Dana Kyle Whitman v. Larry Stephen Whitman II
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 7/15/11 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2011 2100185 Dana Kyle Whitman v. L a r r y Stephen Whitman I I Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t Court (DR-10-486) BRYAN, J u d g e . Dana K y l e Whitman ("the w i f e " ) e n t e r e d by t h e Madison C i r c u i t Court appeals ("the from a judgment trial court") that d i v o r c e d h e r f r o m L a r r y S t e p h e n Whitman I I ("the h u s b a n d " ) , asserting that the t r i a l court erred i n f a i l i n g t o conduct a 2100185 hearing on h e r p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . The 1989 r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d and that three c h i l d r e n were b o r n d u r i n g The a d i v o r c e on A p r i l 16, 2010. On May the marriage. filing a h u s b a n d i n i t i a t e d t h e a c t i o n b e l o w by for in complaint June 15, 2010, the wife f i l e d an " a c k n o w l e d g m e n t o f n o n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n " and t h e p a r t i e s filed a l l the a settlement pending before agreement the trial parties' children, child property and business. debts, On June that court, support, addressed such and as custody division including the parties' 28, the trial 2010, issues of of marital jointly court the owned entered 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 t h a t r a t i f i e d and c o n f i r m e d a the p a r t i e s ' s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t and e x p r e s s l y i n c o r p o r a t e d t h e i r settlement On pursuant agreement i n t o the d i v o r c e J u l y 23, to 2010, 59, Rule the Ala. wife R. judgment. filed Civ. P., v a c a t i n g t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t and a new t h e w i f e a l l e g e d t h a t she had u n d e r d u r e s s and and fraudulent Specifically, representations wife requesting trial. alleged 2 to I n her that, during her the order motion, agreement used economic procure motion an s i g n e d the s e t t l e m e n t t h a t t h e h u s b a n d had the a postjudgment coercion agreement. course of 2100185 negotiations denied of having the settlement agreement, an e x t r a m a r i t a l a f f a i r . daughter conduct" while attached the working affidavit s e r i e s of e-mails w e l l as c o p i e s her discovered at the of the entered, family parties' illicit had The discovered d i s c o v e r e d by t h e d a u g h t e r , to wife u t i l i z e d e c o n o m i c c o e r c i o n and wife t h a t i t was necessary also alleged d u r e s s by was that the agreement, representing to the in dire financial straights to s e l l the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e . f u r t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t , a t some p o i n t process, a as husband, d u r i n g the n e g o t i a t i o n of the s e t t l e m e n t and wife a family friend, The w i f e t h a t the f a m i l y business to the business. b e t w e e n t h e h u s b a n d and motion. had husband's "the d a u g h t e r who of the e-mails postjudgment husband However, a c c o r d i n g t h e w i f e , a f t e r t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t was 15-year-old the i n the The negotiation she d e s i r e d s u b s t a n t i a l c h a n g e s t o t h e a g r e e m e n t and t h a t t h e h u s b a n d r e s p o n d e d by i n d i c a t i n g t o t h e w i f e t h a t she w o u l d n o t have a c c e s s home f o r her and under c o n t r a c t . t o f u n d s t h a t she the The parties' needed t o purchase a c h i l d r e n , which wife s p e c i f i c a l l y requested was already a hearing on her p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n ; however, her p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was denied P., by operation of law, see 3 R u l e 59.1, A l a . R. Civ. 2100185 without the t r i a l court's having conducted a hearing p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . The w i f e t i m e l y On appeal, the wife challenges on h e r appealed. only the t r i a l court's f a i l u r e t o c o n d u c t a h e a r i n g on h e r p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n b e f o r e i t was d e n i e d b y o p e r a t i o n o f l a w . I n W i c k s v. W i c k s , 49 So. 3 d 700 court considered ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) , t h i s question that i s presented court hearing committed on specifically a i n this reversible error postjudgment requested. t h e same c a s e -- w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l in failing motion when a t o conduct hearing We s t a t e d : "Rule 59(g), A l a . R. C i v . P., p r o v i d e s that p o s t j u d g m e n t 'motions remain p e n d i n g u n t i l r u l e d upon b y t h e c o u r t ( s u b j e c t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f R u l e 59.1) b u t s h a l l n o t be r u l e d upon u n t i l t h e p a r t i e s have h a d o p p o r t u n i t y t o be h e a r d t h e r e o n . ' This c o u r t has h e l d t h a t " ' [ g ] e n e r a l l y , a movant who r e q u e s t s a h e a r i n g on h i s o r h e r p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n i s e n t i t l e d t o such a h e a r i n g . Rule 59(g), A l a . R. C i v . P.; F l a g s t a r E n t e r s . , I n c . v . F o s t e r , 779 So. 2d 1220, 1221 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . A trial court's failure t o conduct a h e a r i n g i s e r r o r . F l a g s t a r E n t e r s . , 779 So. 2d a t 1 2 2 1 . ' "Dubose v . Dubose, 964 So. 2d 42, 46 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) ; s e e a l s o S t a a r u p v. S t a a r u p , 537 So. 2d 56, 57 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1988) ( ' [ R u l e 5 9 ( g ) ] mandates t h a t , when a h e a r i n g i s r e q u e s t e d on a m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l , t h e h e a r i n g must be g r a n t e d . ' ) . 4 a was 2100185 "[However], this court has recognized an e x c e p t i o n to the g e n e r a l r u l e t h a t the d e n i a l of a postjudgment motion without conducting a requested h e a r i n g i s r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . See G i b e r t v. G i b e r t , 709 So. 2d 1257, 1258 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998) ('A t r i a l c o u r t e r r s b y n o t g r a n t i n g a h e a r i n g when one has b e e n r e q u e s t e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 9 ( g ) ; h o w e v e r , t h a t e r r o r i s not n e c e s s a r i l y r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . ' ) . 