Clark Daniel Montgomery v. Cynthia C. Montgomery

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/30/2009 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter of Decisions, Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2080400 C l a r k D a n i e l Montgomery v. Cynthia C. Montgomery Cynthia C. Montgomery v. C l a r k D a n i e l Montgomery Appeals from R u s s e l l C i r c u i t Court (DR-99-138 and DR-99-138.01) BRYAN, J u d g e . 2080400 Clark judgment D a n i e l Montgomery of the ("the Russell Circuit husband") Court appeals ("the from trial a court") p u r p o r t i n g to c o r r e c t a c l e r i c a l e r r o r i n a Q u a l i f i e d Domestic R e l a t i o n s Order ("QDRO") i n c a s e no. DR-99-138. Montgomery wife") f r o m t h e same j u d g m e n t of the rule ("the trial nisi court without i n s o f a r as conducting m e r i t s i n c a s e no. The cross-appeals i t denied an her petition evidentiary hearing for a on a w r i t t e n agreement r e g a r d i n g the d i v i s i o n of on A p r i l parties' agreement p r o v i d e d , receive an award the of 5, on 1999, written among o t h e r the May 11, and 1999. the The t h e y were executed the court and by incorporated trial 1975, divorced marital property C. DR-99-138.01. p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d on J u l y 17, the Cynthia divorce agreement. The parties judgment parties' t h i n g s , t h a t the w i f e husband's retirement their would benefits, follows: "9. RETIREMENT: The W i f e i s h e r e b y a w a r d e d 3 5 % o f t h e Husband's r e t i r e m e n t e x c l u d i n g h i s S o c i a l S e c u r i t y . S a i d a w a r d s h a l l i n c l u d e any increases t h a t t h e h u s b a n d may g e t p r i o r t o and f o l l o w i n g t h e t i m e he b e g i n s t o draw h i s r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s . "10. 401K FUND: The W i f e i s h e r e b y a w a r d e d $15,000.00 o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s 401K fund. ... This d e c r e e meets t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f a Q u a l i f i e d D o m e s t i c R e l a t i o n s O r d e r as s p e c i f i e d i n E R I S A S e c t i o n 206(d) 2 as 2080400 and I n t e r n a l Revenue Code 414(p) The a QDRO s i g n e d record contains " and entered by t h e t r i a l c o u r t on May 13, 1999, r e g a r d i n g t h e r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s s e t f o r t h i n p a r a g r a p h 10 o f t h e p a r t i e s ' a g r e e m e n t . the parties' provided written agreement f o r a QDRO t o be e n t e r e d nor the divorce court entered benefits 2 a t the request a QDRO r e g a r d i n g s e tforth Neither judgment t o implement the p r o v i s i o n set f o r t h i n paragraph 9 of the p a r t i e s ' On May 11, 2 0 0 5 , 1 agreement. of the wife, the t r i a l t h e payment o f t h e r e t i r e m e n t i n paragraph 9 of theparties' agreement ("QDRO # 2 " ) . QDRO #2 s t a t e d , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "[T]hat [ t h e w i f e ] i s e n t i t l e d t o receive a b e n e f i t from [ t h e B a s i c R e t i r e m e n t P l a n f o r Employees o f Army & A i r F o r c e E x c h a n g e S e r v i c e ] o f a b e n e f i t payable t o[ t h e w i f e ] that i s equivalent i n value t o 35% of [ t h e husband's] accrued b e n e f i t due t o b e n e f i t s e r v i c e b e t w e e n J u l y 17, 1975 a n d J a n u a r y 1, 1999, commencing on t h e e a r l i e s t d a t e on w h i c h [ t h e husband] c o u l d commence r e c e i v i n g b e n e f i t s i f [ t h e husband] s e p a r a t e d f r o m s e r v i c e . " I t was u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d h a d p a i d t h e w i f e t h e r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s s e t f o r t h i n p a r a g r a p h 10 o f t h e p a r t i e s ' agreement. 