E.T.M. v. R.M.

Summary

The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed a divorce judgment in part but reversed the awards of periodic alimony and the division of marital property. The court held that the trial court failed to make the express findings required by Alabama Code § 30-2-57 and remanded for reconsideration of those issues, while declining to review unpreserved evidentiary claims and issues arising from a separate protection-from-abuse action.

Holdings

1. A periodic-alimony award must be supported by the express findings required by § 30-2-57, including findings concerning the recipient's insufficient separate estate, the payor's ability to pay without undue economic hardship, the equitable nature of the award, and the feasibility of rehabilitative alimony. Because the divorce judgment contained none of those findings, the periodic-alimony award was reversed.
2. Because alimony and division of marital property are interrelated, reversal of the alimony award also required reversal of the marital-property division and reconsideration of both awards on remand.
3. The wife waived her broader challenge to the trial court's categorical three-year evidentiary limitation because the statement of the evidence did not show that she objected to the limitation or made an offer of proof establishing the substance of the excluded evidence.
4. The appellate court lacked authority to review the dismissal of the separate protection-from-abuse action because the wife did not file a notice of appeal from that action and the record did not contain the relevant filings or establish that the action had been consolidated. Even consolidation would not have merged the actions into a single cause.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court's periodic-alimony award was reversible because the judgment lacked the express findings required by Alabama Code § 30-2-57.
2. Whether the trial court's failure to make the findings required by § 30-2-57 required reconsideration of the related division of marital property.
3. Whether the wife preserved her challenge to the trial court's categorical three-year limitation on evidence concerning the parties' marital history, finances, and property acquisition.
4. Whether the appellate court could review dismissal of the separate protection-from-abuse action when the wife filed no notice of appeal from that action and the record did not establish consolidation.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded