Anthony Wayne Dunn v. Cynthia A. Dunn

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 12/04/2009 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 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 2080865 Anthony Wayne Dunn v. C y n t h i a A. Dunn Appeal from Fayette C i r c u i t (DR-04-94) Court THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . T h i s i s t h e t h i r d t i m e A n t h o n y Wayne Dunn ("the husband") has a p p e a l e d from a judgment p e r t a i n i n g t o h i s d i v o r c e C y n t h i a A. Dunn ("the w i f e " ) . ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) from I n Dunn v . Dunn, 972 So. 2 d 810 ("Dunn v . Dunn I " ) , t h i s c o u r t affirmed 2080865 the c u s t o d y and p r o p e r t y - d i v i s i o n p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e divorce parties' judgment. Thereafter, concerning the a dispute arose i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of between c e r t a i n of d i v i s 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. 12 So. 3d 704 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) the the parties property- I n Dunn v. Dunn, ("Dunn v. Dunn I I " ) , c o u r t e x p l a i n e d t h e h i s t o r y and f a c t s r e g a r d i n g that dispute as f o l l o w s : " [ O ] n O c t o b e r 12, 2007, [ t h e w i f e ] f i l e d a m o t i o n t o i n t e r p l e a d f u n d s and a m o t i o n t o e n f o r c e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i v o r c e judgment. The w i f e p a i d $28,976.80 i n t o t h e c o u r t ; t h a t amount r e p r e s e n t e d t h e p r o c e e d s f r o m t h e s a l e o f t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l home. I n h e r O c t o b e r 12, 2007, m o t i o n t o e n f o r c e t h e d i v o r c e judgment, t h e w i f e a l l e g e d t h a t a d i s p u t e had a r i s e n b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s r e g a r d i n g t h e manner i n w h i c h t h e t r i a l c o u r t [ ] ... p r o v i d e d f o r t h e d i s b u r s e m e n t o f t h e p r o c e e d s f r o m t h e s a l e o f t h e m a r i t a l home. ... [ T h e h u s b a n d ] f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r a j u d g m e n t on the p l e a d i n g s , a r g u i n g t h a t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t s u p p o r t e d t h a t m o t i o n . ... "With r e g a r d t o the d i v i s i o n of the p a r t i e s ' p r o p e r t y , t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t o r d e r e d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e husband pay t h e w i f e $12,272.34, r e p r e s e n t i n g her p o r t i o n of h i s i n t e r e s t in a limited-liability company ('the L L C ' ) , from the p r o c e e d s o f t h e s a l e o f t h e m a r i t a l home. The t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i v o r c e judgment a l s o o r d e r e d that the p r o c e e d s f r o m t h e s a l e o f t h e m a r i t a l home be u s e d to repay the p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l debt. In t h i s a c t i o n , the p a r t i e s d i s p u t e whether the proceeds from the s a l e o f t h e m a r i t a l home s h o u l d f i r s t be a p p l i e d t o p a y t h e w i f e h e r i n t e r e s t i n t h e LLC o r w h e t h e r t h e 2 this 2080865 p r o c e e d s f r o m t h e s a l e o f t h e m a r i t a l home s h o u l d f i r s t be a p p l i e d t o t h e r e p a y m e n t o f m a r i t a l d e b t . The c o n f u s i o n a r i s e s f r o m t h e d i f f e r e n t t r e a t m e n t o f t h o s e i s s u e s i n t h e J a n u a r y 3, 2006, o r d e r a n d t h e May 18, 2006, [ d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t ] and f r o m t h i s court's c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of the property division, which d i d not address whether the i n t e r e s t i n the LLC a w a r d e d t o t h e w i f e was t o be p a i d f r o m t h e p r o c e e d s o f t h e m a r i t a l home. See Dunn v. Dunn I , 972 So. 2d a t 816-17. " " I n i t s F e b r u a r y 11, 2008, j u d g m e n t i n t h i s a c t i o n , the t r i a l court noted several undisputed f a c t s , among w h i c h was t h e f a c t t h a t t h e h u s b a n d h a d f a i l e d t o pay t h e w i f e t h e $12,227.34 f o r h e r i n t e r e s t i n t h e L L C w i t h i n 90 d a y s o f t h e s a l e o f t h e m a r i t a l home o r w i t h i n 90 d a y s o f t h e i s s u a n c e o f t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h