Julia W. Faellaci v. Jared S. Faellaci

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 1/28/11 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 , A l a b a m a 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, 2010-2011 2090675 J u l i a W. Faellaci v. J a r e d S. F a e l l a c i Appeal from Houston C i r c u i t Court (DR-08-183) BRYAN, J u d g e . Julia ("the W. Faellaci husband") were ("the w i f e " ) married and J a r e d on J u l y S. Faellaci 22, 1 9 9 5 , a n d t h r e e c h i l d r e n were b o r n d u r i n g t h e p a r t i e s m a r r i a g e : a b o y , b o r n i n May 2 0 0 0 ; a n d two g i r l s , one b o r n i n S e p t e m b e r 2002 a n d t h e 2090675 second born in April 2004 (collectively h e r e i n a f t e r as " t h e c h i l d r e n " ) . C i r c u i t Court ("the t r i a l On May referred to 8, 2006, t h e H o u s t o n c o u r t " ) e n t e r e d a judgment of l e g a l s e p a r a t i o n t h a t i n c o r p o r a t e d a s e p a r a t i o n agreement t h a t had been s i g n e d by t h e p a r t i e s on o r a b o u t A p r i l 10, 2006 ("the s e p a r a t i o n agreement"). P u r s u a n t t o the s e p a r a t i o n agreement, the wife exercised sole the husband's v i s i t a t i o n s e p a r a t i o n agreement. the custody of the c h i l d r e n , rights that subject to were s e t f o r t h i n the The s e p a r a t i o n a g r e e m e n t a l s o c o n t a i n e d f o l l o w i n g p r o v i s i o n r e g a r d i n g the husband's c h i l d - s u p p o r t obligation: "The p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a t t h e [ h ] u s b a n d ' s income e x c e e d s t h e A l a b a m a C h i l d S u p p o r t G u i d e l i n e s , and the [ h ] u s b a n d a g r e e s t o p r o m p t l y p a y c h i l d s u p p o r t f o r t h e m i n o r c h i l d r e n o f t h e p a r t i e s i n t h e sum o f $5,000.00 m o n t h l y . [ T h e h ] u s b a n d f u r t h e r a g r e e s as a d d i t i o n a l c h i l d support, t o pay 50% of the net a f t e r t a x income o f any c o m m i s s i o n o r bonus i n e x c e s s o f h i s base s a l a r y and w i l l supply the n e c e s s a r y W-2's o r 1099's a t t h e e n d o f e a c h y e a r as proof of compliance w i t h t h i s p r o v i s i o n . " On F e b r u a r y 28, 2008, t h e h u s b a n d f i l e d a p e t i t i o n t o s e t a s i d e t h e s e p a r a t i o n a g r e e m e n t and a c o m p l a i n t f o r a d i v o r c e . The w i f e f i l e d set a motion t o d i s m i s s the husband's p e t i t i o n t o a s i d e t h e s e p a r a t i o n a g r e e m e n t , an a n s w e r t o t h e h u s b a n d ' s complaint for a divorce, and 2 a petition for a rule nisi 2090675 a l l e g i n g t h a t the husband had f a i l e d t o f u l l y comply w i t h the terms of the s e p a r a t i o n obligation. convert The agreement r e g a r d i n g husband subsequently h i s child-support filed h i s p e t i t i o n to s e t aside the separation a p e t i t i o n f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n of the separation husband existed alleged change of Jud. Admin., and to The circumstances of the separation c a l c u l a t i o n of h i s child-support marriage. agreement. agreement The h u s b a n d c u s t o d y o f the c h i l d r e n , expanded R u l e 3 2 , A l a . R. visitation o b l i g a t i o n pursuant a d i s s o l u t i o n of the 1 Following court material motion agreement t o c h i l d s u p p o r t , c u s t o d y , and v i s i t a t i o n . requested j o i n t to a to support m o d i f i c a t i o n regarding rights, that a entered jurisdiction a j o i n t m o t i o n f i l e d by t h e p a r t i e s , t h e a j u d g m e n t d i v o r c i n g t h e p a r t i e s and to enter a final that remained pending before judgment reserving r e s o l v i n g the the t r i a l court. issues The t r i a l f u r t h e r o r d e r e d t h a t the judgment of l e g a l s e p a r a t i o n p r o v i s i o n s of the separation trial court and t h e agreement r e m a i n e d v a l i d u n t i l a Apparently, both parties were satisfied with the p r o v i s i o n s i n t h e s e p a r a t i o n agreement r e g a r d i n g d i v i s i o n o f the m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y . The d i v i s i o n o f m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y was n e v e r an i s s u e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t . 