## Facts

- Bobbie Jean Owens and Donald Wayne Owens divorced in 1987 after nearly 30 years of marriage.
- The divorce judgment incorporated a written settlement agreement requiring Donald to pay Bobbie $400 per week as alimony for 60 months, subject to termination upon specified events (e.g., remarriage, death, or cohabitation).
- The agreement further stated that after 60 months the parties’ finances would be re-evaluated annually and that alimony “may be continued” if Donald determined the financial situation warranted continuation.
- After the 60-month period ended, Donald stopped paying alimony without a court order.
- At that time, Bobbie earned about $13,000 per year, while Donald earned more than $250,000 per year.
- Bobbie sought court relief to continue or modify periodic alimony beyond the initial 60-month period.

## Issues

1. Whether a trial court may modify periodic alimony set out in a divorce judgment that incorporates a settlement agreement, notwithstanding language purporting to place continuation solely within the payor spouse’s discretion.
2. Whether parties can, by agreement, divest the court of continuing authority to modify periodic alimony based on changed circumstances.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the judgment affirming the trial court’s denial of relief.
- The court held that once an agreement providing for periodic alimony is adopted in a divorce decree, the alimony provision merges into the judgment and loses contractual character to the extent of the court’s modification power.
- The court held that no agreement between the parties can remove the court’s power to modify periodic alimony upon a showing of changed circumstances.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court’s holding, including consideration of modification under the proper standard.

## Legal Principles

- Periodic alimony provisions incorporated into a divorce decree merge into the decree and become subject to the court’s continuing jurisdiction.
- A court retains authority to modify periodic alimony when changed circumstances justify modification.
- Contract language assigning one party unilateral discretion to continue or terminate periodic alimony cannot bar judicial modification.
- A trial court errs when it treats an incorporated periodic-alimony agreement as an unmodifiable private contract rather than applying alimony-modification doctrine.

## Conclusion

The Alabama Supreme Court held that periodic alimony set out in a settlement agreement and incorporated into a divorce decree remains subject to judicial modification based on changed circumstances, and that the parties cannot contract away the court’s authority by giving the payor spouse sole discretion over continuation.


Ex parte Owens, 668 So. 2d 545 (Ala. 1995)