1 T h e o r d e r o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t s t a t e s t h a t i t was s i g n e d on May 1 1 , 2004. No e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h i s d i s c r e p a n c y i s o f f e r e d , e x c e p t t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d have i n c o r r e c t l y d a t e d t h e o r d e r . N o n e t h e l e s s , t h e o r d e r was n o t e n t e r e d b y t h e c l e r k o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t u n t i l May 11, 2005. 2 3 2080400 (Emphasis added.) The h u s b a n d d i d n o t o b j e c t t o t h e e n t r y o f QDRO #2, d e s p i t e formal the fact t h a t he a p p a r e n t l y notice of the wife's request e n t e r QDRO #2. QDRO #2 c o n t a i n e d never received f o r the t r i a l court t o a provision that stated that t h e t r i a l c o u r t " r e t a i n [ e d ] j u r i s d i c t i o n t o amend t h i s for purposes qualifications On trial of establishing as a [QDRO] and maintaining i t s " December 14, 2007, two a n d o n e - h a l f court had entered [o]rder QDRO #2, t h e w i f e years filed after the a motion t o amend QDRO #2. She s t a t e d t h a t QDRO #2 e r r o n e o u s l y s t a t e d t h a t the "benefit s e r v i c e dates" J a n u a r y 1, 1 9 9 9 . 3 9 of the p a r t i e s ' were b e t w e e n J u l y 17, 1975, a n d The w i f e a r g u e d t h a t , p u r s u a n t t o p a r a g r a p h agreement as i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t , s h e was e n t i t l e d t o 3 5 % o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s b e n e f i t s f r o m J u l y 17, 1975, u n t i l retirement t h e date o f t h e husband's r e t i r e m e n t , i n c l u d i n g a n y i n c r e a s e s he r e c e i v e d " p r i o r t o a n d f o l l o w i n g t h e t i m e he b e g a n t o r e c e i v e r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s . " The w i f e ' s motion included a certificate t h a t t h e m o t i o n had been m a i l e d Apparently, separated. 3 January of service t o t h e h u s b a n d a t an a d d r e s s 1, 1 9 9 9 , i s t h e d a t e 4 stating the parties 2080400 in Texas. filing I t was u n d i s p u t e d that the wife fees r e l a t e d t o the proceeding the proceeding seeking had n o t p a i d any r e s u l t i n g i n QDRO #2 o r t o amend QDRO #2. On F e b r u a r y 8, 2008, t h e t r i a l c o u r t " s e t a s i d e " QDRO #2 and e n t e r e d an amended QDRO ("QDRO #3"), w h i c h s t a t e d t h a t t h e wife " i s e n t i t l e d t o r e c e i v e a b e n e f i t from [the B a s i c R e t i r e m e n t P l a n f o r E m p l o y e e s o f Army & A i r F o r c e Exchange S e r v i c e ] o f a b e n e f i t p a y a b l e t o [ t h e husband] t h a t i s e q u i v a l e n t i n v a l u e t o 35% o f t h e [ h u s b a n d ' s ] a c c r u e d b e n e f i t due t o b e n e f i t s e r v i c e between July 17, 1975 a n d t h e d a t e of the [ h u s b a n d ' s ] r e t i r e m e n t , commencing on t h e e a r l i e s t d a t e on w h i c h t h e [husband] c o u l d commence r e c e i v i n g b e n e f i t s i f t h e [husband] s e p a r a t e d f r o m s e r v i c e . " (Emphasis added.) On F e b r u a r y 26, 2008, t h e h u s b a n d f i l e d aside QDRO #3. I n s u p p o r t a motion t o s e t o f h i s motion, t h e husband argued t h a t t h e w i f e ' s m o t i o n t o amend QDRO #2 was i n f a c t a p e t i t i o n to had m o d i f y t h e d i v o r c e judgment r e g a r d i n g h e r s u p p o r t , n o t been p r o p e r l y served with the wife's "petition to modify," t h a t the w i f e had f a i l e d t o pay the r e q u i r e d fee f o r a " p e t i t i o n t o modify," t h a t t h e t r i a l retained jurisdiction over QDRO #2 t h a t he filing court had n o t and, thus, lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r QDRO #3 b e c a u s e t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n was n o t 5 2080400 r e q u i r e d f o r "the purpose o f e s t a b l i s h i n g o r m a i n t a i n i n g i t s qualifications committed increase as an a p p r o v e d p l a n , " a fraud on t h e