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

── E.T.M. v. R.M. ── Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama Date: April 24, 2026 Author: Matt Fridy Category: General Rel: April 24, 2026 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter. ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2025-2026 _________________________ CL-2025-0485 _________________________ E.T.M. v. R.M. Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court (DR-23-900105) FRIDY, Judge. E.T.M. ("the wife") appeals from a judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court ("the trial court") divorcing her from R.M. ("the husband"), awarding the husband periodic alimony, and dividing their property. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the judgment in part and reverse CL-2025-0485 it insofar as it awarded the husband periodic alimony and divided the marital property. Background On May 11, 2023, the wife filed a complaint seeking a divorce from the husband on the ground of an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The wife alleged that the husband had been verbally and physically abusive to her, and she requested, among other things, an equitable division of the parties' property and debts and exclusive possession of the marital residence. The wife, at some point, also obtained a protection-from-abuse ("PFA") order against the husband in a separate action ("the PFA action") based on an incident that occurred at the marital residence. On May 24, 2023, the husband filed an answer and a counterclaim for a divorce in which he requested, among other things, exclusive possession of the marital residence and the vehicles that he had acquired during the marriage. On that same date, the husband moved to 2 CL-2025-0485 consolidate the divorce action and the PFA action. The record on appeal does not reflect that the trial court consolidated the actions.1 The trial court held a bench trial on April 11, 2025. No court reporter was present for the trial, so there is no transcript of the trial. However, on October 24, 2025, the trial court entered an order approving and certifying the wife's statement of the evidence, filed pursuant to Rule 10(d), Ala. R. App. P., noting that no objection to the wife's statement of the evidence had been filed within the time prescribed by Rule 10(d).2 1In a statement of the evidence that the wife filed pursuant to Rule 10(d), Ala. R. App. P., the wife indicated that the trial court had consolidated the divorce action with the PFA action. However, the record on appeal does not contain an order consolidating the actions, and the wife, in her notice of appeal, acknowledged that the trial court had not entered an order consolidating the two actions. 2As discussed herein, after the trial court entered a judgment in the divorce action on May 13, 2025, the wife filed an untimely motion for the entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 52(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. A day later, she filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment entered in the divorce action. This court held the wife's notice of appeal in abeyance pending the resolution of the Rule 52(b) motion. On September 30, 2025, after the trial court entered an order denying the wife's untimely Rule 52(b) motion, this court lifted its order holding the wife's notice of appeal in abeyance. On October 6, 2025, the wife filed in the