1 3 2090675 f i n a l j u d g m e n t was F o l l o w i n g an a judgment on entered. ore November j o i n t l e g a l custody physical tenus hearing, custody primary c h i l d r e n , and rights. the child month, and support i t ordered arrearage, the separation The trial support awarded which was the husband court further i n the t h e h u s b a n d t o pay Pursuant to the t r i a l of awarded entered of the c h i l d r e n , awarded the w i f e specific visitation h u s b a n d t o pay that court parties the 2009, trial the of 10, the ordered amount o f $4,000 the w i f e h i s determined to be a child- $100,000. c o u r t ' s judgment, a l l other p r o v i s i o n s agreement remained in "full force and effect." The Ala. wife f i l e d a postjudgment motion pursuant to Rule R. C i v . P., court had a l l e g i n g , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e exceeded i t s discretion by failing to i n t e r e s t on t h e h u s b a n d ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e . award The 59, trial her trial c o u r t c o n d u c t e d a h e a r i n g on t h e w i f e ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on J a n u a r y 5, 2010. On J a n u a r y 6, 2010, the t r i a l court entered an o r d e r t h a t s t a t e d : " A f t e r h e a r i n g , [ t h e w i f e ] ' s m o t i o n f o r a new two trial i s denied, except i n t e r e s t c a l c u l a t i o n s and the i s s u e s [ r e g a r d i n g v i s i t a t i o n ] upon w h i c h t h e p a r t i e s have 4 2090675 agreed. Attorneys days." for The s h a l l submit [an] amended d e c r e e w i t h i n g husband subsequently i n t e r e s t on a r r e a r a g e , " f i l e d a "response to arguing t h a t t h e he 14 request does n o t owe b e c a u s e , b a s e d on the c h i l d - s u p p o r t language i n the s e p a r a t i o n agreement, t h e r e was i n t e r e s t on h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e no The a s c e r t a i n a b l e due date for his child-support obligation. t r i a l c o u r t c o n d u c t e d a h e a r i n g on t h e h u s b a n d ' s m o t i o n on F e b r u a r y 25, 2010, b u t t h e r e c o r d does n o t c o n t a i n any o r d e r s e n t e r e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . appeal on A p r i l The wife 16, The further w i f e f i l e d a n o t i c e of 2010. raises several issues for this court to review on a p p e a l ; h o w e v e r , we must f i r s t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h i s has jurisdiction Baker, 518 of 711, matters them a t When a judgment between the Giardina, hear 2d So. "jurisdictional notice to any fails parties, 39 So. wife's 712 (Ala. are of time and to the 3d the 1987) do so judgment 207 See Nunn e v e n ex that t h a t we take mero adjudicate motu"). a l l issues i s nonfinal. Giardina (Ala. v. (stating such magnitude completely 204, appeal. court Civ. App. v. 2009). O r d i n a r i l y , an a p p e a l w i l l l i e o n l y f r o m a f i n a l j u d g m e n t . I d . This court has consistently held 5 that a trial court's 2090675 failure to rule on a c t i o n render the Brunson, 991 contempt divorce So. 2d petitions 723, 724-25 (Ala. making a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of that judgment contempt p e t i t i o n , of the t r i a l contempt court's petition judgment. I d . not Civ. App. regarding the e x p l i c i t l y address court w i l l consider was not 2007). pending w h e t h e r any part pending in the 2d 588, So. v. C.C., v. finality a e x p l i c i t l y ruled 2 0 0 4 ) ) ; see a l s o A.C. divorce Brunson j u d g m e n t i m p l i c i t l y r u l e s on t h e that ( A l a . C i v . App. a See ( q u o t i n g H e a s t o n v. N a b o r s , 889 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1287 does this in judgment n o n f i n a l . However, b e f o r e a filed on 590 