Brian C. Smith v. N. Laquetta Smith

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 07/29/2011 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 R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2011 2100397 B r i a n C. Smith v. N. Laquetta Smith Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t (DR-00-563.01) Court THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . B r i a n C. S m i t h ("the f a t h e r " ) a n d N. L a q u e t t a mother") occasions. have been before this court S m i t h ("the on t h r e e previous See S m i t h v . S m i t h , 836 So. 2 d 893 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2100397 2 0 0 2 ) ; S m i t h v. S m i t h , 866 and S m i t h v. S m i t h , 928 In May So. 2d 588 So. 2d 287 2009, t h e m o t h e r f i l e d ( A l a . C i v . App. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003); 2005). a modification petition i n w h i c h she s o u g h t , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , an award o f p o s t m i n o r i t y s u p p o r t f o r t h e p a r t i e s ' d a u g h t e r , who was the petition was filed. The trial a minor at the time court conducted an ore t e n u s h e a r i n g and, on O c t o b e r 12, 2010, e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t i n w h i c h i t , among o t h e r t h i n g s , f a s h i o n e d a p o s t m i n o r i t y - s u p p o r t award. court The f a t h e r f i l e d a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , and t h e entered an order modifying the October 12, j u d g m e n t as t o m a t t e r s n o t r e l e v a n t t o t h e i s s u e The trial 2010, on a p p e a l . father t i m e l y appealed. The p a r t i e s ' d a u g h t e r was 19 y e a r s o l d a t t h e t i m e o f t h e S e p t e m b e r 2010 h e a r i n g on t h e m o t h e r ' s attending freshman her ("BSC"), a p r i v a t e year college. petition, and she at Birmingham-Southern The father testified was College that the d a u g h t e r h a d c h o s e n t o a t t e n d BSC w i t h o u t c o n s u l t i n g him. father stated that the daughter had good grades The in high s c h o o l , and he d i d n o t d i s p u t e h e r a p t i t u d e f o r c o l l e g e . The f a t h e r ' s i s s u e w i t h the c o l l e g e s e l e c t e d by the daughter was t h a t i t d i d not a l l o w the daughter to take f u l l 2 advantage of 2100397 the "PACT p l a n " grandmother purchased before the f o r the parties p l a n , the daughter's t u i t i o n and d a u g h t e r by divorced. her maternal Under 1 the f e e s a t any number o f p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s i n A l a b a m a w o u l d be p a i d b y t h e S t a t e . although tuition the and PACT p l a n does c o n t r i b u t e t o w a r d t h e f e e s a t BSC, PACT p l a n does n o t The mother i t i s undisputed f u l l y pay presented PACT for tuition evidence t h a t the and However, daughter's daughter's fees at indicating BSC. that the d a u g h t e r ' s t u i t i o n c o s t s , t o g e t h e r w i t h a p p l i c a b l e f e e s , were $29,900 f o r t h e 2010-2011 a c a d e m i c y e a r . evidence presented that the annual including B a s e d on a d d i t i o n a l by t h e m o t h e r , t h e t r i a l costs daughter's fees, tuition, f o r the room, court determined education board, at books, BSC, and T h i s c o u r t has e x p l a i n e d t h e PACT p r o g r a m , more f o r m a l l y known as t h e W a l l a c e - F o l s o m P r e p a i d C o l l e g e T u i t i o n T r u s t F u n d , §§ 16-33C-1 t o - 8 , A l a . Code 1975, as f o l l o w s : 1 "The t r u s t f u n d i s d e s i g n e d t o a s s i s t payment o f college tuition c o s t s by allowing a person to p u r c h a s e PACT c o n t r a c t s i n a d v a n c e o f a c h i l d ' s attending college. The PACT p r o g r a m o b l i g a t e s t h e s t a t e t o pay t u i t i o n i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e c o n t r a c t i f the minor c h i l d attends a s t a t e c o l l e g e or university. § 16-33C-1." Johnson 1999). v. Taylor, 770 So. 2d 3 1103, 1104 (Ala. Civ. App. 2100397 transportation costs, would t o t a l a p p r o x i m a t e l y $40,000, o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y $20,000 p e r s e m e s t e r . The record reflects that the daughter p a r t i a l s c h o l a r s h i p a n d two g r a n t s tuition costs. In addition, had r e c e i v e d to o f f s e t a portion of her t h e mother t e s t i f i e d that the PACT p l a n h a d p a i d $3,200 t o w a r d t h e d a u g h t e r ' s t u i t i o n In total, the assistance