case in which the trial court makes no specific findings of fact, a party must move for a new trial or otherwise properly raise before the trial court the question relating to the sufficiency or weight of the evidence in order to preserve that question for appellate review.” ■ The trial court made no specific findings of fact in the divorce judgment, and the husband did not raise this issue in his postjudgment motion; therefore, the issue was not properly preserved for appellate review. Moreover, even if the husband had properly preserved this issue, we note that the evidence was sufficient to sustain an award of periodic alimony. This court has held: “A divorcing spouse is not automatically entitled to periodic alimony, Beckwith v. Beckwith, 475 So.2d 575, 577 (Ala.Civ.App.1985) (<HOLDING>), but the decision whether to award periodic
holding that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional holding that periodic alimony is not mandatory holding that the periodic characteristic disabling manifestation is part of the underlying recognized disability holding that the statute is mandatory holding that application note 6 is not mandatory