Ex parte Clark Daniel Montgomery. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Cynthia C. Montgomery v. Clark Daniel Montgomery)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 8/26/11 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 of 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2011 2100670 Ex p a r t e C l a r k D a n i e l Montgomery PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : C y n t h i a C . Montgomery v. C l a r k D a n i e l Montgomery) (Russell C i r c u i t Court, DR-99-138.01) BRYAN, J u d g e . Clark for a D a n i e l Montgomery writ of mandamus ("the husband") seeking relief filed from a a petition Qualified 2100670 Domestic Circuit Relations Court. We Order grant ("QDRO") the entered petition in part by the and Russell deny i t in part. Procedural This forth time that ("the wife") have appeared before the pertinent the Appeal second procedural M o n t g o m e r y v . M o n t g o m e r y , 37 as Prior i s the Montgomery set H i s t o r y of So. 3d husband and Cynthia C. this court. We h i s t o r y of 168 this ( A l a . C i v . App. case 200 9 ) , follows: "The p a r t i e s w e r e m a r r i e d on J u l y 17, 1 9 7 5 , and t h e y w e r e d i v o r c e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t on May 11, 1 9 9 9 . [ T h e d i v o r c e a c t i o n was a s s i g n e d c a s e n o . DR9 9 - 1 3 8 . ] The p a r t i e s e x e c u t e d a w r i t t e n a g r e e m e n t r e g a r d i n g t h e d i v i s i o n o f t h e i r m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y on A p r i l 5, 1 9 9 9 , a n d t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t i n c o r p o r a t e d the parties' written agreement. The parties' agreement p r o v i d e d , among o t h e r things, that the wife would receive an award of the husband's r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s , as f o l l o w s : " ' 9 . R E T I R E M E N T : The Wife i s hereby awarded 35% of the Husband's retirement e x c l u d i n g h i s S o c i a l S e c u r i t y . S a i d award shall include any increases that the h u s b a n d may g e t p r i o r t o a n d f o l l o w i n g t h e time he begins to draw h i s retirement benefits. "'10. 401K F U N D : The W i f e i s h e r e b y awarded $15,000.00 of the husband's 401K fund T h i s d e c r e e meets the d e f i n i t i o n o f a [ Q D R O ] as s p e c i f i e d i n E R I S A S e c t i o n 2 0 6 ( d ) and I n t e r n a l Revenue Code 4 1 4 ( p ) 2 in 2100670 ' "The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s a QDRO s i g n e d a n d e n t e r e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t o n May 1 3 , 1 9 9 9 , r e g a r d i n g t h e r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s s e t f o r t h i n p a r a g r a p h 10 o f t h e p a r t i e s ' agreement. N e i t h e r the parties' written agreement n o r t h e d i v o r c e judgment p r o v i d e d f o r a QDRO t o b e e n t e r e d t o i m p l e m e n t t h e p r o v i s i o n s e t f o r t h i n paragraph 9 o f t h e p a r t i e s ' agreement. "On May 1 1 , 2 0 0 5 , a t t h e r e q u e s t o f t h e w i f e , [ i n case no. DR-99-138,] t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a QDRO regarding t h e payment of the retirement benefits s e t forth i n paragraph 9 of the p a r t i e s ' agreement ('QDRO # 2 ' ) . QDRO # 2 stated, i n pertinent part: "'[T]hat [the w i f e ] i s e n t i t l e d to receive a b e n e f i t from [ t h e B a s i c Retirement Plan f o r E m p l o y e e s o f Army & A i r F o r c e E x c h a n g e S e r v i c e ] of a b e n e f i t payable t o [ t h e w i f e ] that i sequivalent i nvalue to 35% of[the h u s b a n d ' s ] a c c r u e d b e n e f i t due t o b e n e f i t s e r v i c e between J u l y 17, 1975 a n d J a n u a r y 1, 19 9 9, c o m m e n c i n g o n t h e e a r l i e s t d a t e o n which [ t h e husband] could commence receiving benefits i f [ t h e husband] separated from s e r v i c e . ' " ( E m p h a s i s added.) The h u s b a n d d i d n o t o b j e