balance fall $24,400 academic year, in financial o r $12,200 p e r $6,000 and t h a t , remained t o BSC at the beginning at the time of the of the hearing, on t h e d a u g h t e r ' s college that fall a $704.55 account f o rthe semester. The estimated resident parties presented annual costs at various evidence regarding of a college education public colleges judgment i n t h i s information University. p e r t a i n i n g to the estimates Neither court I n reaching r e l i e d upon t h e o f the annual i f t h e daughter had a t t e n d e d p a r t y has o b j e c t e d 4 average i n Alabama a t w h i c h t h e matter, the t r i a l t h a t w o u l d have a p p l i e d the f o r an A l a b a m a PACT p l a n w o u l d f u l l y c o v e r a l l t u i t i o n a n d f e e s . its costs. The m o t h e r a l s o p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g had p a i d semester received f o r t h e 2010-2011 semester. she daughter a to the t r i a l costs Auburn court's 2100397 referencing estimated that evidence, cost of which attending indicates Auburn that the University total for 2010-2011 a c a d e m i c y e a r f o r an A l a b a m a r e s i d e n t was the $23,486; t h a t amount i n c l u d e s $7,900 f o r t h e c o s t o f t u i t i o n and plus amounts f o r t h e transportation, The record hearing, which the was father and on of testified University of of books, personal supplies, room, b o a r d , expenses. appeal i n d i c a t e s t h a t , at the father 72% costs time of e a r n e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y $140,000 the parties' that he Alabama, had and he combined a gross college stated degree that he employment w h i l e he was The the time, in part daughter. The college to The pertinent her trial foster record degree, regarding that a daughter should sense of indicates that a l t h o u g h no specific annually, The from had had a l s o work mother e v i d e n c e was the a in college. responsibility the the income. s c h o l a r s h i p and p a r t - t i m e father believed fees, also part in has the a presented education. court's O c t o b e r 12, 2010, judgment s t a t e s , i n part: "The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e p a r t i e s ' d a u g h t e r ... has the commitment and aptitude for a college education. She has b e e n a c c e p t e d and i s e n r o l l e d as a freshman at Birmingham-Southern C o l l e g e . [The 5 2100397 daughter's] expenses t o a t t e n d Birmingham-Southern, i n c l u d i n g t u i t i o n , mandatory student f e e s , books, supplies, housing and meals are approximately $40,000. [The d a u g h t e r ] h a s b e e n a w a r d e d v a r i o u s a c a d e m i c s c h o l a r s h i p s a n d h a s a PACT P l a n , p u r c h a s e d by h e r m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r d u r i n g h e r p a r e n t s ' marriage, which defray the cost of her c o l l e g e education. The scholarships a n d PACT Plan contribution total $24,000 f o r [ t h e d a u g h t e r ' s ] freshman year. "The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e [ f a t h e r ] , who moved t o move F l o r i d a i n t h e same y e a r [ a s ] t h e i s s u a n c e o f t h e [Judgment] o f D i v o r c e i n t h i s c a u s e , a d m i t s t h a t he was aware o f [ t h e d a u g h t e r ' s ] p l a n s to attend c o l l e g e , a l t h o u g h t h e C o u r t a l s o f i n d s t h a t he h a d l i t t l e input i n t o the s e l e c t i o n of a college f o r [the daughter]. He d i d t a k e a tour of the U n i v e r s i t y o f Alabama i n T u s c a l o o s a and i n v e s t i g a t e d the costs of Birmingham-Southern [College] by accessing [ i t s ] o f f i c i a l website. " "5. The p a r t i e s s h a l l p a y on a p r o - r a t a s h a r e b a s i s t h e t u i t i o n , room, b o a r d , r e q u i r e d f e e s , and book expenses for their [daughter] to attend c o l l e g e , which s h a l l be p a i d as f o l l o w s : [The f a t h e r ] s h a l l p a y a n d be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r s e v e n t y - t w o ( 7 2 % ) p e r c e n t o f s a i d e x p e n s e s ; [the mother] s h a l l pay t w e n t y - e i g h t (28%) p e r c e n t o f s a i d e x p e n s e s . Each p a r t y s h a l l pay h i s o r h e r p o r t i o n o f s a i d e x p e n s e s w h i c h a r e due as o f t h e b e g i n n i n g o f e a c h s e m e s t e r o r q u a r t e r , as t h e c a s e may b e , o r as s a i d expenses otherwise become due a n d p a y a b l e . I f p e r m i t t e d b y t h e i n s t i t u t i o n , s a i d payments s h a l l be made