Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Knight v. Knight

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Decided July 29, 2016No. 2150102Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMoore, Judge

I concur that the judgment of the Madison Circuit Court (“the trial court”) is due to be affirmed in all respects except as to the award of periodic alimony, which, in my opinion, should be reversed.

In her testimony, Mary Jean Knight (“the wife”) requested $3,000 per month in alimony. The following colloquy then occurred:

“[Wife’s counsel]: And tell the Court, please, ma’am, how did you come up with that figure? Why did you come up with $3,000?
“[Wife]: Well, the way I did it was—I thought about his job, the money that he makes—his civilian job and also his retirement—and. I added the two…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Orr v. OrrCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1979
  2. Shewbart v. ShewbartCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2010
  3. Ex Parte BilleckSupreme Court of Alabama · 2000
  4. Ivey v. IveyCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1979
  5. Rieger v. RiegerCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2013

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API