c t t o t h e entry o f QDRO # 2, d e s p i t e the fact t h a t he apparently never received formal notice of the w i f e ' s r e q u e s t f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o e n t e r QDRO # 2. ... "On D e c e m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 7 , t w o a n d o n e - h a l f years a f t e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a d e n t e r e d QDRO # 2, t h e w i f e f i l e d a m o t i o n t o amend QDRO # 2. S h e s t a t e d t h a t QDRO # 2 e r r o n e o u s l y stated that the 'benefit service dates' were between J u l y 17, 1975, and J a n u a r y 1, 1 9 9 9 . T h e w i f e a r g u e d t h a t , p u r s u a n t t o paragraph 9 of the parties' agreement as 3 2100670 incorporated into the divorce judgment, s h e was e n t i t l e d t o 35% o f t h ehusband's r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s f r o m J u l y 17, 1975, u n t i l t h e d a t e o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s retirement, i n c l u d i n g any i n c r e a s e s he r e c e i v e d ' p r i o r t o a n d f o l l o w i n g t h e t i m e he b e g a n t o r e c e i v e r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s . ' The w i f e ' s m o t i o n i n c l u d e d a c e r t i f i c a t e of s e r v i c e s t a t i n g that the motion had b e e n m a i l e d t o t h e h u s b a n d a t an a d d r e s s i n T e x a s . I t was u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e w i f e had n o t p a i d any f i l i n g fees r e l a t e d t o the proceeding resulting i n QDRO # 2 o r t h e p r o c e e d i n g s e e k i n g t o amend QDRO # 2. "On F e b r u a r y 8, 2 0 0 8 , [ i n c a s e n o . D R - 9 9 - 1 3 8 , ] t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s e t a s i d e ' QDRO # 2 a n d e n t e r e d a n a m e n d e d QDRO ('QDRO # 3 ' ) , w h i c h s t a t e d t h a t t h e wife "'is e n t i t l e d t o r e c e i v e a b e n e f i t from [the B a s i c R e t i r e m e n t P l a n f o r Employees o f Army & A i r F o r c e E x c h a n g e S e r v i c e ] o f a b e n e f i t p a y a b l e t o [the husband] t h a t i s equivalent i n value to 35% o f t h e [husband's] a c c r u e d b e n e f i t due t o b e n e f i t s e r v i c e b e t w e e n J u l y 17, 1975 a n d t h e d a t e of t h e [husband's] r e t i r e m e n t , commencing on t h e e a r l i e s t d a t e o n w h i c h t h e [ h u s b a n d ] c o u l d commence r e c e i v i n g b e n e f i t s i f t h e [husband] s e p a r a t e d from s e r v i c e . ' "(Emphasis added.) "On F e b r u a r y 26, 2008, t h e husband m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e QDRO # 3. ... filed a "On May 1 6 , 2 0 0 8 , t h e w i f e i n i t i a t e d a s e p a r a t e a c t i o n [ , w h i c h was a s s i g n e d c a s e n o . DR-99-138.01,] requesting that the t r i a l court issue a rule n i s i and h o l d t h e h u s b a n d i n c i v i l a n d c r i m i n a l c o n t e m p t for f a i l i n g t o pay t h e wife 35% of t h e r e t i r e m e n t 4 2100670 b e n e f i t s t h a t he h a d been r e c e i v i n g , i n v i o l a t i o n o f the d i v o r c e judgment e n t e r e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n 1999. "On D e c e m b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 8 , t h e t r i a l c o u r t entered an order stating that QDRO # 2 'contained a m i s s t a t e m e n t o f t h e a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s . ' The t r i a l c o u r t a l s o r u l e d on t h e w i f e ' s p e t i t i o n f o r a rule nisi a n d h e l d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was n o t i n contempt f o r f a i l u r e t o pay r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s t o t h e w i f e . T h e t r i a l c o u r t o r d e r e d t h a t QDRO # 3 was ' i n f u l l f o r c e a n d e f f e c t . ' The h u s b a n d a n d t h e w i f e f i l e d timely notices of appeal to t h i s court. "On a p p e a l t h e h u s b a n d a r g u e [ d ] t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r QDRO # 2 o r QDRO # 3 b e c a u s e he was n o t p r o p e r l y s e r v e d with summonses o r n o t i c e o f t h e w i f e ' s p e t i t i o n s and b e c a u s e t h e w i f e d i d n o t p a y new f i l i n g f e e s . ... The w i f e cross-appeal[ed] and argue[d] that the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was not i n contempt w i t h o u t conducting an e v i d e n t i a r y hearing." 