d i r e c t l y t o t h e c o l l e g e p u r s u a n t t o t h i s O r d e r . " a . The C o u r t f i n d s f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e c o l l e g e c o s t s t o be u s e d f o r comparison purposes f o r [the daughter] 6 2100397 s h a l l be t h e e x p e n s e s and c o s t s a t t r i b u t e d t o A u b u r n U n i v e r s i t y p e r s e m e s t e r as p o s t e d on the official website of Auburn University. "b. The o b l i g a t i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s t o pay t o w a r d s a i d c o l l e g e e x p e n s e s i n t h i s p a r a g r a p h s h a l l t e r m i n a t e on t h e f i r s t t o occur of the f o l l o w i n g e v e n t s : "(1) The completion of requirements for a college b a c h e l o r ' s degree; or " ( 2 ) The c h i l d r e a c h e s t h e age o f t w e n t y - f o u r (24) y e a r s ; o r " ( 3 ) The c h i l d ceasing to become a f u l l - t i m e s t u d e n t (as defined by the school or university attended) and m a i n t a i n i n g a 'C' o r b e t t e r g r a d e point average in her chosen curriculum. "c. The o b l i g a t i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s t o contribute towards college expenses of t h e i r c h i l d i s l i m i t e d t o and conditioned as f o l l o w s : "(1) Expenses shall not e x c e e d t h o s e c h a r g e d by A u b u r n U n i v e r s i t y l o c a t e d i n the S t a t e of Alabama; " ( 2 ) Room and b o a r d e x p e n s e s f o r w h i c h t h e p a r t i e s s h a l l be o b l i g a t e d are l i m i t e d t o those a c t u a l l y i n c u r r e d at the c h i l d ' s college for a 'median' priced dormitory room and board c o m b i n a t i o n o r t h o s e n o t e d on t h e 7 2100397 Auburn University official website, whichever i s l e s s ; " ( 3 ) The o b l i g a t i o n o f t h e parties t o pay f o r required s c h o o l f e e s a n d b o o k s s h a l l be l i m i t e d t o t h o s e f e e s a n d books charged f o r a s p e c i f i c c l a s s or course being taken, f o r which appropriate verification and d o c u m e n t a t i o n s h a l l be p r o v i d e d p r i o r t o payment b e i n g r e q u i r e d ; " ( 4 ) The o b l i g a t i o n o f t h e parties t o pay toward college expenses shall be f o r those expenses, which are not covered and/or paid b y PACT, o r any s c h o l a r s h i p or grant, which the c h i l d may be a w a r d e d . The C o u r t notes, however, that the application o f t h e PACT and s c h o l a r s h i p s o r g r a n t s have been and w i l l be a p p l i e d t o t h e c o s t of the child's tuition at B i r m i n g h a m - S o u t h e r n C o l l e g e . Any tuition due and owing after a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h o s e awards w i l l be p a i d b y t h e p a r t i e s as n o t e d h e r e i n b u t i n no e v e n t shall exceed the cost of t u i t i o n a t A u b u r n U n i v e r s i t y f o r any g i v e n semester or q u a r t e r . " " 6 . The C o u r t f i n d s f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d t h a t t h e [mother] h a s p a i d $6,501 o v e r a n d above t h e PACT f u n d a n d s c h o l a r s h i p s t o B i r m i n g h a m - S o u t h e r n College f o r expenses of [the daughter's] first s e m e s t e r , w h i c h began on A u g u s t 28, 2010. The b a l a n c e due a n d o w i n g i s $704.55. The [ f a t h e r ' s ] 8 2100397 s h a r e o f t h e e x p e n s e s p a i d and due t o t a l $5,187.99, w h i c h amount i s due t o be p a i d by him by r e i m b u r s i n g t h e [mother] i n t h e f o r m o f a j u d g m e n t , t h e sum o f FOUR THOUSAND, FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY-THREE and 44/100 ($4,483.44) DOLLARS i n m o n t h l y i n c r e m e n t s o f $500, commencing October 15, 2010, and continuing t h e r e a f t e r on the f i f t e e n t h day o f e a c h month following until t h i s j u d g m e n t and the interest thereon are paid in full. A d d i t i o n a l l y , the [ f a t h e r ] i s ORDERED t o make a d i r e c t payment t o B i r m i n g h a m - S o u t h e r n C o l l e g e i n t h e amount o f SEVEN HUNDRED FOUR and 55/100 ($704.55) DOLLARS w i t h i n t h i r t y (30) d a y s o f t h e d a t e o f t h i s O r d e r p l u s any interest that may be due thereon to this institution." A trial c o u r t may e d u c a t i o n a l support support a parent to provide when, as i n t h i s c a s e , i s made b e f o r e Penney v. order Penney, 785 a request t h e c h i l d r e a c h e s t h e age So. 2d 376, 378 postminority f o r such of m a j o r i t y . ( A l a . C i v . App. 2000). "The Supreme C o u r t o f A l a b a m a s e t o u t c e r t a i n f a c t o r s f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o c o n s i d e r when r u l i n g on a petition for postminority [educational] support. See Ex p a r t e B a y l i s s , 550 So. 2d 986 ( A l a . 