i s c o u r t i n Dunn v . Dunn I . The c o u r t a l s o n o t e d t h a t t h e c a s e h a d been ' t r i e d extensively' earlier. The c o u r t t h e n s t a t e d : "'The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e s u b m i s s i o n of the [husband] evinces a clear misunderstanding of the proper operation of t h i s C o u r t ' s o r d e r s o f J a n u a r y 3, 2006, a n d May 18, 2006. The i n t e n t o f t h e C o u r t i n t h e two o r d e r s o f J a n u a r y 3, 2006, and May 18, 2006, was t o e s t a b l i s h a property d i v i s i o n w h e r e b y t h e m a r i t a l home w o u l d be s o l d , a n d w h e r e b y t h e [ w i f e ] w o u l d be p a i d $12,272.34 o u t o f t h e s a l e o f t h e m a r i t a l home, with that figure representing one-half of one-third of the value of the [ L L C ] , and w i t h t h e [ h u s b a n d ] b e i n g l e f t vested i n the actual t i t l e to the [LLC].'" Dunn v. Dunn I I , 12 So. 3d a t 706-09. 2008, j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l court 3 also I n i t s F e b r u a r y 11, determined that, after 2080865 t h e w i f e h a d been p a i d from the proceeds of the sale of the m a r i t a l home f o r h e r i n t e r e s t i n t h e L L C , t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e p r o c e e d s were t o be e v e n l y d i v i d e d b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t c l e r k , on F e b r u a r y 11, 2008, the trial court clerk specified disbursed to the p a r t i e s i n the February 11, 2008, the The judgment. amounts husband p o i n t s o u t t h a t i n i t s F e b r u a r y 11, 2008, j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l court awarded each party one-half o f t h e amount remaining a f t e r t h e payment t o t h e w i f e o f $12,272.34 f o r h e r i n t e r e s t in t h e LLC ( w h i c h was $ 1 6 , 7 0 4 . 4 6 ) . 2008, j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l and the w i f e $8,352.23. were each Thus, i n i t s F e b r u a r y 11, court determined entitled to that receive the husband approximately Dunn v. Dunn I I , s u p r a . The h u s b a n d r e f u s e d t o a c c e p t t h e d i s b u r s e m e n t , l a t e r a p p e a l e d t h e F e b r u a r y 11, 2008, j u d g m e n t . also moved amount of f o r and was $30,000. granted The wife, a supersedeas however, d i s b u r s e d t o h e r on F e b r u a r y 11, 2008. husband appealed establishing a and The h u s b a n d bond accepted the i n the funds Thus, a t t h e t i m e t h e the trial court supersedeas bond, the t r i a l 4 and he entered court i t s order clerk no 2080865 l o n g e r had access March 2008, t o the funds a l r e a d y p a i d t o the w i f e . after the t r i a l court had entered 1 In i t s order a w a r d i n g t h e husband a supersedeas bond, t h e t r i a l c o u r t c l e r k deposited into an i n t e r e s t - b e a r i n g account the r e t u r n e d t o i t by t h e husband, which r e p r e s e n t e d awarded t o t h e husband under t h e F e b r u a r y The $8,352.23 c o n s t i t u t e d t h e o n l y amount o r i g i n a l l y In t h e amount 1 1 , 2008, j u d g m e n t . funds remaining interpleaded into the t r i a l from the court. Dunn v . Dunn I I , 12 So. 3d a t 710, t h i s c o u r t a f f i r m e d the t r i a l for $8,352.23 court's determination t h a t t h e payment t o t h e w i f e h e r i n t e r e s t i n t h e L L C was t o be p a i d f r o m t h e p r o c e e d s o f t h e s a l e o f t h e m a r i t a l home. However, t h i s c o u r t the that the proceeds trial court's determination reversed remaining f r o m t h e p r o c e e d s o f t h e s a l e o f t h e m a r i t a l home a f t e r t h e The w i f e e r r o n e o u s l y c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e h u s b a n d c o u l d have appealed the t r i a l court c l e r k ' s disbursement of the funds. The h u s b a n d p r o p e r l y , a n d p a r t i a l l y s u c c e s s f u l l y , a p p e a l e d t h e February 11, 2008, judgment arguably authorizing that disbursement. Dunn v . Dunn I I , s u p r a . "When a j u d g m e n t i s r e v e r s e d on a p p e a l , t h e g e n e r a l r u l e i s t h a t t h e p a r t y who r e c e i v e d t h e b e n e f i t t h e r e o f must make r e s t i t u t i o n t o t h e o t h e r p a r t y o f money o r p r o p e r t y r e c e i v e d . " S t . Regis Paper Co. v. K e r l i n , 476 So. 2d 64, 66 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ; s e e a l s o W o o l w i n e v . W o o l w i n e , 549 So. 2d 512, 514 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1989) ( " [ R ] e s t i t u t i o n i s a f a v o r e d remedy w h i c h s h o u l d be g r a n t e d u n l e s s i n e q u i t i e s w o u l d r e s u l t f r o m s u c h an a c t i o n . " ) . 