Tracy Lynn Mullins v. Lisa Christine Sellers

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 9/2/11 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 2100247 T r a c y Lynn Mullins v. Lisa Appeal BRYAN, Court Judge. time these p a r t i e s , f a t h e r " ) and L i s a C h r i s t i n e S e l l e r s been b e f o r e t h i s (Ala. Sellers from M a d i s o n C i r c u i t (DR-95-859.85) This i s t h esecond ("the Christine court. C i v . App. 2010), In Mullins thefather Tracy Lynn ("the m o t h e r " ) , v. S e l l e r s , appealed Mullins from have 58 S o . 3 d 817 a judgment o f 2100247 the Madison guilty of support Circuit 140 separate arrearage. "remand[ed] the clarify the court on We in now ("the acts This as and from court") o f c o n t e m p t and reversed address the i n the that found assessed that i n s t r u c t i o n s to the discussed appeals trial court cause w i t h i t s judgment judgment," father Court a child- judgment and court to [ c e r t a i n ] discrepancies in opinion. judgment trial him Id. entered at by 822. the The trial remand. set forth M u l l i n s , supra, the as pertinent facts and procedural history follows: "The f a t h e r and [ t h e m o t h e r ] were d i v o r c e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n S e p t e m b e r 1 9 9 5 . Two c h i l d r e n w e r e born of the p a r t i e s ' marriage, a boy born in S e p t e m b e r 1985 ('the o l d e r c h i l d ' ) a n d a b o y b o r n i n A u g u s t 1990 ('the y o u n g e r c h i l d ' ) ( h e r e i n a f t e r t h e o l d e r c h i l d and t h e y o u n g e r c h i l d a r e r e f e r r e d t o c o l l e c t i v e l y as ' t h e c h i l d r e n ' ) . Pursuant to the d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t , t h e m o t h e r was awarded 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 r e n a n d t h e f a t h e r was ordered t o p a y c h i l d s u p p o r t . On o r a b o u t May 2 5 , 2 0 0 1 , the parties entered i n t o an agreement m o d i f y i n g the divorce j u d g m e n t so t h a t the f a t h e r was awarded c u s t o d y o f t h e o l d e r c h i l d and n e i t h e r p a r t y was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the payment of c h i l d s u p p o r t ; t h a t a g r e e m e n t was i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o a judgment of the t r i a l c o u r t ('the May 2001 m o d i f i c a t i o n j u d g m e n t ' ) . The May 2001 modification judgment included a p r o v i s i o n t h a t t h e f a t h e r w o u l d n o t be responsible for any past or future dental expenses of the c h i l d r e n a r i s i n g from a g e n e t i c d i s o r d e r t h a t the children had. 2 2100247 "The divorce j u d g m e n t was m o d i f i e d again on August 30, 2001 ('the A u g u s t 2001 m o d i f i c a t i o n judgment'), and, pursuant to that modification j u d g m e n t , t h e m o t h e r was a w a r d e d c u s t o d y o f t h e older child and t h e f a t h e r was o r d e r e d t o pay $451.08 a month i n c h i l d support, beginning on A u g u s t 1 3 , 2 0 0 1 . T h e f a t h e r was o r d e r e d t o make t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t p a y m e n t s on t h e 1 5 t h d a y o f e a c h m o n t h t h r o u g h t h e c l e r k o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . The p a r t i e s were a l s o o r d e r e d t o e q u a l l y s h a r e t h e c o s t o f t h e children's 'health care services which are not covered by insurance ... including bills for doctors, h o s p i t a l s , p r e s c r i p t i o n drugs, orthodontic, d e n t a l , and o p t o m e t r i c expenses.' "On J u n e 1 3 , 2 0 0 8 , t h e m o t h e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n for a r u l e n i s i a l l e g i n g that the f a t h e r had f a i l e d to pay court-ordered c h i l d s u p p o r t from August 13, 2001, u n t i l t h e day she f i l e d h e r p e t i t i o n , and she r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r be o r d e r e d t o p a y t h e child-support arrearage due w i t h interest. The m o t h e r a l s o r e q u e s t e d an award o f h e r a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s . The f a t h e r f i l e d a n a n s w e r t o t h e m o t h e r ' s petition f o r a rule nisi, a n d he d e n i e d a l l t h e a l l e g a t i o n s made b y t h e m o t h e r . "The t r i a l c o u r t c o n d u c t e d a n o r e t e n u s h e a r i n g on O c t o b e r 21 a n d 2 2 , 2 0 0 9 . The m o t h e r a n d t h e f a t h e r both t e s t i f i e d that the f a t h e r had p a i d h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n as o r d e r e d i n t h e A u g u s t 2001 m o d i f i c a t i o n j u d g m e n t f r o m A u g u s t 2 0 0 1 t h r o u g h May 2 0 0 2 . I t was a l s o u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d n o t made a s i n g l e c h i l d - s u p p o r t p a y m e n t t h r o u g h t h e c l e r k o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t f r o m J u n e 2002 t h r o u g h t h e d a t e o f t h e f i n a l h e a r i n g i n O c t o b e r 2009. "The e v i d e n c e r e v e a l e d t h a t b o t h t h e o l d e r c h i l d and t h e y o u n g e r c h i l d h a d l i v e d , a t t i m e s , w i t h t h e father despite t h e f a c t that t h e mother had had physical custody of the c h i l d r e n . According to the mother, the o l d e r c h i l d had l i v e d with the f a t h e r