1989). B a y l i s s c l e a r l y s p e c i f i e s those f a c t o r s t h a t s h a l l , and t h o s e t h a t may, be c o n s i d e r e d by the t r i a l c o u r t when i t i s d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r t o o r d e r support f o r p o s t m i n o r i t y c o l l e g e education. I n an award of p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l s u p p o r t for a c h i l d of d i v o r c e d p a r e n t s , the t r i a l c o u r t ' " s h a l l consider a l l relevant factors that s h a l l appear r e a s o n a b l e and n e c e s s a r y , i n c l u d i n g p r i m a r i l y the f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s o f t h e p a r e n t s and t h e c h i l d and t h e c h i l d ' s commitment t o , and a p t i t u d e f o r , t h e requested education."' A.L. v. B.W., 735 So. 2d 1237, 1239 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 9 ) ; Thompson v. Thompson, 689 So. 2d 885, 887 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1997) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e B a y l i s s , 550 So. 2d 986, 987 ( A l a . 9 2100397 1989)). The c o u r t s u g g e s t e d t h a t t r i a l c o u r t s a l s o should consider 'the s t a n d a r d o f l i v i n g t h a t t h e c h i l d w o u l d have e n j o y e d i f t h e m a r r i a g e h a d n o t been dissolved and t h e f a m i l y unit had been p r e s e r v e d and t h e c h i l d ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h h i s p a r e n t s and r e s p o n s i v e n e s s t o p a r e n t a l a d v i c e and guidance.' I d . a t 987. The t r i a l c o u r t must a l s o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e n o n c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t has ' s u f f i c i e n t estate, earning capacity, o r income t o p r o v i d e financial assistance without undue hardship.' T h r a s h e r v. W i l b u r n , 574 So. 2d 839, 841 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1990). Undue h a r d s h i p does n o t i m p l y t h e a b s e n c e o f p e r s o n a l s a c r i f i c e , b e c a u s e many p a r e n t s s a c r i f i c e t o send t h e i r c h i l d r e n t o c o l l e g e . I d . " Penney v. Penney, 785 So. 2d a t 378-79. The father does postminority-support argues that, liability portion not challenge award. because Rather, the daughter f o r postminority tuition w o u l d be p a i d and fees words, t h e f a t h e r to attend argues t h a t , academic the father PACT plan, be l i m i t e d costs, by t h e PACT p l a n . transportation. to a In other because the daughter of the costs such his would not cover had the a p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t y at which t u i t i o n for a portion of the a p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t y at which the w o u l d be c o v e r e d b y t h e PACT p l a n , only a should o f t h e amount t h e PACT p l a n to attend on a p p e a l , has support daughter e l e c t e d not the imposition as he s h o u l d be 10 and fees responsible of her n o n t u i t i o n - r e l a t e d room, In making t h i s elected board, books, argument, t h e f a t h e r and contends 2100397 t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d "as a m a t t e r o f l a w " i n the amount o f his postminority-support b r i e f submitted Goetsch, App. [Ms. determining obligation. In his t o t h i s c o u r t , t h e f a t h e r r e l i e s on G o e t s c h v. 2090718, J a n . 7, 2011] So. 3d (Ala. Civ. 2011). In t h a t case, the postminority t r u s t fund. trial court s u p p o r t f o r h i s son, The ordered who was the father to a b e n e f i c i a r y of f a t h e r appealed, arguing t h a t , i n postminority-support o b l i g a t i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t had in r e f u s i n g to the were a v a i l a b l e t o pay funds f o r the from the trust a determining his consider pay fund erred that son's c o l l e g e e d u c a t i o n . The e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e t r u s t f u n d had been e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e s o n ' s p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s w i t h t h e i n t e n t i o n t h a t i t be used, i n part or i n whole, f o r the son's education. This c o u r t r e v e r s e d