Christy Lee Payne Robbins v. Christopher Mark Payne

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/04/2011 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 2100427 C h r i s t y Lee Payne Robbins v. C h r i s t o p h e r Mark Payne Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t (DR-05-369.03) Court THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . C h r i s t y L e e Payne R o b b i n s ("the m o t h e r " ) a p p e a l s j u d g m e n t o f t h e Montgomery things, awarded Christopher a t t o r n e y f e e o f $4,500. Circuit Mark Court Payne that, among from a other ("the f a t h e r " ) an F o r t h e r e a s o n s s e t f o r t h h e r e i n , we 2100427 r e v e r s e t h e a w a r d o f t h e a t t o r n e y f e e and remand t h e c a u s e f o r the e n t r y of a judgment c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s The p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d i n 1989. Two opinion. c h i l d r e n were b o r n of the marriage. The p a r t i e s were d i v o r c e d by the on December trial court 30, 2005. a judgment As subsequently amended, t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t a w a r d e d t h e p a r t i e s j o i n t custody of the custody c h i l d r e n , and father primary p h y s i c a l visitation w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n , i n c l u d i n g a two-month p e r i o d o f visitation the the legal mother with of c h i l d r e n , awarded the of children over the r e q u i r e d e a c h p a r t y t o pay expenses of the In December summer. one-half children judgment awarded the awarded the not the divorce of a l l medical covered father child 2008, The by judgment and dental insurance. The s u p p o r t o f $1,385 m o n t h l y . mother filed a petition to t e m p o r a r i l y s u s p e n d h e r c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n and t o m o d i f y her child-support obligation. her j o b , and she She s o u g h t an i m m e d i a t e s u s p e n s i o n o f h e r s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n so t h a t she o f c o u r t f o r f a i l u r e t o pay support arrearage actively a s s e r t e d t h a t she had would not attempting w o u l d n o t be t o s e c u r e new 2 She child- h e l d i n contempt c h i l d s u p p o r t and accrue. lost so t h a t a child- s t a t e d t h a t she employment. On January was 22, 2100427 2009, the trial court. On mother April granting the 10, The employment b u t earning ordered a 2009, suggestion the was at On A p r i l 22, earning her 2010, the had been material award of her an employment. evidence a in child-support obtained The trial was on t h e presented had court $365. a p e t i t i o n to modify circumstances fee. new she On there warranting As p a r t o f h i s a c t i o n , t h e attorney the judgment o b l i g a t i o n , asserting that c o u r t h e l d a bench t r i a l hearing, entered modify father f i l e d change increase i n c h i l d support. the court monthly c h i l d support of mother's c h i l d - s u p p o r t trial bankruptcy with s u b s t a n t i a l l y l e s s than former the s o u g h t an to of c o u r t n o t e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r had t h e m o t h e r t o pay a trial mother's p e t i t i o n obligation. been filed J u l y 28, an father 2010, the father's petition. At i n d i c a t i n g that the m o t h e r ' s income had i n c r e a s e d s u b s t a n t i a l l y s i n c e t h e e n t r y o f the April 10, 2009, judgment. E v i d e n c e was r e l a t i v e to the f a t h e r ' s a t t o r n e y - f e e request, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e m o t h e r had not also presented as was evidence reimbursed the father for c e r t a i n o f t h e c h i l d r e n ' s e x p e n s e s f o r w h i c h she b o r e h a l f o f the financial responsibility. 3 2100427 On O c t o b e r which i t found 7, 2010, that the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment i n the mother's $4,002.39 p e r month, w h i c h was monthly income. the The childfiling the $2,443.48, r e p r e s e n t i n g one- half extracurricular i n c u r r e d on b e h a l f o f t h e c h i l d r e n trial to court also ordered the and father r e t r o a c t i v e to the trial mother t o reimburse With increased The t r i a l c o u r t i n c r e a s e d t h e m o t h e r ' s father's petition. of m e d i c a l had s l i g h t l y more t h a n t h e f a t h e r ' s s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n t o $722 m o n t h l y , of income expenses the father i n 2008, 2009, and had 2010. r e g a r d t o t h e f a t h e r ' s r e q u e s t f o