34 So. 3d 1281, 2009) ( d i s m i s s i n g an a p p e a l as b e i n g from a n o n f i n a l j u d g m e n t when s e v e r a l p e n d i n g c o n t e m p t m o t i o n s were l e f t unadjudicated purported ruling final on any At the and t h e r e was judgment of the that nothing i n the t r i a l "constitute[d] an court's implicit contempt m o t i o n s " ) . conclusion of the ore tenus hearing in this t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s s u e d i t s j u d g m e n t f r o m t h e b e n c h and the parties' ruling. that the petition attorneys During that trial court to draw up discussion, had for a rule n i s i , not and the ruled he 6 an order wife's on the pointed out case, ordered reflecting attorney wife' that its stated pending the trial 2090675 court's The failure t o do trial-court so w o u l d r e n d e r t h e judge support arrearage responded t o t h e w i f e was petition for a rule nisi. 2d 1346, 1349 must be by an awarded order contempt, even We that circumstances, did App. intended 1991) payor's court, (failure petition on one because the sufficient d i d not c o n t e m p t on the rise the F r a s e m e r , 578 So. hold in arrearage was the not followed husband these to the in particular level wife's find that an So. contempt 2d 337, trial 344 to for a rule (Ala. Civ. a pending contempt count d i d not a f f e c t f i n a l i t y of the judgment of i n d i c a t e an first r u l e on the intention pending p e t i t i o n 897 of on p e n d i n g c o n t e m p t indicates to e x p l i c i t l y finding to her court i m p l i c i t l y concluded that sufficiently r u l e on childon behavior specifically H o r w i t z v. H o r w i t z , 2004) as a r u l i n g A l t h o u g h an e x p l i c i t r u l i n g judgment See a (child-support i s a l w a y s more d e s i r a b l e , we conclusively nisi. not this the husband's b e h a v i o r court's award of F r a s e m e r v. if t h a t the t r i a l i n t h i s case. his c o n c l u d e t h a t s u c h an e x p r e s s i o n , satisfies petitions See ( A l a . C i v . App. contemptuous). that judgment n o n f i n a l . contempt a second denial of a Accordingly, we conclude implicit count). 7 on count was finding of that 2090675 the judgment entered on November 10, 2009, was a final judgment. However, we must now determine whether the t r i a l court's postjudgment order g r a n t i n g the w i f e ' s postjudgment motion i n p a r t w i t h o u t e n t e r i n g an o r d e r e f f e c t u a t i n g t h e r e l i e f g r a n t e d affects this In c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o hear the w i f e ' s appeal. her b r i e f on appeal, the wife properly before this court court, argues despite granted her postjudgment that her appeal i s the f a c t motion t h a t the i n part, trial because i t s failure t o e n t e r an o r d e r a c t u a l l y m o d i f y i n g any p a r t o f t h e divorce judgment r e n d e r e d h e r postjudgment operation of postjudgment law on motion. the See 90th Rule day 59.1, m o t i o n d e n i e d by after she A l a . R. filed Civ. her P. ("A f a i l u r e by t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o r e n d e r an o r d e r d i s p o s i n g o f any pending postjudgment constitute a expiration of denial the motion of such within motion period."). We [90 as days] of the disagree. ... date Rule shall of the 59.1 is a p p l i c a b l e o n l y when t h e t r i a l c o u r t f a i l s " t o r e n d e r an o r d e r d i s p o s i n g o f any p e n d i n g p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n w i t h i n " the The record i n d i c a t e s that the t r i a l w i f e ' s postjudgment court disposed of m o t i o n by g r a n t i n g h e r 8 [90 d a y s ] postjudgment 2090675 request f o r an support the award arrearage, husband's of interest disposed of, visitation although the the husband's child- as w e l l as an a g r e e d - u p o n m o d i f i c a t i o n o f rights, postjudgment r e l i e f requested However, on the trial by denying a l l other by t h e w i f e . wife's court's s o m e t h i n g more f o r t h e t r i a l and postjudgment motion