Opinion
2200305.
11-12-2021
Kenneth Charles LAURENDINE v. Joi O'Nell LAURENDINE.
Floyd C. Enfinger, Jr. , and Margaret Enfinger Pace of Law Office of Floyd C. Enfinger, Jr., P.C., Montrose, for appellant. Stephen P. Johnson of Brackin & Johnson, P.C., Fairhope, for appellee.
Floyd C. Enfinger, Jr. , and Margaret Enfinger Pace of Law Office of Floyd C. Enfinger, Jr., P.C., Montrose, for appellant.
Stephen P. Johnson of Brackin & Johnson, P.C., Fairhope, for appellee.
FRIDY, Judge.
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, 352 So.3d 770 (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.
Thompson, P.J., and Moore, Edwards, and Hanson, JJ., concur.