In a case that clarifies the necessary requirements to support an alimony award, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals recently presided over the appeal of Fidel Martinez Torres v. Janeth Galeana Walderath. This case, arising from Blount County, explores the proper application of §30-2-57 of the Alabama Code, making a conclusive ruling on the requirements the statute imposes.
Fidel Martinez Torres, the Husband, and Janeth Galeana Walderath, the Wife, were married for seven years, having three children together before the Wife filed for divorce in April of 2021. Final judgment was entered on December 20, 2023, granting joint legal custody to both parties, primary physical custody to the Wife, and dividing the marital property. Under the trial court’s property division, the Husband was ordered to pay $1,938.74 per month in child support, $750 per month in rehabilitative alimony for a period of 60 months, and $5,000 to cover the Wife’s attorney fees.
On appeal, the Husband did not challenge the trial court’s custody orders, and instead focused on the property division, award of alimony, and award of attorney’s fees. His argument was rooted in §30-2-57 of the Alabama Code. This statute, titled “Rehabilitative or periodic alimony,” requires courts to make specific findings to support an alimony award. Under the statute, in order to grant alimony to the Wife, the trial court had to find that she lacked a sufficient separate estate to maintain the economic status quo of the marriage, that the Husband could provide financial support without undue hardship, and that the alimony award was justified by the circumstances. Further, the statute requires courts to prioritize rehabilitative alimony over periodic alimony, unless rehabilitative alimony is found to be unfeasible.
Applying these statutory requirements to the trial court’s order, the Court found that the trial court had failed to make the express findings required under §30-2-57. Looking beyond the statute, the Court cited several previous judgments, highlighting the legislative intent for courts to expressly make the §30-2-57 findings before awarding alimony. In the absence of these required findings, the Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case, seeking a new judgment that fully complies with the §30-2-57 requirements. The Court declined to discuss the other aspects of the Husband’s appeal, finding that the division of marital property and attorney fees award were both closely connected to the alimony award, and would accordingly be considered on remand.
The case of Fidel Martinez Torres v. Janeth Galeana Walderath, through the Court’s analysis of §30-2-57, is relevant beyond the bounds of the statute itself, speaking to the broad legislative intent and purposes of alimony awards in Alabama. Generally, courts approach marital property division with equity in mind, and the express findings requirement and favoring of rehabilitative alimony over periodic alimony reflect this equitable focus. When these factors combine, they create a state alimony policy that mandates payments only when there is a demonstrated need and the paying spouse is not unduly burdened, with the overarching goal of getting the disadvantaged spouse back on their own two feet independently.
If you have a Federal Criminal case, a State Criminal case, a Municipal Case or a Family Law case, contact Joe Ingram or Ingram Law LLC at 205-335-2640. Get Relief Get Results.