Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Haynes v. Haynes

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Decided May 28, 1999No. 2980206Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCrawley, Judge

I concur with the affirmance of the trial court’s judgment as it relates to the division of marital property. I dissent from the reversal of the trial court’s judgment as it relates to the amount of periodic alimony.

Our supreme court has stated:

“[An appellate court should not] substitute its judgment of the facts for that of the [trial] court. Rea v. Rea, 599 So.2d 1206 (Ala.Civ.App.1992). Instead, [the appellate court’s] task is simply to determine if there was sufficient evidence before the [trial] court to support its decision against a charge or arbitrariness and abuse of discretion.…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Ex Parte SmithSupreme Court of Alabama · 1995

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

Powered by the Exa API