Title: Ex Parte Reuter
Citation: 623 So. 2d 737
Docket Number: 1911111
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: June 25, 1993

623 So. 2d 737 (1993)
Ex parte Frederick W.P. REUTER, Jr.
(Re Frederick W.P. REUTER, Jr. v. Gloria Gay REUTER.)
1911111.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
June 25, 1993.
J. Brice Callaway, Huntsville, for petitioner.
Bruce E. Williams of Stephens, Millirons, Harrison &amp; Williams, P.C., Huntsville, for respondent.
ADAMS, Justice.
We granted the petition of Frederick W.P. Reuter, Jr., for certiorari review of the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals in Reuter v. Reuter, 623 So. 2d 735 (Ala.Civ.App.1992). We affirm.
Frederick Reuter, Jr., and Gloria G. Reuter were married on September 6, 1969, and they divorced on May 6, 1991. On May 1, 1991, the parties stipulated as to the disposition of the marital home and as to the division of personal property and marital debts. After a hearing, the trial court, on May 6, 1991, entered a judgment in accordance with the stipulations. Mr. Reuter was ordered to pay child support in the amount of $416 per month and to pay $12,000 alimony in gross for Mrs. Reuter's support and maintenance.
The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed; we granted certiorari review to consider what appears to be an inconsistency, with respect to the treatment of alimony in gross, between two decisions of the Court of Civil Appeals: Hartsfield v. Hartsfield, 384 So. 2d 1097 (Ala. Civ.App.), cert. denied, 384 So. 2d 1100 (Ala. 1980), and Rogers v. Rogers, 473 So. 2d 537 (Ala.Civ.App.1985).
In Hartsfield, the Court of Appeals stated, with respect to alimony in gross:
384 So. 2d  at 1098-99.
473 So. 2d  at 538. See also Sketo v. Sketo, 608 So. 2d 759, 760 (Ala.Civ.App.1992).
This Court stated in Hager v. Hager, 293 Ala. 47, 52, 299 So. 2d 743, 747 (1974), with respect to alimony in gross:
(Quoting Smith v. Rogers, 215 Ala. 581, 112 So. 190 (1927)). See also Shirley v. Shirley, 600 So. 2d 284 (Ala.Civ.App.1992).
To the extent that Hartsfield v. Hartsfield, supra, is inconsistent with this Court's ruling on alimony in gross in Smith and Hager, supra, it is overruled.
Arzonico v. Wells, 589 So. 2d 152 (Ala.1991). We have considered the record in this case and we have determined that there was no error in the trial court's judgment and award of alimony in gross.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals. We also award Mrs. Reuter an attorney fee in the amount of $500 in this certiorari proceeding.
AFFIRMED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, SHORES, HOUSTON and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.