Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

G.K.M. v. E.B.M.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Decided January 16, 1998No. 2961165Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRobertson, Presiding Judge

In light of our standard of review, I cannot hold that the trial court abused its discretion in not dividing the husband’s retirement accounts. “Even if this court would have made a different determination, absent an abuse of discretion, we are without authority to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Beckwith v. Beckwith, 475 So.2d 575 (Ala.Civ.App.1985).” Sartain v. Sartain, 682 So.2d 1368, 1370 (Ala.Civ.App.1996).

Property divisions must be equitable and “the determination as to what is equitable rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Duckett v. Duckett, 669…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Beckwith v. BeckwithCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1985
  2. Ex Parte VaughnSupreme Court of Alabama · 1993
  3. Sartain v. SartainCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1996

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API