from June 2002 through December 2002. However, according t o the f a t h e r , the o l d e r c h i l d had l i v e d 3 2100247 w i t h h i m f r o m J u n e 2 0 0 2 t h r o u g h May 2 0 0 4 . The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t the f a t h e r had s t o p p e d p a y i n g c h i l d support after the older child moved into the f a t h e r ' s home. A c c o r d i n g t o t h e f a t h e r , he a n d t h e m o t h e r h a d a g r e e d i n J u n e 2 0 0 2 t h a t t h e f a t h e r no l o n g e r had t o pay c h i l d s u p p o r t because the o l d e r c h i l d was l i v i n g w i t h h i m a n d t h e y o u n g e r c h i l d was l i v i n g w i t h t h e m o t h e r . The m o t h e r d e n i e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s h a d r e a c h e d s u c h an a g r e e m e n t . The father s t a t e d t h a t he b e g a n p a y i n g c h i l d s u p p o r t directly t o t h e m o t h e r a f t e r t h e o l d e r c h i l d t u r n e d 19 y e a r s o l d i n September 2004. "Tina Mertz, the father's s i s t e r , t e s t i f i e d that she was p r e s e n t when t h e m o t h e r and t h e father r e a c h e d an a g r e e m e n t i n May 2 0 0 2 t h a t t h e f a t h e r w o u l d n o t owe c h i l d s u p p o r t t o t h e m o t h e r b e c a u s e t h e o l d e r c h i l d was g o i n g t o l i v e w i t h t h e f a t h e r . The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e a g r e e d i n J u n e 2 0 0 2 t h a t , a s l o n g a s t h e o l d e r c h i l d was i n h i g h school a n d was l i v i n g w i t h t h e f a t h e r a n d t h e y o u n g e r c h i l d was l i v i n g with h e r , she w o u l d n o t r e q u i r e the f a t h e r t o p a y c h i l d s u p p o r t . The m o t h e r s t a t e d t h a t she expected the father t o resume paying child s u p p o r t i n December 2002, a f t e r the older child graduated from high school. "The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t when t h e o l d e r c h i l d lived with him he provided the older child's housing, utilities, cable television, food, clothing, vehicle, car insurance, gasoline, and v e h i c l e m a i n t e n a n c e and p a i d f o r t h e o l d e r c h i l d ' s e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s . The f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t , even t h o u g h he and the mother had reached an a g r e e m e n t t h a t he d i d n o t h a v e t o p a y c h i l d s u p p o r t w h i l e t h e o l d e r c h i l d was l i v i n g w i t h h i m , he h a d p a i d the mother c h i l d support d u r i n g t h a t time. The o l d e r c h i l d g r a d u a t e d from h i g h s c h o o l i n December 2002, and the mother testified that she had supported the older child while he was i n high s c h o o l a n d a f t e r he g r a d u a t e d f r o m h i g h s c h o o l b y purchasing clothing f o r the older child and by g i v i n g h i m money. 4 2100247 "According to the mother, the younger child moved i n w i t h t h e f a t h e r i n O c t o b e r 2008, b u t the f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t the y o u n g e r c h i l d had begun l i v i n g w i t h h i m i n J u n e 2 0 0 8 . The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t , when y o u n g e r c h i l d l i v e d w i t h h i m , he p a i d f o r the younger c h i l d ' s housing, u t i l i t i e s , Internet s e r v i c e , v e h i c l e , v e h i c l e m a i n t e n a n c e , c l o t h i n g , and food. The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he o n l y g a v e the m o t h e r c h i l d s u p p o r t when s h e a s k e d f o r i t . "The m o t h e r s u b m i t t e d an e x h i b i t t h a t c a l c u l a t e d t h e f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n f r o m J u n e 13, 2002, u n t i l J u l y 13, 2 0 0 9 , w h i c h was the month b e f o r e the younger c h i l d turned 19; a c c o r d i n g to the mother, the father's child-support arrearage for t h a t p e r i o d t o t a l e d $42,942.12, i n c l u d i n g i n t e r e s t . However, the mother t e s t i f i e d t h a t , because the y o u n g e r c h i l d had gone t o l i v e w i t h t h e f a t h e r i n O c t o b e r 2 0 0 8 , s h e was n o t s e e k i n g c h i l d s u p p o r t f r o m t h e f a t h e r t h a t w o u l d h a v e b e e n due a f t e r October 2008. The mother submitted an exhibit that calculated the father's child-support arrearage, including interest, due from June 2002 through October 2008. According to the mother's c a l c u l a t i o n s , t h e f a t h e r owed $ 3 8 , 3 4 3 . 2 0 i n c h i l d support for that period. "The father was responsible f o r payment of one-half o f t h e m e d i c a l and d e n t a l e x p e n s e s o f t h e c h i l d r e n , and t h e m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e father had g i v e n h e r money, i n t h e f o r m o f c h e c k s , t o c o v e r his one-half of the medical expenses of the children. The mother t e s t i f i e d that the younger c h i l d had several medical conditions, including a genetic disorder, and that she had incurred approximately $8,000 in medical bills for the y o u n g e r c h i l d i n 2 0 0 8 . The father alleged that he d i d not have t o pay f o r the m e d i c a l t r e a t m e n t of the y o u n g e r c h i l d i n s o f a r as i t a r o s e f r o m h i s genetic disorder, pursuant to the May 2001 modification j u d g m e n t . H o w e v e r , he a d m i t t e d t h a t he d i d h a v e t o pay h a l f of the c h i l d r e n ' s r e g u l a r d e n t a l c o s t s . 