Court Opinion

ID: 9938601
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 19:03:34.29712+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:13.687422
License: Public Domain

For reasons expressed in my dissent in Cox v. Cox,531 So.2d 1232 (Ala.Civ.App. 1988), this case concerns me. However, in the instant case I can concur in the result reached by the majority. This is so because it appears that the trial court made the husband's retirement benefits the sole basis of the $26,000 award of alimony in gross to the wife. This the trial court cannot do. See Broadus v. Broadus, 470 So.2d 1239
(Ala.Civ.App. 1985); Tinsley v. Tinsley, 431 So.2d 1304
(Ala.Civ.App. 1983); Pedigo v. Pedigo, 413 So.2d 1154
(Ala.Civ.App. 1981), writ quashed, 413 So.2d 1157 (Ala. 1982);Kabaci v. Kabaci, 373 So.2d 1144 (Ala.Civ.App. 1979).
Therefore, in view of the above, I agree with the majority's conclusion that the trial court's judgment awarding alimony in gross should be reversed.