finding that "[t]he reservation of jurisdiction [in the divorce judgment] d[id] not prevent the award from being vested, as it reserve[d] to the trial court the right to change the amount of the monthly payments and not the amount of the entire award. The wife's entitlement to the $500,000 [wa]s made clear from the context of the award."
How later courts described this case
- finding that "[t]he reservation of jurisdiction [in the divorce judgment] d[id] not prevent the award from being vested, as it reserve[d] to the trial court the right to change the amount of the monthly payments and not the amount of the entire award. The wife's entitlement to the $500,000 [wa]s made clear from the context of the award."
- holding that the wife’s testimony outlining the family living expenses constituted evidence from which the trial court could find that “ ‘the needs of the children exceed ... the maximum support pursuant to the guidelines’ ”
- reversing a judgment denying an award of postminority educational support on the ground that Bay-liss “overstepped the constitutional] boundary between the legislature's] duty to make laws and the court’s duty to rule on those laws”
- concluding that, under a substantially similar Alabama law, "a member of an LLC has no interest in property owned by the LLC"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
I concur in all aspects of the main opinion except as it relates to whether the alimony-in-gross award is insufficient or inequitable; as to that issue, I concur in the result.