c o u r t t h e amount and t h a t by seeking of retirement the wife had to substantially benefits s h e was due p u r s u a n t t o t h e p a r t i e s ' a g r e e m e n t a s i t was i n c o r p o r a t e d the d i v o r c e into judgment. In r e s p o n s e t o t h e husband's m o t i o n , t h e w i f e argued t h a t QDRO #2 c o n t a i n e d the wife benefits would that a "clerical receive error" because i t s t a t e d 35% o f t h e husband's had accrued only between July that retirement 17, 1 9 7 5 , and J a n u a r y 1, 1999. The w i f e f u r t h e r a r g u e d t h a t QDRO #3 does n o t m o d i f y t h e o r i g i n a l judgment o f d i v o r c e , b u t o n l y e n f o r c e s t h e original agreement of the parties, m o t i o n t o amend was m a i l e d and t h a t a copy o f t h e t o t h e husband a t h i s l a s t known address. On May 16, 2008, the wife requesting that the t r i a l husband i n c i v i l wife initiated a separate action court i s s u e a r u l e n i s i and h o l d the and c r i m i n a l contempt f o r f a i l i n g t o pay t h e 35% o f t h e r e t i r e m e n t benefits that he had been r e c e i v i n g , i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e d i v o r c e judgment e n t e r e d b y t h e trial c o u r t i n 1999. 6 2080400 The trial court conducted a hearing on a l l p e n d i n g m o t i o n s on S e p t e m b e r 11, 2008. The t r i a l c o u r t h e a r d a r g u m e n t s from both parties specifically, regarding t h e amendment o f QDRO w h e t h e r QDRO #3 c o r r e c t e d a c l e r i c a l #2, error i n QDRO #2 o r w h e t h e r QDRO #3 c o n s t i t u t e d an amendment t o t h e divorce j u d g m e n t . The t r i a l court one o f law, t h a t i t would take and t h a t i t would s e t t h e hearing rule n i s i fora later s t a t e d t h a t t h e i s s u e was t h e matter under advisement, on t h e w i f e ' s m o t i o n f o r a date. However, t h e w i f e p r o c e e d e d t o o f f e r t h e t e s t i m o n y f o r m e r a t t o r n e y who h a d p r e p a r e d a n d f i l e d QDRO #2 on b e h a l f o f t h e w i f e . The w i f e ' s f o r m e r a t t o r n e y t e s t i f i e d made a c l e r i c a l because that t h a t he h a d e r r o r i n e n t e r i n g t h e d a t e " J a n u a r y 1, 1999," i t was n o t i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h agreement of her had been the parties' incorporated into written the divorce j u d g m e n t . The w i f e ' s f o r m e r a t t o r n e y a l s o s t a t e d t h a t t h e w i f e had p o i n t e d o u t t h e e r r o r a f t e r he h a d f i l e d QDRO #2 w i t h t h e trial c o u r t b u t t h a t t h e w i f e h a d r e t a i n e d new c o u n s e l he h a d h a d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y to correct the error. On December 3 1 , 2008, t h e t r i a l stating that QDRO #2 before "contained 7 court a entered misstatement an o r d e r of the 2080400 agreement o f t h e p a r t i e s . " The t r i a l c o u r t a l s o r u l e d on t h e w i f e ' s p e t i t i o n f o r a r u l e n i s i a n d h e l d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was not i n contempt f o r f a i l u r e t o p a y r e t i r e m e n t w i f e . The t r i a l court ordered benefits to the t h a t QDRO #3 was " i n f u l l force and e f f e c t . " The h u s b a n d a n d t h e w i f e f i l e d t i m e l y n o t i c e s o f appeal t o t h i s court. On a p p e a l t h e h u s b a n d a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r not properly petitions The served with QDRO #2 o r QDRO #3 b e c a u s e he was summonses o r n o t i c e and because t h e w i f e husband also jurisdiction argues t h a t t o enter court d i d not of the wife's d i d n o t p a y new f i l i n g the t r i a l court d i d n o t have QDRO #3 b e c a u s e , he s a y s , amendment t o t h e d i v o r c e judgment t h a t was e n t e r e d the trial court judgment. had l o s t The w i f e cross-appeals court erred i n