Lana M. Henderson v. Henry A. Henderson

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 06/24/2011 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 2090821 Lana M. Henderson v. Henry A. Henderson Appeal from Marion C i r c u i t Court (DR-98-5032.01) PER CURIAM. Lana M. H e n d e r s o n ("the f o r m e r wife") appeals from a j u d g m e n t o f t h e M a r i o n C i r c u i t C o u r t t h a t , among o t h e r t h i n g s , purported applicable to limit o r abrogate to assets certain garnishment orders o f , and t o p r o s p e c t i v e l y modify t h e 2090821 periodic-alimony former husband"). the judgment obligation of, Henry A. Henderson We a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t i n p a r t , we i n part, and we remand ("the reverse the cause f o r f u r t h e r proceedings. T h e s e p a r t i e s a r e no s t r a n g e r s See H e n d e r s o n v. H e n d e r s o n , 800 2000) ("Henderson I " ) ; Ex A u g u s t 3, 2 0 0 4 ) , 919 So. 2d 3 3 3 ("Henderson December (table) 23, So. parte 1 to appellate 2d 595 So. ("Henderson I I I " ) . 2d and p e r s o n a l property, (No. Henderson 1024 (No. (table) 2040453, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) I n May 1999, i n c a s e number DR-98a j u d g m e n t t h a t , among the p a r t i e s , d i v i d e d the p a r t i e s ' r e a l and d e n i e d the former wife a l i m o n y and any i n t e r e s t i n t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s account. 2030814, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004) 5032, t h e M a r i o n C i r c u i t C o u r t e n t e r e d other things, divorced ( A l a . C i v . App. Henderson I I " ) ; and H e n d e r s o n v. 2 0 0 5 ) , 975 litigation. periodic retirement The f o r m e r w i f e a p p e a l e d t o t h i s c o u r t , a r g u i n g that A r e p o r t e r ' s note t o the o f f i c i a l r e p o r t of Henderson I reveals (a) t h a t " [ o ] n J u l y 21, 2000, t h e Supreme C o u r t g r a n t e d H e n r y A. H e n d e r s o n ' s p e t i t i o n f o r c e r t i o r a r i r e v i e w ( d o c k e t no. 1 9 9 1 4 9 7 ) " ; (b) t h a t "on December 15, 2000, t h e p a r t i e s f i l e d a ' n o t i c e o f r e c o n c i l i a t i o n ' " ; and (c) t h a t on December 27, 2000, t h e supreme c o u r t t r e a t e d t h a t " n o t i c e o f r e c o n c i l i a t i o n " as a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e c e r t i o r a r i p e t i t i o n and g r a n t e d t h a t m o t i o n . H e n d e r s o n I , 800 So. 2d a t 599. 1 2 2090821 t h e t r i a l c o u r t had e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o a w a r d t o h e r p e r i o d i c alimony; funds, fee. i n f a i l i n g t o d i v i d e the former husband's and retirement i n f a i l i n g t o a w a r d t o t h e f o r m e r w i f e an In Henderson I, t h i s court reversed the j u d g m e n t and i n s t r u c t e d that court, on former periodic portion wife husband's retirement Henderson I I , we alimony, benefits, granted former w i f e i n which trial to court a had a final trial court's remand, t o a w a r d an of the attorney a mandamus p e t i t i o n she enter and attorney s o u g h t an order judgment the former fee. filed In by the directing the responsive to this c o u r t ' s mandate i n H e n d e r s o n I . In r e s p o n s e t o our II, the trial court r u l i n g s i n H e n d e r s o n I and entered a judgment that, Henderson as finally amended i n J a n u a r y 2005, p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d t o pay t h e f o r m e r w i f e $600 i n m o n t h l y p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y ; was that t h a t o b l i g a t i o n was r e t r o a c t i v e t o the date t h a t Henderson I was no decided; that interest would accrue as to that a r r e a r a g e ; t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s $33,000 a l i m o n y arrearage e i t h e r c o u l d be satisfied immediately discharged by p a y m e n t s o f $400 p e r month; t h a t t h e e n t i t l e d to one-half o r c o u l d be former w i f e would of the former husband's p e n s i o n 3 be payments 2090821 (to be p a i d to her pursuant t o t