r an a t t o r n e y f e e , t h e court wrote: "The [ f a t h e r ] t e s t i f i e d t h a t i n p u r s u i n g t h i s m a t t e r he has i n c u r r e d a t t o r n e y f e e s and e x p e n s e s t o t a l i n g $3,609.88, and r e q u e s t s t h a t t h e [ m o t h e r ] be o r d e r e d t o r e i m b u r s e h i m f o r t h e s e f e e s / e x p e n s e s . In support of h i s request, the [ f a t h e r ] t e s t i f i e d t h a t p r i o r t o t h e f i l i n g o f t h i s a c t i o n , he, t h r o u g h counsel, requested t h a t the [mother] v o l u n t a r i l y p r o d u c e a c o p y o f h e r 2009 t a x f i l i n g s so t h a t he c o u l d d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r an i n c r e a s e i n c h i l d s u p p o r t may be w a r r a n t e d . The [ m o t h e r ] , t h r o u g h c o u n s e l , r e f u s e d t o do s o . The t a x f i l i n g s were o n l y produced after the filing of t h i s action and pursuant to a formal discovery request submitted to t h e [ m o t h e r ] by t h e [ f a t h e r ] ' s c o u n s e l . The C o u r t takes p a r t i c u l a r note of the f a c t t h a t i n r e f u s i n g t o v o l u n t a r i l y p r o d u c e t h e t a x f i l i n g s , i n an e - m a i l d a t e d A p r i l 22, 2010, counsel f o r the [mother] represented t h a t : '... my client's income has r e m a i n e d r e l a t i v e l y s t a t i c i n 2 0 0 9 ; t h e r e have b e e n a few c o m m i s s i o n c h e c k s on t o p o f t h e d r a w s , b u t 4 2100427 nothing very s i g n i f i c a n t . ' While the [mother] i s u n d e r no l e g a l o b l i g a t i o n t o v o l u n t a r i l y p r o d u c e h e r t a x f i l i n g s , h e r f a i l u r e / r e f u s a l t o comply w i t h t h i s request r e s u l t e d i n i n c r e a s e d a t t o r n e y f e e s and expenses t o the [ f a t h e r ] . " The trial court awarded the father an attorney fee of $3,609.88. B o t h p a r t i e s f i l e d m o t i o n s t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment. Among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e m o t h e r a r g u e d t h a t the f a t h e r had f a i l e d t o present request f o r an attorney evidence supporting h i s f e e and t h a t the t r i a l court had c o n s i d e r e d c e r t a i n e v i d e n c e i t s h o u l d n o t have i n a w a r d i n g t h e attorney that fee. In h i s postjudgment motion, the f a t h e r argued the t r i a l support court had not i n c r e a s e d the mother's child- obligation sufficiently. On J a n u a r y 6, 2011, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d a response t o the m o t h e r ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , w h i c h i n c l u d e d a m o t i o n t o show cause, requesting that the t r i a l court hold t h e mother i n contempt o f c o u r t f o r f a i l i n g t o pay t h e a t t o r n e y f e e and h e r s h a r e o f t h e c h i l d r e n ' s e x p e n s e s w i t h i n 90 d a y s o f t h e d a t e o f the entry judgment. of the The judgment, father as sought 5 had an been required a d d i t i o n a l award by t h e of an 2100427 a t t o r n e y f e e and e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d i n p u r s u i n g h i s show-cause motion. On J a n u a r y 31, disposing things, of the i t denied the court. As the trial court entered a judgment postjudgment motions i n which, set $601.02 p e r 2011, the month, mother's to be child-support paid 12 months among other obligation of the year, f a t h e r ' s motion t o h o l d the mother i n contempt to the f a t h e r , the t r i a l a w a r d o f an court attorney f e e and costs to at and of the wrote: "The [ m o t h e r ] r e q u e s t s t h a t t h i s C o u r t v a c a t e t h e a w a r d o f a t t o r n e y f e e s t o t h e [ f a t h e r ] on a v a r i e t y o f g r o u n d s . The C o u r t n o t e s t h a t i t has t h e authority to grant an award of fees on the m o d i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n f i l e d by t h e [ f a t h e r ] , and f u r t h e r n o t e s t h a t a l l r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s s e t o u t by l a w f o r m a k i n g t h e a w a r d were c o n s i d e r e d . The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t an a w a r d o f a t t o r n e y fees/costs i s a p p r o p r i a t e i n t h i s case. II "4. [father] awarded incurred petition The mother On attorney The p r i o r a w a r d o f a t t o r n e y f e e s t o t h e i s hereby vacated. The [ f a t h e r ] i s h e r e b y t h e sum o f $4,500 as a t t o r n e y f e e s / c o s t s i n p u r s u i t of the o r i g i n a l m o d i f i c a t