B.R.F. v. A.V.F.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 3/4/11 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 o f 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, 2010-2011 2090872 B.R.F. v. A.V.F. Appeal from Etowah C i r c u i t (DR-09-502) Court BRYAN, J u d g e . B.R.F. ("the f a t h e r " ) a p p e a l s from a judgment e n t e r e d b y t h e E t o w a h C i r c u i t C o u r t ("the t r i a l c o u r t " ) t h a t d i v o r c e d h i m f r o m A.V.F. ("the m o t h e r " ) i n s o f a r as t h a t j u d g m e n t a w a r d e d the mother s o l e p h y s i c a l custody o f the p a r t i e s ' c h i l d , failed 2090872 t o r e q u i r e the mother t o r e f i n a n c e residence, and r e q u i r e d mother's s t u d e n t - l o a n t h e m o r t g a g e on t h e m a r i t a l the father t o pay a p o r t i o n of the debt. B a c k g r o u n d and P r o c e d u r a l History The p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d i n A u g u s t 2005, and one a girl, father was filed born for a divorce subsequently f i l e d court of the marriage a counterclaim for a divorce. order that possession of the m a r i t a l residence, custody physical of custody the of child, the v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d . the mother pendente l i t e After entered conducting a judgment incompatibility 2006. The on June 24, 2009, and t h e m o t h e r e n t e r e d a pendente l i t e legal i n September child, and trial awarded t h e mother awarded t h e p a r t i e s awarded child, The the mother awarded joint primary the father The f a t h e r was a l s o o r d e r e d t o p a y a l i m o n y and c h i l d an o r e t e n u s h e a r i n g , divorcing the p a r t i e s o f temperament. support. the t r i a l on court the ground Pursuant to that of judgment, t h e p a r t i e s were a w a r d e d j o i n t l e g a l c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d , t h e m o t h e r was a w a r d e d p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d , t h e f a t h e r was a w a r d e d s p e c i f i c v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d , a n d t h e 2 2090872 father was ordered to pay the mother judgment awarded the mother a l l t i t l e marital debt residence, on the child t o and support. i n t e r e s t i n the r e q u i r e d t h e m o t h e r t o pay marital residence, awarded each The 1 the remaining party a l l the p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y i n h i s or her p o s s e s s i o n , awarded each p a r t y t h e v e h i c l e i n h i s o r h e r p o s s e s s i o n , o r d e r e d e a c h p a r t y t o be responsible for p o s s e s s i o n , and the debt ordered on the vehicle t h e f a t h e r t o pay in his or her the mother $7,000, which r e p r e s e n t e d a p o r t i o n of the mother's t o t a l student-loan debt. The 59, Ala. father f i l e d R. Civ. P., a postjudgment motion pursuant i n which he challenged, t h i n g s , the award of p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y his a p o r t i o n of the mother's s t u d e n t - l o a n debt. among to the c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n , and t h e r e q u i r e m e n t The to Rule other mother, t h a t he pay father also a r g u e d t h a t the judgment " s h o u l d p r o v i d e f o r a c e r t a i n time i n w h i c h [ t h e m o t h e r ] s h o u l d be a l l o w e d t o have [ t h e f a t h e r ' s ] T h i s c o u r t has d e t e r m i n e d t h a t an a w a r d o f "primary p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y " t o a p a r e n t s h o u l d be c o n s t r u e d as an a w a r d o f s o l e p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y t o t h a t p a r e n t . C f . S m i t h v. S m i t h , 887 So. 2d 257, 262 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) ; § 3 0 - 3 - 1 5 1 , A l a . Code 1975 ( d e f i n i n g t h e t e r m s t o be u s e d i n a custody determination). 