h e terms of a qualified d o m e s t i c - r e l a t i o n s order d i r e c t e d t o the a d m i n i s t r a t o r of the pension plan); and t h a t the former h u s b a n d was t o p a y t h e f o r m e r w i f e an a t t o r n e y f e e o f $23,537.24. appealed that from t h a t judgment; judgment w i t h o u t husband's brief filed i n d i c a t e s that, although 2 i n Henderson an o p i n i o n . in The f o r m e r h u s b a n d this I I I , we A review court in affirmed of the former Henderson t h e former husband c h a l l e n g e d , III 3 among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s and t h e propriety of the r e t r o a c t i v e periodic-alimony a u t h o r i t y was c i t e d i n h i s a p p e l l a t e b r i e f contentions; our no-opinion other Tucker v. C u l l m a n - J e f f e r s o n cases, order a w a r d , no l e g a l i n support of h i s of affirmance cited, Counties among Gas D i s t . , N o t a b l y , t h e f o r m e r w i f e d i d n o t c r o s s - a p p e a l as t o t h e p r o v i s i o n i n t h e j u d g m e n t h o l d i n g t h a t t h e $33,000 a l i m o n y arrearage would not accrue i n t e r e s t . Because t h a t p r o v i s i o n was n o t p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w i n H e n d e r s o n I I I , t h a t p r o v i s i o n i s now b i n d i n g u n d e r t h e " l a w o f t h e c a s e " d o c t r i n e . See S c r u s h y v. T u c k e r , [Ms. 1081424, J a n u a r y 28, 2011] So. 3d , ( A l a . 2011) ( n o t i n g t h a t a p a r t y i s p r e c l u d e d f r o m r e l i t i g a t i n g , a f t e r an a p p e a l , m a t t e r s t h a t s h o u l d have b e e n , b u t were n o t , r a i s e d on a p p e a l ) . 2 I n response t o a m o t i o n f i l e d i n t h i s a p p e a l by t h e f o r m e r w i f e , we r u l e d t h a t we w o u l d t a k e j u d i c i a l n o t i c e o f the records i n the previous proceedings i n v o l v i n g these p a r t i e s t o the extent that they pertained t o the issues i n v o l v e d i n t h i s appeal. 3 4 2090821 864 So. argue 2d 317, an 319 issue, ( A l a . 2003), which holds t h a t a f a i l u r e with citation tantamount to a waiver certificate was of pension, seeking appeal. review s t r u c k i n M a r c h 2006. judgment f o r m e r w i f e s o u g h t and A p r i l 28, applicable authority, i s o f t h a t i s s u e on husband's c e r t i o r a r i p e t i t i o n of affirmance to in Henderson obtained to orders 4 The of our former judgment After this I I I was court's issued, of garnishment the (dated 2006) w i t h r e s p e c t n o t o n l y t o t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s b u t a l s o t o h i s b e n e f i t s p a y a b l e by t h e U n i t e d States Social Security Administration. The case g i v i n g r i s e 5032.01, a p p a r e n t l y to t h i s parties' petition c a s e number DR-98- o r i g i n a t e d i n June 2006 w i t h h u s b a n d ' s f i l i n g , t h r o u g h new the appeal, divorce appears i n the the former c o u n s e l , of a p e t i t i o n to modify judgment; record, 5 although the no copy of that electronic case-action- R u l e 5 3 ( d ) , A l a . R. App. P., p r o v i d e s t h a t an o r d e r o f a f f i r m a n c e by w h i c h a j u d g m e n t i s a f f i r m e d by t h i s c o u r t w i t h o u t an o p i n i o n may p r o p e r l y be r e f e r e n c e d t o e s t a b l i s h "the a p p l i c a t i o n of the d o c t r i n e of law of the case, res j u d i c a t a , c o l l a t e r a l e s t o p p e l , double jeopardy, or p r o c e d u r a l bar." 4 B o t h p a r t i e s have i m p e r m i s s i b l y attempted to cure o m i s s i o n s f r o m t h e a p p e l l a t e r e c o r d by a t t a c h i n g e x h i b i t s t o t h e i r a p p e l l a t e b r i e f s . Those e x h i b i t s have been d i s r e g a r d e d . E.g., S l e p i a n v. S l e p i a n , 355 So. 2d 714, 716 ( A l a . C i v . App. 5 5 2090821 summary sheet indicates that the former husband asserted " c l a i m o f e x e m p t i o n " a n d an " o b j e c t i o n " t o g a r n i s h m e n t . case-action-summary wife sought alleged sanctions contempt contentions an award hearing