postjudgment order was left c o u r t t o do, i . e . , t o e n t e r an o r d e r m a k i n g a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e amount o f i n t e r e s t owed b y the husband and setting forth the husband's v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s as a g r e e d upon b y t h e p a r t i e s . v. A n d e r s o n , [Ms. 2090265, December 10, 2010] (Ala. C i v . App. 2010) modified Cf. Anderson So. 3d ( d i s m i s s i n g the husband's a p p e a l , as b e i n g f r o m a n o n f i n a l j u d g m e n t when t h e h u s b a n d f i l e d a n o t i c e of appeal after the t r i a l court had granted the husband's postjudgment motion i n p a r t because the postjudgment order d i d "not reflect before an an i n t e n t t o f i n a l l y a d j u d i c a t e a l l t h e i s s u e s the t r i a l amended court"). judgment When t h e p a r t i e s f a i l e d regarding the husband's to submit modified visitation r i g h t s and t h e i n t e r e s t o b l i g a t i o n w i t h i n 14 d a y s , as by t h e t r i a l ordered trial court to enter c o u r t , i t became i n c u m b e n t upon t h e the order 9 t h a t w o u l d make t h e j u d g m e n t 2090675 final. See Sims v. Sims, 38 So. 3d 71, 72 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) ( d i s m i s s i n g an a p p e a l as b e i n g f r o m a n o n f i n a l j u d g m e n t after the trial court m o t i o n i n p a r t b u t had the relief granted). had granted failed No the wife's postjudgment t o i s s u e an o r d e r e f f e c t u a t i n g such order appears i n the record on appeal. A c c o r d i n g l y , we c o n c l u d e her notice t h a t , at the time the w i f e of appeal, there adjudication of a l l the matters p a r t i e s . See P e o p l e s v. P e o p l e s , Civ. App. (Ala. So. 2003) C i v . App. 2d 91, 92 "terminal had not 886 839-40 ( A l a . So. 2d 837, ( A l a . C i v . App. which See 513 1999) ( A l a . C i v . App. is a 1986)) ("A final order the 'final demonstrates 1061 judgment i s a there has i n controversy So. been 1982)) may wife's be phrased [trial] notice 10 ("The 2d 511, court of q u e s t i o n whether as whether to do.'"). appeal was a between ( q u o t i n g W e s l e y v. B r a n d o n , 419 ( A l a . C i v . App. that 2d 1059, a l s o Owens v. Owens, 739 ' s o m e t h i n g more f o r t h e conclude So. the 1 9 9 0 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n T i d w e l l v. T i d w e l l , 496 the l i t i g a n t s . " ' " ) . order complete between ( q u o t i n g Dees v. S t a t e , 563 decision 258 a i n controversy complete a d j u d i c a t i o n of a l l matters 2d 257, been filed So. an there is Thus, we prematurely 2090675 f i l e d and t h a t h e r a p p e a l was "The taken from a n o n f i n a l q u e s t i o n whether a judgment i s f i n a l is a judgment. jurisdictional q u e s t i o n , and t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t , on a d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e judgment i s not Peoples v. final, Peoples, d i s m i s s the w i f e ' s The wife's 886 has a duty So. 2d t o d i s m i s s the case a t 840. Therefore, we " must appeal. request for an attorney fee on appeal is denied. APPEAL DISMISSED. P i t t m a n and Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Thompson, P . J . , d i s s e n t s , w i t h w r i t i n g , w h i c h Moore, J . , joins. 11 2090675 THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e , In a judgment entered on among o t h e r court, things, ordered husband") within to 120 pay days child 2009, the Julia "to support." the 6, a motion, 2010, postjudgment up 10, Jared Faellaci record filed November any and for a the denying motion, trial the "except trial ("the wife") a l l claims that new court relief the Faellaci S. ("the indicates motion 2009, on On not wife's 15, request 2010, unpaid in the entered an order the order t o be i f any, arrearage, i n t e r e s t c o u l d n o t be c a l c u l a t e d b e c a u s e no due and The paid. the husband s u b m i t t e d a response on on i n the w i f e ' s [as t o ] i n t e r e s t c a l c u l a t i o n s for interest 