# Morgan v. Morgan

> Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · July 11, 2014 · 183 So. 3d 945

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4824962

## Case

- **Full name:** Steven Mark MORGAN v. Cathy Renee MORGAN Steven Mark Morgan v. Cathy Renee Morgan
- **Court:** Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** July 11, 2014
- **Citations:** 183 So. 3d 945; 2014 WL 3387915
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Pittman
- **Judges:** Donaldson, Moore, Pittman, Thomas, Thompson, Writing
- **Cited by:** 32 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4824962

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a trial court is not required to believe the testimony of a party, especially when it has found portions of that testimony not to be credible

## Opinion text

PITTMAN, Judge,
concurring in part, concurring in the result in part, and dissenting in part in case no. 2120101 and concurring in case no. 2120390.
I concur in Parts I, II, IV, VII, and VIII of the main opinion. I concur in the result as to Part III of the main opinion on the authority of Dale v. Dale, 54 Ala.App. 505, 509 , 310 So.2d 225, 229 (Civ.App.1975), which bars application of the recrimination doctrine in favor of an adulterous spouse in the absence of evidence corroborating the other spouse’s confession of adultery. Further, I concur in the result as to Part VI of the main opinion based upon the lack of a statement explaining the trial court’s deviation from the Rule 32, Ala. R. Jud. Admin., guidelines. I dissent from Part V of the main opinion because I believe that the untranscribed in camera testimony of the youngest son (who will turn 18 years old within weeks of the issuance of this court’s opinion) must be conclusively presumed to support the trial court’s judgment as to visitation issues. See Ezell v. Hammond, 447 So.2d 766, 768-69 (Ala.Civ. App.1984).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4824962. Public record. Not legal advice.