1 5 2080865 wife had been p a i d f o r her i n t e r e s t e v e n l y d i v i d e d between t h e p a r t i e s . divorce judgment clearly i n t h e L L C were t o be This court held that the established that the remaining p r o c e e d s f r o m t h e s a l e o f t h e m a r i t a l home were t o be first a p p l i e d toward t h e repayment o f t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l debt and t h a t any f u n d s r e m a i n i n g d e b t were after t h e repayment o f t h e m a r i t a l t o be d i v i d e d b e t w e e n II, 12 So. 3d a t 710. its certificate the p a r t i e s . 2 On J a n u a r y 23, 2009, t h i s c o u r t a motion entered o f j u d g m e n t i n Dunn v . Dunn I I , s u p r a . A l s o on J a n u a r y 23, 2009, t h e h u s b a n d f i l e d court Dunn v. Dunn requesting that the t r i a l i n the t r i a l court conduct a h e a r i n g b e f o r e e n t e r i n g i t s f i n a l judgment i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h this court's holding 2009, t h e t r i a l i n Dunn v. Dunn I I , s u p r a . court entered On May 26, the f o l l o w i n g order: " T h i s c a u s e comes b e f o r e t h e C o u r t upon t h e i s s u a n c e o f t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e Alabama C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s i n [Dunn v . Dunn I I ] on December 3 1 , 2008. "On M a r c h 13, 2009, h e a r i n g by t e l e p h o n e c a l l t h i s Court conducted a t o d e t e r m i n e what t o do A t t h e t i m e t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d , t h e m a r i t a l d e b t was a p p r o x i m a t e l y $33, 373. Dunn v . Dunn I , 972 So. 2d a t 817. The d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t s p e c i f i e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d w o u l d be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p a y i n g any m a r i t a l d e b t n o t s a t i s f i e d b y t h e p r o c e e d s o f t h e s a l e o f t h e m a r i t a l home. I d . a t 814. 2 6 2080865 w i t h t h e i n t e r p l e a d e d funds r e m a i n i n g w i t h t h e C l e r k of t h e C o u r t i n l i g h t o f t h e mandate o f t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l Appeals. "The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e f u n d s p r e s e n t l y i n t h e c u s t o d y and c o n t r o l o f t h e C l e r k o f t h e C o u r t a r e due t o be p a i d o u t t o t h e p l a i n t i f f Wayne Dunn. " I t i s hereby follows. ORDERED, ADJUDGED a n d DECREED as "1. That t h e C l e r k o f t h e C o u r t pay to Wayne Dunn a l l interpleaded sums r e m a i n i n g i n t h e c u s t o d y and c o n t r o l o f t h e Clerk of the Court. are "2. C o s t s o f t h i s i n t e r p l e a d e r t a x e d as p a i d . " As i n d i c a t e d e a r l i e r remaining on i n t h i s opinion, the interpleaded i n the control $8,352.23 t h e t r i a l of the t r i a l court clerk funds were t h e c o u r t c l e r k had not d i s b u r s e d t o the w i f e t h e husband had r e f u s e d t o a c c e p t , p l u s a c c r u e d i n t e r e s t on t h a t amount. A t the time of the February action 1 1 , 2008 and which e n t r y o f t h e May 26, 2009, judgment, funds w i t h i n t h e c o n t r o l o f t h e t r i a l $8,495.95. 3 The h u s b a n d timely the value of the c o u r t had i n c r e a s e d t o appealed from t h e May 26, 2009, j u d g m e n t . T h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l c o n t a i n s t h e m o n t h l y s t a t e m e n t s f r o m t h e i n t e r e s t - b e a r i n g a c c o u n t ; t h o s e s t a t e m e n t s document t h e a c c r u a l o f i n t e r e s t on t h e f u n d s d e p o s i t e d i n M a r c h 2008. 