1 3 2090872 name removed " the from The t r i a l father's the [mortgage on t h e m a r i t a l court subsequently entered postjudgment motion child-support residence] an o r d e r by m o d i f y i n g the father's o b l i g a t i o n t o $400 a month a n d b y r e q u i r i n g t h e mother t o " d i l i g e n t l y seek r e f i n a n c i n g t o a l l o w [ t h e name t o be removed f r o m t h e m o r t g a g e she granting "finishes school father timely and o b t a i n s father]'s " a t the time that f u l l - t i m e employment." The appealed. Issues On a p p e a l , the f a t h e r argues that the t r i a l court erred by a w a r d i n g t h e m o t h e r s o l e p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d , b y failing t o order marital residence t h e mother t o r e f i n a n c e a t a "time c e r t a i n , " t h e m o r t g a g e on t h e and by r e q u i r i n g t h e f a t h e r t o repay a p o r t i o n o f t h e mother's s t u d e n t - l o a n debt. Facts Before the s t a r t of the f i n a l hearing the parties stated their agreement on M a r c h 29, 2010, on t h e r e c o r d m o t h e r w o u l d be a w a r d e d t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e , be required residence, property t o pay a l l t h e indebtedness that each party would i n his or her possession, 4 be that the t h a t she w o u l d on awarded the marital the personal and t h a t each p a r t y would 2090872 be a w a r d e d t h e v e h i c l e i n h i s o r h e r p o s s e s s i o n . testified that the m a r i t a l residence mortgage and t h a t t h e b a l a n c e the was The m o t h e r encumbered o f t h e mortgage a t t h e time f i n a l h e a r i n g was a p p r o x i m a t e l y and she was seeking a student a degree graduate at of years at J a c k s o n v i l l e State U n i v e r s i t y i n a r t and art history. from J a c k s o n v i l l e S t a t e 2010, and t h e n she p l a n n e d a $80,000. A t t h e t i m e o f t h e f i n a l h e a r i n g , t h e m o t h e r was 27 old, by She planned to U n i v e r s i t y i n the f a l l of t o go t o t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f A l a b a m a B i r m i n g h a m f o r one y e a r t o get her teaching The m o t h e r a l s o w o r k e d p a r t - t i m e , a p p r o x i m a t e l y a week, a t an e s t a b l i s h m e n t certificate. 14 t o 20 h o u r s c a l l e d "The 215," e a r n i n g $8.50 an hour. The m o t h e r s t a t e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d b e e n u n e m p l o y e d a t certain points during the p a r t i e s ' parties h a d been r e q u i r e d t o u s e h e r s t u d e n t - l o a n pay h o u s e h o l d u t i l i t y b i l l s , the child, The mother and that the income t o t o pay f o r day-care expenses f o r and t o p a y f o r r e p a i r s t o t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e . approximately require marriage testified $30,000, that her student-loan and she asked the f a t h e r t o repay $10,000 5 the debt trial totaled court to as t h e p o r t i o n o f h e r 2090872 student-loan during d e b t t h a t was u s e d f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e f a t h e r the marriage. The father, hearing, who testified student-loan with student-loan the 29 y e a r s that he knew t h a t some of the of the mother's and t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had o c c a s i o n a l l y u s e d income t o p a y t h e u t i l i t y marital residence. The a p p r o x i m a t e l y $1,500 o f t h e u t i l i t y According on o l d a t the time income h a d been u s e d t o p a y f o r r e p a i r s on t h e m a r i t a l residence her was father bills estimated the father had that bills. t o t h e f a t h e r and s e v e r a l w i t n e s s e s h i s behalf, associated been testifying the c h i l d ' s primary c a r e g i v e r , had cooked meals f o r t h e f a m i l y , had p o t t y - t r a i n e d the child, h a d been t h e c h i l d ' s p r i m a r y d i s c i p l i n a r i a n , had been r e s p o n s i b l e f o r cleaning m o t h e r h a d been a c o l l e g e p a r t i e s ' marriage, the m a r i t a l residence. and, a c c o r d i n g to the father, her school caregiver The t h e mother had been t h e mother w o r k when she was a t home. However, t h e m o t h e r , a l o n g w i t h s e v e r a l o t h e r that The s t u d e n t o f f a n d on t h r o u g h o u t t h e was a l w a y s p r e o c c u p i e d w i t h testified and the witnesses, child's primary a n d h a d managed t h e p a r t i e s ' h o u s e h o l d . father stated that, during 6 t h e pendency of the 2090872 d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g , t h e mother had o f f e r e d him v i s i t a t i o n with the lite child in addition to his scheduled pendente v i s i t a t i o n b e c a u s e t h e c h i l d h a d e x p r e s s e d h e r d e s i r e t o see the f a t h e r . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e f a t h e r , b e t w e e n September and M a r c h 2010, t h e m o t h e r h a d o f f e r e d t h e f a t h e r b e t w e e n and eight testified additional visitation that the mother days a month. not allowed had The him 2009 two father to have a d d i t i o n a l v i s i t a t i o n t i m e w i t h t h e c h i l d a f t e r he t h r e a t e n e d to stop paying child so o f t e n . child The support b e c a u s e he h a d c u s t o d y of the f a t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t he h a d d e n i e d t h e mother's request f o r a d d i t i o n a l v i s i t a t i o n time w i t h the c h i l d d u r i n g t h e 2009 C h r i s t m a s h o l i d a y s . The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e r m o t h e r and f a t h e r h a d d i v o r c e d when she was a c h i l d , that she h a d b e e n r a i s e d p r i m a r i l y b y h e r f a t h e r , and t h a t she knew what i t was l i k e t o see one p a r e n t o n l y f o u r d a y s a month, s o , she s a i d , she o f f e r e d t h e f a t h e r more o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o see t h e child f o r the c h i l d ' s At the time sake. of t r i a l , the father was living in a two- bedroom a p a r t m e n t , and he s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e was ample room f o r t h e c h i l d t o l i v e w i t h h i m . The f a t h e r w o r k e d as a c o r r e c t i o n s officer, and h i s w o r k schedule 7 was on a 2-week p a t t e r n in 2090872 w h i c h he w o r k e d a 1 2 - h o u r s h i f t , f r o m 6:00 p.m. t o 6:00 a.m., on Sunday, Wednesday, a n d T h u r s d a y t h e f i r s t week a n d i n w h i c h he w o r k e d t h e same 1 2 - h o u r s h i f t on Monday, T u e s d a y , F r i d a y , and Saturday wanted child t h e second the t r i a l week. The f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t he c o u r t t o a l l o w t h e mother t o care f o r the on t h e d a y s t h a t he h a d t o work. In child February h a d been 2008, t h e mother became c o n c e r n e d s e x u a l l y a b u s e d b y a 1 9 - y e a r - o l d male f a m i l y f r i e n d who h a d been b a b y s i t t i n g t h e c h i l d . mother, friend that the one e v e n i n g h a d been According to the when s h e r e t u r n e d home a f t e r babysitting the c h i l d , the family the c h i l d suddenly g r a b b e d t h e m o t h e r ' s h a n d a n d began s i m u l a t i n g a s e x u a l a c t . The mother immediately made a v i d e o simulating the sexual act. d u r i n g t h e pendente l i t e mother, i n the video, recording of the c h i l d According t o testimony h e a r i n g and t h e f i n a l repeatedly demanded r e p e a t t h e s e x u a l a c t t h a t she had d e m o n s t r a t e d presented hearing, the that the child t o t h e mother. The c h i l d d i d n o t i m m e d i a t e l y r e p e a t t h e a c t ; i n s t e a d , s h e d i d so only after mother stuck t h e mother's h e r hand repeated i n front requests of the c h i l d ' s m o t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t s h e was v e r y u p s e t 8 and a f t e r t h e face. The a t t h e t i m e s h e made 2090872 the video and that she had handled the i n a p p r o p r i a t e l y because she had been i n s i s t e n t repeat the sexual mother reported Resources act. the incident ("DHR"). investigated On t h e a d v i c e t h e mother's The the to of her father, the the allegations c h i l d ' s age, had found t h a t t h e r e take f u r t h e r a c t i o n . that the c h i l d t o t h e Department According situation o f Human father, DHR and, because had of the was n o t enough e v i d e n c e t o 2 f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had argued during m a r r i a g e a b o u t t h e s e x u a l - a b u s e a l l e g a t i o n s made b y t h e mother. their The f a t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t he h a d n e v e r b e l i e v e d family father friend testified continued had s e x u a l l y that abused t h e c h i l d , he h a d t o l d