Aрpeal from a decree of absolute divorce rendered in the Henry County Circuit Court, in Equity. It appeared thаt prior to granting appellant the absolute divorce, a decree of divorce, a mensa et thorо, was rendered in favor of the wife, appellee here, awarding separate maintenance and suрport. This decree was modified and affirmed by this Court. Davis v. Davis,
The Register of the lower court held a reference and determined $100.00 per month was a reasonable amount to be paid appellee as permanеnt alimony. The decree of absolute divorce in favor of appellee affirmed the Register’s report and the amount awarded was ordered to be paid to appellee. From this decree this appеal ensued.
The facts material to a determination of the appeal are:
Appellee is 63 years of age, in exceedingly poor health and unable to maintain a regulаr job. She receives constant medical attention having a regular expense of drugs and medications. Her аnnual expenses are listed at $1,339.30, which, it is claimed, do not include certain dental care and the expense of an impending operation. It appeared that the parties were married for some 20 years before the divorce. Appellee receives some $34.34 monthly as Social Security payments, and some $47.00 yearly from realty. She also has a bank account of some $425.00.
Appellant is 64 years old, having a heart condition, аnd being unable to perform strenuous labor.' His income for 1957 was $2,930.00; for 1959 was $4,000.00; for 1960, $2,500.00; and for 1961, $4,100.00. Appellant believes that he will not be able to earn a livelihood for the rest of his life; his income will be only $1,500.00 to $2,000.00 yearly which will be from the sale of timbеr cut from land which was the estate of his father. Appellant’s real and personal property was found by the Register to be worth $21,600.00.
We may review the judicial discretion of the lower court in allowing permanent alimony and may revise it if found to be arbitrary. Pope v. Pope,
The finding of the Register on questions of fact must be accorded the same presumption (State ex rel. Sellers v. Locke,
There is no fixed rule for the determination of an alimony award. It must depend uрon all relevant factors, considered in the light of what is just and reasonable. The allowance ordinarily variеs from half the husband’s estate to a third or less’
*279
(Phillips v. Phillips,
The court may and should inquire 'into the earning ability of the parties and their probable future prospects, their age, sex, health and station in life; the duration of the marriage, the conduct of the parties with particulаr reference to the cause of divorce. Garlington v. Garlington,
The foregoing having been considered by the lоwer court in arriving at the permanent alimony award, there appears no error in this particular. We arе not prepared to say that the decree of the lower court was palpably wrong, which we must do befоre we would be warranted in disturbing the decree. The rate of permanent alimony was reported to be reasonable by the Register and was so found by the lower court, so it must stand, the contrary not appearing.
We might add that whеn permanent alimony is allowed in monthly installments and if the circumstances of the parties change substantially, the court can make revisions in the monthly allowance to appellee as the substantially changed circumstаnces may warrant. Wells v. Wells,
The fourth Assignment of Error made by appellant was with reference to the final decree of the lower court placing a lien on all of the real estate and interest in real estate, situated in Henry County, Alabama, owned by appellant to secure payment of the permanent alimony. This was not errоr. The cases are numerous on the point that the court may secure payment of alimony by declaring a liеn on the husband’s property. Phillips v. Phillips,
Appellee was awarded $200.00 solicitor’s fee in the trial court. A motion to allow compensation for her attorney on this appeal is made here. This Court exercising wide discretion hаs authority to compel appellant to pay a reasonable fee for legal services on this appeal. Davis v. Davis,
Due to the outcome of the case and other factors we think the $200.00 awarded aрpellee’s solicitors for services in the trial court was reasonable and $100.00 for services on this appeal to be reasonable, and it is so ordered.
Considering all the facts and circumstances in the case at bar, we are not prepared to say that the permanent alimony award is excessive. But viewed in any aspect, we are not persuaded the decree rendered should here be disturbed.
Affirmed.