Preview:

REL: 09/28/2012

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
SPECIAL TERM, 2012
2110024
Henry J. Frye v.
Charmann Frye
Appeal from Limestone Circuit Court (DR-08-395.02)
PITTMAN, Judge.
In July 2010, Henry J. Frye ("the former husband") filed a postdivorce action seeking to reduce his periodic-alimony obligation to Charmann Frye ("the former wife"). Following an



REL: 09/28/2012

Southern Reporter
Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
SPECIAL TERM, 2012
2110024
Henry J. Frye v.
Charmann Frye
Appeal from Limestone Circuit Court (DR-08-395.02)
PITTMAN, Judge.
In July 2010, Henry J. Frye ("the former husband") filed a postdivorce action seeking to reduce his periodic-alimony obligation to Charmann Frye ("the former wife"). Following an



REL: 09/28/2012

Southern Reporter
Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
SPECIAL TERM, 2012
2110024
Henry J. Frye v.
Charmann Frye
Appeal from Limestone Circuit Court (DR-08-395.02)
PITTMAN, Judge.
In July 2010, Henry J. Frye ("the former husband") filed a postdivorce action seeking to reduce his periodic-alimony obligation to Charmann Frye ("the former wife"). Following an



REL: 09/28/2012

Southern Reporter
Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
SPECIAL TERM, 2012
2110024
Henry J. Frye v.
Charmann Frye
Appeal from Limestone Circuit Court (DR-08-395.02)
PITTMAN, Judge.
In July 2010, Henry J. Frye ("the former husband") filed a postdivorce action seeking to reduce his periodic-alimony obligation to Charmann Frye ("the former wife"). Following an



REL: 09/28/2012

Southern Reporter
Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
SPECIAL TERM, 2012
2110024
Henry J. Frye v.
Charmann Frye
Appeal from Limestone Circuit Court (DR-08-395.02)
PITTMAN, Judge.
In July 2010, Henry J. Frye ("the former husband") filed a postdivorce action seeking to reduce his periodic-alimony obligation to Charmann Frye ("the former wife"). Following an



REL: 09/28/2012

Southern Reporter
Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
SPECIAL TERM, 2012
2110024
Henry J. Frye v.
Charmann Frye
Appeal from Limestone Circuit Court (DR-08-395.02)
PITTMAN, Judge.
In July 2010, Henry J. Frye ("the former husband") filed a postdivorce action seeking to reduce his periodic-alimony obligation to Charmann Frye ("the former wife"). Following an



REL: 09/28/2012

Southern Reporter
Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
SPECIAL TERM, 2012
2110024
Henry J. Frye v.
Charmann Frye
Appeal from Limestone Circuit Court (DR-08-395.02)
PITTMAN, Judge.
In July 2010, Henry J. Frye ("the former husband") filed a postdivorce action seeking to reduce his periodic-alimony obligation to Charmann Frye ("the former wife"). Following an



REL: 09/28/2012

Southern Reporter
Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
SPECIAL TERM, 2012
2110024
Henry J. Frye v.
Charmann Frye
Appeal from Limestone Circuit Court (DR-08-395.02)
PITTMAN, Judge.
In July 2010, Henry J. Frye ("the former husband") filed a postdivorce action seeking to reduce his periodic-alimony obligation to Charmann Frye ("the former wife"). Following an



REL: 09/28/2012

Southern Reporter
Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
SPECIAL TERM, 2012
2110024
Henry J. Frye v.
Charmann Frye
Appeal from Limestone Circuit Court (DR-08-395.02)
PITTMAN, Judge.
In July 2010, Henry J. Frye ("the former husband") filed a postdivorce action seeking to reduce his periodic-alimony obligation to Charmann Frye ("the former wife"). Following an



REL: 09/28/2012

Southern Reporter
Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
SPECIAL TERM, 2012
2110024
Henry J. Frye v.
Charmann Frye
Appeal from Limestone Circuit Court (DR-08-395.02)
PITTMAN, Judge.
In July 2010, Henry J. Frye ("the former husband") filed a postdivorce action seeking to reduce his periodic-alimony obligation to Charmann Frye ("the former wife"). Following an



REL: 09/28/2012

Southern Reporter
Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
SPECIAL TERM, 2012
2110024
Henry J. Frye v.
Charmann Frye
Appeal from Limestone Circuit Court (DR-08-395.02)
PITTMAN, Judge.
In July 2010, Henry J. Frye ("the former husband") filed a postdivorce action seeking to reduce his periodic-alimony obligation to Charmann Frye ("the former wife"). Following an



2110024

ore tenus proceeding, the trial court entered a judgment that

stated, in pertinent part:

"Pursuant to the terms of the divorce [judgment], the [former husband] was ordered to pay alimony to the [former wife] in the amount of $1,825.00 per month for a period of sixteen (16) months and thereafter in the amount of $2,200.00 per month for a period of forty-four (44) months. The total obligation of payments in the alimony provision is $126,000.00.
"Since the rendering of the divorce [judgment], there has been a change in circumstances in regard to the economic ability of the [former husband] to continue to pay the said alimony ordered pursuant to said [judgment]. It is the finding of the court that the [former husband] is no longer employed in a way consistent with the income earned during the time that the [former husband] was ordered to pay the previous alimony. The [former husband] has looked diligently and consistently to find work consistent with the prior income. The court is satisfied that the [former husband] is not underemployed but is employed to an extent that he has reasonable income and a reasonable ability to continue to advance his income with the company he is now employed with. It is, therefore, the finding of this court that the total alimony obligation of $126,000.00 shall be paid by the [former husband] herein. It is further the finding of the court that the [former husband] has paid $31,250.00 on said alimony obligation. The court, therefore, finds that the balance owing from the [former husband] to the [former wife] in the amount of alimony is $94,750.00. It is ordered by the court, given the current economic standing of the parties hereto, the amount of monthly alimony to be paid on the outstanding alimony obligation shall be $500.00 per month, commencing thirty (30) days from the entry of this order. Said amount of alimony shall continue

2



2110024

ore tenus proceeding, the trial court entered a judgment that

stated, in pertinent part:

