‘Periodic alimony is an allowance for future support of the [former dependent spouse]...-.’
How later courts described this case
- ‘Periodic alimony is an allowance for future support of the [former dependent spouse]...-.’
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
I concur in the holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to award periodic alimony. However, I dissent from the holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to reserve the issue for future consideration, given the length of the marriage and the disparity in the employment and income of the parties. Pilgrim v. Pilgrim , 596 So.2d 942 (Ala.Civ.App. 1992); Silvey v. Silvey , 634 So.2d 138 (Ala.Civ.App. 1993).
Additionally, because the trial court's order does not indicate whether the court considered the husband's retirement benefits when it divided the parties' property, I would remand for the trial court to consider this issue and make a finding. See Byrd v. Byrd , 644 So.2d 31 , 32 (Ala.Civ.App. 1994). *Page 31