divorce doctrine in Alabama

2009Cf. Brown v. Brown, 719 So.2d 228 (Ala.Civ.App.1998) (awarding retroactive child support for the one-year period preceding the divorce hearing but after the complaint for divorce had been filed).

2009Cf. Brown v. Brown, 719 So.2d 228 (Ala.Civ.App.1998) (awarding retroactive child support for the one-year period preceding the divorce hearing but after the complaint for divorce had been filed).

2016Further, as pointed out in Harrington, supra, although an allegation of abuse, i.e., assault and battery, can be a basis for a divorce, a claim for a divorce and a claim alleging assault and battery are separate causes of action.

1993Furthermore, each child visitation case must be decided on its own facts and circumstances." Fanning v. Fanning , 504 So.2d 737 , 739 (Ala.Civ.App. 1987) (citations omitted).

1988Jeffcoat , 423 So.2d 888 ; Roberts v. Roberts , 395 So.2d 1035 (Ala.Civ.App. 1981).

1988Jeffcoat , 423 So.2d 888 ; Roberts v. Roberts , 395 So.2d 1035 (Ala.Civ.App. 1981).

1983Wier v. Wier , 410 So.2d 78 (Ala.Civ.App. 1982); Sansom v. Sansom , 409 So.2d 430 (Ala.Civ.App. 1981).

1983Wier v. Wier , 410 So.2d 78 (Ala.Civ.App. 1982); Sansom v. Sansom , 409 So.2d 430 (Ala.Civ.App. 1981).

1967The burden was on the husband, ■appellee, to prove the ground of divorce alleged in his cross-bill by competent and legal evidence (Burdette v. Burdette, 245 Ala. 26 , 15 So.2d 727 ; Pittman v. Pittman, 246 Ala. 163 , 19 So.2d 723 ; Hendrix v. Hendrix, 250 Ala. 309 , 34 So.2d 214 ) and ■as to the specific ground alleged, adultery, the proof must be such as to create more than a mere suspicion, but be sufficient to lead the guarded discretion of a reasonable and just mind to the conclusion of adultery as a necessary inference Hendrix v. Hendrix, supra; Brown v. Brown, 229 Ala. 471 , 158 So. 311

1967The burden was on the husband, ■appellee, to prove the ground of divorce alleged in his cross-bill by competent and legal evidence (Burdette v. Burdette, 245 Ala. 26 , 15 So.2d 727 ; Pittman v. Pittman, 246 Ala. 163 , 19 So.2d 723 ; Hendrix v. Hendrix, 250 Ala. 309 , 34 So.2d 214 ) and ■as to the specific ground alleged, adultery, the proof must be such as to create more than a mere suspicion, but be sufficient to lead the guarded discretion of a reasonable and just mind to the conclusion of adultery as a necessary inference Hendrix v. Hendrix, supra; Brown v. Brown, 229 Ala. 471 , 158 So. 311

1967The burden was on the husband, ■appellee, to prove the ground of divorce alleged in his cross-bill by competent and legal evidence (Burdette v. Burdette, 245 Ala. 26 , 15 So.2d 727 ; Pittman v. Pittman, 246 Ala. 163 , 19 So.2d 723 ; Hendrix v. Hendrix, 250 Ala. 309 , 34 So.2d 214 ) and ■as to the specific ground alleged, adultery, the proof must be such as to create more than a mere suspicion, but be sufficient to lead the guarded discretion of a reasonable and just mind to the conclusion of adultery as a necessary inference Hendrix v. Hendrix, supra; Brown v. Brown, 229 Ala. 471 , 158 So. 311

1967The burden was on the husband, ■appellee, to prove the ground of divorce alleged in his cross-bill by competent and legal evidence (Burdette v. Burdette, 245 Ala. 26 , 15 So.2d 727 ; Pittman v. Pittman, 246 Ala. 163 , 19 So.2d 723 ; Hendrix v. Hendrix, 250 Ala. 309 , 34 So.2d 214 ) and ■as to the specific ground alleged, adultery, the proof must be such as to create more than a mere suspicion, but be sufficient to lead the guarded discretion of a reasonable and just mind to the conclusion of adultery as a necessary inference Hendrix v. Hendrix, supra; Brown v. Brown, 229 Ala. 471 , 158 So. 311

1967The burden was on the husband, ■appellee, to prove the ground of divorce alleged in his cross-bill by competent and legal evidence (Burdette v. Burdette, 245 Ala. 26 , 15 So.2d 727 ; Pittman v. Pittman, 246 Ala. 163 , 19 So.2d 723 ; Hendrix v. Hendrix, 250 Ala. 309 , 34 So.2d 214 ) and ■as to the specific ground alleged, adultery, the proof must be such as to create more than a mere suspicion, but be sufficient to lead the guarded discretion of a reasonable and just mind to the conclusion of adultery as a necessary inference Hendrix v. Hendrix, supra; Brown v. Brown, 229 Ala. 471 , 158 So. 311