concluding without conducting jurisdiction was an e v i d e n t i a r y t o modify t o amend t h e d i v o r c e the t r i a l hearing. Appeal the wife f e e upon h e r r e q u e s t "seeking i n 1999 a n d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was n o t i n c o n t e m p t husband argues t h a t new f i l i n g i t was an and argues t h a t The Husband's The fees. t o pay a f o r QDRO #2 b e c a u s e t h e w i f e or enforce 8 was r e q u i r e d an e x i s t i n g domestic 2080400 relations order." See § 12-19-71(a)(7), ( r e q u i r i n g t h e payment o f a f i l i n g hundred forty-eight domestic relations modify or enforce wife argues dollars docket A l a . Code 1975 f e e i n t h e amount o f " [ t ] w o ($248) f o r cases of the c i r c u i t filed court that pursuant the seeking t o an e x i s t i n g d o m e s t i c r e l a t i o n s o r d e r " ) . The s h e was n o t r e q u i r e d t o pay f i l i n g b e c a u s e QDRO #2 a n d QDRO #3 were b o t h e n t e r e d court in t o i t s power to correct fees by t h e t r i a l clerical errors p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. The i s s u e a t the h e a r t o f t h i s i s case i s whether a t r i a l c o u r t r e t a i n s j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r a d i v o r c e judgment i n o r d e r t o implement o r e n f o r c e "[a] court enforce t o render 1254 ( A l a . Patchett, that rendering a judgment i t s judgment necessary 1249, i t s judgment. T h i s has h e l d has t h e i n h e r e n t a n d t o make i t effective." Civ. court such King App. 1 9 9 4 ) ; orders v. K i n g , see a l s o that power t o as may be 636 So. 2d Patchett v. 469 So. 2d 642 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ) . We c o n c l u d e a trial court has t h e i n h e r e n t power t o i s s u e a QDRO s u b s e q u e n t t o t h e e n t r y o f a d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t i n an e f f o r t t o implement o r e n f o r c e judgment e f f e c t i v e . t h e judgment o r t o r e n d e r C f . J a r d i n e v. J a r d i n e , 9 the divorce 918 So. 2 d 127, 2080400 131-32 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) ( d i s c u s s i n g and q u o t i n g Haney v. Haney, 50 A l a . App. App. the 79, 81, 277 1973), i n which t h i s power to order the So. court sale 2d 356, 357 (Ala.Civ. held that a t r i a l of a marital court residence, had even though a p r o v i s i o n f o r the s a l e of the m a r i t a l residence was not the set divorce forth judgment, agreement and circumstances modification intended i n the parties' because resulting or parties' "the agreement original divorce judgment existing f o r the original at the purpose 'was time, of final but only [was] under subject the to implementing' the result agree w i t h the husband t h a t the w i f e should by t h a t j u d g m e n t " ) . However, we have f i l e d s e p a r a t e a c t i o n s , p a i d t h e a p p r o p r i a t e f i l i n g f e e s , and g i v e n t h e h u s b a n d p r o p e r n o t i c e o f h e r f i l i n g s b e c a u s e t h e wife was judgment. Civ. seeking 4 App. jurisdiction to implement C f . C o l b u r n v. C o l b u r n , 2009) (holding to enter a that judgment or enforce the divorce 14 So. 3d 176, 178 ( A l a . the of trial contempt court lacked "because the We n o t e t h a t t h e r e was some i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e h u s b a n d had a c t u a l n o t i c e o f t h e w i f e ' s i n t e n t t o i n i t i a t e the p r o c e e d i n g s s e e k i n g t h e e n t r y o f t h e QDROs, b u t t h e p a r t i e s do n o t d i s p u t e t h e f a c t t h a t t h e w i f e d i d n o t p a y any f i l i n g fees. 4 10 2080400 parties final filed their [contempt] motions a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f a judgment i n t h e case, [and, t h e r e f o r e , ] c o n s t i t u t e d independent proceedings could gain fees jurisdiction only their motions over which the t r i a