In thеse two appeals the wife brought an action for alimony and othеr relief against her husband; the husband then filed a separate action fоr divorce; the wife’s response asked for a divorce; the cases were tried together by the court without a jury by agreement, and, after heаring much evidence, the court entered a decree in both cases granting divorce, permanent alimony to the wife, unpaid temporary alimony, attorney’s fees to the wife, and a one-half undivided interest in certain real estate to the wife.
The husband has appealed, complaining of two alleged errors below: (1) the trial court overruled his motion tо reconsider the attorney’s fees award, and (2) the trial court overrulеd his motion for a new trial as amended.
1. With respect to the attorney’s fees issue, We have reviewed the record and transcript; they contаin ample evidence to support the- award made by the trial judge, аnd it was not error for him to overrule the motion for reconsideration. In
Curtis v. Curtis,
2. With respect to the overruling of the amended motion for new trial, it was not error to overrule the usual general grounds and the appellant’s contention that the аmount of alimony, etc., was excessive. The evidence, though in confliсt, supports the trial judge’s determination.
(a) One special ground of the аmended motion for new trial was that the decree was "illegal and an unauthorized delegation of the authority of the court.”
The decree fixed title to one-half undivided interest in realty in the husband and one-half undivided interest in it in the wife. The appellant’s complaint here is that after fixing title the decree went further and provided that the realty be thereafter appraised by a named appraiser, that his appraisal be filed with cоunsel for both parties, and that within ninety days after the date of the apрraisal the husband shall pay the wife ’one-half of the appraised value and the wife shall at the same time deed her one-half undivided interest in the rеalty to the husband.
We consider this provision to be in excess of the court’s authority since the court had already fixed title to the realty in both parties. After fixing title in both parties, *619 we do not agree that the court could then require either party to purchase the interest of the other at an undetermined price. The wife has acquiesced in this provision of the decree by not appealing; the husband has objected and appealed. Therefore, on remand and within thirty days after the judgment of this court is made the judgment of the trial court, if the husband-appellаnt moves in the trial court to strike this provision of the decree, then the trial court is directed to do so. If no such motion is made within the allowed time, then the decree shall stand as previously entered and filed.
Judgment affirmed with direction.