t h e mother that that and t h e i f she t o accuse innocent people of s e x u a l l y abusing the c h i l d , she w o u l d l o o s e c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d . According to the T h e f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d a t an A u g u s t 2009 p e n d e n t e l i t e h e a r i n g t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s g r a n d m o t h e r l a t e r r e p o r t e d t o DHR t h a t t h e f a t h e r may have s e x u a l l y a b u s e d t h e c h i l d . However, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e f a t h e r , t h e m o t h e r r e p o r t e d t o DHR t h a t s h e d i d n o t b e l i e v e t h a t t h e f a t h e r had s e x u a l l y abused t h e c h i l d . The p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t h a t , b y t h e t i m e o f t h e f i n a l h e a r i n g i n M a r c h 2010, DHR h a d n o t made a n y i n d i c a t e d f i n d i n g s o f s e x u a l abuse p e r p e t r a t e d b y t h e f a t h e r a g a i n s t t h e c h i l d a n d t h a t DHR was no l o n g e r p u r s u i n g any i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e father. 2 9 2090872 father, him t h e m o t h e r h a d r e s p o n d e d t o h i s comment b y p u n c h i n g two o r t h r e e times. After that incident, the father c a l l e d t h e p o l i c e , b u t he d i d n o t f i l e a p o l i c e The with mother and t h e f a t h e r Ron C a m p b e l l , DHR h a d c l o s e d sessions, the c h i l d climbed inappropriate testified that appropriate actions, the t o t h e mother, stated he was who certain Campbell a n d t h a t t h e y were n o t n o r m a l c h i l d - l i k e recording that t h e mother witnessed initially Campbell, were " i n no way ... a g e - as t h e f a t h e r h a d s u g g e s t e d . video that caused the had happened t o t h e c h i l d . the c h i l d ' s actions behavior" one o f t h e i r a c t t h a t had i n i t i a l l y occur, something after i n t o t h e mother's l a p and began According the incident sessions counselor, i t s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , and, d u r i n g concern. watched counseling a licensed professional s i m u l a t i n g t h e same s e x u a l mother attended report. the child Campbell s t a t e d that h a d made she exhibiting after inappropriate b e h a v i o r c o u l d be c h a r a c t e r i z e d as l e a d i n g a n d t h a t t h e m o t h e r had e x e r c i s e d poor judgment i n making t h e v i d e o , stated that t h e m o t h e r was n o t t r y i n g t o h u r t making t h e v i d e o . made by t h e mother The f a t h e r into the c h i l d by submitted the video evidence 10 b u t he a l s o t o demonstrate recording what he 2090872 described as t h e m o t h e r ' s trial-court hearing but judge stated manipulation on the record of the child. during the t h a t he h a d b e e n u n a b l e t o p l a y t h e v i d e o the t r i a l - c o u r t substitute The included judge stated copy o f t h e v i d e o that The final recording, he w o u l d accept made b y t h e m o t h e r . f a t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t he h a d w a t c h e d p o r n o g r a p h y the p a r t i c u l a r demonstrated sexual t o t h e mother. act that The f a t h e r that the c h i l d testified had that the c h i l d h a d n o t b e e n e x p o s e d t o p o r n o g r a p h y , b u t he s t a t e d the a that c h i l d h a d b e e n i n t h e home w i t h h i m w h i l e he was w a t c h i n g p o r n o g r a p h y when t h e m o t h e r was n o t a t home. According be served t o the f a t h e r , the c h i l d ' s best i n t e r e s t s would by p l a c i n g the c h i l d s a i d , he i n t e r a c t s w i t h does i n h i s custody because, he t h e c h i l d more o f t e n t h a n t h e m o t h e r a n d he was c o n c e r n e d had "falsely used" t h e c h i l d by a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e c h i l d had been sexually abused. The f a t h e r because t h e mother s t a t e d t h a t he was a l s o concerned about the c h i l d ' s m a t e r n a l grandmother c a r i n g f o r t h e c h i l d because the mother had t o l d maternal t h e f a t h e r t h a t h e r mother, t h e c h i l d ' s grandmother, suffers from bipolar disorder. F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e