Court Opinion

ID: 9695262
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:13:58.738747+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:10.523297
License: Public Domain

*641ON REHEARING
HOLMES, Judge.
Appellee, in his application for rehearing, contends that this court must, before reversing the trial court in this instance, conclude that the trial court’s decree was plainly erroneous or palpably and manifestly wrong and that nowhere in our original decree did we so find.
Able counsel for appellee is correct that our original opinion does not so state, but this court, in the instant case, reviewed the trial court’s decree as we review all cases heard ore tenus by the trial court whereby the effect of the lower court’s finding has the effect of a jury verdict, and will not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly erroneous or palpably and manifestly wrong. Lamar v. Lamar, 263 Ala. 391, 82 So.2d 558; Self v. Self, 49 Ala.App. 665, 275 So.2d 345; Fox v. Fox, 48 Ala.App. 437, 265 So.2d 877. See 2A Ala.Dig. Appeal and Error ^lOOS.l^), 1009(1).
Our original opinion only inferentially reveals the nature of our review and for clarity the following should be inserted in our original opinion on page 729 after the last sentence of the penultimate paragraph.
Therefore, upon careful review of the evidence and the trial court’s decree, and further inferring the requisite inferences which the law requires us to so infer, we hold the lower court’s action in finding the property agreement valid and binding to be plainly and palpably wrong for the reasons set out herein above.
Opinion extended. Application for Rehearing overruled.
WRIGHT, P. J., and BRADLEY, J., concur.