5 2100247 "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 p r o v i d e d some c h i l d s u p p o r t d i r e c t l y t o h e r a n d t h a t s h e was willing to allow the father's child-support a r r e a r a g e t o be c r e d i t e d t o r e f l e c t t h e p a y m e n t s t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d made d i r e c t l y t o h e r . The f a t h e r s u b m i t t e d an e x h i b i t i n t o e v i d e n c e t h a t contained c o p i e s o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 19 c a n c e l e d c h e c k s p a y a b l e t o t h e m o t h e r b e t w e e n M a r c h 2004 and J a n u a r y 2 0 0 9 , w h i c h t o t a l e d $ 1 1 , 6 1 4 . 7 3 . The f a t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y $ 4 1 4 . 7 3 f r o m t h o s e p a y m e n t s was t o r e i m b u r s e t h e mother f o r payment of the younger c h i l d ' s m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s . The f a t h e r a l s o s u b m i t t e d an e x h i b i t i n t o e v i d e n c e t h a t c o n t a i n e d c h e c k s t u b s that purported t o show t h a t he h a d p a i d t h e m o t h e r a p p r o x i m a t e l y $3,600 f r o m J u l y 2004 t h r o u g h J u l y 2 0 0 6 . The m o t h e r f u r t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d p a i d h e r $600 i n O c t o b e r 2 0 0 7 . The f a t h e r a l s o e s t i m a t e d t h a t he h a d p a i d t h e m o t h e r a p p r o x i m a t e l y $2,500 i n c h i l d s u p p o r t b e t w e e n J u n e 2002 and M a r c h 2 0 0 4 t h a t he c o u l d n o t s u p p o r t w i t h e v i d e n c e f r o m his check r e g i s t e r or with canceled checks. The mother t e s t i f i e d t h a t a t l e a s t $3,364.73 t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d g i v e n h e r i n 2008 was f o r p a y m e n t of one-half of the younger c h i l d ' s medical expenses f o r w h i c h t h e f a t h e r was r e s p o n s i b l e . The m o t h e r a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 8 0 % o f t h e money t h a t the f a t h e r had p r o v i d e d t o h e r was f o r p a y m e n t o f h i s h a l f o f t h e c h i l d r e n ' s m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s . The f a t h e r c l a i m e d t h a t t h e c h e c k s he h a d g i v e n t o t h e mother were f o r c h i l d s u p p o r t and n o t f o r m e d i c a l expenses. "The f a t h e r o w n e d h i s own p l u m b i n g business, which was incorporated in 2006. The father's income-tax records demonstrated that his gross i n c o m e was $ 4 0 , 8 0 1 i n 2 0 0 2 , $ 1 5 , 3 0 4 i n 2 0 0 3 , $ 1 3 , 6 1 2 in 2004, $47,327 i n 2006, $97,187 i n 2007, and $ 1 5 3 , 3 4 8 i n 2 0 0 8 . The f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t he d i d n o t h a v e t h e a b i l i t y t o p a y c h i l d s u p p o r t on a r e g u l a r b a s i s b e f o r e 2 0 0 6 , b u t he a d m i t t e d t h a t he h a d h a d the a b i l i t y t o pay c h i l d s u p p o r t f o r the t h r e e y e a r s before the ore tenus hearing." 6 2100247 Mullins, 58 S o . 3 d a t 8 1 8 - 2 0 On r e m a n d , the following the t r i a l specific (footnotes omitted). court entered findings a judgment that of fact: "4. The e v i d e n c e r e v e a l s t h a t t h e [ f a t h e r ] made child support payments through the [c]lerk's [ o ] f f i c e t h r o u g h May o f 2 0 0 2 , b u t l a t e r n e v e r p a i d any c h i l d s u p p o r t t h r o u g h t h e c l e r k o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t f r o m J u n e 2002 t h r o u g h t h e d a t e o f t h e f i n a l h e a r i n g i n O c t o b e r 2 0 0 9 e v e n t h o u g h r e q u i r e d t o do so b y t h e [ d ] i v o r c e [ d ] e c r e e as amended. " 5 . The e v i d e n c e f u r t h e r r e v e a l s t h a t , e v e n when prior custody orders of the court vested the [ m o t h e r ] w i t h t h e p r i m a r y c u s t o d y o f one o r b o t h c h i l d r e n at s p e c i f i c i n t e r v a l s , both of the c h i l d r e n l i v e d by agreement w i t h t h e [ f a t h e r ] from time t o t i m e a n d t h e [ f a t h e r ] c l a i m s a c r e d i t s h o u l d be a f f o r d e d t o him a g a i n s t any c h i l d s u p p o r t t h a t t h e [ c ] o u r t d e t e r m i n e s t o be due a n d o w i n g . "6. A c c e p t i n g t h e p r o f f e r e d t e s t i m o n y o f t h e [ m o t h e r ] a s t o i n t e r v a l s o f t i m e when t h e y o u n g e s t c h i l d l i v e d with the [ f a t h e r ] , the evidence also shows t h a t t h e p a r t i e s ' y o u n g e s t c h i l d b e g a n l i v i n g with the [ f a t h e r ] i n October o f 2008 and t h e [ m o t h e r ] t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e was n o t a s k i n g f o r c h i l d support f o r the p e r i o d of time that the youngest c h i l d resided w i t h the [ f a t h e r ] beginning i n October o f 2 0 0 8 . The [ m o t h e r ] f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e was w i l l i n g t o g i v e t h e [ f a t h e r ] c r e d i t f o r any c h i l d support paid directly to her rather than being t h r o u g h t h e c l e r k o f t h e c o u r t b a s e d on c a n c e l l e d checks. "7. As a r e s u l t , f o r t h e p e r i o d o f t i m e o f J u n e 2 0 0 2 t h r o u g h A u g u s t o f 2 0 0 9 when t h e [ y o u n g e r ] c h i l d r e a c h e d t h e age o f m a j o r i t y , t h e [ c ] o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e sum o f $ 4 2 , 9 4 2 . 