John B. Stuart v. Brenda B. Stuart
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 06/13/2008 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2007-2008 _________________________ 2070164 _________________________ John B. Stuart v. Brenda B. Stuart Appeal from Baldwin Circuit Court (DR-03-344.01 ) BRYAN, Judge. AFFIRMED. NO OPINION. See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(C), Ala. R. App. P.; Bush v. Bush, 784 So. 2d 299, 300 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000); Kiefer v. Kiefer, 671 So. 2d 710, 711 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995); and Bridges 2070164 v. Bridges, 607 So. 2d 289, 290 (Ala. Civ. App. 1992). Thompson, P.J., and Pittman J., concur. Moore, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with writing, which Thomas, J., joins. 2 2070164 MOORE, Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur with the no-opinion affirmance with regard to the denial of John B. Stuart's petition to modify his periodic-alimony obligation. I dissent, however, from the noopinion affirmance with regard to the trial court's denial of a credit to Stuart for his mistaken overpayment of alimony, because I believe that Stuart proved his entitlement to a credit and that the trial court's denial of that credit is inequitable. See generally DeBlanc v. Mitchell, 368 So. 2d 1138, 1139 (La. Ct. App. 1979), and Brabham v. Brabham, 950 So. 2d 1098, 1103 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007). Thomas, J., concurs. 3
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.