l court i f theparties paid the f i l i n g r e q u i r e d t o commence s u c h p r o c e e d i n g s " ) . Section 12-19- 7 1 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, s e t s f o r t h t h e amount o f f i l i n g f e e s t o be p a i d i n c i v i l a c t i o n s , a n d s u b s e c t i o n amount r e q u i r e d " f o r cases docket of the c i r c u i t court e x i s t i n g domestic r e l a t i o n s filed (7) s t a t e s t h e d o l l a r i n the domestic seeking relations t o m o d i f y o r e n f o r c e an order." Because the w i f e d i d not pay any f i l i n g f e e s when filing h e r m o t i o n r e q u e s t i n g t h e e n t r y o f a QDRO, t h e t r i a l c o u r t was never vested therefore, with jurisdiction t o enter QDRO #2, a n d , i t s j u d g m e n t o f May 11, 2005, p u r p o r t i n g t o e n t e r QDRO #2 i s v o i d . 5 Civ. ( h o l d i n g t h a t "[a] judgment e n t e r e d b y a c o u r t App. 2008) See Vann v . Cook, 989 So. 2 d 556, 559 lacking subject-matter further conclude jurisdiction that the trial (Ala. i s a b s o l u t e l y v o i d " ) . We court d i d not have A l t h o u g h t h e h u s b a n d d i d n o t o b j e c t t o t h e e n t r y o f QDRO #2, s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n c a n n o t be w a i v e d . See R i l e y v . Hughes, [Ms. 1080006, F e b r u a r y 6, 2009] So. 3 d , ( A l a . 2009) ( " s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n c a n n o t be w a i v e d b y t h e f a i l u r e t o a r g u e i t a s an i s s u e " ) . 5 11 2080400 jurisdiction t o e n t e r QDRO #3 f o r t h e same r e a s o n s t h a t i t d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n the trial well. 6 t o e n t e r QDRO #2 a n d t h a t , c o u r t ' s judgment o f F e b r u a r y "A v o i d j u d g m e n t w i l l 8, 2008, therefore, i s v o i d as n o t s u p p o r t an a p p e a l , a n d 'an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t must d i s m i s s an a t t e m p t e d a p p e a l f r o m s u c h a v o i d j u d g m e n t . ' " C o l b u r n v . C o l b u r n , 14 So. 3d a t 179 ( q u o t i n g Vann v . Cook, appeal 989 So. 2d a t 5 5 9 ) . T h e r e f o r e , t h e h u s b a n d ' s i s d i s m i s s e d , and t h e t r i a l court i s instructed t o v a c a t e i t s o r d e r o f F e b r u a r y 8, 2008, a n d t o v a c a t e i t s o r d e r B e c a u s e we have c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r QDRO #2, t h e w i f e ' s a r g u m e n t t h a t QDRO #3 was e n t e r e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( a ) t o c o r r e c t a c l e r i c a l e r r o r c o n t a i n e d i n QDRO #2 i s w i t h o u t m e r i t . F u r t h e r m o r e , we r e j e c t t h e w i f e ' s argument t h a t QDRO #2 was e n t e r e d t o c o r r e c t a c l e r i c a l e r r o r i n t h e p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e judgment p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( a ) . We c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e e n t r y o f QDRO #2 goes b e y o n d the scope o f Rule 6 0 ( a ) , w h i c h 6 "deals solely with the correction of c l e r i c a l e r r o r s . E r r o r s o f a more s u b s t a n t i a l n a t u r e a r e t o be c o r r e c t e d b y a m o t i o n u n d e r R u l e s 5 9 ( e ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] o r 6 0 ( b ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P ] . Thus t h e R u l e 60(a) m o t i o n c a n o n l y be u s e d t o make t h e j u d g m e n t o r r e c o r d s p e a k t h e t r u t h a n d c a n n o t be u s e d t o make i t s a y s o m e t h i n g o t h e r t h a n what was o r i g i n a l l y pronounced." C o m m i t t e e Comments on 1973 A d o p t i o n o f R u l e 60. 12 2080400 o f May 11, 2 0 0 5 . 