"Pursuant to the terms of the divorce [judgment], the [former husband] was ordered to pay alimony to the [former wife] in the amount of $1,825.00 per month for a period of sixteen (16) months and thereafter in the amount of $2,200.00 per month for a period of forty-four (44) months. The total obligation of payments in the alimony provision is $126,000.00.
"Since the rendering of the divorce [judgment], there has been a change in circumstances in regard to the economic ability of the [former husband] to continue to pay the said alimony ordered pursuant to said [judgment]. It is the finding of the court that the [former husband] is no longer employed in a way consistent with the income earned during the time that the [former husband] was ordered to pay the previous alimony. The [former husband] has looked diligently and consistently to find work consistent with the prior income. The court is satisfied that the [former husband] is not underemployed but is employed to an extent that he has reasonable income and a reasonable ability to continue to advance his income with the company he is now employed with. It is, therefore, the finding of this court that the total alimony obligation of $126,000.00 shall be paid by the [former husband] herein. It is further the finding of the court that the [former husband] has paid $31,250.00 on said alimony obligation. The court, therefore, finds that the balance owing from the [former husband] to the [former wife] in the amount of alimony is $94,750.00. It is ordered by the court, given the current economic standing of the parties hereto, the amount of monthly alimony to be paid on the outstanding alimony obligation shall be $500.00 per month, commencing thirty (30) days from the entry of this order. Said amount of alimony shall continue

2



2110024

ore tenus proceeding, the trial court entered a judgment that

stated, in pertinent part:

"Pursuant to the terms of the divorce [judgment], the [former husband] was ordered to pay alimony to the [former wife] in the amount of $1,825.00 per month for a period of sixteen (16) months and thereafter in the amount of $2,200.00 per month for a period of forty-four (44) months. The total obligation of payments in the alimony provision is $126,000.00.
"Since the rendering of the divorce [judgment], there has been a change in circumstances in regard to the economic ability of the [former husband] to continue to pay the said alimony ordered pursuant to said [judgment]. It is the finding of the court that the [former husband] is no longer employed in a way consistent with the income earned during the time that the [former husband] was ordered to pay the previous alimony. The [former husband] has looked diligently and consistently to find work consistent with the prior income. The court is satisfied that the [former husband] is not underemployed but is employed to an extent that he has reasonable income and a reasonable ability to continue to advance his income with the company he is now employed with. It is, therefore, the finding of this court that the total alimony obligation of $126,000.00 shall be paid by the [former husband] herein. It is further the finding of the court that the [former husband] has paid $31,250.00 on said alimony obligation. The court, therefore, finds that the balance owing from the [former husband] to the [former wife] in the amount of alimony is $94,750.00. It is ordered by the court, given the current economic standing of the parties hereto, the amount of monthly alimony to be paid on the outstanding alimony obligation shall be $500.00 per month, commencing thirty (30) days from the entry of this order. Said amount of alimony shall continue

2



2110024

ore tenus proceeding, the trial court entered a judgment that

stated, in pertinent part:

"Pursuant to the terms of the divorce [judgment], the [former husband] was ordered to pay alimony to the [former wife] in the amount of $1,825.00 per month for a period of sixteen (16) months and thereafter in the amount of $2,200.00 per month for a period of forty-four (44) months. The total obligation of payments in the alimony provision is $126,000.00.
"Since the rendering of the divorce [judgment], there has been a change in circumstances in regard to the economic ability of the [former husband] to continue to pay the said alimony ordered pursuant to said [judgment]. It is the finding of the court that the [former husband] is no longer employed in a way consistent with the income earned during the time that the [former husband] was ordered to pay the previous alimony. The [former husband] has looked diligently and consistently to find work consistent with the prior income. The court is satisfied that the [former husband] is not underemployed but is employed to an extent that he has reasonable income and a reasonable ability to continue to advance his income with the company he is now employed with. It is, therefore, the finding of this court that the total alimony obligation of $126,000.00 shall be paid by the [former husband] herein. It is further the finding of the court that the [former husband] has paid $31,250.00 on said alimony obligation. The court, therefore, finds that the balance owing from the [former husband] to the [former wife] in the amount of alimony is $94,750.00. It is ordered by the court, given the current economic standing of the parties hereto, the amount of monthly alimony to be paid on the outstanding alimony obligation shall be $500.00 per month, commencing thirty (30) days from the entry of this order. Said amount of alimony shall continue

2



2110024
to be paid until [the former wife's] death, remarriage, open cohabitation with a member of the opposite sex or termination of said payments as provided by law, whichever event shall first occur."
The record before us does not contain the divorce
judgment, but it appears that that judgment was entered in
July 2009. The evidence indicated that, at the time of the
divorce, the former husband had been employed as a structural
superintendent for BE&K, Inc., in Birmingham and had been
earning an annual income of $95,000 to $100,000. In June
2010, the former husband was laid off from his employment at
BE&K. He received unemployment-compensation benefits until
November 2010, when he was hired by International Paper Co. to
work at its pulpwood operation in Mansfield, Louisiana, where
he earned an hourly wage of $14.25. At the time of the
modification proceedings, the former husband had remarried and
was earning a monthly gross income of $2,300 ($27,600
annually). His wife's gross annual income was also
approximately $27,000, and the couple had monthly expenses
totaling $3,129. The former wife's income had not changed
since the time of the divorce. She was still earning an
hourly wage of $10, or a gross monthly income of $1,600.

3



2110024
to be paid until [the former wife's] death, remarriage, open cohabitation with a member of the opposite sex or termination of said payments as provided by law, whichever event shall first occur."
The record before us does not contain the divorce
judgment, but it appears that that judgment was entered in
July 2009. The evidence indicated that, at the time of the
divorce, the former husband had been employed as a structural
superintendent for BE&K, Inc., in Birmingham and had been
earning an annual income of $95,000 to $100,000. In June
2010, the former husband was laid off from his employment at
BE&K. He received unemployment-compensation benefits until
November 2010, when he was hired by International Paper Co. to
work at its pulpwood operation in Mansfield, Louisiana, where
he earned an hourly wage of $14.25. At the time of the
modification proceedings, the former husband had remarried and
was earning a monthly gross income of $2,300 ($27,600
annually). His wife's gross annual income was also
approximately $27,000, and the couple had monthly expenses
totaling $3,129. The former wife's income had not changed
since the time of the divorce. She was still earning an
hourly wage of $10, or a gross monthly income of $1,600.

3



2110024
to be paid until [the former wife's] death, remarriage, open cohabitation with a member of the opposite sex or termination of said payments as provided by law, whichever event shall first occur."
The record before us does not contain the divorce
judgment, but it appears that that judgment was entered in
July 2009. The evidence indicated that, at the time of the
divorce, the former husband had been employed as a structural
superintendent for BE&K, Inc., in Birmingham and had been
earning an annual income of $95,000 to $100,000. In June
2010, the former husband was laid off from his employment at
BE&K. He received unemployment-compensation benefits until
November 2010, when he was hired by International Paper Co. to
work at its pulpwood operation in Mansfield, Louisiana, where
he earned an hourly wage of $14.25. At the time of the
modification proceedings, the former husband had remarried and
was earning a monthly gross income of $2,300 ($27,600
annually). His wife's gross annual income was also
approximately $27,000, and the couple had monthly expenses
totaling $3,129. The former wife's income had not changed
since the time of the divorce. She was still earning an
hourly wage of $10, or a gross monthly income of $1,600.

