Opinion ID: 1660544
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Initial Periodic Alimony

Text: The husband also argues that the Court of Civil Appeals erred in reversing the trial court's order relating to initial periodic-alimony payments. The trial court ordered that [t]he Husband ... pay to the Wife periodic alimony in the sum of $250.00 per month. (C.R. at 280.) The Court of Civil Appeals stated: The wife testified that although she had obtained a degree in education, she was not certified to teach; that it would take her approximately 2 to 3 years to become certified; and that she was working toward becoming certified. The wife also testified that, at the husband's insistence, she had not worked outside the home during the majority of the parties' 13 years of marriage. 796 So.2d at 338. The Court of Civil Appeals also noted that the mother's living expenses were approximately $2,500 per month and that she was earning gross wages of only $1,200 per month. Accordingly, the Court of Civil Appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the wife only $250 a month in alimony. We are mindful that matters of alimony and property division are within the sound discretion of the trial court, and [that] absent a showing of abuse of that discretion, the trial court's ruling on those matters will not be reversed. Franz v. Franz, 723 So.2d 61, 63 (Ala.Civ.App.1997). However, we also note, as did the Court of Civil Appeals, that [t]he purpose of alimony is to preserve, as far as practical, the economic status quo the parties enjoyed during the marriage. Pickett v. Pickett, 723 So.2d 71, 74 (Ala.Civ.App.1998). Although we find this to be a close case on this point, we affirm that portion of the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals reversing the trial court's award of periodic alimony.