1 2 a s c h i l d s u p p o r t , i n c l u d i n g i n t e r e s t , w o u l d be due a n d o w i n g p u r s u a n t t o t h e 7 made 2100247 [ d ] e c r e e o f [ d ] i v o r c e , as amended, f r o m t h e [ f a t h e r ] to the [mother]. S u b t r a c t i n g c h i l d support that would h a v e b e e n due from the time the parties' youngest child was living with the [father] b e g i n n i n g i n O c t o b e r o f 2008 t h r o u g h A u g u s t 2009, r e d u c e s t h e t o t a l amount o f c h i l d s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e by $4,510.80 t o $ 3 8 , 3 4 1 . 3 2 . [ ] Thus, t h e [c]ourt f i n d s t h a t t h e a m o u n t o f c h i l d s u p p o r t owed b y t h e [ f a t h e r ] t o the [ m o t h e r ] f o r nonpayment of child s u p p o r t f r o m J u n e o f 2002 t h r o u g h O c t o b e r 2008 i s $38,341.32. 1 "8. As credit against the child support a r r e a r a g e d e t e r m i n e d above, the [ f a t h e r ] s u b m i t t e d c a n c e l l e d checks payable to the [ m o t h e r ] between March 2004 and January 2009 i n the amount of $ 1 1 , 6 1 4 . 7 3 , p l u s he c o n t e n d e d he was due a c r e d i t o f an a d d i t i o n a l $ 4 , 2 0 0 . 0 0 f r o m c h e c k s t u b s o r o t h e r admitted receipts of payment which the [c]ourt a c c e p t s . The [ f a t h e r ] t e s t i f i e d t h a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y $ 4 1 4 . 7 3 f r o m t h o s e p a y m e n t s was to reimburse the [ m o t h e r ] f o r payment of the younger c h i l d ' s m e d i c a l expenses and t h e r e m a i n i n g a m o u n t was for child support. By excluding the amount paid to the [mother] f o r medical expenses, the [ c ] o u r t finds t h a t a c r e d i t o f $ 1 5 , 4 0 0 . 0 0 s h o u l d be a w a r d e d t o t h e [ f a t h e r ] f o r support p a i d d i r e c t l y to the [mother] r a t h e r than through the c l e r k ' s o f f i c e , l e a v i n g a balance due and owing to the [mother] of $22,941.32." The father's trial court child-support entered arrearage o r d e r e d the f a t h e r t o pay installments We actually 1 of $500. an judgment totaled the mother t h i s The trial finding $22,941.32, the and i t arrearage i n monthly court also note that subtracting $4,510.80 e q u a l s $38,431.32, not $38,341.32. 8 that found the father from $42,942.12 2100247 guilty o f 76 separate acts of contempt between June O c t o b e r 2008 f o r h i s f a i l u r e to pay c h i l d office trial as of the clerk of the court A u g u s t 2001 m o d i f i c a t i o n j u d g m e n t . the a father to f i v e total of sentence trial pay 380 days suspended court's appeal, summarized so long as with as the Finally, attorney's the f a t h e r fees a l l but father support award to arrearage; and of attorney's Initially, not trial we specifically criminal contempt fees note raises several court's or c i v i l 5 days of the with the ordered to complied issues $7,000. that can court's of his to the t r i a l childcourt's mother. the trial court's judgment i t found the f a t h e r g u i l t y contempt. " I n 1 9 9 4 , o u r s u p r e m e c o u r t a d o p t e d R u l e 70A, Ala. R. C i v . P., d e f i n i n g c r i m i n a l and civil contempt arising out of civil actions. Civil contempt i s the w i l l f u l , continuing failure or r e f u s a l to comply w i t h a c o u r t ' s l a w f u l order t h a t by i t s n a t u r e is still capable of being complied 9 be o f c o n t e m p t ; (2) a determination to the s t a t e whether i n the sentenced to the t r i a l acts (3) a c h a l l e n g e that court i n t h e amount o f f o l l o w s : (1) a c h a l l e n g e the required t h e f a t h e r was f i n d i n g t h a t he c o m m i t t e d 76 s e p a r a t e challenge trial the f o r each act of contempt, f o r in jail, judgment. the mother's On days i n j a i l The and through support 2002 did of 2100247 w i t h . R u l e 7 0 A ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) ; C h e s t a n g v. C h e s t a n g , 769 So. 2 d 294 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ( t r i a l c o u r t ' s c o n t e m p t o r d e r made a f i n d i n g o f c i v i l c o n t e m p t where owner of s e r v i e n t tenement c o n t i n u e d t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h use of e a s e m e n t by owner o f d o m i n a n t t e n e m e n t and fines levied were compensatory in nature and not punitive). "Rule 70A(a)(2)(C) d e f i n e s two categories of c r i m i n a l c o n t e m p t : (I) m i s c o n d u c t i n the court's presence or 'so near thereto as to i n t e r r u p t , d i s t u r b , or h i n d e r ' t h e p r o c e e d i n g s and ( i i ) w i l l f u l d i s o b e d i e n c e t o a c o u r t ' s o r d e r 'where t h e d o m i n a n t purpose of the f i n d i n g of contempt i s to p u n i s h the contemnor.'" Shonkwiler Kriska, (second 2000) v. emphasis In App. Gladden 2005), sentence for v. this which type noted that compliance sanction 814 942 So. the trial court a party was a "'"'[c]ivil orders for c i v i l So. 2d 705 (Ala. Civ. App. 2d 362 , 370 (Ala. Civ. a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of could be used found guilty as contempt of contempt as 268, the seeks continues Id. (Ala. Civ. 10 compel and that indefinitely (quoting App. basis specify of c o m m i t t i n g . to court'"'" ordered.'"'" 