37 So. 3d a t 169-72 (footnotes omitted). Regarding the husband's appeal, case n o . D R - 9 9 - 1 3 8 , we c o n c l u d e d inherent divorce power to issue judgment that Civ. (citing i n an e f f o r t Jardine App. 2005)). "a t r i a l court has t h e a QDRO s u b s e q u e n t t o t h e e n t r y t o implement judgment o r t o render t h e d i v o r c e 172 which addressed issues i n v. Jardine, However, we 5 or enforce judgment e f f e c t i v e . " 918 S o . 2 d 1 2 7 , further of a the Id. at 131-32 ( A l a . concluded that the 2100670 trial QDRO court d i d n o t have s u b j e c t - m a t t e r #2 o r QDRO #3 b e c a u s e circumstances separate proper presented, action, notice because required of her requests through that judgment QDRO was v o i d , fora court February 8, 2 0 0 8 . and t h a t to enter Id. case trial "[b]ecause allegations that setforth and b e c a u s e t h e r e trial denied the t r i a l court's QDRO #3 was v o i d , with instructions o n May we of a n d we to the t r i a l 1 1 , 2005, and the wife's court issues t h e judgment ofthe heard petition petition i ntherecord t h e husband " I d . a t 1 7 4 . We r e m a n d e d nisi regarding the for a rule nisi t o support the was n o t i n c o n t e m p t t h e cause w i t h 6 for a rule no e v i d e n c e i n thewife's that which addressed reversed i s no e v i d e n c e finding judgment a t 173. no. DR-99-138.01, court court's entered the orders the divorce the t r i a l the t r i a l appeal give t o t h e husband or enforce Regarding the wife's cross-appeal, in QDRO and a which purported o f May 1 1 , 2 0 0 5 , t h ehusband's t o vacate fee, file that F e b r u a r y 8, 2 0 0 8 , p u r p o r t i n g t o e n t e r dismissed the wife filing t o implement to enter o f a QDRO, u n d e r t h e a QDRO. I d . a t 1 7 2 . We h e l d court's #2 the f i l i n g p a y an a p p r o p r i a t e s h e was s e e k i n g judgment jurisdiction instructions to 2100670 the trial wife's court to petition certificate conduct for a rule of judgment based husband on events dismissed and the nisi. Id. this 18, petition occurred case was after returned hearing on court issued This the a 2009. H i s t o r y of Present filed that evidentiary on N o v e m b e r Procedural The an Case for a writ of h i s previous to the mandamus appeal trial was court on the p a r t i e s i n d i c a t e that, on remand. The materials the remand, provided filed wife by motions respond to discovery requests to compel the husband i n the contempt a c t i o n to (case no. no. DR- DR-99-138.01). On or about October 99-138.01, filed 11, 2010, a motion f o r implementation w i f e a l l e g e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was but that husband's she had not retirement parties' "paragraph above in divorce receiving benefits that nine the of the excerpt divorce from she portion had The been of the awarded incorporated (hereinafter judgment"), Montgomery, 7 o f a QDRO. the of the agreement judgment i n case r e t i r e d and d r a w i n g b e n e f i t s been pursuant to paragraph nine the the wife, referred which supra. is The into to as quoted wife 2100670 requested portion that the t r i a l court o f t h e husband's directly exhibit to her. enter retirement The w i f e a QDRO benefits attached so t h a t h e r would a proposed October dismiss 14, 2 0 1 0 , t h e husband thewife's motion filed f o r implementation a c o u r t d i d n o t have to that alter or (presumably amend QDRO t h e QDRO #3) b e c a u s e t h a t QDRO was v o i d ; t h a t a QDRO was a n a t t e m p t must judgment, file the dismiss that to assert