3



2110024
to be paid until [the former wife's] death, remarriage, open cohabitation with a member of the opposite sex or termination of said payments as provided by law, whichever event shall first occur."
The record before us does not contain the divorce
judgment, but it appears that that judgment was entered in
July 2009. The evidence indicated that, at the time of the
divorce, the former husband had been employed as a structural
superintendent for BE&K, Inc., in Birmingham and had been
earning an annual income of $95,000 to $100,000. In June
2010, the former husband was laid off from his employment at
BE&K. He received unemployment-compensation benefits until
November 2010, when he was hired by International Paper Co. to
work at its pulpwood operation in Mansfield, Louisiana, where
he earned an hourly wage of $14.25. At the time of the
modification proceedings, the former husband had remarried and
was earning a monthly gross income of $2,300 ($27,600
annually). His wife's gross annual income was also
approximately $27,000, and the couple had monthly expenses
totaling $3,129. The former wife's income had not changed
since the time of the divorce. She was still earning an
hourly wage of $10, or a gross monthly income of $1,600.

3



2110024
to be paid until [the former wife's] death, remarriage, open cohabitation with a member of the opposite sex or termination of said payments as provided by law, whichever event shall first occur."
The record before us does not contain the divorce
judgment, but it appears that that judgment was entered in
July 2009. The evidence indicated that, at the time of the
divorce, the former husband had been employed as a structural
superintendent for BE&K, Inc., in Birmingham and had been
earning an annual income of $95,000 to $100,000. In June
2010, the former husband was laid off from his employment at
BE&K. He received unemployment-compensation benefits until
November 2010, when he was hired by International Paper Co. to
work at its pulpwood operation in Mansfield, Louisiana, where
he earned an hourly wage of $14.25. At the time of the
modification proceedings, the former husband had remarried and
was earning a monthly gross income of $2,300 ($27,600
annually). His wife's gross annual income was also
approximately $27,000, and the couple had monthly expenses
totaling $3,129. The former wife's income had not changed
since the time of the divorce. She was still earning an
hourly wage of $10, or a gross monthly income of $1,600.

3



2110024
to be paid until [the former wife's] death, remarriage, open cohabitation with a member of the opposite sex or termination of said payments as provided by law, whichever event shall first occur."
The record before us does not contain the divorce
judgment, but it appears that that judgment was entered in
July 2009. The evidence indicated that, at the time of the
divorce, the former husband had been employed as a structural
superintendent for BE&K, Inc., in Birmingham and had been
earning an annual income of $95,000 to $100,000. In June
2010, the former husband was laid off from his employment at
BE&K. He received unemployment-compensation benefits until
November 2010, when he was hired by International Paper Co. to
work at its pulpwood operation in Mansfield, Louisiana, where
he earned an hourly wage of $14.25. At the time of the
modification proceedings, the former husband had remarried and
was earning a monthly gross income of $2,300 ($27,600
annually). His wife's gross annual income was also
approximately $27,000, and the couple had monthly expenses
totaling $3,129. The former wife's income had not changed
since the time of the divorce. She was still earning an
hourly wage of $10, or a gross monthly income of $1,600.

3



2110024
to be paid until [the former wife's] death, remarriage, open cohabitation with a member of the opposite sex or termination of said payments as provided by law, whichever event shall first occur."
The record before us does not contain the divorce
judgment, but it appears that that judgment was entered in
July 2009. The evidence indicated that, at the time of the
divorce, the former husband had been employed as a structural
superintendent for BE&K, Inc., in Birmingham and had been
earning an annual income of $95,000 to $100,000. In June
2010, the former husband was laid off from his employment at
BE&K. He received unemployment-compensation benefits until
November 2010, when he was hired by International Paper Co. to
work at its pulpwood operation in Mansfield, Louisiana, where
he earned an hourly wage of $14.25. At the time of the
modification proceedings, the former husband had remarried and
was earning a monthly gross income of $2,300 ($27,600
annually). His wife's gross annual income was also
approximately $27,000, and the couple had monthly expenses
totaling $3,129. The former wife's income had not changed
since the time of the divorce. She was still earning an
hourly wage of $10, or a gross monthly income of $1,600.

3



2110024
to be paid until [the former wife's] death, remarriage, open cohabitation with a member of the opposite sex or termination of said payments as provided by law, whichever event shall first occur."
The record before us does not contain the divorce
judgment, but it appears that that judgment was entered in
July 2009. The evidence indicated that, at the time of the
divorce, the former husband had been employed as a structural
superintendent for BE&K, Inc., in Birmingham and had been
earning an annual income of $95,000 to $100,000. In June
2010, the former husband was laid off from his employment at
BE&K. He received unemployment-compensation benefits until
November 2010, when he was hired by International Paper Co. to
work at its pulpwood operation in Mansfield, Louisiana, where
he earned an hourly wage of $14.25. At the time of the
modification proceedings, the former husband had remarried and
was earning a monthly gross income of $2,300 ($27,600
annually). His wife's gross annual income was also
approximately $27,000, and the couple had monthly expenses
totaling $3,129. The former wife's income had not changed
since the time of the divorce. She was still earning an
hourly wage of $10, or a gross monthly income of $1,600.

3



2110024
to be paid until [the former wife's] death, remarriage, open cohabitation with a member of the opposite sex or termination of said payments as provided by law, whichever event shall first occur."
The record before us does not contain the divorce
judgment, but it appears that that judgment was entered in
July 2009. The evidence indicated that, at the time of the
divorce, the former husband had been employed as a structural
superintendent for BE&K, Inc., in Birmingham and had been
earning an annual income of $95,000 to $100,000. In June
2010, the former husband was laid off from his employment at
BE&K. He received unemployment-compensation benefits until
November 2010, when he was hired by International Paper Co. to
work at its pulpwood operation in Mansfield, Louisiana, where
he earned an hourly wage of $14.25. At the time of the
modification proceedings, the former husband had remarried and
was earning a monthly gross income of $2,300 ($27,600
annually). His wife's gross annual income was also
approximately $27,000, and the couple had monthly expenses
totaling $3,129. The former wife's income had not changed
since the time of the divorce. She was still earning an
hourly wage of $10, or a gross monthly income of $1,600.