272 guilty a the of c r i m i n a l c o n t e m p t when t h e j u d g m e n t d o e s n o t o f c o n t e m p t t h e p a r t y was with 703, indicated that whether contemnor performs Hood, 2d added). court contempt or c i v i l So. Gladden, i m p o s e d by determining 78 0 or coerce "'"'[t]he until Davenport 2000), We quoting the v. in 2100247 turn H i l l v. H i l l , quoting i n turn 1 98 9 ) ) . See App. of So. State 2d 1 3 6 8 , 1 3 7 0 v. Thomas, of contempt seeks the for a finding sanction fine of Gladden, 1975. $100 942 See So. ("A a party where the acts violations from 2d has Gladden, days concluded at former rather trial See § shown the husband to compel finding punishment and, i n Alabama, is limited exceed 2d 711, five is Code (Ala. Civ. appropriate a court's specific, to days. Ala. 714 contempt for order and identifiable past."). the t r i a l the were (Ala. (Ala. Civ. 12-11-30(5), disobedience to of a to So. criminal complained in jail that of 1072 contempt not 1072 seeks court, of c r i m i n a l 370. court sentenced the former f o r h i s a c t of contempt, trial court g u i l t y of c r i m i n a l contempt the the 1067, 1994), Conversely, a impose imprisonment finding where five and to a l s o F l u d d v . G i b b s , 817 2001) In orders of 2d contempt compliance with court orders."). of to 2d 1070, civil criminal App. So. ("[A] disobedience a So. 934 finding ( A l a . C i v . App. 550 a l s o P a t e v . Guy, 2005) future 637 to a had "because definite than s e n t e n c i n g him found t o an 11 the the t r i a l term of indefinite and this former court five jail husband court husband sentenced days term in jail lasting 2100247 until at [he complied with court's order]." 942 So. 2d 371. In the court's based present judgment by the g u i l t y of c i v i l jail case, found the the also sets father. trial court contempt. mother father s o l e l y on t h e f a c t t h a t signed the the t r i a l states Accordingly, despite of we guilty definite jail specific and that forth a specific j a i l contempt, of of the civil trial contempt the father was jail found However, the o r d e r of commitment t o indicates that father guilty that the o r d e r of commitment t o commitment t o j a i l civil argues the sentence the identifiable that the t r i a l contempt as fact t o be violations order of found guilty found i t imposed for of by court because sanction served the t h e f a t h e r was conclude that criminal sentence the the the a father's August 2001 m o d i f i c a t i o n j u d g m e n t f r o m J u n e 2002 t h r o u g h O c t o b e r 2 0 0 8 . C f . Taylor v. Taylor, (concluding court's The 2d 768, imposed 770 s e n t e n c e was i n n a t u r e " because immediately trial So. t h a t a suspended not c o e r c i v e be 560 i f the ( A l a . C i v . App. "primarily penal the suspended husband 1990) s e n t e n c e was violated one of and to the directives). f a t h e r argues that the mother f a i l e d 12 to prove, beyond 2100247 a reasonable support argues (1) through that clerk of court the that during the the t r i a l during agreed the d o u b t , t h a t he h a d w i l l f u l l y that time he d i d not the erred he to t o pay court. trial The i n f i n d i n g him and have failed the pay mother child the time that the f a t h e r p a i d c h i l d child father i n contempt had allegedly support and (2) support d i r e c t l y to mother. "'In order to e s t a b l i s h that a party i s i n c r i m i n a l contempt of a c o u r t order, a contempt p e t i t i o n e r must p r o v e beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt t h a t t h e p a r t y a g a i n s t whom t h e y a r e s e e k i n g a f i n d i n g o f c o n t e m p t was subject to a "'lawful order of reasonable s p e c i f i c i t y , ' " that the party v i o l a t e d that order, and t h a t t h e p a r t y ' s v i o l a t i o n of the order was willful. Ex p a r t e F e r g u s o n , 819 S o . 2 d 6 2 6 , 62 9 (Ala. 2001) ( q u o t i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v. T u r n e r , 812 F . 2 d 1 5 5 2 , 1563 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 8 7 ) ) . ' " Gladden, 942 So. 1018, 1019 that, '[a]bsent of the t r i a l plainly or 2 d a t 371 ( A l a . C i v . App. court palpably wrong, trial court.'" It is v . R.H., Preston (quoting 929 " F u r t h e r m o r e , we the i s within v. Saab, determination the sound that the 13 August held s o a s t o be of 43 S o . 3 d 5 9 5 , 2d judgment whether d i s c r e t i o n of S h o n k w i l e r v . K r i s k a , 780 undisputed So. have the i s u n s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e i s i n contempt 2010) 2005)). L.A. an a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n , o r u n l e s s party App. (quoting 599 (Ala. a the Civ. So. 2d a t 7 0 6 ) . 