9, After a hearing requested i n c l u d e t h e amount o f i n t e r e s t , January of or, t h e two i s s u e s upon w h i c h t h e p a r t i e s have a g r e e d . " did $100,000 December trial t o a l t e r o r amend t h e j u d g m e n t . wife's January W. clear The wife alternative, on dissenting. to the arguing that d a t e had ever b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d f o r t h e payments o f c h i l d s u p p o r t t h e h u s b a n d w o u l d owe i f he were p a i d any c o m m i s s i o n his salary, base could not awarding set an interest. and, the husband arbitrary On due January 12 o r bonus i n e x c e s s argued, date 26, for 2010, the the the trial court purpose trial of of court 2090675 e n t e r e d an o r d e r s e t t i n g t h e m a t t e r f o r a h e a r i n g on F e b r u a r y 25, 2010. The was held, and r e c o r d does n o t i n d i c a t e whether the enter trial court d i d not the h e a r i n g a subsequent order. R u l e 59.1, A l a . R. C i v . P., provides, i n pertinent part: "No p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e s 50, 52, 55, o r 59 s h a l l r e m a i n p e n d i n g i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o r more t h a n n i n e t y (90) d a y s , u n l e s s w i t h t h e express consent of a l l the p a r t i e s , which consent s h a l l a p p e a r o f r e c o r d , o r u n l e s s e x t e n d e d by t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t t o w h i c h an a p p e a l o f t h e j u d g m e n t w o u l d l i e , and s u c h t i m e may be f u r t h e r e x t e n d e d f o r g o o d c a u s e shown. A f a i l u r e by t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o r e n d e r an o r d e r d i s p o s i n g o f any p e n d i n g p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n w i t h i n t h e t i m e p e r m i t t e d h e r e u n d e r , o r any e x t e n s i o n t h e r e o f , s h a l l c o n s t i t u t e a d e n i a l of such m o t i o n as o f t h e d a t e o f t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e period." In this case, on December 9, 2009, the w i f e filed p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n t h a t s o u g h t , among o t h e r t h i n g s , on the record husband's indicates child-support that either party extend the p e r i o d f o r the t r i a l Therefore, the t r i a l to an render motion. App. See 2006) order Burge arrearage. Nothing gave interest in the consent to c o u r t t o r u l e on t h a t m o t i o n . c o u r t had u n t i l disposing v. Haves, express her 964 of Tuesday, the So. March wife's 2d 672, 675 9, 2010, postjudgment (Ala. Civ. ( h o l d i n g t h a t a m o t i o n t o c o n t i n u e a h e a r i n g on a 13 2090675 p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was the trial court to ineffective rule on consent of the p a r t i e s ) . rule on a P. motion based '"the upon 'inadvertent 2d 244, 561 So. 247 denied by by the ( A l a . 2004) 508 Rule not his j u d g m e n t i s f i n a l and t o be dismissed, Moore, J . , to rule 2004). distinction appears to be Chamblee, 899 So. parte Johnson Land Co., Inc. the 2009). Because amount of arrearage request for the time interest I believe I must r e s p e c t f u l l y d i s s e n t . the interest w i t h i n the b e l i e v e t h a t the 14 Civ. parte Therefore, concurs. the E i g h t M i l e Auto S a l e s , wife's not on A l a . R. makes no t h a t t h e a p p e a l s h o u l d be B e c a u s e I do rule ( A l a . C i v . App. ( A l a . C i v . App. law. not to Ex (quoting the express Ex child-support of 140 failure determine the R u l e 59.1, o f R u l e 59.1 462 59.1, operation the m e r i t s . 2d 137, (Ala. 1990)." 3d 459, did h u s b a n d owed on allowed i f i t does [or] d e l i b e r a t e . ' " ' 2d 506, court operation whether v. F a i r , 25 So. trial So. absent for court loses j u r i s d i c t i o n t i m e p r e s c r i b e d by Moore v. Moore, 910 "Moreover, motion A trial postjudgment motion w i t h i n the the to extend the p e r i o d that was the determined on appeal i s due

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.