on the wife’s erroneous estimation of the husband’s net monthly income, we reverse the periodic-alimony award and remand the cause to the circuit court to reconsider the alimony award.”); Kiel v. Kiel, 51 So.3d 1058, 1068 (Ala.Civ.App.2010) (using the responding spouse’s net income as the basis for evaluating the financial impact that the alimony payment would have); Wheeles v. Wheeles, 770 So.2d 635, 637 (Ala.Civ.App.2000) (reversing the trial court’s judgment that required the husband to pay $1,150 in alimony because the judgment “eripple[d] him financially,” leaving him with $80 per month after his living expenses and court-ordered financial obligations, including periodic alimony, were deducted from “[h]is net income”); and Rubert v. Rubert, 709 So.2d 1283, 1285 (Ala.Civ.App.1998) (<HOLDING>). A judgment that imposes financial obligations
holding that the trial court exceeded its discretion because its judgment created financial obligations for the husband that after deducting the wifes periodicalimony award from the husbands net income exceeded his remaining income holding that the district court exceeded its discretion in excluding testimony proffered to discredit the key government witness recognizing a claim that the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum holding that the trial court exceeded its authorized scope of review by invoking equitable jurisdiction holding that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering temporary alimony that exceeded the husbands ability to pay