2001 modification 2100247 judgment r e q u i r e d payment through the the father d i d not do father argues that the c l e r k of the 2 0 0 4 was not under the was not that his trial willful the to terms pay p a r t i e s had child child and support the to he conclude Pardue v. the that father's testimony that he parties' agreed that he child had trial to when t h e were disputed. mother admitted did father i n high The have school, trial court 14 older a period to more credible. See (Ala. Civ. App. lived was from and the child the to was reject of to free was 860 not court parties' 857, physical indicates the testimony the had he record the 2d he p h y s i c a l custody was of the operating mother t h a t agreement even through September was the The record, and support contends, child. So. regarding child older 917 testimony The while mother's Pardue, (concluding O c t o b e r 2008. support credibility the the child the while older pay that f r o m June 2002 t h r o u g h J u n e 2002 t h r o u g h D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 2 . determine and court a l l e g e d l y made w i t h the that to because, of according pay child-support trial the failure parties' However, the of court a g r e e m e n t he of the clerk h i s monthly so b e t w e e n J u n e 2 0 0 2 a n d required custody f a t h e r t o pay testimony free to mother's with the 2005) accept the conflicting father for 2100247 purposes of d e t e r m i n i n g But, because parties child the had the f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t record agreed conclusively that the father arrearage). demonstrated was not required father's through the failure office to of make the c l e r k of 2 0 0 2 t h r o u g h D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 2 was rel. Hollis, (plurality 618 So. 2d opinion; a b r o g a t e d by S t a c k v. his willful. Cf. 1351 (Ala. 1350, standard Stack, of ("Although the husband support o b l i g a t i o n s by claiming into mutual agreement agreement, does indicate contemptuous behavior [requiring conclude guilty of 2002 and The him that to the in failing pay trial child c r i m i n a l contempt December father, on in Hollis 56 (Ala. Civ. to the wife his wife App. child entered admitted, was not comply w i t h support]."). court 1992 ) and husband ex App. that the State Civ. alleviate the June used 51, he that from v. cannot which that 2d cannot payments court Hollis review 64 6 So. 1994)) a trial pay doubt child-support the the to s u p p o r t f o r a t l e a s t a p e r i o d o f s e v e n m o n t h s , we conclude t h a t the mother proved beyond a reasonable the that this guilty the judgment Accordingly, erred in finding seven occasions the of we father between June 2002. citing Teichmann 15 v. Teichmann, 772 So. 2d 2100247 1196 (Ala. Civ. exceeded i t sdiscretion the mother. the trial credit i n Teichmann i t s discretion t o t h e mother, d e s p i t e ordered 1198. the father Teichmann finding proposition court could t o make of the t r i a l does that n o t have evidence directly the fact by held that court's not include i ti s cited i t does he t o the mother, a l b e i t A u g u s t 2001 m o d i f i c a t i o n court I d . at a not support the the t r i a l o f c o n t e m p t when child-support in violation made regarding f o r , i . e . ,that h a d made to payments accounts clerk. found the father g u i l t y indicated the t r i a l a discussion that failing h i s child-support o f contempt, and, t h e r e f o r e , legal the court had exceeded through the o f f i c e the this t h e f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e w i t h payments directly had directly However, him g u i l t y court criminal 2 finding the t r i a l of court by argues that t h e m o n t h s t h a t he p a i d c h i l d s u p p o r t contempt d u r i n g to App. 2000), a l s o of clear payments terms of judgment. T h e f a t h e r ' s a r g u m e n t i s b a s e d o n t h e p r e m i s e t h a t he c a n n o t b e f o u n d i n c o n t e m p t f o r f a i l i n g t o make h i s c h i l d s u p p o r t p a y m e n t s when t h e t r i a l c o u r t g a v e h i m c r e d i t f o r making child-support payments during t h e same months. H o w e v e r , we n o t e t h a t t h e f a t h e r , i n h i s b r i e f on a p p e a l , d o e s n o t make t h e d i s t i n c t i o n made b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t , i . e . , t h a t he was f o u n d g u i l t y o f c o n t e m p t f o r h i s f a i l u r e t o p a y c h i l d s u p p o r t , as o r d e r e d , t h r o u g h t h e o f f i c e o f t h e c l e r k o f t h e t r i a l court. 2 16 2100247 A s we s t a t e d a b o v e , t h e A u g u s t 2 0 0 1 m o d i f i c a t i o n clearly required through t h e f a t h e r t o make h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t the o f f i c e directly to judgment of the clerk the mother, Although the father and of the t r i a l the father i sentitled court, failed to a credit payments to do s o . f o r child-support p a y m e n t s made d i r e c t l y t o t h e m o t h e r , s e e T e i c h m a n n , s u p r a , cannot conclude that the t r i a l o r was p l a i n l y o r p a l p a b l y willfully trial failed court directly to judgment finding 2003 exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n concluding that he Accordingly, the father September we that the father support through the c l e r k of the the periods the mother. through months). wrong t o pay c h i l d during court not 2008 guilty paid child support the trial court's of contempt i s affirmed from January (a p e r i o d of 69 erred in 3 Next, calculating the father argues h i s child-support that the t r i a l arrearage. court He a r g u e s : (1) t h e A l t h o u g h t h e r e was a n i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e f a t h e r d i d n o t have t h e a b i l i t y t o pay h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n u n t i l a p p r o x i m a t e l y J a n u a r y 2006, t h e f a t h e r has not a s s e r t e d h i s i n a b i l i t y t o pay as a g r o u n d f o r r e v e r s a l o f any o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f c o n t e m p t . B e c a u s e t h a t i s s u e was n o t r a i s e d on a p p e a l , i t h a s b e e n w a i v e d . See Ex p a r t e R i l e y , 464 S o . 