John Michael Sprouse Husband and Joyce Hamilton Sprouse Wife entered a common law marriage in placeStateAlabama in 1996. That marriage was terminated in 2001 by the divorce decree of an placeStateAlabamacourt. Shortly thereafter, the parties resumed cohabitation, and they were ceremonially married on March 5, 2005. Husband brought this divorce action on January 2, 2007, and Wife answered and counterclaimed. After a bench trial, the trial court entered a final divorce decree which, in relevant part, awarded alimony to Wife in the amount of $1,000 per month for six months or until she begins receiving social security disability benefits, whichever first occurs, at which time the amount would decrease to $500 per month and last for twelve and one-half years. The trial court denied a motion for new trial, and Husband applied for a discretionary appeal, which was granted pursuant to our Pilot Project in divorce cases. Husband contends that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding alimony that was excessive as to amount and duration and was not based on the evidence adduced at trial. “In the absence of any mathematical formula, fact-finders are given a wide latitude in fixing the amount of alimony . . . and to this end they are to use their experience as enlightened persons in judging the amount necessary for support under the evidence as disclosed by the record and all the facts and circumstances of the case.” Cit. Arkwright v. Arkwright , 284 placeStateGa.545, 546 2 a 668 SE2d 709 2008.
Husband argues that the trial court did not thoroughly examine all of the relevant statutory factors in determining alimony. See OCGA § 19-6-5 a. However, ” ‘with respect to alimony, there is no statutory requirement that findings be included in the decree.’ Cit.” Wood v. Wood , 283 placeStateGa. 8, 9 1 a 655 SE2d 611 2008. Although the trial court at one point expressed some concern over the potential redundancy of additional testimony, that testimony was not excluded, and “ there is nothing in the record to show the trial court did not take into account the evidence . . . adduced at trial . . . .” Southerland v. Southerland , 278 placeStateGa.188, 190 2 598 SE2d 442 2004. Moreover, the transcript shows many questions and comments by the trial court, several of which indicate that the court considered Wife’s needs, Husband’s ability to pay, and the factors set forth in OCGA § 19-6-5 a. See OCGA § 19-6-1 c; Arkwright v. Arkwright , supra at 546-547 2 a; Wood v. Wood , supra.