mother had a d m i t t e d 11 2090872 k i s s i n g one o f h e r male f r i e n d s d u r i n g a f t e r the p a r t i e s had g o t t e n the p a r t i e s ' marriage i n t o an a r g u m e n t . Discussion On a p p e a l , the father challenges the t r i a l court's award of s o l e p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y of t h e c h i l d t o t h e mother because, he a r g u e s , t h e e v i d e n c e d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r was n o t a f i t support and p r o p e r person o f h i s argument t o have that custody of the c h i l d . t h e m o t h e r was unfit In t o have custody of the c h i l d , the f a t h e r p o i n t s t o evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he h a d been t h e p r i m a r y c a r e t a k e r mother had m a n i p u l a t e d the c h i l d of the c h i l d , that the so she c o u l d f a m i l y f r i e n d of s e x u a l l y abusing the c h i l d , had never had a steady job, that accuse their t h a t the mother t h e mother had trouble c o n t r o l l i n g h e r anger, t h a t t h e mother had k i s s e d a n o t h e r d u r i n g t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e , and t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d the father to have excessive additional man allowed pendente lite visitation. I n Ex p a r t e Byars, 794 So. 2d 345, 347 ( A l a . 2001), our supreme c o u r t s t a t e d t h e a p p l i c a b l e l a w and s t a n d a r d when an a p p e l l a t e court considers award o f c u s t o d y : 12 a challenge of review t o an initial 2090872 "Alabama l a w g i v e s n e i t h e r p a r e n t p r i o r i t y i n an i n i t i a l c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n . Ex p a r t e C o u c h , 521 So. 2d 987 ( A l a . 1988). The controlling c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n such a case i s the b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e c h i l d . I d . I n any c a s e i n w h i c h t h e c o u r t makes f i n d i n g s o f f a c t b a s e d on e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d o r e t e n u s , an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t w i l l presume t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t b a s e d on t h o s e f i n d i n g s i s c o r r e c t , and i t w i l l r e v e r s e t h a t judgment o n l y i f i t i s f o u n d t o be p l a i n l y a n d p a l p a b l y w r o n g . Ex p a r t e P e r k i n s , 646 So. 2d 46 ( A l a . 1994) . The presumption of correctness accorded the trial c o u r t ' s judgment e n t e r e d a f t e r t h e c o u r t has h e a r d evidence presented ore tenus i s e s p e c i a l l y strong i n a c h i l d - c u s t o d y case. I d . " We n o t e t h a t much o f t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d c o u r t was d i s p u t e d , had i n c l u d i n g evidence regarding which been t h e c h i l d ' s p r i m a r y could have d e t e r m i n e d primary that 2005) (quoting (Ala. 2002)) (a t r i a l and t h e t r i a l t h e mother had been P h i l p o t v. S t a t e , court's presumed correct). concluded that, although court the c h i l d ' s by making age-inappropriate have the trial court facts are could have t h e m o t h e r h a d made a p o o r j u d g m e n t the video behavior. concluded 843 So. 2d 122, 125 f i n d i n g s on d i s p u t e d Moreover, a p p r o p r i a t e l y by i n i t i a t i n g could caretaker, party c a r e t a k e r . See F a d a l l a v. F a d a l l a , 929 So. 2d 429, 433 (Ala. call to the t r i a l that recording, t h e mother had acted an i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e c h i l d ' s Furthermore, the best 13 the t r i a l i n t e r e s t s of the court child 2090872 would be mother served because recognized the that consistent by awarding sole evidence i t was meaningful indicated important contact with the trial indicated court. that the the the the mother child to have parent, awarded the evidence failure mother's that her that to noncustodial Moreover, employment, c o n s i d e r i n g for custody i n e x c e s s o f what was even i f i t r e q u i r e d v i s i t a t i o n by physical to she in this case steady been a c o l l e g e had maintain student t h r o u g h o u t most o f t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e , had no i m p a c t on ability that to the care f o r the mother's detrimental child, alleged and 606, 618 e f f e c t on t h e c h i l d o r had (Ala. Civ. App. was adulterous a b i l i t y t o p a r e n t t h e c h i l d . See 2d there no indication conduct had her G i a r d i n a v. G i a r d i n a , 987 So. 2008) (noting c o u r t i n making a custody d e t e r m i n a t i o n that a was plainly or custody of the we child To t h e e x t e n t to the wrong in by a detrimental cannot conclude t h a t the palpably parent's trial and t h a t t h e r e must be e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e p a r e n t ' s m i s c o n d u c t was Accordingly, any otherwise impacted s e x u a l m i s c o n d u c t i s o n l y a f a c t o r t o be c o n s i d e r e d child). her awarding trial sole to the court physical mother. t h a t the f a t h e r argues t h a t the t r i a l 14 court 2090872 e r r e d by f a i l i n g t o review the video recording made b y t h e m o t h e r t h a t t h e f a t h e r s u b m i t t e d of the c h i l d into evidence, our r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d does n o t c o n f i r m t h a t t h e t r i a l did view not the determination. video Because before i t made the record on a f f i r m a t i v e l y demonstrate t h a t the t r i a l the video submitted trial i n t o evidence, i t s custody appeal does not court d i d not review we w i l l n o t assume t h a t t h e c o u r t f a i l e d t o do s o . See E l l i o t t v. Bud's T r u c k & A u t o Repair, 656 So. 2d 837, 838 Liberty Loan (Ala. In court Corp. o f Gadsden C i v . App. 1981)) order appeal, for this ( A l a . C i v . App. 1995) v. W i l l i a m s , ("This c o u r t court (citing 406 So. 2d 988 does n o t presume e r r o r . t o consider an e r r o r asserted on t h a t e r r o r must be a f f i r m a t i v e l y d e m o n s t r a t e d b y t h e record."). Next, court, (Ala. the father asks this court on t h e a u t h o r i t y o f B a r n e s v . B a r n e s , the trial 28 So. 3d 800 C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) , t o r e q u i r e t h e m o t h e r t o r e f i n a n c e t h e m a r i t a l residence w i t h i n a reasonable fails t o order t i m e c e r t a i n and, t o do s o , t o r e q u i r e t h a t t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e i f she be s o l d i n o r d e r t o remove t h e f a t h e r ' s name f r o m t h e m o r t g a g e on t h e marital residence. Initially, we n o t e t h a t t h i s 15 court cannot 2090872 c o n s i d e r t h e f a t h e r ' s r e q u e s t t h a t we o r d e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o e n t e r an o r d e r r e q u i r i n g t h e s a l e o f t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e i f the mother residence present does by that a not refinance specific argument t h e mortgage because date to the on father trial M e r r i t t O i l Co., 612 So. 2d 409, 410 the court. the m a r i t a l See ( A l a . 1992) cannot c o n s i d e r arguments r a i s e d f o r the f i r s t d i d not Andrews ("This t i m e on v. court appeal ...."). However, we w i l l c o n s i d e r t h e f a t h e r ' s argument t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t f a i l e d t o r e q u i r e the mother t o r e f i n a n c e the mortgage on t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e and t h a t the t r i a l f a i l e d t o r e q u i r e t h e m o t h e r t o do so by a d a t e I n B a r n e s , t h e h u s b a n d was residence pursuant to that an conjunction with responsible f o r payment marital residence, harmless award, of as t o t h e d e b t the evidenced of the wife, the requiring the husband to mortgages associated with by of was mortgages to indemnify m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e . I d . a t 800. request judgment the husband and he was certain. awarded t h e p a r t i e s ' amended remove divorce; t o be solely by the mortgages court in the and h o l d t h e w i f e later, entered the wife's on the at the an name the m a r i t a l residence 16 marital secured Over two y e a r s trial court order from any within 120 2090872 d a y s . I d . a t 801. that the trial refinance the constitute[d] division The h u s b a n d a p p e a l e d , and t h i s court's mortgages order