1967The burden was on the husband, ■appellee, to prove the ground of divorce alleged in his cross-bill by competent and legal evidence (Burdette v. Burdette, 245 Ala. 26 , 15 So.2d 727 ; Pittman v. Pittman, 246 Ala. 163 , 19 So.2d 723 ; Hendrix v. Hendrix, 250 Ala. 309 , 34 So.2d 214 ) and ■as to the specific ground alleged, adultery, the proof must be such as to create more than a mere suspicion, but be sufficient to lead the guarded discretion of a reasonable and just mind to the conclusion of adultery as a necessary inference Hendrix v. Hendrix, supra; Brown v. Brown, 229 Ala. 471 , 158 So. 311

1967The burden was on the husband, ■appellee, to prove the ground of divorce alleged in his cross-bill by competent and legal evidence (Burdette v. Burdette, 245 Ala. 26 , 15 So.2d 727 ; Pittman v. Pittman, 246 Ala. 163 , 19 So.2d 723 ; Hendrix v. Hendrix, 250 Ala. 309 , 34 So.2d 214 ) and ■as to the specific ground alleged, adultery, the proof must be such as to create more than a mere suspicion, but be sufficient to lead the guarded discretion of a reasonable and just mind to the conclusion of adultery as a necessary inference Hendrix v. Hendrix, supra; Brown v. Brown, 229 Ala. 471 , 158 So. 311

1967The burden was on the husband, ■appellee, to prove the ground of divorce alleged in his cross-bill by competent and legal evidence (Burdette v. Burdette, 245 Ala. 26 , 15 So.2d 727 ; Pittman v. Pittman, 246 Ala. 163 , 19 So.2d 723 ; Hendrix v. Hendrix, 250 Ala. 309 , 34 So.2d 214 ) and ■as to the specific ground alleged, adultery, the proof must be such as to create more than a mere suspicion, but be sufficient to lead the guarded discretion of a reasonable and just mind to the conclusion of adultery as a necessary inference Hendrix v. Hendrix, supra; Brown v. Brown, 229 Ala. 471 , 158 So. 311

1967The burden was on the husband, ■appellee, to prove the ground of divorce alleged in his cross-bill by competent and legal evidence (Burdette v. Burdette, 245 Ala. 26 , 15 So.2d 727 ; Pittman v. Pittman, 246 Ala. 163 , 19 So.2d 723 ; Hendrix v. Hendrix, 250 Ala. 309 , 34 So.2d 214 ) and ■as to the specific ground alleged, adultery, the proof must be such as to create more than a mere suspicion, but be sufficient to lead the guarded discretion of a reasonable and just mind to the conclusion of adultery as a necessary inference Hendrix v. Hendrix, supra; Brown v. Brown, 229 Ala. 471 , 158 So. 311

1967The burden was on the husband, ■appellee, to prove the ground of divorce alleged in his cross-bill by competent and legal evidence (Burdette v. Burdette, 245 Ala. 26 , 15 So.2d 727 ; Pittman v. Pittman, 246 Ala. 163 , 19 So.2d 723 ; Hendrix v. Hendrix, 250 Ala. 309 , 34 So.2d 214 ) and ■as to the specific ground alleged, adultery, the proof must be such as to create more than a mere suspicion, but be sufficient to lead the guarded discretion of a reasonable and just mind to the conclusion of adultery as a necessary inference Hendrix v. Hendrix, supra; Brown v. Brown, 229 Ala. 471 , 158 So. 311

1967The burden was on the husband, ■appellee, to prove the ground of divorce alleged in his cross-bill by competent and legal evidence (Burdette v. Burdette, 245 Ala. 26 , 15 So.2d 727 ; Pittman v. Pittman, 246 Ala. 163 , 19 So.2d 723 ; Hendrix v. Hendrix, 250 Ala. 309 , 34 So.2d 214 ) and ■as to the specific ground alleged, adultery, the proof must be such as to create more than a mere suspicion, but be sufficient to lead the guarded discretion of a reasonable and just mind to the conclusion of adultery as a necessary inference Hendrix v. Hendrix, supra; Brown v. Brown, 229 Ala. 471 , 158 So. 311

1967The burden was on the husband, ■appellee, to prove the ground of divorce alleged in his cross-bill by competent and legal evidence (Burdette v. Burdette, 245 Ala. 26 , 15 So.2d 727 ; Pittman v. Pittman, 246 Ala. 163 , 19 So.2d 723 ; Hendrix v. Hendrix, 250 Ala. 309 , 34 So.2d 214 ) and ■as to the specific ground alleged, adultery, the proof must be such as to create more than a mere suspicion, but be sufficient to lead the guarded discretion of a reasonable and just mind to the conclusion of adultery as a necessary inference Hendrix v. Hendrix, supra; Brown v. Brown, 229 Ala. 471 , 158 So. 311

1961True, the South Carolina Court, not recognizing the doctrine of divorce, did not fix upon that as a period terminating the provision made by its decree for the wife; but when she seeks her remedy in this State, where divorces are granted, she submits to the law of the forum governing that remedy; and as by this law an end has been put to the relation of marriage, as effectually as would have resulted from the death of either of the parties, as a consequence, all duties and obligations necessarily dependent upon the continuance of that relation, immediately cease.” 20 Ala. 629, 649 .