2 d 9 2 , 94 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ( " I n d e e d , i t h a s l o n g b e e n t h e l a w i n A l a b a m a t h a t f a i l u r e t o a r g u e an i s s u e i n b r i e f t o an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t i s t a n t a m o u n t t o t h e w a i v e r o f t h a t i s s u e on a p p e a l . " ) . 3 17 2100247 trial for court time trial that court t h a t he p a i d trial the to failed court interest to give the older erred him a c r e d i t child lived i n not admitting with i n including on c h i l d - s u p p o r t h i m , (2) t h a t t h e evidence f o rsupport of the older erred toward h i s arrearage child, related a n d (3) t h a t t h e i n i t s arrearage payments that t o sums calculation h e made directly the mother. "When a t r i a l c o u r t r e c e i v e s e v i d e n c e o r e t e n u s i n a case i n v o l v i n g a c h i l d support arrearage, i t s judgment i s presumed correct and w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d on a p p e a l u n l e s s t h e j u d g m e n t i s p l a i n l y a n d p a l p a b l y w r o n g . R u b r i g i v . R u b r i g i , 630 S o . 2 d 67 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ) . The d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f an amount of child support arrearage and the disposition thereof i s largely a matter l e f t to the sound d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l court. I d . " Havard v. Havard, The to apply the father a credit support child lived 652 S o . 2 d 3 0 4 , 308 argues that him. required by Rule to the older Ala. in failing arrearage child while argument i n h i s b r i e f 28(a)(10), App. 1994). erred However, t h e f a t h e r f a i l e d authority to support this as court toward h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t he p r o v i d e d with the t r i a l (Ala. Civ. b a s e d on the older t o c i t e any to this court, R. A p p . P. "It i s the a p p e l l a n t ' s burden to r e f e r this Court t o l e g a l a u t h o r i t y t h a t supports i t s argument. R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . R. A p p . P., r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e a r g u m e n t i n an a p p e l l a n t ' s b r i e f i n c l u d e 'citations 18 2100247 t o t h e c a s e s , s t a t u t e s , [ a n d ] o t h e r a u t h o r i t i e s ... relied on.' C o n s i s t e n t w i t h R u l e 28, '[w]e have stated that i t i s not the function of t h i s court to do a p a r t y ' s l e g a l r e s e a r c h . ' S p r a d l i n v . S p r a d l i n , 601 S o . 2 d 7 6 , 78 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) ( c i t i n g H e n d e r s o n v . A l a b a m a A & M U n i v e r s i t y , 483 S o . 2 d 3 9 2 , 392 ( A l a . 1986) ('"Where an a p p e l l a n t fails to cite any a u t h o r i t y , we may a f f i r m , f o r i t i s n e i t h e r o u r d u t y nor f u n c t i o n t o p e r f o r m a l l t h e l e g a l r e s e a r c h f o r an a p p e l l a n t . " G i b s o n v . N i x , 460 S o . 2 d 1 3 4 6 , 1347 (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 8 4 ) . ' ) ) . " Board of Water Harbert Constr. Accordingly, the to trial Sewer Co., we w i l l court Comm'rs 27 So. older The child erred while t o admit reflecting in failing support settled that the t r i a l into 1254 the father's to apply child evidence "[a] t r i a l lived & Heating, argument that he p r o v i d e d t o w i t h him. c o u r t e r r e d when records to the son. ruling be r e v e r s e d Bill ( A l a . 2009). certain financial court's exceeded v. additional credits he c o n t r i b u t e d d i r e c t l y court J i m m y Day P l u m b i n g (Ala. 1223, b a s e d on s u p p o r t the older or e x c l u s i o n of evidence w i l l that 3d of Mobile f a t h e r f u r t h e r argues that the t r i a l failed well of C i t y not consider h i s child-support arrearage the it & on t h e only i t s discretion I n c . v. Smith, It i s admission i f i t i s shown i n so ruling." 964 S o . 2 d 1, 7 2007). The record reveals that the t r i a l 19 court sustained the 2100247 mother's from o b j e c t i o n to the the father financial the had to 34, before trial. A l a . R. his E n t r y Upon L a n d to Rule evidence." argument The that 401, trial that because f a t h e r had So. the mother before argument. 