Ex Parte Cole
Supreme Court of Alabama
1DissentMaddox, Justice
By quashing the writ as improvidently granted, the Court necessarily agrees with the statement of law contained in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals that the trial court could not award one-half of the husband’s retirement benefits to the wife as periodic alimony. The respondent, in his brief, “does not dispute that the present law in Alabama is that retirement benefits may be used as a source of income from which periodic alimony may be granted.” Respondent’s only argument in support of the opinion is that “[t]he Court of Civil Appeals could logically conclude that the payment of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Hager v. HagerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1974
- Kabaci v. KabaciCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1979
- McEntire v. McEntireCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1977
- Cochran v. CochranSupreme Court of Alabama · 1972
- Edwards v. EdwardsCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1982
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.