Nancy H. Giardina v. Stewart H. Giardina

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 12/4/09 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 R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , 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 2080594 Nancy H. G i a r d i n a v. Stewart H. G i a r d i n a Appeal from Baldwin C i r c u i t Court (DR-04-301 and DR-04-301.03) THOMAS, J u d g e . This i s t h e second time these t h i s court concerning Giardina, p a r t i e s have been before t h e i r d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t . See G i a r d i n a v . 987 So. 2d 606 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) . we a f f i r m e d t h e c u s t o d y aspect In Giardina, o f t h e judgment and a f f i r m e d 2080594 t h e a w a r d o f r e h a b i l i t a t i v e a l i m o n y t o Nancy H. G i a r d i n a wife"); however, remanded we reversed the property the cause t o the t r i a l court division, for i t to t h e power t o a w a r d p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y t o t h e w i f e , the p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y awarded t o t h e w i f e , an equitable portion o f t h e J.B. ("the and (1) we reserve (2) s p e c i f y (3) a w a r d t h e w i f e Hanover a c c o u n t owned by S t e w a r t H. G i a r d i n a ("the h u s b a n d " ) , and (4) d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r the husband's affidavit Rule form 32, A l a . R. ("CS-41 form") J u d . Admin., CS-41 r e f l e c t e d h i s true 2004 and 2005 and, i f t h e t r i a l income- income f o r court determined that i t d i d n o t , t o d e t e r m i n e t h e h u s b a n d ' s t r u e income and t o r e c o n s i d e r the division Giardina, In of m a r i t a l property in light of that income. 987 So. 2d a t 623-24. J u l y 2007, w h i l e the appeal of the divorce was p e n d i n g i n t h i s c o u r t , t h e w i f e filed judgment i n the t r i a l court a p r o se p e t i t i o n t o m o d i f y c u s t o d y o r t o a l t e r h e r v i s i t a t i o n rights. T h a t a c t i o n was d o c k e t e d as c a s e number DR-0 4-301.03. On O c t o b e r 3, 2007, t h e w i f e a l s o f i l e d , 301.03, contempt a petition seeking f o r the husband's provisions of the t r i a l to have failure court's 2 i n c a s e number DR-04the husband t o comply w i t h June 2007 o r d e r held in certain relating to 2080594 visitation. The h u s b a n d f i l e d a c o u n t e r p e t i t i o n seeking to have t h e w i f e h e l d i n c o n t e m p t f o r v a r i o u s a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n s o f t h e d i v o r c e judgment and o t h e r the w i f e ' s v i s i t a t i o n been specified assigned and t o m o d i f y privileges. On M a r c h 27, 2008, t h e t r i a l issues court orders i n o u r remand c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g on t h e i n G i a r d i n a ; t h a t a c t i o n had c a s e number DR-04-301. t r i a l court took a d d i t i o n a l testimony At that hearing, concerning the husband's 2004 and 2005 income and t h e J.B. H a n o v e r a c c o u n t . did not object to the trial court's the taking The wife additional testimony. On the S e p t e m b e r 29, 2008, t h e t r i a l wife's modification petition court held a t r i a l and on various on contempt c l a i m s , except those claims i n v o l v i n g the f i n a n c i a l aspects of the divorce result judgment, w h i c h of t h i s division children contained in court camera, judgment. and their I n F e b r u a r y 2009, t h e t r i a l judgment dismissed r e v e r s a l i n G i a r d i n a of the i n the divorce testified transcribed. following court's the t r i a l i n both case number DR-0 4-301.03: 3 number The property parties' testimony court entered DR-04-301 as a and was the case 2080594 "1. T h i s m a t t e r c o m i n g on f o r h e a r i n g s a f t e r remand f r o m t h e A l a b a m a C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s , t h e C o u r t c o n d u c t e d two h e a r i n g s , a n d a f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g the t e s t i m o n y a n d t h e t a x r e t u r n s a n d o t h e r e x h i b i t s introduced at the h e a r i n g s , the Court i s of the o p i n i o n t h a t t h e [husband] h a s n o t c o n c e a l e d any a s s e t s from t h e C o u r t , and t h e r e f o r e , t h e C o u r t r e a f f i r m s t h e o r i g i n a l p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n and a l i m o n y awards i n t h e o r i g i n a l c a s e . "2. The C o u r t h a s c o n s i d e r e d t h e [ w i f e ' s ] m o t i o n to change custody or a l t e r visitation. After hearing, the Court i s of the o p i n i o n that the motion t o change c u s t o d y i s due t o be d e n i e d b e c a u s e she has n o t met t h e [Ex p a r t e ] M c L e n d o n [ , 455 So. 2d 863 (Ala. 1984),] s t a n d a r d o f p r o o f . The C o u r t i s s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e [husband] is still the best p e r s o n t o have c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n . "3. The C o u r t does m o d i f y the v i s i t a t i o n s c h e d u l e t o p r o v i d e t h a t t h e w i f e s h a l l be e n t i t l e d t o have v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n on t h e weekdays t h a t she i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o work p r o v i d e d t h a t she r e t u r n s t h e c h i l d r e n t o s c h o o l t h e n e x t m o r n i n g . The original divorce decree i s hereby modified to r e f l e c t t h i s change r e s p e c t i n g v i s i t a t i o n . " The w i f e a p p e a l s t h e j u d g m e n t b o t h i n s o f a r as i t a d d r e s s e d o u r i n s t r u c t i o n s on remand i n c a s e number DR-04-301 a n d i n s o f a r as it denied her modification petition i n case number DR-04- 301.03. We w i l l the first address whether over a p p e a l f r o m t h e j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as i t d e n i e d t h e w i f e ' s modification petition v. we have j u r i s d i c t i o n Baker, 518 So. 2d i n c a s e number DR-0 4-301.03. 711, 712 4 ( A l a . 1987) See Nunn (stating that 2080594 "jurisdictional matters are of such magnitude t h a t we take n o t i c e o f them a t any t i m e and do so e v e n ex mero m o t u " ) . The w i f e and t h e h u s b a n d b o t h s o u g h t i n c a s e number DR-04-301.03 to the have violations of subsequent contempt other the orders. claims divorce held in trial contempt court's Although arising judgment, the from the the claims for various divorce trial based judgment on and dismissed court financial alleged any aspects the of custody v i s i t a t i o n p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e d i v o r c e judgment and the and subsequent o r d e r s were c o n s i d e r e d d u r i n g t h e S e p t e m b e r 29, 2008, h e a r i n g . The trial court, claim seeking The however, failed to rule the either party's t o h o l d the o t h e r p a r t y i n contempt. t r i a l c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o r u l e on t h e p e n d i n g c o n t e m p t p e t i t i o n s i n the p o s t d i v o r c e proceeding on on wife's Decker, 984 modification So. 2d 1216, petition 1220 renders the nonfinal. ( A l a . C i v . App. judgment Decker 2007) . v. The judgment i s not f i n a l because the judgment f a i l s t o completely adjudicate Butler v. Subject to Phillips, a l l issues 3 So. 3d 922, a few e x c e p t i o n s o n l y from a f i n a l between 925 the ( A l a . C i v . App. not r e l e v a n t here, judgment. parties. 2008). an a p p e a l A l a . Code 1975, 5 See ordinarily lies § 12-22-2; Bean 2080594 v. C r a i g , 557 dismiss So. 2d 1249, 1253 the wife's ( A l a . 1990). Thus, we must a p p e a l i n s o f a r as i t i s f r o m t h e j u d g m e n t d e n y i n g h e r m o d i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n i n c a s e number DR-04-301.03. The w i f e ' s a p p e a l i n s o f a r as i t i s f r o m t h e t r i a l court's j u d g m e n t on remand i n c a s e number DR-04-301, h o w e v e r , i s n o t affected by t h e pendency number DR-04-301.03. arguments that the We o f the contempt p e t i t i o n s will trial i n s t r u c t i o n s upon remand. therefore court consider failed to i n case the comply wife's with our The w i f e a r g u e s s p e c i f i c a l l y that t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d b y t a k i n g new e v i d e n c e upon remand, that the trial court d i d not reserve the right to award her p e r i o d i c alimony, that the t r i a l court d i d not s p e c i f y which items awarded t o t h e w i f e of personal property were d i v o r c e judgment, t h a t t h e t r i a l i n the c o u r t f a i l e d t o a w a r d h e r an e q u i t a b l e p o r t i o n o f t h e J.B. H a n o v e r a c c o u n t , and t h a t t h e trial c o u r t d i d n o t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e income t h e h u s b a n d s t a t e d i n h i s CS-41 The wife further f o r m f o r 2004-2005 argues that determine t h a t t h e husband's the the division trial income was, amount he s t a t e d on h i s CS-41 the p r o p e r t y was accordingly. 6 h i s true court i n fact, f o r m and f a i l e d income. failed more to to than adjust 2080594 Although the wife e v i d e n c e on remand was 959 So. 2d 620, i s correct discretion 621 hearing"), to a the t r i a l new of s e e Ex p a r t e (Ala. 2006)(holding conduct the wife the t a k i n g not appropriate, a p p e l l a t e c o u r t remands a c a s e , the that that new Queen, "when an c o u r t d o e s n o t have trial or an evidentiary h e r s e l f p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the hearing by c a l l i n g witnesses and b y p r e s e n t i n g d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e . At no object to time d i d she c o n d u c t a new to the t r i a l evidentiary hearing. [Ms. 2060245, November 2, 2007] App. court's decision See Kaufman v. Kaufman, 2007). Kaufman i s startlingly So. 3d similar to , the (Ala. C i v . present case. A f t e r a r e v e r s a l o f t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t a t i s s u e i n Kaufman, the wife i n that case, evidentiary hearing t h a t case. the on remand, r e l a t i n g t o the a s s e t s of the husband i n Kaufman, So. 3d a t j u d g m e n t on remand, t h e w i f e d e c l i n e d to hold the t r i a l evidentiary hearing that error. Id. at p a r t i c i p a t e d i n another A f t e r the entry of appealed. Id. at . court i n e r r o r f o r conducting because, . . We we held, the wife had a new invited explained: "The w i f e d i d n o t o b j e c t t o t h e t r i a l court's c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a d d i t i o n a l evidence p e r t a i n i n g to 7 We 2080594 t h e v a l u a t i o n o f a s s e t s as t h e y e x i s t e d a t t h e t i m e of the hearing on remand. R a t h e r , the record i n d i c a t e s t h a t the w i f e p r e s e n t e d much o f that e v i d e n c e . The w i f e f i r s t r a i s e d an o b j e c t i o n t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s r e c e i v i n g a d d i t i o n a l evidence i n her p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n and on a p p e a l , a f t e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t had e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t t h a t she f e l t was a d v e r s e t o h e r . However, ' " [ a ] p a r t y c a n n o t w i n a r e v e r s a l on an e r r o r t h a t p a r t y has i n v i t e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o commit."' M o b i l e I n f i r m a r y Med. C t r . v. Hodgen, 884 So. 2d [801,] 808 [(Ala. 2003)] ( q u o t i n g N e a l v. N e a l , 856 So. 2d 766, 784 (Ala. 2 0 0 2 ) ) . G i v e n t h e u n i q u e f a c t s and h i s t o r y o f t h i s c a s e , as w e l l as t h e p r e c e d e n t c i t e d a b o v e , we conclude t h a t the w i f e i n v i t e d the e r r o r of which she now complains. Accordingly, we decline to r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment b a s e d on the trial court's having received and considered a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e on remand." Id. at . The invited that wife the e r r o r by e r r o r as asked for, evidentiary precluded new i n the present the a basis trial like court; on in, and remand, Id. never we from a s s e r t i n g the t r i a l the w i f e she for reversal. participated hearing case, i n Kaufman, c a n n o t now assert Because the objected conclude wife to she that the is court's error i n holding a e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g on remand as a b a s i s f o r r e v e r s i n g t h e trial court's judgment. Group, L.L.C. v. 2008) ("It PRS i s equally Id. at I I , LLC, well 998 settled 8 ; see So. 2d 'that a l s o White Sands 1042, (Ala. a 1057 party may not 2080594 induce an e r r o r by the t r i a l r e v e r s a l b a s e d on c o u r t and t h a t e r r o r . "A a r g u m e n t f o r r e v e r s a l on then attempt t o win p a r t y may not predicate to B a s e d on t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s reverse h e l d a new The the next argues on that 3d See the basis decline that i t remand. the trial remand. , Brown v. Brown, court She [Ms. ( A l a . C i v . App. r e i t e r a t e d the r u l e governing a r e v e r s a l and c a s e , we other failed correctly 2070953, M a r c h 2009). the r o l e of a t r i a l a remand f r o m an a p p e l l a t e I n Brown, court court: "'The i s s u e s d e c i d e d by an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t become t h e l a w o f t h e c a s e on remand t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t , and t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s n o t f r e e t o r e c o n s i d e r t h o s e i s s u e s . ' Ex p a r t e S.T.S., 806 So. 2d 336, 341 ( A l a . 2001) ( c i t i n g M u r p h r e e v. M u r p h r e e , 600 So. 2d 301 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 2 ) ) . M o r e o v e r , on remand, ' " t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d u t y i s t o comply w i t h the a p p e l l a t e mandate ' a c c o r d i n g t o i t s t r u e i n t e n t and m e a n i n g , as d e t e r m i n e d by the d i r e c t i o n s given by the reviewing c o u r t E x p a r t e J o n e s , 774 So. 2d 607, 608 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2000) (quoting Walker v. C a r o l i n a M i l l s Lumber Co., 441 So. 2d 980, 982 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 3 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a Power Co., 431 So. 2d 151, 155 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) ) . " 9 to notes c o u r t must c o m p l y w i t h t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s o f appellate court. So. of t h i s j u d g m e n t on a p p e l l a t e mandate on t h a t the t r i a l 2009] court's evidentiary hearing wife f o l l o w the trial an 'invited error,' that i s , 'error into w h i c h he has l e d o r l u l l e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t . ' " ' " ( q u o t i n g cases)). a the 6, we after 2080594 Brown, So. 3d a t . The w i f e ' s c h i e f argument i s t h a t t h e t r i a l to determine whether the husband c o r r e c t l y on h i s CS-41 determine failed r e p o r t e d h i s income f o r m and, i f i t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t he d i d n o t , t o h i s true accordingly. We specifically reflected court income and a d j u s t agree that the the property trial court a d d r e s s w h e t h e r t h e h u s b a n d ' s CS-41 h i s income i n 2004 and 2005. division did not form truly the trial However, c o u r t d i d s t a t e t h a t i t d i d not b e l i e v e t h a t the husband had concealed any a s s e t s f r o m t h e c o u r t and t h a t t h e t r i a l court was t h e r e f o r e r e a f f i r m i n g t h e p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n i n t h e d i v o r c e judgment. remand We that regarding can g l e a n i t believed We d i s a g r e e instructions However, aspects division court's i t s original supported judgment on we that of our on fails on by t h e e v i d e n c e i t e f f e c t e d was remand judgment determination w i t h the wife that t h i s p a r t i c u l a r court's on a p p e a l that t h e h u s b a n d ' s income was and t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y trial from the t r i a l appropriate. aspect of the t o comply w i t h our remand. are convinced the t r i a l mandate by t h e w i f e ' s court in arguments f a i l e d t o comply w i t h Giardina. 10 other The trial other court's 2080594 judgment on remand p e r i o d i c alimony, wife fails to address the reservation of f a i l s t o s p e c i f y t h e p r o p e r t y awarded t o t h e i n t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t , and f a i l s to effect a division o f t h e J.B. H a n o v e r a c c o u n t ; t h e t r i a l c o u r t was i n s t r u c t e d t o perform each of those tasks i n our o p i n i o n i n Giardina. 987 So. 2d a t 623-24. " ' I t i s t h e d u t y o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , on remand, t o c o m p l y s t r i c t l y w i t h t h e mandate o f t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t a c c o r d i n g t o i t s t r u e i n t e n t and m e a n i n g , as d e t e r m i n e d by t h e d i r e c t i o n s g i v e n b y t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t . No j u d g m e n t o t h e r t h a n t h a t d i r e c t e d o r p e r m i t t e d b y t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t may be e n t e r e d The a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i s f i n a l as t o a l l m a t t e r s b e f o r e i t , becomes t h e l a w o f t h e c a s e , and must be e x e c u t e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e mandate '" Ex p a r t e (quoting A l a b a m a Power Co., 5 Am. J u r . 2d 431 So. 2d 151, 155 Appeal and Error § ( A l a . 1983) 991 (1962)). B e c a u s e i t f a i l s i n l a r g e p a r t t o c o m p l y w i t h o u r mandate, t h e trial c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t i n c a s e number DR-04-301 i s r e v e r s e d , e x c e p t i n s o f a r as i t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d ' s income h a d been p r o p e r l y d e t e r m i n e d and t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n should not t o be d i s t u r b e d on t h a t b a s i s , and t h e c a u s e i s remanded for the t r i a l t h e mandate court t o comply w i t h a l l r e m a i n i n g s e t out i n t h i s aspects court's opinion i n Giardina. 11 of 2080594 APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART; AND CAUSE REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n a n d B r y a n , J J . , c o n c u r . Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t 12 writing.

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.