the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment, h o l d i n g t h a t , under the that f a c t s of t h a t case, the i t was precluded from s o u r c e o f payment o f t h e trial c o u r t had considering the erred i n trust son's c o l l e g e expenses. finding fund as The court explained: "As n o t e d a b o v e , i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r and t o what e x t e n t t o r e q u i r e a p a r e n t t o pay p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l s u p p o r t , a t r i a l c o u r t must c o n s i d e r t h e f i n a n c i a l resources of both the p a r e n t s and the 11 a 2100397 child. The t e r m u s e d b y o u r supreme c o u r t i n Ex parte Bayliss i s 'financial resources,' which indicates that a trial c o u r t may c o n s i d e r a l l p o t e n t i a l sources of f i n a n c i a l support. A trial court i s not r e s t r i c t e d to considering only a p a r e n t ' s income when c o n s i d e r i n g w h e t h e r t o a w a r d postminority educational support." G o e t s c h v. G o e t s c h , So. 3 d a t . A l t h o u g h G o e t s c h v. Goetsch, supra, holds that a t r i a l court i s not precluded considering require the f i n a n c i a l that exhausting the c h i l d assets of a be r e s t r i c t e d h i s o r h e r own child, i t does n o t to u t i l i z i n g resources before from a or fully parent i s r e q u i r e d t o c o n t r i b u t e t o c o l l e g e expenses. The court father acknowledges d i d consider that, t h e PACT p l a n i n this and t h a t i n c l u d e d t h e amounts p a i d b y t h e PACT p l a n costs of the daughter's college p a r e n t s w o u l d be r e s p o n s i b l e . the t r i a l daughter's case, the t r i a l trial court as o f f s e t t i n g t h e education f o r which the However, t h e f a t h e r a r g u e s t h a t c o u r t c o u l d n o t o r d e r h i m t o p a y amounts t o w a r d t h e tuition and f e e s that were not covered d a u g h t e r ' s s c h o l a r s h i p s , g r a n t s , a n d t h e PACT p l a n . agree w i t h the the father that f r o m t h e PACT p l a n p r e c l u d e s the daughter's by t h e We c a n n o t r e c e i p t o f funds t h e f a t h e r , as a m a t t e r o f l a w , from b e i n g r e s p o n s i b l e f o r c o n t r i b u t i n g t o t h e c o s t o f t u i t i o n 12 2100397 or fees for her college education. Rather, and whether to grant p o s t m i n o r i t y support, postminority-support e a c h c a s e and award, a r e are w i t h i n the Ex p a r t e B a y l i s s , 550 54 So. 3d 900 So. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2d 1275 2d 864, 868 d e p e n d e n t upon t h e of the facts trial ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ; K i n g v. court. Barnes, 729 Goetsch, 1998). supra, this court held that, in c o u r t i s not r e s t r i c t e d to c o n s i d e r i n g o n l y the p a r e n t s ' f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s . This noted that a grants or what Goetsch, courts have s c h o l a r s h i p funds" extent, to So. award 3d a t of 904 exercising i t s discretion, a t r i a l "trial any 2 0 1 0 ) ; W a d d e l l v. W a d d e l l , ( A l a . C i v . App. I n G o e t s c h v. the decision 2 0 0 4 ) ; and S t i n s o n v. S t i n s o n , ( A l a . C i v . App. So. amount o f discretion 2d 986 So. the often considered i n determining postminority whether, court child's and to Goetsch v. a conclusion that the support. . In t h i s case, the evidence supports t r i a l c o u r t t o o k i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e PACT p l a n a v a i l a b l e t o t h e d a u g h t e r , t h e d a u g h t e r ' s s c h o l a r s h i p and father's a b i l i t y education. he pay The grants, to c o n t r i b u t e toward the daughter's and the college f a t h e r d i d not o b j e c t to the requirement t h a t a p o r t i o n of the c o s t s o f t h e d a u g h t e r ' s b o o k s , room, 13 2100397 board, not and transportation. covered totaled by her The daughter's t u i t i o n scholarship, approximately $5,500, grants, and, or under amount. The t h a t he is financially Given the plan postminority- a p o r t i o n of t h a t f a t h e r has n o t d i s p u t e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s foregoing, demonstrated amount o f fees PACT the the s u p p o r t award, t h e f a t h e r i s r e q u i r e d t o pay and that the capable of making t h a t c o n t r i b u t i o n . we the finding cannot trial say court postminority-support that erred the award or has fashioning in father the in including in t