served by proper On hearing judge October the motion was f i l e d of [the t r i a l the defense court] that who h a d b e e n that divorce and serve stated the i n h i s motion "without submitting to and without t h e [husband] waiving the has n o t been as r e q u i r e d by l a w . " 27, 2010, t h e w i f e on t h e p e n d i n g entered QDRO; a n d t h a t t h e fees, The h u s b a n d The implementation the parties' filing to jurisdiction had concluded motion f o r t o modify motion previously t o amend a p r i o r a petition process was court t h ewife's thepetition. jurisdiction right this pay the appropriate husband w i t h to as an o f a QDRO. husband a l l e g e d t h a t t h e t r i a l wife QDRO paid t o her motion. On of be motions. assigned Judge t h e case, 8 filed a motion George fora Greene, t h e s e t a hearing on a l l 2100670 pending motions continued judge, the until Judge f o r January March 16, 2 0 1 1 . A l b e r t Johnson, Russell Circuit 2011, Court, but that On M a r c h who was entered hearing 16, 2 0 1 1 , was another t h e P r e s i d i n g Judge o f an o r d e r that stated: " I t i s hereby t h e f i n d i n g o f t h i s Court, and i n accordance w i t h Rule 60(a), Alabama Rules o f C i v i l Procedure, t h a t on o r a b o u t O c t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 0 , a [QDRO] was e n t e r e d b y H o n o r a b l e G e o r g e R. G r e e n e . " I t has been determined t h a t , due t o c l e r i c a l error, s a i d o r d e r was f i l e d as an e x h i b i t to a m o t i o n . I t h a s b e e n f u r t h e r d e t e r m i n e d t h a t no e n t r y was made into t h e Alabama Statewide Judicial I n f o r m a t i o n System and c o p i e s were n o t f o r w a r d e d t o the p a r t i e s or t h e i r a t t o r n e y s . "Therefore, i t i s the Order of t h i s Court t h a t the [QDRO] s i g n e d b y G e o r g e R. G r e e n e , Circuit J u d g e , on O c t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 0 , s h a l l b e r e c o g n i z e d a n d entered this date. The c i r c u i t clerk i s further directed to forward copies to a l l p a r t i e s . " 1 The materials QDRO was e n t e r e d (although provided i n case i t was d a t e d by the parties indicate n o . DR-99-138.01 on M a r c h October 28, 2010) t h a t that a 16, 2 0 1 1 , addressed the S e e G i l l i a m v . G i l l i a m , 43 S o . 2 d 6 1 5 , 618 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 1 0 ) ( d i s c u s s i n g R u l e 5 8 , A l a . R. C i v . P., a n d s t a t i n g t h a t " [ t ] h e r e n d e r i n g a n d t h e e n t e r i n g o f a j u d g m e n t a r e two s e p a r a t e a c t s " and t h a t " [ a ] judgment, a l t h o u g h i t has been rendered, i s not considered effective until i t has been e n t e r e d w i t h i n t h e meaning o f Rule 5 8 ( c ) " ) ; and Rule 5 8 ( c ) , Ala. R. C i v . P. (providing that a judgment i s deemed " ' e n t e r e d ' ... a s o f t h e a c t u a l d a t e o f t h e i n p u t o f t h e o r d e r or judgment i n t o t h e S t a t e J u d i c i a l I n f o r m a t i o n System"). 1 9 2100670 wife's receipt benefits. entered T h e QDRO i n this On the March March trial of a portion also matter May 2005 instructions the wife's nisi had failure On trial for a as a hearing QDRO. was on t h e The husband t h e QDROs required i n Montgomery, p u t t h e husband entered per the supra, the jurisdiction due p r o c e s s t h e husband to vacate and that for a rule of the t r i a l on n o t i c e of a The h u s b a n d f u r t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t he t o conduct a hearing same d a y , case denied 2008 invoke "modification." been a motion f o r a QDRO t h r o u g h h e r p e t i t i o n and d i d n o t p r o p e r l y proposed in request filed to enter court [QDROs] and v o i d . " court had not vacated this retirement " a l l previous and a motion and February from that t h e husband jurisdiction d i dnot properly court arenull 17, 2011, a l l e g e d that t h et r i a l in stated 16, 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r court's o f t h e husband's filed of law by the t r i a l court's on h i s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s . a motion to stay On t h e a l l proceedings no. DR-99-138.01. March 2 1 , 2011, a l l e g i n g that was a final new trial, judgment t h e husband the t r i a l filed court's a motion March on a l l p e n d i n g m o t i o n s p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 9 , A l a . R. C i v . 