7 The The Wife's Cross-Appeal w i f e a r g u e s on a p p e a l that the t r i a l court erred i n f a i l i n g t o c o n d u c t an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g on h e r p e t i t i o n f o r a r u l e n i s i because t h e t r i a l h e a r i n g any evidence c o u r t made i t s f i n d i n g without r e g a r d i n g h e r a l l e g a t i o n s o f contempt. A t the f i n a l h e a r i n g i n t h i s case, the t r i a l c o u r t s t a t e d on t h e r e c o r d t h a t a h e a r i n g on t h e w i f e ' s c o n t e m p t p e t i t i o n , was p r o p e r l y f i l e d and rescheduled without hearing as a s e p a r a t e f o r a l a t e r date. any evidence which a c t i o n , w o u l d be c o n t i n u e d However, t h e t r i a l regarding contempt, court, issued a j u d g m e n t f i n d i n g t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was n o t i n c o n t e m p t . G e n e r a l l y , "'[w]hether a p a r t y i s i n contempt o f c o u r t i s a d e t e r m i n a t i o n committed t o t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l Because t h e t r i a l court never a c q u i r e d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r o r "amend" a QDRO i n t h i s c a s e , we p r e t e r m i t d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s argument t h a t QDRO #3 s u b s t a n t i a l l y m o d i f i e d t h e d i v i s i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y . We n o t e t h a t any s u b s e q u e n t QDRO e n t e r e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t may be u s e d o n l y t o i m p l e m e n t t h e d i v i s i o n o f p r o p e r t y as s t a t e d i n t h e p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t . However, t h e e n t r y o f a QDRO, i n and o f i t s e l f , i s n o t a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f a p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n . See K i n g v . K i n g , 636 So. 2d a t 1253-54 ("Changing t h e method o f d i s p o s i t i o n o f m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y m e r e l y m o d i f i e s t h e means of d i s p o s i n g o f t h e p r o p e r t y , and n o t t h e d i v i s i o n o f t h e p r o p e r t y . " ( c i t i n g P o s e y v . L o o m i s , 641 So. 2 d 797 ( A l a . C i v . App. 19 9 3 ) ) ) . 7 13 2080400 c o u r t , and, a b s e n t an abuse o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n o r u n l e s s judgment of the t r i a l c o u r t i s u n s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e as t o be p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y w r o n g , t h i s c o u r t w i l l G o r d o n v. G o r d o n , 804 (quoting 1994)) Stack v. (emphasis undisputed So. 2d 241, 646 Stack, So. added). t h a t he had The undisputed as set 243 2d 51, 56 2001) (Ala. Civ. argues so affirm.'" ( A l a . C i v . App. husband p a i d the pursuant to a l l v a l i d orders was the that i t App. was retirement benefits required of the t r i a l court. Although i t t h a t t h e h u s b a n d had p a i d t h e w i f e t h e b e n e f i t s forth in paragraph 10 of the parties' written agreement, t h e r e i s n o t h i n g i n the r e c o r d t o i n d i c a t e t h a t the husband had benefits paid the wife contemplated any in portion paragraph of 9 the of retirement the parties' a g r e e m e n t . B e c a u s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t h e a r d no e v i d e n c e the a l l e g a t i o n s set f o r t h i n the w i f e ' s petition regarding for a rule n i s i and b e c a u s e t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t o support the was not in finding that the reversed, and the conduct an trial contempt, court's the h u s b a n d was cause is finding judgment of not the i n contempt remanded evidentiary hearing for that the trial i s due the trial husband court t o be court on t h e w i f e ' s p e t i t i o n 14 to for a rule nisi. 2080400 APPEAL -- APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. CROSS-APPEAL -- REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, concur. P . J . , and P i t t m a n , 15 Thomas, a n d Moore, JJ.,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.