sheet f u r t h e r i n d i c a t e s that of court, the former opposed was h e l d 2007, fees the former husband former forhis husband's f o r t h e p e r i o d a f t e r May 1999. on t h e p a r t i e s ' c l a i m s again according sheet, t h e former husband sought to temporarily filed stop to i n August the the garnishment filed ( w h i c h does a p p e a r i n t h e r e c o r d ) 2006. A In case-action-summary a second motion S e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s ; the former w i f e motion the The r e g a r d i n g t h e p r o p r i e t y o f g a r n i s h m e n t , and sought of attorney October against a i n w h i c h he of h i s S o c i a l a response t o t h a t i n w h i c h she a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e former husband's c l a i m o f exemption from garnishment was n o t w e l l t a k e n and t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d was i n c o n t e m p t for not arguments paying alimony and b r i e f s from currently due. After the p a r t i e s , the t r i a l receiving court, on J u l y 7, 2008, r u l e d t h a t " a l l M o t i o n s / P e t i t i o n s p e n d i n g [ ] as o f t h e day o f t h i s O r d e r [ ] a r e h e r e b y d e n i e d . " former husband timely filed a motion 1977). 6 Although the to alter, amend, or 2090821 vacate the t r i a l relief court's July 7, 2008, j u d g m e n t d e n y i n g a l l s o u g h t b y t h e p a r t i e s i n c a s e no. DR-98-5032.01, that m o t i o n was d e n i e d b y o p e r a t i o n o f l a w . See R u l e 5 9 . 1 , A l a . R. Civ. P. In No a p p e a l was t a k e n b y e i t h e r J u l y 2009, t h e f o r m e r w i f e f i l e d party. a motion i n which she s o u g h t an amendment t o t h e g a r n i s h m e n t o r d e r d i r e c t e d t o t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r o f t h e former husband's p e n s i o n ; i n t h a t the former wife requested simply that future d i r e c t e d t o t h e f o r m e r w i f e ' s home a d d r e s s . payments The t r i a l g r a n t e d t h e f o r m e r w i f e ' s m o t i o n on J u l y 27, 2009. wife then f i l e d garnishment filing, be court The f o r m e r a s i m i l a r m o t i o n s e e k i n g an amendment t o t h e order directed to the Social Security A d m i n i s t r a t i o n i n which t h e former w i f e requested t h a t future S o c i a l S e c u r i t y payments g a r n i s h e d from t h e former husband's a c c o u n t be d i r e c t e d trial court initially t o the former w i f e ' s home a d d r e s s ; t h e granted that motion, but i t rescinded t h a t r u l i n g and s e t t h e m a t t e r f o r a h e a r i n g a f t e r t h e former husband f i l e d an o b j e c t i o n t o g a r n i s h m e n t on A u g u s t 20, 2009. A f t e r a h e a r i n g , t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t on J a n u a r y 12, 2010, t h a t quashed further denied the former w i f e ' s garnishment contempt o f the former 7 petition; husband's Social 2090821 S e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s ; l i m i t e d f u r t h e r garnishment from the former h u s b a n d ' s p e n s i o n t o no more t h a n 25 p e r c e n t o f h i s benefit; specified t h a t a l l p r e v i o u s p a y m e n t s by monthly the former h u s b a n d were t o be a l l o c a t e d f i r s t t o a l i m o n y , t h e n t o a c c r u e d a t t o r n e y f e e s , t h e n t o any a r r e a r a g e s ; and d i r e c t e d t h a t f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s p e r i o d i c - a l i m o n y o b l i g a t i o n w o u l d be the reduced t o $200 p e r month s t a r t i n g i n O c t o b e r 2009 and w o u l d t e r m i n a t e i n October The in 2010. The former w i f e appeals. former w i f e f i r s t failing argues that the t r i a l court erred t o f i n d the former husband i n contempt. We note, h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e f o r m e r w i f e ' s b r i e f r e v e a l s h e r most r e c e n t c o n t e m p t c l a i m t o be b a s e d on t h e same a l l e g e d c o n d u c t o f t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d b e t w e e n 1999 elicited