Court Opinion

ID: 9936459
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:58:06.275782+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:31:23.882859
License: Public Domain

I concur in the reversal as to the issues of child support and Bayliss support, but I dissent as to the reversal of the periodic-alimony award. Newton v. Newton, 655 So.2d 1033
(Ala.Civ.App. 1995), upon which the court relies for the proposition that "the sole purpose of periodic alimony is the support of the dependent spouse," was implicitly overruled on that point in O'Neal v. O'Neal, 678 So.2d 161, 164 (Ala.Civ.App. 1996).
In O'Neal, we stated:
 "The purpose of periodic alimony is to support the former dependent spouse and to enable that spouse, to the extent possible, to maintain the status that the parties had enjoyed during the marriage, until the spouse is self-supporting or maintaining a status similar to the one enjoyed during the marriage."
678 So.2d at 165 (emphasis added). Based on O'Neal, the alimony award is due to be affirmed.
Thompson, J., concurs.