allegedly cannot afford the alimony payments. The husband appears to request that this court find error with the trial court’s award of periodic alimony based upon facts not in evidence — or in existence, for that matter — at the time the divorce judgment was entered. However, it is undisputed that the evidence regarding the husband’s loss of income was not before the trial court before the hearing on the husband’s motion for a new trial. We simply cannot hold that the trial court exceeded its discretion in entering its alimony award; the evidence that the husband relies on was not before the trial court at the time the divorce judgment was entered and thus could not be considered in determining the periodic-alimony award. Cf. Estrada v. Redford, 855 So.2d 551, 554 (Ala.Civ.App.2003) (<HOLDING>). The husband next argues that the trial court
holding that under uifsa alabama courts may modify an alabama childsupport order only if the obligor the obligee or the concerned child affected by that order reside in the state and all the parties who are individuals have not filed written consent for the tribunal of another state to exercise jurisdiction over the childsupport order holding that the trial court was without authority to modify a spousal support obligation when the modification proceeding was initiated ten years after the obligation to pay spousal support under the dissolution judgment had been terminated by order holding a mother on appeal must successfully challenge a trial courts finding that there was no substantial and continuing change of circumstances of the children or mother before she can succeed on her claim that the trial court erred in overruling her motion to modify custody holding in part that a change in the mothers income that occurred after the trial was new evidence and that when a party has new evidence related to his or her income he or she may be entitled to a modification of a childsupport obligation if he or she files a petition to modify however because the mother had filed a postjudgment motion rather than a petition to modify her childsupport obligation her request to modify child support was not properly before the trial court holding untimeliness of motion to modify medical insurance payment did not preclude motion to modify maintenance