the trial petition; i n the August court's and 2005, and t h e same t e s t i m o n y 2006 h e a r i n g , t h a t was consideration notwithstanding that by her evidence, presented for earlier the trial contempt court's J u l y 7, 2008, omnibus j u d g m e n t d e n y i n g a l l c l a i m s p e n d i n g t h a t time d e c l i n e d t o f i n d the former husband i n contempt, the former w i f e d i d not a p p e a l from t h a t t h a t aspect of the t r i a l court's July 7, judgment. at and Because 2008, j u d g m e n t was n o t p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s c o u r t f o r r e v i e w , t h a t p r o v i s i o n i s now 8 2090821 binding, and the trial court could properly t h a t the former w i f e ' s attempt to p r o l o n g the contempt by reasserting concluded l i t i g a t i o n regarding i t in than by properly a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w , s h o u l d be r e j e c t e d . See duplicative issue have petition, rather v. C o m t e l - B i r m i n g h a m , I n c . , 571 Further, because the t r i a l the contention t h a t A l a . Code 1975, fees i s also subsequent, T r a n s c a l l Am., 2d 1051, 1052 precedent to the former former r e l i t i g a t i n g certain issues, wife judgment contesting from likewise bars j u d g m e n t o f J u l y 7, the the p r o p r i e t y of the former qualities o f f i n a l i t y o f , any has award husband 2008, b a r s a l l the other however, from garnishment orders p e n s i o n and h i s S o c i a l S e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s . a garnishment proceeding wife's 6 court's that in contempt § 30-2-54, mandates an absent. Inc. ( A l a . 1990). J u s t as t h e t r i a l the seeking c o u r t p r o p e r l y d e n i e d the petition, of a t t o r n e y condition So. a as t o A judgment properties c i v i l judgment. again his entered of, and Wyers v. A l t h o u g h t h e f o r m e r w i f e a l s o c o n t e n d s t h a t an a w a r d o f f e e s w o u l d have b e e n a p p r o p r i a t e u n d e r A l a . Code 1975, § 12¬ 19-271, a p o r t i o n o f t h e A l a b a m a L i t i g a t i o n A c c o u n t a b i l i t y A c t ("ALAA"), we n o t e t h a t t h e f o r m e r w i f e a s s e r t e d no ALAA c l a i m i n the t r i a l c o u r t . We w i l l n o t r e v e r s e a t r i a l court's j u d g m e n t b a s e d upon an argument n o t f i r s t p r e s e n t e d t o t h a t court. 6 9 2090821 Keenon, 762 So. 2d 353, 355 ( A l a . 1999). In t h i s case, the former husband had the o p p o r t u n i t y t o r a i s e the i s s u e t h a t a l l o r p a r t o f t h e payments due h i m f r o m h i s p e n s i o n o r f r o m t h e S o c i a l S e c u r i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n were n o t s u b j e c t t o g a r n i s h m e n t at the behest of the former w i f e . Civ. P. 7 denying However, t h e t r i a l a l l then adjudicated the petitions husband's o b j e c t i o n s to garnishment. from t h a t judgment, c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t o f J u l y 7, 2008, pending former See a l s o R u l e 64B, A l a . R. The and motions exemption former husband and t h e t r i a l court, claims i.e., an i m p e r m i s s i b l e judgment as therefore, erred i n did See c o l l a t e r a l a t t a c k on t h e J u l y 7, 2008, to h i s garnishment two s i m p l e husband, a "second b i t e of the apple" objections c l a i m s , e s p e c i a l l y when t h e s o l e r e l i e f w i f e was and d i d not appeal i t s J a n u a r y 12, 2010, j u d g m e n t by a l l o w i n g t h e f o r m e r i n l i e u of t a k i n g that appeal, finally changes and exemption s o u g h t by t h e former o f payment a d d r e s s e s , r e l i e f that not reopen the p r o p r i e t y of the garnishments themselves. Ex parte Edmonson, 451 So. 2d 290, 293 (Ala. 1984) T h a t would n e c e s s a r i l y i n c l u d e the former husband's c o n t e n t i o n t h a t A l a . Code 1975, § 6-10-7, w h i c h s p e a k s t o e x e m p t i o n s f r o m g a r n i s h m e n t f o r "wages, s a l a r i e s , o r o t h e r compensation of l a b o r e r s , " encompasses p e n s i o n payments. 