3



2110024
to be paid until [the former wife's] death, remarriage, open cohabitation with a member of the opposite sex or termination of said payments as provided by law, whichever event shall first occur."
The record before us does not contain the divorce
judgment, but it appears that that judgment was entered in
July 2009. The evidence indicated that, at the time of the
divorce, the former husband had been employed as a structural
superintendent for BE&K, Inc., in Birmingham and had been
earning an annual income of $95,000 to $100,000. In June
2010, the former husband was laid off from his employment at
BE&K. He received unemployment-compensation benefits until
November 2010, when he was hired by International Paper Co. to
work at its pulpwood operation in Mansfield, Louisiana, where
he earned an hourly wage of $14.25. At the time of the
modification proceedings, the former husband had remarried and
was earning a monthly gross income of $2,300 ($27,600
annually). His wife's gross annual income was also
approximately $27,000, and the couple had monthly expenses
totaling $3,129. The former wife's income had not changed
since the time of the divorce. She was still earning an
hourly wage of $10, or a gross monthly income of $1,600.

3



2110024
to be paid until [the former wife's] death, remarriage, open cohabitation with a member of the opposite sex or termination of said payments as provided by law, whichever event shall first occur."
The record before us does not contain the divorce
judgment, but it appears that that judgment was entered in
July 2009. The evidence indicated that, at the time of the
divorce, the former husband had been employed as a structural
superintendent for BE&K, Inc., in Birmingham and had been
earning an annual income of $95,000 to $100,000. In June
2010, the former husband was laid off from his employment at
BE&K. He received unemployment-compensation benefits until
November 2010, when he was hired by International Paper Co. to
work at its pulpwood operation in Mansfield, Louisiana, where
he earned an hourly wage of $14.25. At the time of the
modification proceedings, the former husband had remarried and
was earning a monthly gross income of $2,300 ($27,600
annually). His wife's gross annual income was also
approximately $27,000, and the couple had monthly expenses
totaling $3,129. The former wife's income had not changed
since the time of the divorce. She was still earning an
hourly wage of $10, or a gross monthly income of $1,600.

3



2110024
to be paid until [the former wife's] death, remarriage, open cohabitation with a member of the opposite sex or termination of said payments as provided by law, whichever event shall first occur."
The record before us does not contain the divorce
judgment, but it appears that that judgment was entered in
July 2009. The evidence indicated that, at the time of the
divorce, the former husband had been employed as a structural
superintendent for BE&K, Inc., in Birmingham and had been
earning an annual income of $95,000 to $100,000. In June
2010, the former husband was laid off from his employment at
BE&K. He received unemployment-compensation benefits until
November 2010, when he was hired by International Paper Co. to
work at its pulpwood operation in Mansfield, Louisiana, where
he earned an hourly wage of $14.25. At the time of the
modification proceedings, the former husband had remarried and
was earning a monthly gross income of $2,300 ($27,600
annually). His wife's gross annual income was also
approximately $27,000, and the couple had monthly expenses
totaling $3,129. The former wife's income had not changed
since the time of the divorce. She was still earning an
hourly wage of $10, or a gross monthly income of $1,600.

3



2110024
to be paid until [the former wife's] death, remarriage, open cohabitation with a member of the opposite sex or termination of said payments as provided by law, whichever event shall first occur."
The record before us does not contain the divorce
judgment, but it appears that that judgment was entered in
July 2009. The evidence indicated that, at the time of the
divorce, the former husband had been employed as a structural
superintendent for BE&K, Inc., in Birmingham and had been
earning an annual income of $95,000 to $100,000. In June
2010, the former husband was laid off from his employment at
BE&K. He received unemployment-compensation benefits until
November 2010, when he was hired by International Paper Co. to
work at its pulpwood operation in Mansfield, Louisiana, where
he earned an hourly wage of $14.25. At the time of the
modification proceedings, the former husband had remarried and
was earning a monthly gross income of $2,300 ($27,600
annually). His wife's gross annual income was also
approximately $27,000, and the couple had monthly expenses
totaling $3,129. The former wife's income had not changed
since the time of the divorce. She was still earning an
hourly wage of $10, or a gross monthly income of $1,600.

3



2110024
to be paid until [the former wife's] death, remarriage, open cohabitation with a member of the opposite sex or termination of said payments as provided by law, whichever event shall first occur."
The record before us does not contain the divorce
judgment, but it appears that that judgment was entered in
July 2009. The evidence indicated that, at the time of the
divorce, the former husband had been employed as a structural
superintendent for BE&K, Inc., in Birmingham and had been
earning an annual income of $95,000 to $100,000. In June
2010, the former husband was laid off from his employment at
BE&K. He received unemployment-compensation benefits until
November 2010, when he was hired by International Paper Co. to
work at its pulpwood operation in Mansfield, Louisiana, where
he earned an hourly wage of $14.25. At the time of the
modification proceedings, the former husband had remarried and
was earning a monthly gross income of $2,300 ($27,600
annually). His wife's gross annual income was also
approximately $27,000, and the couple had monthly expenses
totaling $3,129. The former wife's income had not changed
since the time of the divorce. She was still earning an
hourly wage of $10, or a gross monthly income of $1,600.

3



2110024
to be paid until [the former wife's] death, remarriage, open cohabitation with a member of the opposite sex or termination of said payments as provided by law, whichever event shall first occur."
The record before us does not contain the divorce
judgment, but it appears that that judgment was entered in
July 2009. The evidence indicated that, at the time of the
divorce, the former husband had been employed as a structural
superintendent for BE&K, Inc., in Birmingham and had been
earning an annual income of $95,000 to $100,000. In June
2010, the former husband was laid off from his employment at
BE&K. He received unemployment-compensation benefits until
November 2010, when he was hired by International Paper Co. to
work at its pulpwood operation in Mansfield, Louisiana, where
he earned an hourly wage of $14.25. At the time of the
modification proceedings, the former husband had remarried and
was earning a monthly gross income of $2,300 ($27,600
annually). His wife's gross annual income was also
approximately $27,000, and the couple had monthly expenses
totaling $3,129. The former wife's income had not changed
since the time of the divorce. She was still earning an
hourly wage of $10, or a gross monthly income of $1,600.

