Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Wade v. Wade

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Decided October 21, 1987No. Civ. 5852Published

1ConcurrenceHolmes, Judge

The proceeding before the trial court, as noted in its final decree, dealt solely with *152the husband’s petition to modify the amount of periodic alimony he is required to pay the wife. In my opinion, it is quite clear that, in noting that the wife has a vested interest in the husband’s civil service retirement income, the trial court was simply pointing out her right to receive alimony from this source of income. There is no question but that the trial court could properly consider such income as a source from which periodic alimony to the wife could be paid. Murphy v. Murphy, 470 So.2d 1297…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Murphy v. MurphyCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1985
  2. Meyer v. MeyerCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1979
  3. Adams v. AdamsCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1984

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

Powered by the Exa API