10 f o r a new 16, 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r and r e q u e s t i n g P., o n t h e a wife's 2100670 motion f o r implementation husband filed court's M a r c h 16, 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r the wife's judgment the a motion o f a QDRO. discovery had been wife's entered 22, 2011, Judge denied t h e husband's wife's motion requesting final On A p r i l the a ruling on M a r c h a petition were moot. trial Johnson final an o r d e r that for a that granted the court order and t h a t reserved for a petition f o r a rule Johnson denied 17, and M a r c h a him i n contempt, entered to dismiss; on t h e w i f e ' s since with 2 and h e r motion f o ra w r i t of the that d i d not f i n d of information; 15, 2011, Judge husband filed t o compel release hearing motion portion he a l l e g e d that requests that t h e same d a y , t h e that r e q u i r e d him t o comply requests; discovery On M a r c h to vacate On nisi. the motions f i l e d 21, 2011. o f mandamus i n t h i s The court by husband on A p r i l 20, 2 0 1 1 . Relief Requested The h u s b a n d c o n t e n d s t h a t a w r i t issued because Judge Johnson o f mandamus i s d u e t o b e d i d n o t have the authority to T h e r e i s a n i n d i c a t i o n t h a t J u d g e J o h n s o n made a n o r a l ruling f r o m t h e b e n c h on M a r c h 16, 2 0 1 1 , r e g a r d i n g t h e d i s c o v e r y i s s u e , b u t t h e M a r c h 16, 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r i n c l u d e d i n t h e materials before this court does n o t m e n t i o n t h e w i f e ' s discovery requests. 2 11 2100670 e n t e r a n y o r d e r s i n c a s e no. DR-99-138.01 a n d t h a t , those orders a r e due t o be husband argues that t h ew r i t vacated. by order o f Judge subject-matter issue Johnson i n March o f t h e QDRO E n t e r e d husband to vacate reasons stated filed a 2011 i s v o i d on M a r c h petition t h e QDRO e n t e r e d above. whether a p e t i t i o n proper by First, for a writ means o f r e q u e s t i n g The Judge fora Johnson o r d e r i n g asserts, on M a r c h however, for lack of 16, writ 2011 o f mandamus 16, 2 0 1 1 , f o r t h e we must determine t h e March the entry regarding i s the relief. 16, 2011, o r d e r issued o f t h e QDRO r e n d e r e d b y i n O c t o b e r 2 0 1 0 was a f i n a l by i t s s i l e n c e Circuit o f mandamus o r a n a p p e a l this husband argues t h a t Judge Greene because i n O c t o b e r 2010 and e n t e r e d s e e k i n g an o r d e r f r o m t h i s c o u r t d i r e c t i n g t h e R u s s e l l Court the jurisdiction. Finality The Alternatively, o f mandamus s h o u l d t h e QDRO r e n d e r e d b y J u d g e G r e e n e therefore, j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e , he t h epending contempt issue, the March 16, 2011, o r d e r i m p l i c i t l y d e n i e d t h e w i f e ' s p e n d i n g petition 2090675, 2011) fora rule nisi. J a n u a r y 28, 2011] (concluding that See F a e l l a c i So. 3d the t r i a l 12 court's , v. F a e l l a c i , [Ms. ( A l a . C i v . App. judgment, which d i d 2100670 not explicitly rule on a p e n d i n g petition f o ra r u l e nisi, " s u f f i c i e n t l y i n d i c a t e [ d ] an i n t e n t i o n t o c o n c l u s i v e l y r u l e on the wife's We order pending p e t i t i o n cannot nothing f o ra rule more t h a n been rendered Rule 58(a)and suggests ruling that hearing 22, the entry petition the t r i a l specifically In 2009), Romer this court pending S y s t e m . See i n the order as an implicit Moreover, as had not conducted a for a final as r e q u i r e d by c o u r t , on M a r c h hearing a ruling nisi. 44 S o . 