3



2110024
to be paid until [the former wife's] death, remarriage, open cohabitation with a member of the opposite sex or termination of said payments as provided by law, whichever event shall first occur."
The record before us does not contain the divorce
judgment, but it appears that that judgment was entered in
July 2009. The evidence indicated that, at the time of the
divorce, the former husband had been employed as a structural
superintendent for BE&K, Inc., in Birmingham and had been
earning an annual income of $95,000 to $100,000. In June
2010, the former husband was laid off from his employment at
BE&K. He received unemployment-compensation benefits until
November 2010, when he was hired by International Paper Co. to
work at its pulpwood operation in Mansfield, Louisiana, where
he earned an hourly wage of $14.25. At the time of the
modification proceedings, the former husband had remarried and
was earning a monthly gross income of $2,300 ($27,600
annually). His wife's gross annual income was also
approximately $27,000, and the couple had monthly expenses
totaling $3,129. The former wife's income had not changed
since the time of the divorce. She was still earning an
hourly wage of $10, or a gross monthly income of $1,600.

3



2110024
to be paid until [the former wife's] death, remarriage, open cohabitation with a member of the opposite sex or termination of said payments as provided by law, whichever event shall first occur."
The record before us does not contain the divorce
judgment, but it appears that that judgment was entered in
July 2009. The evidence indicated that, at the time of the
divorce, the former husband had been employed as a structural
superintendent for BE&K, Inc., in Birmingham and had been
earning an annual income of $95,000 to $100,000. In June
2010, the former husband was laid off from his employment at
BE&K. He received unemployment-compensation benefits until
November 2010, when he was hired by International Paper Co. to
work at its pulpwood operation in Mansfield, Louisiana, where
he earned an hourly wage of $14.25. At the time of the
modification proceedings, the former husband had remarried and
was earning a monthly gross income of $2,300 ($27,600
annually). His wife's gross annual income was also
approximately $27,000, and the couple had monthly expenses
totaling $3,129. The former wife's income had not changed
since the time of the divorce. She was still earning an
hourly wage of $10, or a gross monthly income of $1,600.

3



2110024
to be paid until [the former wife's] death, remarriage, open cohabitation with a member of the opposite sex or termination of said payments as provided by law, whichever event shall first occur."
The record before us does not contain the divorce
judgment, but it appears that that judgment was entered in
July 2009. The evidence indicated that, at the time of the
divorce, the former husband had been employed as a structural
superintendent for BE&K, Inc., in Birmingham and had been
earning an annual income of $95,000 to $100,000. In June
2010, the former husband was laid off from his employment at
BE&K. He received unemployment-compensation benefits until
November 2010, when he was hired by International Paper Co. to
work at its pulpwood operation in Mansfield, Louisiana, where
he earned an hourly wage of $14.25. At the time of the
modification proceedings, the former husband had remarried and
was earning a monthly gross income of $2,300 ($27,600
annually). His wife's gross annual income was also
approximately $27,000, and the couple had monthly expenses
totaling $3,129. The former wife's income had not changed
since the time of the divorce. She was still earning an
hourly wage of $10, or a gross monthly income of $1,600.

3



2110024
to be paid until [the former wife's] death, remarriage, open cohabitation with a member of the opposite sex or termination of said payments as provided by law, whichever event shall first occur."
The record before us does not contain the divorce
judgment, but it appears that that judgment was entered in
July 2009. The evidence indicated that, at the time of the
divorce, the former husband had been employed as a structural
superintendent for BE&K, Inc., in Birmingham and had been
earning an annual income of $95,000 to $100,000. In June
2010, the former husband was laid off from his employment at
BE&K. He received unemployment-compensation benefits until
November 2010, when he was hired by International Paper Co. to
work at its pulpwood operation in Mansfield, Louisiana, where
he earned an hourly wage of $14.25. At the time of the
modification proceedings, the former husband had remarried and
was earning a monthly gross income of $2,300 ($27,600
annually). His wife's gross annual income was also
approximately $27,000, and the couple had monthly expenses
totaling $3,129. The former wife's income had not changed
since the time of the divorce. She was still earning an
hourly wage of $10, or a gross monthly income of $1,600.

3



2110024
to be paid until [the former wife's] death, remarriage, open cohabitation with a member of the opposite sex or termination of said payments as provided by law, whichever event shall first occur."
The record before us does not contain the divorce
judgment, but it appears that that judgment was entered in
July 2009. The evidence indicated that, at the time of the
divorce, the former husband had been employed as a structural
superintendent for BE&K, Inc., in Birmingham and had been
earning an annual income of $95,000 to $100,000. In June
2010, the former husband was laid off from his employment at
BE&K. He received unemployment-compensation benefits until
November 2010, when he was hired by International Paper Co. to
work at its pulpwood operation in Mansfield, Louisiana, where
he earned an hourly wage of $14.25. At the time of the
modification proceedings, the former husband had remarried and
was earning a monthly gross income of $2,300 ($27,600
annually). His wife's gross annual income was also
approximately $27,000, and the couple had monthly expenses
totaling $3,129. The former wife's income had not changed
since the time of the divorce. She was still earning an
hourly wage of $10, or a gross monthly income of $1,600.

3



2110024
The evidence presented at trial supports the trial court's finding of a material change in circumstances since the time of the divorce that warranted a reduction of the former husband's alimony obligation from $2,200 per month to $500 per month. The former wife does not cross-appeal from the trial court's judgment, and the former husband does not argue that he is financially unable to pay the reduced monthly amount. Instead, he argues that the trial court erred in failing to reduce his "total alimony obligation," i.e., $94, 750 -- the unpaid balance of $126, 000, the sum of all  alimony payments contemplated by the divorce judgment.
The former husband contends that, because periodic alimony is based upon an obligor's current ability to pay, he is not obligated to pay the balance due on the original sum of $126,000 because, he says, that sum had been calculated in accordance with his ability to pay at the time of the divorce. The former husband, however, does not argue the logical corollary of that contention: that he should be required to pay reduced payments of $500 per month only for the time remaining in the 60-month payment period set in the divorce judgment. Both parties evidently understand the trial court's

4



2110024
The evidence presented at trial supports the trial court's finding of a material change in circumstances since the time of the divorce that warranted a reduction of the former husband's alimony obligation from $2,200 per month to $500 per month. The former wife does not cross-appeal from the trial court's judgment, and the former husband does not argue that he is financially unable to pay the reduced monthly amount. Instead, he argues that the trial court erred in failing to reduce his "total alimony obligation," i.e., $94, 750 -- the unpaid balance of $126, 000, the sum of all  alimony payments contemplated by the divorce judgment.
The former husband contends that, because periodic alimony is based upon an obligor's current ability to pay, he is not obligated to pay the balance due on the original sum of $126,000 because, he says, that sum had been calculated in accordance with his ability to pay at the time of the divorce. The former husband, however, does not argue the logical corollary of that contention: that he should be required to pay reduced payments of $500 per month only for the time remaining in the 60-month payment period set in the divorce judgment. Both parties evidently understand the trial court's

