Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Kenneth Charles LAURENDINE v. Joi O'Nell LAURENDINE
Kenneth Charles Laurendine (“the husband”) appeals from a judgment of the Baldwin Circuit Court (“the trial court”) divorcing him from Joi O'Nell Laurendine (“the wife”). We reverse and remand with instructions.
In February 2018, the wife sued the husband for a divorce. The trial court held a bench trial at which the parties presented oral testimony on four separate days beginning in December 2019 and ending in July 2020.
On October 26, 2020, the trial court entered a judgment divorcing the parties, dividing the marital estate, and awarding the wife alimony. Regarding alimony, the judgment provides:
“4. ALIMONY:
“Beginning September 1, 2020 husband shall pay alimony to the wife in the amount of $1500 per month as permanent alimony until he retires from the U. S. Post Office. Thereafter, upon his retirement from the U.S. Post Office, husband shall pay alimony to the wife in the amount of $1217.00 per month until the wife either (a) begins to receive social security retirement benefits or (b) reaches the age of 65, whichever happens first. Thereafter, the husband shall pay no alimony. The Court retains jurisdiction to modify alimony based upon a significant change in circumstances.”
On appeal, the husband argues, among other things, that the trial court erred in awarding alimony because, he says, the trial court did not make the express findings required by § 30-2-57, Ala. Code 1975, when a trial court makes an award of alimony. We agree. Based on our holding in Merrick v. Merrick, [Ms. 2200188, Oct. 29, 2021] ––– So. 3d ––––, 2021 WL 5024435 (Ala. Civ. App. 2021), we reverse the judgment and remand the cause with instructions to the trial court to enter a new judgment that complies with § 30-2-57. We do not reach the other issues raised by the husband on appeal, and, therefore, we pretermit a discussion of them.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
FRIDY, Judge.
Thompson, P.J., and Moore, Edwards, and Hanson, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 2200305
Decided: November 12, 2021
Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)