h a t a w a r d amounts f o r t h e c o s t s o f t h e d a u g h t e r ' s t u i t i o n and fees. The father b r i e f l y argues t h a t the trial court erred in r e q u i r i n g t h a t he be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p o s t m i n o r i t y s u p p o r t f o r "a f u l l f i v e y e a r s . " that the freshman In t h i s case, the t r i a l daughter would t u r n year of support continue college, 20 and just after i t ordered u n t i l t h e d a u g h t e r was court she considered finished that postminority 24 y e a r s o l d . During t h e h e a r i n g on t h e m e r i t s , t h e m o t h e r ' s a t t o r n e y a r g u e d t o trial her court education first t h a t the by the mentioned by daughter might not age the o f 23, trial 14 be able w h i c h was the court during age her to the complete limitation negotiations 2100397 p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e i s s u e s t o w h i c h t h e p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d . The t r i a l court then s t a t e d t h a t i t would r e s t r i c t the daughter t o receiving postminority support until t h e age o f 24. The r e l e v a n t e x c h a n g e i s as f o l l o w s : "[THE MOTHER'S ATTORNEY] : Sometimes t h e f a c t o f the m a t t e r i s , i f you need a c e r t a i n c l a s s t o complete your course o f study, i t may n o t be. Sometimes k i d s n e e d an e x t r a s e m e s t e r a n d t h e y ' r e s t i l l f u l l - t i m e students. I n t h i s i n s t a n c e , i f you d i d i t to her twenty-third birthday, then she w o u l d n ' t have an i n c h more t h a n e i g h t s e m e s t e r s . "THE COURT: I w i l l make i t age Under a p p l i c a b l e caselaw, t h e t r i a l place certain restrictions, upon a p a r e n t ' s State The father imposition does court i s required t o i n c l u d i n g temporal postminority-support ex r e l . B a r n e s , twenty-four." restrictions, obligation. B a r n e s v. 653 So. 2d 310 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 4 ) . not rely of r e s t r i c t i o n s on caselaw pertaining t o the on a p o s t m i n o r i t y - s u p p o r t award, n o r does he c i t e any a u t h o r i t y i n s u p p o r t o f h i s argument t h a t t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f t h e f i v e - y e a r r e s t r i c t i o n was e r r o r . It is n o t t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h i s c o u r t t o p e r f o r m an a p p e l l a n t ' s legal research or to create arguments G o n z a l e z v. B l u e C r o s s / B l u e 883 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 0 ) . on h i s or her behalf. S h i e l d o f A l a b a m a , 760 So. 2d 878, Issues 15 not properly a r g u e d and 2100397 supported Groover by v. authority Johnson, will not be 39 So. 3d Sands Group, L.L.C. v. PRS I I , LLC, (Ala. Accordingly, 2008). t h i s court that the t r i a l restriction The 33, considered 38-39 also appeal. ( A l a . 2009); 998 So. 2d White 1042, 1058 t h e f a t h e r has n o t d e m o n s t r a t e d t o court erred i n p l a c i n g i t s temporal on t h e p o s t m i n o r i t y - s u p p o r t father on argues on award. appeal that the trial court e r r e d i n c a l c u l a t i n g t h e amount he was t o r e p a y t h e m o t h e r f o r the c o s t s of the daughter's freshman-year f a l l semester; o b l i g a t i o n was s e t f o r t h i n p a r a g r a p h s i x o f t h e t r i a l judgment, quoted rejected the contribute fees. above. father's toward The t r i a l As already argument the costs of that the he indicated, i s not daughter's that court's we have required tuition to and court based i t s c a l c u l a t i o n s i n paragraph s i x o f i t s j u d g m e n t on a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d p a i d $6,501 toward the daughter's expenses f o r the semester a t i s s u e . father i s correct that indicates that the daughter's expenses reverse that portion the evidence i n the record mother contributed f o r the f a l l of paragraph $6,000 semester. appeal toward Accordingly, s i x of the t r i a l judgment p e r t a i n i n g t o the f a t h e r ' s reimbursement 16 on The the we court's of c e r t a i n 2100397 expenses t o t h e mother, recalculate that and we instruct the t r i a l court to award. AFFIRMED I N PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED. P i t t m a n , Thomas, and Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . Bryan, J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , without 17 writing.

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.