4



2110024
The evidence presented at trial supports the trial court's finding of a material change in circumstances since the time of the divorce that warranted a reduction of the former husband's alimony obligation from $2,200 per month to $500 per month. The former wife does not cross-appeal from the trial court's judgment, and the former husband does not argue that he is financially unable to pay the reduced monthly amount. Instead, he argues that the trial court erred in failing to reduce his "total alimony obligation," i.e., $94, 750 -- the unpaid balance of $126, 000, the sum of all  alimony payments contemplated by the divorce judgment.
The former husband contends that, because periodic alimony is based upon an obligor's current ability to pay, he is not obligated to pay the balance due on the original sum of $126,000 because, he says, that sum had been calculated in accordance with his ability to pay at the time of the divorce. The former husband, however, does not argue the logical corollary of that contention: that he should be required to pay reduced payments of $500 per month only for the time remaining in the 60-month payment period set in the divorce judgment. Both parties evidently understand the trial court's

4



2110024

modification judgment to mean that the former husband's alimony obligation, as modified, will end when the balance of $94,750 is paid.1 That understanding is, presumably, based on the following portion of the judgment, which we designate

"Provision A":

"It is, therefore, the finding of this court that the total alimony obligation of $126,000.00 shall be  paid by the [former husband] herein. It is further the finding of the court that the [former husband] has paid $31,250.00 on said alimony obligation. The  court, therefore, finds that the balance owing from  the [former husband] to the [former wife] in the  amount of alimony is $94,750.00. It is ordered by the court, given the current economic standing of the parties hereto, the amount of monthly alimony to  be paid on the outstanding alimony obligation shall  be $500.00 per month, commencing thirty (30) days from the entry of this order."

(Emphasis added.) In order to conclude that the former
husband's alimony obligation will end when the $94,750 balance
is paid, one would have to ignore the remainder of the trial
court's judgment, however, specifically that portion of the
judgment that we designate "Provision B":
"Said amount of alimony [$500 per month] shall continue to be paid until [the former wife's] death, remarriage, open cohabitation with a member of the

1In her appellate brief, the former wife argues that "[i]t is abundantly clear ... that [the former husband] just wants out of the obligation [to pay $94,750] altogether, and the [trial] court found no justification for that."

5



2110024

modification judgment to mean that the former husband's alimony obligation, as modified, will end when the balance of $94,750 is paid.1 That understanding is, presumably, based on the following portion of the judgment, which we designate

"Provision A":

"It is, therefore, the finding of this court that the total alimony obligation of $126,000.00 shall be  paid by the [former husband] herein. It is further the finding of the court that the [former husband] has paid $31,250.00 on said alimony obligation. The  court, therefore, finds that the balance owing from  the [former husband] to the [former wife] in the  amount of alimony is $94,750.00. It is ordered by the court, given the current economic standing of the parties hereto, the amount of monthly alimony to  be paid on the outstanding alimony obligation shall  be $500.00 per month, commencing thirty (30) days from the entry of this order."

(Emphasis added.) In order to conclude that the former
husband's alimony obligation will end when the $94,750 balance
is paid, one would have to ignore the remainder of the trial
court's judgment, however, specifically that portion of the
judgment that we designate "Provision B":
"Said amount of alimony [$500 per month] shall continue to be paid until [the former wife's] death, remarriage, open cohabitation with a member of the

1In her appellate brief, the former wife argues that "[i]t is abundantly clear ... that [the former husband] just wants out of the obligation [to pay $94,750] altogether, and the [trial] court found no justification for that."

5



2110024

modification judgment to mean that the former husband's alimony obligation, as modified, will end when the balance of $94,750 is paid.1 That understanding is, presumably, based on the following portion of the judgment, which we designate

"Provision A":

"It is, therefore, the finding of this court that the total alimony obligation of $126,000.00 shall be  paid by the [former husband] herein. It is further the finding of the court that the [former husband] has paid $31,250.00 on said alimony obligation. The  court, therefore, finds that the balance owing from  the [former husband] to the [former wife] in the  amount of alimony is $94,750.00. It is ordered by the court, given the current economic standing of the parties hereto, the amount of monthly alimony to  be paid on the outstanding alimony obligation shall  be $500.00 per month, commencing thirty (30) days from the entry of this order."

(Emphasis added.) In order to conclude that the former
husband's alimony obligation will end when the $94,750 balance
is paid, one would have to ignore the remainder of the trial
court's judgment, however, specifically that portion of the
judgment that we designate "Provision B":
"Said amount of alimony [$500 per month] shall continue to be paid until [the former wife's] death, remarriage, open cohabitation with a member of the

1In her appellate brief, the former wife argues that "[i]t is abundantly clear ... that [the former husband] just wants out of the obligation [to pay $94,750] altogether, and the [trial] court found no justification for that."

5



2110024

modification judgment to mean that the former husband's alimony obligation, as modified, will end when the balance of $94,750 is paid.1 That understanding is, presumably, based on the following portion of the judgment, which we designate

"Provision A":

"It is, therefore, the finding of this court that the total alimony obligation of $126,000.00 shall be  paid by the [former husband] herein. It is further the finding of the court that the [former husband] has paid $31,250.00 on said alimony obligation. The  court, therefore, finds that the balance owing from  the [former husband] to the [former wife] in the  amount of alimony is $94,750.00. It is ordered by the court, given the current economic standing of the parties hereto, the amount of monthly alimony to  be paid on the outstanding alimony obligation shall  be $500.00 per month, commencing thirty (30) days from the entry of this order."

(Emphasis added.) In order to conclude that the former
husband's alimony obligation will end when the $94,750 balance
is paid, one would have to ignore the remainder of the trial
court's judgment, however, specifically that portion of the
judgment that we designate "Provision B":
"Said amount of alimony [$500 per month] shall continue to be paid until [the former wife's] death, remarriage, open cohabitation with a member of the

1In her appellate brief, the former wife argues that "[i]t is abundantly clear ... that [the former husband] just wants out of the obligation [to pay $94,750] altogether, and the [trial] court found no justification for that."

5



2110024

modification judgment to mean that the former husband's alimony obligation, as modified, will end when the balance of $94,750 is paid.1 That understanding is, presumably, based on the following portion of the judgment, which we designate

"Provision A":

"It is, therefore, the finding of this court that the total alimony obligation of $126,000.00 shall be  paid by the [former husband] herein. It is further the finding of the court that the [former husband] has paid $31,250.00 on said alimony obligation. The  court, therefore, finds that the balance owing from  the [former husband] to the [former wife] in the  amount of alimony is $94,750.00. It is ordered by the court, given the current economic standing of the parties hereto, the amount of monthly alimony to  be paid on the outstanding alimony obligation shall  be $500.00 per month, commencing thirty (30) days from the entry of this order."

