Sondra Omes Hurley v. Bradley Glen Hurley

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 09/14/2007 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) 229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2007 _________________________ 2050802 _________________________ Sondra Omes Hurley v. Bradley Glen Hurley Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court (DR-05-502214) On Application for Rehearing MOORE, Judge. In his application for rehearing regarding this court's June 15, 2007, opinion, Bradley Glen Hurley ("the husband") argues that this court should allow the trial court to take 2050802 additional evidence regarding the omissions in the evidence that this court found to be present in this case. The husband cites Courtright v. Courtright, 820 So. 2d 823 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001), in which this court concluded that the trial court had gone beyond the scope of the instructions in Courtright v. Courtright, 757 So. 2d 453 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000) ("Courtright I"), by taking additional evidence on remand. However, in Courtright I, this court stated, "We reverse those portions of the divorce judgment relating to the property division and the award of alimony, and we remand this action for the trial court to fashion an equitable distribution of the marital assets and to reconsider the question of alimony." at 457. "further 757 So. 2d The opinion in Courtright I did not provide for proceedings" as did opinion in the present case. "further additional proceedings" evidence this court's June Because this court's allows relating the to the trial value 15, remand for court of 2007, to the take marital property, we overrule the application for rehearing. APPLICATION OVERRULED. Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, Bryan, and Thomas, JJ., concur. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.