i o n and h i s p o s t j u d g m e n t show c a u s e m o t i o n . " appeals. appeal, the mother fee, the trial contends court 6 that, in improperly awarding an considered 2100427 e l e c t r o n i c - m a i l ( " e - m a i l " ) communications between the p a r t i e s ' attorneys that occurred modification petition. constituted "some negotiations trial court to The at attorney's the sort father argues t h a t those of settlement filed communications discussions w o u l d have n e v e r b e e n his and/or appropriate for communications trial whether the father to involve appear the father should the mother's c h i l d - s u p p o r t offered those request f o r an a t t o r n e y initially offered the into father's communications fee. objecting to into The the file a obligation. evidence as petition 1 The part mother's a t t o r n e y , admission of your Honor, I do not think I object to c l e a r l y s t a t e s what o u r p o s i t i o n i s and in a much more favorable light any of e-mail know, i t now. i t a c t u a l l y shows than [the his although the of to father c o m m u n i c a t i o n s , w i t h d r e w h i s o b j e c t i o n , s t a t i n g : "You client the attempt t o o b t a i n the mother's t a x r e t u r n s i n order determine increase She the consider." e-mail evidence to and before It my father's The e - m a i l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s t h e m s e l v e s , a l t h o u g h admitted i n t o e v i d e n c e a t t h e t r i a l , have n o t b e e n s u b m i t t e d t o t h i s c o u r t , e i t h e r as p a r t o f t h e r e c o r d o r s e p a r a t e l y f r o m t h e record. 1 7 2100427 attorney], so no o b j e c t i o n , withdrew her objection y o u r Honor." to the Because the admission of mother the e-mail c o m m u n i c a t i o n s b e t w e e n h e r a t t o r n e y and t h e f a t h e r ' s a t t o r n e y , she c a n n o t now court its on the p a r t of the i n h a v i n g c o n s i d e r e d those communications judgment. Civ. complain of error See J o h n s o n v. L.O., trial i n reaching 42 So. 3d 759, 762 ( A l a . App. 2 0 1 0 ) ( " G e n e r a l l y s p e a k i n g , i n o r d e r t o p r e s e r v e f o r a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w an i s s u e r e g a r d i n g an e r r o r i n t h e a d m i s s i o n of e v i d e n c e , an a p p e l l a n t must have made a t i m e l y and s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i o n to the evidence at Moreover, gave trial."). i t does n o t a p p e a r t o us t h a t t h e t r i a l court t h e e - m a i l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s undue w e i g h t i n d e c i d i n g father's request O c t o b e r 7, 2010, f o r an attorney judgment, fee. the t r i a l Although, the in i t s c o u r t d i s c u s s e d t h e e¬ m a i l communications between the p a r t i e s ' a t t o r n e y s , the trial c o u r t acknowledged t h a t at the time of the communications the mother h a d n o t been under produce her t a x r e t u r n s . a legal obligation voluntarily I t appears t h a t the reason the t r i a l court addressed the e - m a i l communications that, had t h e mother the to was to point out p r o v i d e d t h e t a x r e t u r n s as r e q u e s t e d , f a t h e r w o u l d have been s p a r e d some o f t h e a t t o r n e y f e e and 8 2100427 e x p e n s e s he was seeking It the does required to incur i n f i l i n g tax returns not appear determination of f a t h e r on t h o s e The through a formal that whether the to discovery trial award an his petition court request. based attorney and fee its to the communications. mother next contends t h a t , based on the factors a t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d c o n s i d e r i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t o a w a r d an attorney fee, the attorney fee to the "Attorney's support a court such a f e e . " App. to should father in this fees are exercise T a y l o r v. have 486 awarded available w i t h the t r i a l regarding Taylor, not the So. in child court having a w a r d and 2d 1294, amount 1297 of (Ala. 1986). "Whether t o a w a r d an a t t o r n e y f e e i n a d o m e s t i c r e l a t i o n s case i s w i t h i n the sound d i s c r e t i o n o f the t r i a l c o u r t and, a b s e n t an abuse o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n , i t s r u l i n g on t h a t q u e s t i o n w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d . Thompson v. Thompson, 650 So. 2d 928 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 4 ) . ' F a c t o r s t o be c o n s i d e r e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t