'On a p p e a l , ... i f an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t determines t h a t t h e r e i s no p r o b a b l e m e r i t t o t h e m o t i o n , i t may a f f i r m b a s e d on t h e h a r m l e s s e r r o r r u l e . ' P a l m e r v. H a l l , 680 So. 2d 307, 307-08 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) ; see a l s o Lowe v. Lowe, 631 So. 2d 1040, 1041 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1993) ( ' D e n i a l o f a R u l e 59 m o t i o n w i t h o u t a h e a r i n g i s r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r i f t h e movant r e q u e s t e d a h e a r i n g and h a r m f u l e r r o r i s f o u n d . ' ) . The A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t has s t a t e d : "'Harmless e r r o r o c c u r s , w i t h i n the c o n t e x t o f a R u l e 59(g) m o t i o n , where t h e r e i s e i t h e r no p r o b a b l e m e r i t i n t h e g r o u n d s asserted i n the motion, o r where the appellate court resolves the issues p r e s e n t e d t h e r e i n , as a m a t t e r o f law, a d v e r s e l y t o t h e movant, by a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e same o b j e c t i v e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w as t h a t a p p l i e d i n the t r i a l c o u r t . ' "Greene v. Thompson, 554 So. 2d 376, 381 (Ala. 1 9 8 9 ) . However, '[w]hen t h e r e i s p r o b a b l e m e r i t t o the motion, the error cannot be considered h a r m l e s s . ' Dubose, 964 So. 2d a t 46." 49 So. 3d a t 701. In Wicks, the p a r t i e s to a d i v o r c e a c t i o n e n t e r e d i n t o a s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t t h a t was eventually incorporated into d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t . I d . a t 700. The a postjudgment motion pursuant t o R u l e 59 a l l e g i n g , as he 5 husband s u b s e q u e n t l y a filed had 2100185 before the entry fraudulently certain of the divorce failed assets to disclose before judgment, t h a t t h e w i f e her ownership the p a r t i e s entered had interest i n into a settlement agreement. I d . T h i s c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e husband's " a l l e g a t i o n that be [the wife] a ground (quoting Civ. f r a u d u l e n t l y concealed to set aside Barganier App. 1995), v. B a r g a n i e r , may judgment." the f i n a l assets, i fproven, 702 669 So. 2d 933, 937 ( A l a . f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n that a g r e e m e n t may be a l t e r e d , amended, procures agreement or "'[a] or vacated the liabilities.'"). by Thus, we I d . at fraud i f one conceals concluded that property party assets the t r i a l or court's f a i l u r e t o h o l d a h e a r i n g on t h e h u s b a n d ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was not harmless order error, a n d we fraudulent be representations, grounds Barganier, 2d the t r i a l to set case, the wife's a l l e g a t i o n s of duress, aside and c o e r c i o n , the divorce 669 So. 2d a t 938 ( c i t i n g K u n k e l v. K u n k e l , 555, 556 just, i f proven, judgment. ( A l a . C i v . App. 1989)) ("A s e p a r a t i o n i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o a d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t must be f a i r , and court's d e n y i n g t h e husband's postjudgment motion. I d . S i m i l a r l y , i n the present may reversed and f r e e from f r a u d , d u r e s s , 6 or other See 547 So. agreement reasonable, coercion."). 2100185 See also E l l i o t t App. 1995) (1952), v. Elliott, 667 ( c i t i n g Cary v Cary, for agreement was the proposition obtained through B e c a u s e we of was that postjudgment conduct a there motion hearing or on 257 no 116, 119 A l a . 431, duress 59 and wife's So. merit trial to 659 then the as a m a t t e r the court's postjudgment 2d settlement] fraud, cannot conclude, the (Ala. Civ. " [ i ] f [a probable that the 2d that, divorce i s void."). law, So. wife's failure motion to was h a r m l e s s e r r o r , we r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r d e n y i n g t h e wife's postjudgment f u r t h e r proceedings motion, and we remand consistent with this the opinion. cause for 1 I n C l a y b r o o k v. C l a y b r o o k , 56 So. 3d 652, 653 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) , t h e w i f e f i l e d a m o t i o n t o r e p u d i a t e a d i v o r c e settlement agreement alleging several defenses to the e n f o r c e m e n t o f t h e s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t . The trial court e n t e r e d 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 t h e w i f e f i l e d a postjudgment motion; a f t e r conducting a h e a r i n g on the w i f e ' s postjudgment motion, the t r i a l c o u r t denied the motion. I d . a t 653-54. The w i f e a p p e a l e d , and we r e v e r s e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of the w i f e ' s postjudgment motion, h o l d i n g t h a t the w i f e ' s defenses to the e n f o r c e a b i l i t y of the s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t s h o u l d have b e e n c o n s i d e r e d a t an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g . I d . a t 658. We a l s o n o t e d t h a t , 1 "on remand, e v e n i f t h e w i f e ' s e v i d e n c e f a i l s t o establish a defense sufficient to defeat the enforcement of the p a r t i e s ' agreement, the trial c o u r t i s n o t b o u n d by t h e p r o v i s i o n s s e t forth therein. The trial court must independently d e t e r m i n e whether the p r o v i s i o n s of t h a t agreement 7 2100185 The husband's and t h e w i f e ' s requests f o r an award o f a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s on a p p e a l a r e d e n i e d . REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, concur. P . J . , and P i t t m a n , Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . , c o m p l y w i t h R u l e 32, A l a . R. J u d . Admin., o r w h e t h e r a d e v i a t i o n t h e r e f r o m i s j u s t i f i e d , and whether t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e agreement a r e j u s t and e q u i t a b l e under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . " Id. 8
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.