(Emphasis added.) In order to conclude that the former
husband's alimony obligation will end when the $94,750 balance
is paid, one would have to ignore the remainder of the trial
court's judgment, however, specifically that portion of the
judgment that we designate "Provision B":
"Said amount of alimony [$500 per month] shall continue to be paid until [the former wife's] death, remarriage, open cohabitation with a member of the

1In her appellate brief, the former wife argues that "[i]t is abundantly clear ... that [the former husband] just wants out of the obligation [to pay $94,750] altogether, and the [trial] court found no justification for that."

5



2110024

modification judgment to mean that the former husband's alimony obligation, as modified, will end when the balance of $94,750 is paid.1 That understanding is, presumably, based on the following portion of the judgment, which we designate

"Provision A":

"It is, therefore, the finding of this court that the total alimony obligation of $126,000.00 shall be  paid by the [former husband] herein. It is further the finding of the court that the [former husband] has paid $31,250.00 on said alimony obligation. The  court, therefore, finds that the balance owing from  the [former husband] to the [former wife] in the  amount of alimony is $94,750.00. It is ordered by the court, given the current economic standing of the parties hereto, the amount of monthly alimony to  be paid on the outstanding alimony obligation shall  be $500.00 per month, commencing thirty (30) days from the entry of this order."

(Emphasis added.) In order to conclude that the former
husband's alimony obligation will end when the $94,750 balance
is paid, one would have to ignore the remainder of the trial
court's judgment, however, specifically that portion of the
judgment that we designate "Provision B":
"Said amount of alimony [$500 per month] shall continue to be paid until [the former wife's] death, remarriage, open cohabitation with a member of the

1In her appellate brief, the former wife argues that "[i]t is abundantly clear ... that [the former husband] just wants out of the obligation [to pay $94,750] altogether, and the [trial] court found no justification for that."

5



2110024

modification judgment to mean that the former husband's alimony obligation, as modified, will end when the balance of $94,750 is paid.1 That understanding is, presumably, based on the following portion of the judgment, which we designate

"Provision A":

"It is, therefore, the finding of this court that the total alimony obligation of $126,000.00 shall be  paid by the [former husband] herein. It is further the finding of the court that the [former husband] has paid $31,250.00 on said alimony obligation. The  court, therefore, finds that the balance owing from  the [former husband] to the [former wife] in the  amount of alimony is $94,750.00. It is ordered by the court, given the current economic standing of the parties hereto, the amount of monthly alimony to  be paid on the outstanding alimony obligation shall  be $500.00 per month, commencing thirty (30) days from the entry of this order."

(Emphasis added.) In order to conclude that the former
husband's alimony obligation will end when the $94,750 balance
is paid, one would have to ignore the remainder of the trial
court's judgment, however, specifically that portion of the
judgment that we designate "Provision B":
"Said amount of alimony [$500 per month] shall continue to be paid until [the former wife's] death, remarriage, open cohabitation with a member of the

1In her appellate brief, the former wife argues that "[i]t is abundantly clear ... that [the former husband] just wants out of the obligation [to pay $94,750] altogether, and the [trial] court found no justification for that."

5



2110024

modification judgment to mean that the former husband's alimony obligation, as modified, will end when the balance of $94,750 is paid.1 That understanding is, presumably, based on the following portion of the judgment, which we designate

"Provision A":

"It is, therefore, the finding of this court that the total alimony obligation of $126,000.00 shall be  paid by the [former husband] herein. It is further the finding of the court that the [former husband] has paid $31,250.00 on said alimony obligation. The  court, therefore, finds that the balance owing from  the [former husband] to the [former wife] in the  amount of alimony is $94,750.00. It is ordered by the court, given the current economic standing of the parties hereto, the amount of monthly alimony to  be paid on the outstanding alimony obligation shall  be $500.00 per month, commencing thirty (30) days from the entry of this order."

(Emphasis added.) In order to conclude that the former
husband's alimony obligation will end when the $94,750 balance
is paid, one would have to ignore the remainder of the trial
court's judgment, however, specifically that portion of the
judgment that we designate "Provision B":
"Said amount of alimony [$500 per month] shall continue to be paid until [the former wife's] death, remarriage, open cohabitation with a member of the

1In her appellate brief, the former wife argues that "[i]t is abundantly clear ... that [the former husband] just wants out of the obligation [to pay $94,750] altogether, and the [trial] court found no justification for that."

5



2110024

modification judgment to mean that the former husband's alimony obligation, as modified, will end when the balance of $94,750 is paid.1 That understanding is, presumably, based on the following portion of the judgment, which we designate

"Provision A":

"It is, therefore, the finding of this court that the total alimony obligation of $126,000.00 shall be  paid by the [former husband] herein. It is further the finding of the court that the [former husband] has paid $31,250.00 on said alimony obligation. The  court, therefore, finds that the balance owing from  the [former husband] to the [former wife] in the  amount of alimony is $94,750.00. It is ordered by the court, given the current economic standing of the parties hereto, the amount of monthly alimony to  be paid on the outstanding alimony obligation shall  be $500.00 per month, commencing thirty (30) days from the entry of this order."

(Emphasis added.) In order to conclude that the former
husband's alimony obligation will end when the $94,750 balance
is paid, one would have to ignore the remainder of the trial
court's judgment, however, specifically that portion of the
judgment that we designate "Provision B":
"Said amount of alimony [$500 per month] shall continue to be paid until [the former wife's] death, remarriage, open cohabitation with a member of the

1In her appellate brief, the former wife argues that "[i]t is abundantly clear ... that [the former husband] just wants out of the obligation [to pay $94,750] altogether, and the [trial] court found no justification for that."

5



2110024

modification judgment to mean that the former husband's alimony obligation, as modified, will end when the balance of $94,750 is paid.1 That understanding is, presumably, based on the following portion of the judgment, which we designate

"Provision A":

"It is, therefore, the finding of this court that the total alimony obligation of $126,000.00 shall be  paid by the [former husband] herein. It is further the finding of the court that the [former husband] has paid $31,250.00 on said alimony obligation. The  court, therefore, finds that the balance owing from  the [former husband] to the [former wife] in the  amount of alimony is $94,750.00. It is ordered by the court, given the current economic standing of the parties hereto, the amount of monthly alimony to  be paid on the outstanding alimony obligation shall  be $500.00 per month, commencing thirty (30) days from the entry of this order."