2d 1222, See 1224 propositions are court duty has Next, calculating no the only on the court no trial. Rule records 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) ; and 1996) not the to to Things and support his i t s discretion by were inadmissible the will records not to consider Devereaux, and legal trial an 686 appellate research.") court t h e amount o f h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e 20 the ("Inapplicable general a litigant's that reference to defines "relevant authority, argues by Purposes"), Asam v. ( A l a . C i v . App. father cited authority A c c o r d i n g l y , we to perform available is a p r o p e r l y produced supporting maintains o f Documents and exceeded financial father Other those not p r o p e r l y records E v i d . , which cited not the appeal records requested authority ("Production f a t h e r has the financial A l a . R. had appeal, The financial the f a t h e r had f o r I n s p e c t i o n and determining this and argument C i v . P. certain mother On trial. support a citation the the p r o p e r l y made t h e mother Rule and them b e f o r e he father because records before t r i a l produced that e n t r y of erred in because 2100247 the trial support was payments calculation that credited for. present and court's we this appeal cannot included interest he h a d p a i d This court directly has reviewed due on t o t h e mother and the record and t h e r e c o r d from M u l l i n s v. S e l l e r s , find any i n d i c a t i o n argument t o t h e t r i a l court that before child- the father raising i n the supra, 4 presented i t on appeal. "The o f t - q u o t e d a n d l o n g - s t a n d i n g r u l e i s t h a t an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t may n o t c o n s i d e r a n i s s u e r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e o n a p p e a l . S e e E x p a r t e W e a v e r , 871 So. 2 d 8 2 0 , 823 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ; W.C. v . S t a t e D e p ' t o f Human R e s . , 8 87 S o . 2 d 2 5 1 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ) ; and C e n t e r s v . J a c k s o n C o u n t y Dep't o f P e n s i o n s & S e c . , 472 S o . 2 d 1 0 6 9 , 1 0 7 0 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ) . '"A ... c o u r t s h o u l d n o t b e p l a c e d i n e r r o r [ b y a n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ] on m a t t e r s w h i c h t h e r e c o r d r e v e a l s it neither ruled upon n o r was presented the opportunity to rule upon"' at t r i a l or i n a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . J.K. v. Lee County Dep't o f Human R e s . , 668 S o . 2 d 8 1 3 , 817 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1995) ( q u o t i n g W i l s o n v . S t a t e D e p ' t o f Human R e s . , 527 S o . 2 d 1 3 2 2 , 1 3 2 4 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 988 ) ) ; s e e a l s o N o r m a n v . B o z e m a n , 605 S o . 2 d 1 2 1 0 , 1214 ( A l a . 1992)." D.A. v . C a l h o u n C n t y . D e p ' t o f Human R e s . , (Ala. C i v . App. indication 2007). i n the record argument t o t h e t r i a l Accordingly, that 976 S o . 2 d 5 0 2 , 504 because the father there first c o u r t , we c a n n o t c o n s i d e r i s no raised this this argument. On A u g u s t 3, 2 0 1 1 , t h i s c o u r t e n t e r e d a n o r d e r , e x m e r o motu, t h a t i n c o r p o r a t e d t h e r e c o r d from t h e f a t h e r ' s p r e v i o u s appeal i n M u l l i n s v. S e l l e r s , supra, i n t o t h e r e c o r d i n t h i s appeal. 4 21 2100247 See Prescott 2008) v. Prescott, (concluding argument that made b y the a l l e g e d the t r i a l the trial "bring mother issue to the time on of Finally, of the attorney's fact that In America, held 351 that State So. the award above, for from an appellate failing according the to that, court's we error she i f at a l l , i n because she a t t e n t i o n by that the was found did not filing of 545 court consider fees t h a t any decree." "cannot evidence put or light of Life our is of Co. supreme not the criminal Ins. of court proper in as a trial court accept we a fees mere s u r p l u s a g e However, to the r e c o r d , were not p r e s e n t e d 22 in award award of a t t o r n e y ' s as the court's court's guilty Empire considered judgment trial ( A l a . 1977), attorney's a arrearage. error him r e l . Payne v. 538, the child-support mother " m u s t be severed and argues in action the trial a c t i o n and an because the affirm criminal-contempt such consider raised for court ex 2d appeal not App. improperly the trial could (Ala. Civ. committed "occurred, father's to 553 Thus, father fees the contempt. the 552, i s s u e was appeal). determination on trial the 3d court judgment" postjudgment motion," first this c o u r t had court's this 6 So. and stated in error arguments that, to i t . "G o t l i e b v. 2100247 Collat, 567 S o . 2 d 1 3 0 2 , 1 3 0 4 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) ( c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e appellant's fees argument could argument nothing f o r reversal n o t be c o n s i d e r e d f o r the f i r s t i n the record trial the time award o f a t t o r n e y ' s reverse court the Prescott, seven remand enter attorney's the appellant on a p p e a l ) . Because trial fees made t h e there i s that the father presented court judgment ground. court's on that to regarding t o t h e mother, t h i s cannot See supra. we reverse the trial as i t f o u n d t h e f a t h e r g u i l t y occasions this between cause a judgment respects, of t h e a r g u m e n t t h a t h e m a k e s on a p p e a l Accordingly, insofar because indicating the o f an award 2002 to the t r i a l consistent with t h e judgment AFFIRMED June I N PART; court's of criminal and December court this with judgment c o n t e m p t on 2002, a n d we instructions opinion. to In a l l other i s affirmed. REVERSED I N PART; AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, concur. P . J . , and Pittman, 23 Thomas, 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.