when a w a r d i n g such fees include the financial circumstances of the p a r t i e s , the p a r t i e s ' conduct, the results of the litigation, and, where appropriate, the trial court's knowledge and e x p e r i e n c e as t o t h e v a l u e o f t h e s e r v i c e s p e r f o r m e d by t h e a t t o r n e y . ' F i g u r e s v. F i g u r e s , 624 So. 2d 188, 191 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1993). Additionally, a t r i a l c o u r t i s p r e s u m e d t o have k n o w l e d g e f r o m w h i c h 9 an case. ordinarily m o d i f i c a t i o n proceedings discretion Civ. trial 2100427 i t may s e t a r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e e v e n when t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e as t o t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s of the attorney fee. T a y l o r v. T a y l o r , 486 So. 2d 1294 ( A l a . C i v . App. 198 6) Glover v. G l o v e r , The father 678 2d 174, 176 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996). m o t h e r a r g u e s t h a t an a w a r d o f an a t t o r n e y f e e t o in this c a s e was f i n a n c i a l l y w h i l e the f a c t t h a t she f a t h e r was not. So. She had able i m p r o p e r b e c a u s e she f a t h e r was t o engage i n e x t e n s i v e u n a b l e t o pay no h i s own struggling as d e m o n s t r a t e d by f i l e d b a n k r u p t c y and a r g u e s t h a t t h e r e was t h e f a t h e r was not, was the by the the fact that travel while the she evidence i n d i c a t i n g was that a t t o r n e y fee or t h a t had t h e a b i l i t y t o pay h i s a t t o r n e y f e e . She she a l s o argues t h a t she d i d n o t engage i n any m i s c o n d u c t so as t o j u s t i f y an a w a r d o f an attorney fee to the father. She argues t h a t the time i n v o l v e d i n t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h e c a s e " c o u l d o n l y have b e e n minimal" the and t h a t t h e r e was experience s e r v i c e s he rendered t h a t the t r i a l in part denied on of the the no e v i d e n c e i n t r o d u c e d b e a r i n g father's counsel to the father. court improperly father's 10 The the value mother a l s o based i t s attorney-fee show-cause that motion. and motion, despite of on the argues award having 2100427 We trial have reviewed court attorney did fee the not to exceed the and we relative Many o f t h e related to father; For the indeed, example, the modification based on trial the father's obligation. the mother F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e r e was had substantial behalf seek of failed amount the relief reimbursement of clearly value expenses from the from her. of the trial the father expenses were causing we cannot say to that incur that 11 favored the the trial child-support her the half of a incurred on f a t h e r was required to in order court the attorney-fee him pay also to obtain could have experience, k n o w l e d g e and testified litigation had s e r v i c e s r e n d e r e d by Finally, Thus, the trial i t s own court decision petition, father court The were s u c h as t o w a r r a n t an debt. to the that an evidence i n d i c a t i n g that refused c h i l d r e n and c o n c l u d e d , r e l y i n g on the or trial court's c o u r t a l m o s t d o u b l e d t h e amount o f t h e m o t h e r ' s the father's r e s u l t s of the petition the to that awarding f a c t o r s the to c o n s i d e r weigh i n f a v o r of the t o award a f e e . conclude i t s discretion in father modification petition. was record, that father's award t o the his current increasing trial attorney father. monthly credit-card court erred in 2100427 d e c i d i n g t o a w a r d an a t t o r n e y his modification petition. However, we a g r e e w i t h was n o t p e r m i t t e d the fee to the father r e l a t i v e to basis t h e mother that the t r i a l t o a w a r d an a t t o r n e y of the father's contempt court f e e t o t h e f a t h e r on motion. In Deines v. D e i n e s , 424 So. 2d 1334 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 3 ) , w h i c h i n v o l v e d a postdivorce proceeding, p e t i t i o n seeking custody the father i n that of the p a r t i e s ' child. case filed a The m o t h e r i n t h a t c a s e f i l e d a c o u n t e r c l a i m s e e k i n g t o have t h e f a t h e r h e l d i n contempt and r e q u e s t i n g a judgment f o r a r r e a r a g e s support and alimony. hearing, denied judgment f o r delinquent attorney fee. The t r i a l court, the father's p e t i t i o n , alimony, after of c h i l d an o r e t e n u s awarded t h e mother a and awarded t h e mother The f a t h e r a p p e a l e d t h e a t t o r n e y - f e e an award. On a p p e a l , t h i s c o u r t r e v e r s e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s award o f an a t t o r n e y f e e t o t h e mother, writing: "As t o u n p a i d alimony, 'attorney's fees i n e n f o r c e m e n t p r o c e e d i n g s may n o t be a w a r d e d when no c o n t e m p t c i t a t i o n i s made.' S c o t t v . S c o t t , 375 So. 2d 797 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 7 9 ) ; Hartsfield v. H a r t s f i e l d , 384 So. 2d 1097 ( A l a . C i v . App. ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 384 So. 2d 1100 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) . Thus, any allowance of counsel fees concerning the recovery of back alimony is not allowable without an adjudication that the delinquent party is in contempt o f c o u r t . Since no s u c h f i n d i n g of 12 2100427 c o n t e m p t was made h e r e , no a t t o r n e y ' s f e e may be a l l o w e d t o t h e [ m o t h e r ] w h i c h i s b a s e d upon t h e r e c o v e r y o f t h e j u d g m e n t f o r t h e p a s t due a l i m o n y . We must r e v e r s e on t h a t a c c o u n t . " Deines, 424 So. 2d a t 1 3 3 5 . However, this court also noted t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t h a s t h e d i s c r e t i o n t o a w a r d an a t t o r n e y f e e in proceedings this t o modify a divorce judgment. Id. Because c o u r t c o u l d n o t a s c e r t a i n from t h e judgment whether any portion of adjudication the attorney-fee award pertained to of the father's modification p e t i t i o n , the rather t h a n s o l e l y t o t h e m o t h e r ' s c o n t e m p t p e t i t i o n , we remanded t h e case to the t r i a l court t o determine whether a n d t o what e x t e n t t o a w a r d an a t t o r n e y f e e t o t h e m o t h e r on t h e b a s i s o f the t r i a l court's adjudication of the modification p e t i t i o n . Id. a t 1335-36. for t h e a w a r d o f an a t t o r n e y f e e " [ i ] n a l l a c t i o n s f o r d i v o r c e or f o r the recovery which See a l s o § 30-2-54, A l a . Code 1975 ( p r o v i d i n g of alimony, ... a c o n t e m p t o f c o u r t maintenance or support i n c i t a t i o n h a s been made b y t h e c o u r t a g a i n s t e i t h e r p a r t y " ) ; Sosebee v . S o s e b e e , 896 So. 2d 557, 564 precludes ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004) ("We agree that § 30-2-54 t h e a w a r d o f an a t t o r n e y f e e t o t h e p e t i t i o n e r i n a c o n t e m p t a c t i o n when t h e t r i a l court fails of contempt a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d i n g p a r t y . " ) . 13 t o make a f i n d i n g 2100427 In the p r e s e n t case, the t r i a l judgment awarded t h e f a t h e r fees/costs petition incurred c o u r t ' s J a n u a r y 31, 2011, " t h e sum i n pursuit o f $4,500 as of the o r i g i n a l modification and h i s p o s t j u d g m e n t show c a u s e m o t i o n . " added.) However, the trial court, in attorney (Emphasis that judgment, s p e c i f i c a l l y d e n i e d t h e f a t h e r ' s show-cause m o t i o n . Because the t r i a l c o u r t d i d not f i n d the mother i n contempt, the t r i a l c o u r t was n o t p e r m i t t e d the b a s i s t o a w a r d t h e f a t h e r an a t t o r n e y o f t h e f a t h e r ' s show-cause m o t i o n . As we have a l r e a d y s t a t e d , t h e t r i a l d i s c r e t i o n t o a w a r d t h e f a t h e r an a t t o r n e y his f e e on modification petition. However, c o u r t was w i t h i n i t s f e e on t h e b a s i s o f there i s no basis on w h i c h t h i s c o u r t can d i s c e r n t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e a t t o r n e y fee award petition the as was based on the proceeding arising i n D e i n e s , we must r e v e r s e court that and t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h i t was b a s e d , i m p r o p e r l y , f a t h e r ' s p u r s u i t o f h i s show-cause m o t i o n . attorney from the t r i a l court's As a result, a w a r d o f an f e e t o t h e f a t h e r and remand t h e c a u s e t o t h e f o r the entry awards an a t t o r n e y o f a new on trial judgment t h a t , t o t h e e x t e n t i t f e e t o t h e f a t h e r , does n o t a w a r d t h a t f e e on t h e b a s i s o f t h e f a t h e r ' s show-cause m o t i o n . 14 2100427 REVERSED AND REMANDED. P i t t m a n , B r y a n , a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t 15 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.