Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Thompson v. Thompson

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Decided October 21, 1994No. AV93000002Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partThigpen, Judge

Since I would affirm the trial court’s discretionary denial of child support, I must respectfully dissent to that portion of the majority opinion.

The matters of child support and its subsequent modification rest soundly within the discretion of the trial court, and its judgment will not be reversed on appeal absent abuse. Thompson v. Hove, 596 So.2d 939 (Ala.Civ. App.1992). The modification of a prior judgment regarding child support requires proof of changed circumstances, and appellate review of that judgment, as in this case, is limited by the ore tenus rule. Tucker v. Tucker, 588 So.2d…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Armstrong v. SparksCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1978
  2. Ares v. MartinezCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1992
  3. Brining v. BriningCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1992
  4. Scott v. StevensCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1994
  5. Guy v. GuyCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1993

2 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