Case Title: Ex Parte Wallace

Citation: 795 So. 2d 719

Docket Number: 1991453

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2000-11-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
795 So. 2d 719 (2000)
Ex parte John Kenneth WALLACE.
(In re Shelby Kaye Yelverton Wallace v. John Kenneth Wallace).
1991453.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
November 22, 2000.
*720 Jere C. Segrest and Thomas M. Little of Hardwick, Hause & Segrest, Dothan, for petitioner.
J.R. Herring, Dothan, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
John Kenneth Wallace and Shelby Kaye Yelverton Wallace were divorced by the Houston Circuit Court after a 20-year marriage. The wife appealed, seeking a review of the trial court's award of periodic alimony. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed that portion of the judgment relating to the award of periodic alimony and remanded the case solely "for the court to make an award more in line with what the facts of this case dictate." Wallace v. Wallace, 795 So. 2d 715, 719 (Ala.Civ.App.2000). We granted the husband's petition for certiorari review to consider whether the Court of Civil Appeals erred in reversing the award of periodic alimony.
The Court of Civil Appeals' opinion adequately recites the evidence presented to the trial court. We need not recite that evidence here. The Court of Civil Appeals also explained the financial settlement ordered by the trial court:
It is settled law in domestic-relations cases that the judgment of a trial court based on evidence presented ore tenus is presumed correct and that its findings "will not be disturbed on appeal unless they are palpably wrong, manifestly unjust, or without supporting evidence." McCoy v. McCoy, 549 So. 2d 53, 57 (Ala. 1989). See, also, McCrary v. Butler, 540 So. 2d 736 (Ala.1989); Jones v. Jones, 470 So. 2d 1207 (Ala.1985); Clark v. Albertville Nursing Home, Inc., 545 So. 2d 9 (Ala. 1989). The reviewing court must determine whether the trial court correctly applied the law to the facts and whether the judgment was an abuse of discretion and plainly and palpably wrong. Franz v. Franz, 723 So. 2d 61 (Ala.Civ.App.1997).
After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court did not act arbitrarily or otherwise abuse its discretion in fashioning the overall property settlement. The evidence supports the trial court's judgment. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals and remand the cause.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HOOPER, C.J., and MADDOX, HOUSTON, SEE, LYONS, BROWN, JOHNSTONE, and ENGLAND, JJ., concur.