on requiring the an i m p e r m i s s i b l e former the court held husband "to marital residence m o d i f i c a t i o n of the p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e amended d i v o r c e property- judgment." I d . a t 803. The father that judgment argues that requires the the provision mother to i n the amended "diligently seek r e f i n a n c i n g " does n o t a c t u a l l y r e q u i r e t h e m o t h e r t o r e f i n a n c e the marital residence. Therefore, under the a u t h o r i t y of B a r n e s , t h e f a t h e r w o u l d n o t be a b l e t o r e q u i r e t h e m o t h e r t o refinance the m a r i t a l residence i n the future i f the divorce j u d g m e n t does n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y r e q u i r e h e r t o do s o . we d i s a g r e e did with the f a t h e r ' s a s s e r t i o n that the t r i a l not r e q u i r e the mother t o r e f i n a n c e marital residence. postjudgment "provide However, request for a certain Considering for relief t h e m o r t g a g e on t h e the -- time i n which court that father's the initial trial court [the mother] s h o u l d be a l l o w e d t o have [ t h e f a t h e r ' s ] name removed f r o m t h e [mortgage on the marital residence]" -- and considering court's postjudgment order g r a n t i n g that s p e c i f i c 17 the trial request f o r 2090872 r e l i e f by o r d e r i n g t h e m o t h e r t o " d i l i g e n t l y s e e k r e f i n a n c i n g " as soon as employment, c o u r t was she we finishes conclude school that and obtains full-time the c l e a r i n t e n t of the trial t o r e q u i r e t h e mother t o r e f i n a n c e t h e mortgage on t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e . See B o y d v. F r a n k l i n , 919 So. 2d 1166, 1171 ( A l a . 2005) (Ala. Civ. ambiguity ( q u o t i n g P r i c e v. P r i c e , 360 So. 2d 340, 343 App. in a construe i t so 1978)) ... as ("'If judgment, t o express there the is uncertainty [reviewing] and court must ... trial the i n t e n t of the judge.'"). We note, father's however, argument that nothing that the t r i a l i n Barnes addresses court's the judgment s h o u l d reversed because i t d i d not g i v e a "reasonable time be certain" as t o t h e d a t e t h e m o t h e r must r e f i n a n c e t h e m o r t g a g e on t h e marital residence. t h e m o t h e r was time, and that The e v i d e n c e t a k e n a t t r i a l i n d i c a t e d t h a t a c o l l e g e student, the mortgage totaled approximately setting the time that d e b t on $80,000. the t h a t she w o r k e d o n l y p a r t - The mother the m a r i t a l trial must court's begin r e f i n a n c e t h e m o r t g a g e on t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e into account the evidence i n the record 18 to residence judgment seek clearly indicating to takes that the 2090872 m o t h e r d i d n o t have t h e means t o r e f i n a n c e t h e m o r t g a g e on t h e marital residence a t the time t h e judgment was entered. Although t h e judgment does n o t r e q u i r e t h e m o t h e r t o r e f i n a n c e t h e m o r t g a g e on t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e b y a s p e c i f i c d a t e , t h e father has n o t c i t e d that the t r i a l any a u t h o r i t y t o s u p p o r t h i s argument c o u r t was r e q u i r e d t o make s u c h as o r d e r . See R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . R. App. P. ( r e q u i r i n g a r g u m e n t s on a p p e a l t o be s u p p o r t e d authority relied division on). of property discretion by c a s e s , Decisions should of the t r i a l (Ala. 2010) (citing C i v . App. discretion s t a t u t e s , a n d any o t h e r regarding how an e q u i t a b l e be e f f e c t u a t e d a r e l e f t court, 2090642, November 19, 2010] App. So. 3d v. R o b e r t s , 2001)) (recognizing n. 5 Civ. 802 So. 2d 230, 235 the trial i n e f f e c t u a t i n g an e q u i t a b l e p r o p e r t y i s shown t h a t t h e t r i a l [Ms. (Ala. court's division i n court w i l l not reverse a part of a t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment t h a t i s l e f t t o i t s d i s c r e t i o n it to the see G r e l i e r v. G r e l i e r , Roberts a d i v o r c e a c t i o n ) , and t h i s presented unless court exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n or t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t i s p l a i n l y o r p a l p a b l y wrong. See Romano v . Romano, 703 So. 2d 374, 375 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1997) . B e c a u s e we cannot conclude t h a t the t r i a l 19 court exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n 2090872 regarding the p r o v i s i o n was divorce r e f i n a n c i n g p r o v i s i o n , or t h a t the p l a i n l y and judgment palpably requiring wrong, t h a t a s p e c t o f the mother m o r t g a g e on the and f u l l - t i m e employment i s obtains Finally, marital the when i t o r d e r e d residence father the father represented a portion the mother d u r i n g argues of marital debt c o u r t had of the of the the the debt parties student-loan trial student-loan i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r had name f o r h e r use $7,000, which debt t a k e n out be considered therefore, the also evidence debt. indicated Although t a k e n out that the the parties had joint the trial a portion evidence We i s l e f t t o the d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l her education, used income t h e m o t h e r r e c e i v e d f r o m t h o s e l o a n s f o r t h e b e n e f i t both p a r t i e s d u r i n g the m a r r i a g e . the a student loans i n postsecondary by benefit f a t h e r argues t h a t that, i n c o m p l e t i n g her school erred no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o o r d e r t h e f a t h e r t o pay mother's the court used f o r the The cannot and finishes mother t h e m a r r i a g e t h a t was student-loan refinance the affirmed. that of the f a t h e r d u r i n g the marriage. mother's to a f t e r she t o pay the refinancing the of note t h a t , g e n e r a l l y , i t c o u r t t o d e c i d e how the payment o f d e b t s i n c u r r e d d u r i n g a m a r r i a g e w i l l be d i v i d e d i n 20 2090872 a j u d g m e n t o f d i v o r c e . See S c r u g g s v. S c r u g g s , 456 So. 2d 319, 323 ( A l a . C i v . App. debts, the exercise the trial 1984) court of i t s j u d i c i a l f i n d i n g s of a t r i a l holding was so p a l p a b l y ("In p r o v i d i n g i s granted f o r t h e payment o f much latitude d i s c r e t i o n , and we c o u r t upon wrong may in the not d i s t u r b such a matter unless as t o c o n s t i t u t e an abuse the of discretion."). The argument father has not c i t e d that the t r i a l mother's s t u d e n t - l o a n court any could a u t h o r i t y to support h i s n o t have considered the d e b t t o be m a r i t a l d e b t . " R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . R. App. P., r e q u i r e s t h a t a r g u m e n t s i n an a p p e l l a n t ' s b r i e f c o n t a i n ' c i t a t i o n s t o t h e c a s e s , s t a t u t e s , o t h e r a u t h o r i t i e s , and p a r t s o f t h e r e c o r d r e l i e d on.' ... [ I ] t i s w e l l s e t t l e d that a [party's] failure t o comply with the requirements of Rule 28(a)(10) r e q u i r i n g c i t a t i o n of a u t h o r i t y i n s u p p o r t o f t h e arguments presented provides t h i s Court with a b a s i s f o r d i s r e g a r d i n g t h o s e a r g u m e n t s . Ex p a r t e S h o w e r s , 812 So. 2d 277, 281 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) . " S t a t e Farm Mut. A u t o . I n s . Co. v. M o t l e y , 909 So. 2d 806, 822 (Ala. any 2005). authority the father has failed t o s u p p o r t h i s a r g u m e n t , we w i l l Accordingly, the Because the p r o v i s i o n of the d i v o r c e 21 cite not consider i t . judgment r e q u i r i n g f a t h e r t o p a y t h e m o t h e r $7,000 i s a f f i r m e d . Conclusion to 2090872 The judgment of the trial court f a t h e r ' s motion to s t r i k e specific b r i e f on a p p e a l and the father's i s denied, reply brief is affirmed. p o r t i o n s of the However, we t h i s c o u r t has c o n s i d e r e d o n l y t h e e v i d e n c e p r o p e r l y to the t r i a l c o u r t and mother's the mother's motion to i s denied. contained i n the r e c o r d on The strike note that presented appeal. AFFIRMED. Thompson, concur. P.J., and Pittman, 22 Thomas, and 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.