7 10 2090821 (domestic-relations judgments, regular immune f r o m c o l l a t e r a l a t t a c k ) . court m o d i f i e d and abrogated on their faces, To t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e i t s garnishment are trial orders i n i t s J a n u a r y 12, 2010, j u d g m e n t , i n c l u d i n g i t s s p e c i f i c a t i o n s as t o a l l o c a t i o n s o f moneys p r e v i o u s l y p a i d , i t e r r e d as a m a t t e r o f law (as to which matters the ore tenus presumption of c o r r e c t n e s s , c i t e d by t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d , does n o t a p p l y , see H i n t o n v. Pollock Motor Civ. 1995)), and App. Car we Co., 659 So. reverse the 2d 649, judgment 650 as (Ala. to that issue. We r e a c h a s i m i l a r c o n c l u s i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e f o r m e r w i f e ' s contention that the trial court improperly prospectively reduced the former husband's a l i m o n y o b l i g a t i o n . Although a d e c i s i o n t o m o d i f y an a w a r d o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y i s g e n e r a l l y within the sound discretion B e a t t y v. B e a t t y , 991 a trial So. of the t r i a l 2d 761, 767 court, see, ( A l a . C i v . App. c o u r t a c t s i n a manner i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h "due e.g., 2008), process and f a i r p l a y " by m o d i f y i n g a s p o u s a l - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n sponte i n the judgment or, modification. absence at the of a petition least, an P r i c e v. P r i c e , 11 oral 442 So. to modify request 2d 121, a sua support seeking a 122-23 ( A l a . 2090821 Civ. App. 1 9 8 3 ) . We a g r e e w i t h t h e f o r m e r w i f e t h a t t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d former wife's t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t a t t h e h e a r i n g on t h e motions t o amend and the former husband's o b j e c t i o n t o garnishment t h a t would support a c o n c l u s i o n the former wife's husband's need changed. ability f o r continued t o pay alimony alimony payments To t h a t e x t e n t , as w e l l , t h e t r i a l that or the former had m a t e r i a l l y court's judgment o f J a n u a r y 12, 2010, was i n e r r o r . Based upon t h e f a c t s a n d a u t h o r i t i e s we have s e t f o r t h h e r e i n , t h e J a n u a r y 12, 2010, j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l court i s affirmed as wife's contempt petition a n d as t o t h e d e n i a l of a supplemental award o f to the d e n i a l attorney fees. of the former As t o t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f g a r n i s h m e n t as t o t h e former husband's S o c i a l S e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s , t h e r e d u c t i o n o f garnishment the as t o t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s p e n s i o n b e n e f i t s , a n d reduction and subsequent termination of the former husband's a l i m o n y o b l i g a t i o n , t h a t judgment i s r e v e r s e d . The c a u s e i s remanded f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s opinion. The f o r m e r w i f e , who h a s p r e v a i l e d as t o some o f t h e 12 2090821 issues presented, connection with the s e r v i c e s of her counsel AFFIRMED All i s a w a r d e d an a t t o r n e y f e e o f $1,500 i n on appeal. 8 IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED. the judges concur. We, b e i n g a c o u r t o f r e v i e w , d e c l i n e t h e f o r m e r w i f e ' s i n v i t a t i o n , a d v a n c e d i n h e r r e p l y b r i e f , t o mandate t h e v o i d i n g o f a l l e g e d f r a u d u l e n t c o n v e y a n c e s on t h e p a r t o f t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d . Any s u c h r e l i e f , i f a p p r o p r i a t e , must f i r s t be s o u g h t i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t . See Brown v. T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I n s . Co., 448 So. 2d 348, 349 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) . 8 13

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.