Ex parte Owens
Alabama Supreme Court
668 So. 2d 545 (1995)
- Written by Jody Stuart, JD
Facts
Bobbie Owens (plaintiff) and Donald Owens (defendant) had been married for almost 30 years at the time of their divorce in 1987. They entered into an alimony agreement that was incorporated into the divorce judgment. The agreement provided that after five years the financial situations of the parties would be reevaluated annually thereafter to determine if alimony payments to Bobbie should be continued. The agreement also provided that alimony payments “may be continued” if Donald “should determine that the financial situation of the parties” warranted a continuation of alimony payments. After the expiration of the five-year period, Donald stopped making alimony payments. At the time that Donald stopped making these payments, Bobbie was earning $13,000 per year and Donald was earning over $250,000 per year. The trial court entered an order denying a modification of the divorce judgment, stating that it lacked the authority to modify the judgment. The trial court stated that because the divorce was by agreement, the plain language of the agreement must be upheld as the final judgment of the court. The trial court also stated that the agreement plainly stated that the continuation or termination of alimony payments was at Donald’s discretion. The appeals court affirmed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Maddox, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