3 7 2080865 On May 26, appeal, 2009, the husband contends t h a t the judgment did not comply with trial court's this court's i n s t r u c t i o n s i n Dunn v. Dunn I I . " I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t , a f t e r remand, t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d 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 by e n t e r i n g and i m p l e m e n t i n g the appropriate j u d g m e n t . See W a l k e r v. Humana M e d i c a l C o r p . , 423 So. 2d 891, 892 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1982). I 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 ) , we h e l d : " ' " I t i s the duty of the 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 the 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 by t h e r e v i e w i n g court. No judgment other than that d i r e c t e d o r p e r m i t t e d by t h e reviewing c o u r t may be e n t e r e d The appellate 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, w i t h o u t g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l or t a k i n g a d d i t i o n a l evidence " 5 Am. J u r . 2d, A p p e a l & E r r o r § 991 (1962). App. " I n E r b e v. Eady, 447 So. 2d 778, 779 ( A l a . C i v . 1984), the Court of C i v i l Appeals h e l d : "'When a c a s e i s remanded t o a t r i a l c o u r t a f t e r a d e c i s i o n on a p p e a l , " i s s u e s d e c i d e d by t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t become law o f t h e c a s e and t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d u t y i s t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e a p p e l l a t e mandate " W a l k e r v. C a r o l i n a M i l l s Lumber Company, 441 So. 2d 980, 982 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 3 ) . 8 2080865 The 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 i s s u e s f i n a l l y d e c i d e d i n t h e mandate. ... " A u e r b a c h v. P a r k e r , The trial wife court. 558 So. 2d 900, 902 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . originally interpleaded Dunn v. Dunn I I , s u p r a . $28,976.80 Thus, a c c o r d i n g c o u r t ' s h o l d i n g i n Dunn v . Dunn I I , s u p r a , amount was interest t o be in the $12,272.34 d e d u c t e d f o r t h e payment husband's LLC, into but to this of that of the the the wife's remainder of a p p r o x i m a t e l y $16,704.46 was t o be a p p l i e d t o t h e r e p a y m e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l d e b t r a t h e r t h a n d i v i d e d as d i r e c t e d b y the trial court i n i t s February 11, 2008, judgment. The h u s b a n d c o n t e n d s t h a t i n i t s May 26, 2009, j u d g m e n t on remand, the trial court failed t o a w a r d h i m t h e $16,704.46 f o r the r e p a y m e n t o f t h e m a r i t a l d e b t a n d t h a t , i n s t e a d , t h e May 26, 2009, j u d g m e n t i s i d e n t i c a l t o t h e F e b r u a r y 11, 2008, j u d g m e n t that this court The r e c o r d reversed supports that i n part i n Dunn v . Dunn I I , s u p r a . argument. I n i t s M a r c h 26, 2009, j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l court ordered p a i d t o t h e h u s b a n d t h e r e m a i n i n g amount o f t h e i n t e r p l e a d e d f u n d s , o r $8,495.95, w h i c h r e p r e s e n t e d awarded together t o t h e husband with interest t h e amount i n the February that had accrued 9 11, 2008, since originally judgment, the entry of 2080865 that judgment. Thus, remand, t h e t r i a l as t h e husband contends, court entered e s s e n t i a l l y even after t h e same j u d g m e n t as t h e one r e v e r s e d i n p a r t b y t h i s c o u r t i n Dunn v. Dunn I I , supra. I n Dunn v . Dunn I I , s u p r a , court to enter holding a judgment i n t h a t case. this court ordered i n compliance The t r i a l with the t r i a l this court's c o u r t has f a i l e d t o comply w i t h t h i s c o u r t ' s a p p e l l a t e mandate. See A u e r b a c h v. P a r k e r , 558 So. 2d a t 902. A c c o r d i n g l y , we r e v e r s e t h e May 26, 2009, j u d g m e n t a n d remand t h e c a u s e f o r t h e e n t r y o f a j u d g m e n t i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h Dunn v. Dunn I I , s u p r a , and t h i s The h u s b a n d a l s o c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l holding a telephone conference conducting the hearing cites authority no therefore, this in support court erred i n on h i s m o t i o n t h e husband requested. of that opinion. rather than The h u s b a n d argument, and, c o u r t does n o t a d d r e s s i t . P i e r c e v. H e l k a , 634 So. 2d 1 0 3 1 , 1033 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 4 ) . The h u s b a n d ' s r e q u e s t f o r an a t t o r n e y fee i s denied. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Pittman, B r y a n , Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . 10

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.