Court Opinion

ID: 4859199
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-08-26 01:35:29.582534+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:01.178079
License: Public Domain

I concur in Parts II and III of the main opinion. I concur in the result as to Part I. As to Part IV, which overrules Campbell v. Campbell, [Ms. 2070724, April 24, 2009] ___ So.3d. ___, ___ (Ala.Civ.App. 2009), I believe, in contrast to the view of the per curiam opinion, thatCampbell is consistent with appellate-review principles applicable to trial-court attorney-fee awards in domestic-relations cases. See, e.g., Walding v.Walding, 983 So.2d 1128, 1132 (Ala.Civ.App. 2007) (affirming trial court's judgment directing husband to pay one-half of wife's undetermined attorney fees). Because I would prefer not to place this court in the position of micromanaging a settled area of trial-court discretion, see generally Ex parteJames, 764 So.2d 557, 560 (Ala. 1999), I dissent from Part IV of the main opinion.