.L.H. v. R.A.R., 977 So.2d 482, 489 (Ala.Civ.App.2007); Floyd v. Abercrombie, 816 So.2d 1051, 1057 (Ala.Civ.App.2001); Jordan v. Jordan, 688 So.2d 839, 842 (Ala.Civ.App.1997); Derie v. Derie, 689 So.2d 142, 144 (Ala.Civ.App. 1996); Thompson v. Thompson, 650 So.2d 928, 931 (Ala.Civ.App.1994); and Blackwell v. Blackwell, 340 So.2d 448, 449 (Ala.Civ.App.1976).

The appellant’s request for an award of attorney fees on appeal is denied.

PITTMAN, BRYAN, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

THOMPSON, P.J., dissents, with writing.

MOORE, J., recuses himself.

THOMPSON, Presiding Judge,

dissenting.

This is an appeal from a divorce judgment. Because I would reverse the trial court’s judgment as to the related issues of alimony and the division of the parties’ marital property, I respectfully dissent. I believe the trial court incorrectly determined that the husband’s interest in Esca-tawpa River Woodlands, Inc., and his interest in his law firm were his separate property and could not be considered in fashioning an equitable property division.

In addition, in her brief to this court, the wife asserts that the trial court erred by failing to make a finding that the husband had committed domestic abuse and by failing to grant the divorce on the ground that the husband had physically abused the wife. In support of her argument, the wife cites the Custody and Domestic or Family Abuse Act (“the Act”), §§ 30-3-130 through -136, Ala.Code 1975. Moreover, in its no-opinion order of affirmance, this court relies on Ex parle Fann, 810 So.2d 631 (Ala.2001), a supreme court opinion applying the Act. The Act applies when custody is an issue. See § 30-3-131. Because custody is not an issue in this case, the Act does not apply, and I believe the court unnecessarily relies on Ex parte Fann in its no-opinion order of affirmance.