(Emphasis added.) In order to conclude that the former
husband's alimony obligation will end when the $94,750 balance
is paid, one would have to ignore the remainder of the trial
court's judgment, however, specifically that portion of the
judgment that we designate "Provision B":
"Said amount of alimony [$500 per month] shall continue to be paid until [the former wife's] death, remarriage, open cohabitation with a member of the

1In her appellate brief, the former wife argues that "[i]t is abundantly clear ... that [the former husband] just wants out of the obligation [to pay $94,750] altogether, and the [trial] court found no justification for that."

5



2110024
opposite sex or termination of said payments as provided by law, whichever event shall first occur."
The parties apparently interpret Provision A as an award to
the former wife of the specific sum of $94,750, representing
the unpaid balance of the sum of all alimony payments due
under the divorce judgment, but payable in increments of $500
per month. To pay off the outstanding balance of $94,750, the
former husband would have to make 18 9 monthly payments of
$500, plus 1 payment of $250. Thus, under the parties'
reading of Provision A, the trial court extended the 60-month
period during which the former husband was originally to pay
alimony so that he would continue to pay alimony for 15 years,
10 months.
Provision B, on the other hand, indicates that the former husband is to pay periodic alimony for the indefinite future, subject only to the familiar, legally recognized reasons for terminating payments of periodic alimony. Irrespective of whatever else may be said of Provisions A and B, it is evident that the trial court's modification judgment extended the time for paying periodic alimony beyond the term established in the divorce judgment. At trial, the former wife acknowledged that she was asking the court to order payment of $94,750 and to

6



2110024
opposite sex or termination of said payments as provided by law, whichever event shall first occur."
The parties apparently interpret Provision A as an award to
the former wife of the specific sum of $94,750, representing
the unpaid balance of the sum of all alimony payments due
under the divorce judgment, but payable in increments of $500
per month. To pay off the outstanding balance of $94,750, the
former husband would have to make 18 9 monthly payments of
$500, plus 1 payment of $250. Thus, under the parties'
reading of Provision A, the trial court extended the 60-month
period during which the former husband was originally to pay
alimony so that he would continue to pay alimony for 15 years,
10 months.
Provision B, on the other hand, indicates that the former husband is to pay periodic alimony for the indefinite future, subject only to the familiar, legally recognized reasons for terminating payments of periodic alimony. Irrespective of whatever else may be said of Provisions A and B, it is evident that the trial court's modification judgment extended the time for paying periodic alimony beyond the term established in the divorce judgment. At trial, the former wife acknowledged that she was asking the court to order payment of $94,750 and to

6



2110024
opposite sex or termination of said payments as provided by law, whichever event shall first occur."
The parties apparently interpret Provision A as an award to
the former wife of the specific sum of $94,750, representing
the unpaid balance of the sum of all alimony payments due
under the divorce judgment, but payable in increments of $500
per month. To pay off the outstanding balance of $94,750, the
former husband would have to make 18 9 monthly payments of
$500, plus 1 payment of $250. Thus, under the parties'
reading of Provision A, the trial court extended the 60-month
period during which the former husband was originally to pay
alimony so that he would continue to pay alimony for 15 years,
10 months.
Provision B, on the other hand, indicates that the former husband is to pay periodic alimony for the indefinite future, subject only to the familiar, legally recognized reasons for terminating payments of periodic alimony. Irrespective of whatever else may be said of Provisions A and B, it is evident that the trial court's modification judgment extended the time for paying periodic alimony beyond the term established in the divorce judgment. At trial, the former wife acknowledged that she was asking the court to order payment of $94,750 and to

6



2110024
opposite sex or termination of said payments as provided by law, whichever event shall first occur."
The parties apparently interpret Provision A as an award to
the former wife of the specific sum of $94,750, representing
the unpaid balance of the sum of all alimony payments due
under the divorce judgment, but payable in increments of $500
per month. To pay off the outstanding balance of $94,750, the
former husband would have to make 18 9 monthly payments of
$500, plus 1 payment of $250. Thus, under the parties'
reading of Provision A, the trial court extended the 60-month
period during which the former husband was originally to pay
alimony so that he would continue to pay alimony for 15 years,
10 months.
Provision B, on the other hand, indicates that the former husband is to pay periodic alimony for the indefinite future, subject only to the familiar, legally recognized reasons for terminating payments of periodic alimony. Irrespective of whatever else may be said of Provisions A and B, it is evident that the trial court's modification judgment extended the time for paying periodic alimony beyond the term established in the divorce judgment. At trial, the former wife acknowledged that she was asking the court to order payment of $94,750 and to

6



2110024
opposite sex or termination of said payments as provided by law, whichever event shall first occur."
The parties apparently interpret Provision A as an award to
the former wife of the specific sum of $94,750, representing
the unpaid balance of the sum of all alimony payments due
under the divorce judgment, but payable in increments of $500
per month. To pay off the outstanding balance of $94,750, the
former husband would have to make 18 9 monthly payments of
$500, plus 1 payment of $250. Thus, under the parties'
reading of Provision A, the trial court extended the 60-month
period during which the former husband was originally to pay
alimony so that he would continue to pay alimony for 15 years,
10 months.
Provision B, on the other hand, indicates that the former husband is to pay periodic alimony for the indefinite future, subject only to the familiar, legally recognized reasons for terminating payments of periodic alimony. Irrespective of whatever else may be said of Provisions A and B, it is evident that the trial court's modification judgment extended the time for paying periodic alimony beyond the term established in the divorce judgment. At trial, the former wife acknowledged that she was asking the court to order payment of $94,750 and to

6



2110024
opposite sex or termination of said payments as provided by law, whichever event shall first occur."
The parties apparently interpret Provision A as an award to
the former wife of the specific sum of $94,750, representing
the unpaid balance of the sum of all alimony payments due
under the divorce judgment, but payable in increments of $500
per month. To pay off the outstanding balance of $94,750, the
former husband would have to make 18 9 monthly payments of
$500, plus 1 payment of $250. Thus, under the parties'
reading of Provision A, the trial court extended the 60-month
period during which the former husband was originally to pay
alimony so that he would continue to pay alimony for 15 years,
10 months.
Provision B, on the other hand, indicates that the former husband is to pay periodic alimony for the indefinite future, subject only to the familiar, legally recognized reasons for terminating payments of periodic alimony. Irrespective of whatever else may be said of Provisions A and B, it is evident that the trial court's modification judgment extended the time for paying periodic alimony beyond the term established in the divorce judgment. At trial, the former wife acknowledged that she was asking the court to order payment of $94,750 and to

6



2110024
opposite sex or termination of said payments as provided by law, whichever event shall first occur."
The parties apparently interpret Provision A as an award to
the

Download 2110024.pdf

Alabama Law