A.S.
v.
STATE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding all marital assets to the wife and $200 monthly alimony where the husband abandoned the family in 1982, left the wife with all financial obligations, and provided no support for over three years.
[1] The award of alimony and the division of property in a divorce decree is a matter within the discretion of the trial court.
[2] The discretion of the trial court in awarding alimony and dividing property will be disturbed on appeal only if it appears from the evidence that such discretion has been…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“”
Establishes the standard of review that trial court discretion is broad in property and alimony decisions
Previewing 1 of 4 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties married in 1961 and separated in April 1982 when the husband left for Kentucky and Pittsburgh without warning, leaving his wife responsibl…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Division Of Marital Property cases and more on FLexlaw
WRIGHT, Presiding Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment awarding a divorce between the plaintiff, Vivian B. Gibb, and the defendant, Robert J. Gibb.
Mrs. Gibb filed her complaint for divorce in June 1982 and obtained a default judgment in July 1982. The Default Judgment was set aside upon motion of defendant in *454August 1982. A trial was held in July 1985, and a Final Judgment of Divorce was entered. The judgment awarded all of the marital assets to the wife, together with alimony of $200 per month. Husband appeals, contending that the awards of alimony and property are excessive and constitute an abuse of discretion. We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court and affirm.
The case involves the following pertinent facts:
The parties married on December 2, 1961. They lived together as husband and wife until April 26, 1982. On the morning of April 26, Mrs. Gibb left for work as usual. She believed that her husband had also gone to work, until she received a phone call from his employer saying that he had not shown up for work. Gibb contacted his wife later that night from Kentucky and told her that he was going to Pittsburgh to work. During this conversation he stated that due to problems they were having that they should live separately for a period of time.
Gibb left his wife with the responsibility of a mortgage payment, two car payments, medical bills and living expenses for herself and their children. The evidence reveals that both parties had contributed to payments for the home, and that from 1982 to the present, Mrs. Gibb has made the mortgage payments. As a result of her husband’s departure, Mrs. Gibb was forced to obtain a second mortgage on the family residence to pay mounting bills and to purchase another automobile. She has also had to seek psychiatric counseling because of her husband’s abandonment. Since her husband’s departure in 1982, Mrs. Gibb has not received any support from her husband.
The award of alimony and the division of property in a divorce decree is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. Conwell v. Conwell, 56 Ala.App. 188, 320 So. 2d 694 (1975). The discretion of the trial court will be disturbed on appeal only if it appears from the evidence that such discretion has been exercised in an arbitrary and unjust manner. Romei v. Romei, 53 Ala.App. 391, 300 So. 2d 834 (1974). It is clear from the evidence that there has been no abuse of discretion by the trial court, and we must therefore affirm.
AFFIRMED.
BRADLEY and HOLMES, JJ., concur.