Julia A. Strain v. Arnold Ray Maloy

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/14/2011 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, 2011-2012 2100232 J u l i a A. S t r a i n v. A r n o l d Ray Maloy Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (DR-04-2731.01) Court THOMAS, J u d g e . J u l i a A. S t r a i n ("the m o t h e r " ) a n d A r n o l d Ray M a l o y ("the father") were father f i l e d petition divorced i n July 2006. I n March 2008, t h e a p e t i t i o n t o modify t h e d i v o r c e judgment and a seeking t o have t h e mother held i n contempt f o r 2100232 failing to allow the f a t h e r d i v o r c e judgment. visitation as provided The m o t h e r a n s w e r e d t h e f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n s and c o u n t e r p e t i t i o n e d on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s two y e a r s , s e e k i n g to have the matters, father held several and over the f o l l o w i n g a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e d i v o r c e judgment and breaches of the divorce After i n the i n contempt for various alleged judgment. continuances, the issuance hearings on discovery of a temporary r e s t r a i n i n g order applying to both p a r t i e s , the t r i a l court s e t the m o d i f i c a t i o n and c o n t e m p t i s s u e s f o r a t r i a l on September 21, 2010. date s e t f o r the t r i a l , the p a r t i e s n e g o t i a t e d an a g r e e m e n t a s to s e v e r a l of the i s s u e s r a i s e d i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e but they continued the were unable counseling visitation reach an agreement awarded judgment at informed the p a r t i e s that in this the f a t h e r . that the day, r e c e s s next day, regarding appeal, the i t desired that According trial the to the court they remaining i s s u e s f o r the court's determination. mother's attorney pleadings, o f t h e p a r t i e s and t h e i r m i n o r c h i l d and t o be issue to On t h e submit the Although the requested that the p a r t i e s begin the f o r the evening, the t r i a l court 2 and t h e n resume "denied then the trial trial [ t h e mother's] o r a l 2100232 r e q u e s t due t o t h e age o f t h i s c a s e , t h e l a t e n e s s o f t h e d a y , and t h e f a c t t h a t t h i s C o u r t h a s a new a n d s e p a r a t e d o c k e t t h e n e x t d a y w i t h many c a s e s h a v i n g b e e n s e t f o r t r i a l many m o n t h s i n advance." for The t r i a l c o u r t then a p p a r e n t l y c a l l e d t h e case " h e a r i n g , " and c o u n s e l f o r each p a r t y "presented [his or her] position." The trial court entered appointing a counselor visitation schedule a j u d g m e n t on O c t o b e r f o r the p a r t i e s f o r the father. 6, 2 0 1 0 , and s e t t i n g out the The m o t h e r filed p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on S e p t e m b e r 24, 2010, a p p a r e n t l y h a v i n g been i n f o r m e d o f t h e g e n e r a l substance by t h e t r i a l a after o f t h e judgment c o u r t f r o m t h e b e n c h on t h e d a t e o f t h e h e a r i n g ; t h a t m o t i o n i s c o n s i d e r e d t o have b e e n f i l e d on t h e d a t e t h e j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d i n t h e S t a t e J u d i c i a l I n f o r m a t i o n S y s t e m pursuant t o R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 4 ) , A l a . R. App. P. ("A n o t i c e o f a p p e a l f i l e d a f t e r t h e announcement o f a d e c i s i o n o r o r d e r b u t b e f o r e t h e e n t r y o f t h e j u d g m e n t o r o r d e r s h a l l be t r e a t e d as filed a f t e r t h e e n t r y a n d on t h e d a y t h e r e o f . " ) . later The m o t h e r amended h e r p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n t o more s p e c i f i c a l l y c h a l l e n g e aspects of the t r i a l c o u r t ' s w r i t t e n judgment. 3 2100232 The trial 15, 2010, the court entered an amended j u d g m e n t on November a d d r e s s i n g the f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t arrearage trial court had omitted from i t s earlier that judgment, c o r r e c t i n g m i n o r c l e r i c a l e r r o r s i n p a r a g r a p h 13 and p a r a g r a p h 18 of the On November 22, pro j u d g m e n t , and tunc 2011, i n which denying the a l l other trial requested court entered an i t c o r r e c t e d two clerical errors judgment to CAUSE came on f o r h e a r i n g on f o r t r i a l " The The a judgment read nunc in the "THIS as o p p o s e d t o "THIS CAUSE came mother a p p e a l s , arguing only that t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d h e r t h e r i g h t t o due p r o c e s s without order i n c l u d i n g c o r r e c t i n g the judgment, entered relief. on the pending the o f l a w when i t modification petitions h o l d i n g an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g . mother e n t i t l e d t o due is correct process in arguing i n proceedings that D a n f o r d v. D u p r e e , 272 A l a . 517, 734, (1961) . The parent i n v o l v i n g the of a c h i l d . 735-36 a 520, 132 custody So. Danford court s t a t e d : " I n d e a l i n g w i t h s u c h a d e l i c a t e and d i f f i c u l t q u e s t i o n -- t h e w e l f a r e o f a m i n o r c h i l d -due process of law i n l e g a l proceedings should be observed. These s e t t l e d c o u r s e s o f p r o c e d u r e , as e s t a b l i s h e d by our law, i n c l u d e due notice, a h e a r i n g o r o p p o r t u n i t y t o be h e a r d b e f o r e a c o u r t o f competent j u r i s d i c t i o n . " 4 is 2d 2100232 D a n f o r d , 272 A l a . a t 520, has 132 So. 2d a t 735-36. As t h i s court further explained: " [ P ] r o c e d u r a l due p r o c e s s contemplates the b a s i c requirements of a f a i r p r o c e e d i n g i n c l u d i n g an impartial hearing before a legally constituted court; an opportunity to present evidence and arguments; i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g the c l a i m s of the opposing party; a reasonable opportunity to controvert the opposition's claims; and r e p r e s e n t a t i o n by c o u n s e l i f i t i s d e s i r e d . " Crews v. Houston C n t y . Dep't of P e n s i o n s 451, ( A l a . C i v . App. 455 v. L.C., 923 The to So. 1978) 2d 1109, & Sec., the mother a 1111-12 trial So. ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) ; see a l s o ( A l a . C i v . App. r e c o r d r e f l e c t s c l e a r l y t h a t the t r i a l allow 358 on the 2d R.C. 2005). court modification refused petitions p e n d i n g b e f o r e t h e c o u r t and i n s t e a d s i m p l y b a s e d i t s j u d g m e n t on t h o s e p e n d i n g p e t i t i o n s on a r g u m e n t s p r e s e n t e d In Danford, judgment our when r e q u i s i t e due So. 2d at supreme the process 736. The apparent from the to due trial court court of law. Danford reversed had failed D a n f o r d , 272 court r e c o r d t h a t the o f law] prejudged the and counsel. child-custody to provide the A l a . a t 520, 132 stated that learned t r i a l give r e c o g n i t i o n to the[] governing process a by " [ i ] t seems court principles failed [requiring i n e f f e c t stopped the proceedings case without having 5 a full hearing." Id. and The 2100232 same i s t r u e i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e . of t h e t r i a l proceedings A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e judgment c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d , a n d t h e c a u s e i s remanded f o r c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the requirements o f due p r o c e s s . REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n , concur. 6 Bryan, and Moore, J J . ,

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.