3 d 5 1 4 , 518 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . d i s c u s s e d w h e t h e r t h e e n t r y o f a QDRO was a judgment capable judgment still nisi. and the t r i a l for a rule v . Romer, Nothing for a rule nisi, reserved petition Information for a rule supra, 2011, o f a QDRO t h a t h a d a l r e a d y C i v . P. court 16, 16, 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r d i d o f a QDRO w a s m e a n t on t h e w i f e ' s p e t i t i o n 2011, March on t h e w i f e ' s The M a r c h theState J u d i c i a l ( c ) , A l a . R. 16, 2011, on t h e w i f e ' s a into nisi"). court's to rule the entry c o u r t i n Montgomery, final the t r i a l nisi. order on t h e w i f e ' s March this that i n d i c a t e d an i n t e n t i o n petition of agree for a rule of divorce o f s u p p o r t i n g an a p p e a l . was e n t e r e d on M a r c h h e l d t h a t t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t was f i n a l 13 In that 26, 2008, " i n spite case, a n d we of the fact 2100670 that of a portion o f t h e judgment required a QDRO f o r i m p l e m e n t a t i o n . " entered on S e p t e m b e r judgment because Id. the subsequent We a l s o held that 24, 2008, "likewise constituted i t resolved entry a QDRO a a l l the outstanding final issues between the p a r t i e s r e l a t e d t o t h ei m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e t r i a l court's divorce judgment." judgment s e t t i n g a s i d e of supporting the issue but that final "because of implementation that concluded [ i t ]effectively of the t r i a l that a court's judgment," QDRO was a of supporting t h e September reopened i s s u i n g a separate a subsequent judgment capable further t h e S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 8 QDRO was n o t c a p a b l e an a p p e a l , judgment reasons I d . We an a p p e a l f o r t h e same 2 0 0 8 QDRO h a d c o n s t i t u t e d a final judgment. I d . a t 518-19. Considering filed as p a r t petition the of her action for a rule n i s i , March particular "resolved that that the wife's initiated case, that t h e QDRO a l l the outstanding 2 0 1 1 QDRO an a p p e a l . by t h e f i l i n g w h i c h h a d n o t been 2 0 1 1 QDRO was e n t e r e d , t h e March supporting m o t i o n f o r i m p l e m e n t a t i o n was issues was a Romer, r u l e d on a t t i m e we c a n n o t c o n c l u d e , entered on M a r c h between final i n this 16, 2011, t h e p a r t i e s " so judgment 44 S o . 3 d a t 5 1 8 . 14 of a capable of The e n t r y o f 2100670 a QDRO t o i m p l e m e n t wife was of retirement benefits to the a separate but related part of the wife's contempt Therefore, action. for t h e award we that the husband's petition a writ conclude o f mandamus i s properly before Standard this court. of Review "'Mandamus i s a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e m e d y and w i l l be g r a n t e d o n l y w h e r e t h e r e i s "(1) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t i n t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o t h e o r d e r s o u g h t ; (2) a n i m p e r a t i v e d u t y upon t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o p e r f o r m , a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; (3) t h e l a c k o f a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e r e m e d y ; a n d (4) p r o p e r l y invoked j u r i s d i c t i o n of the court."' "Ex p a r t e Ocwen F e d e r a l B a n k , F S B , 872 S o . 2 d 8 1 0 , 813 (Ala. 2003)(quoting E x p a r t e A l f a b , I n c . , 586 So. 2 d 8 8 9 , 891 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ) . Mandamus w i l l l i e t o d i r e c t a t r i a l c o u r t t o vacate a v o i d judgment or o r d e r . E x p a r t e C h a m b l e e , 899 S o . 2 d 2 4 4 , 2 4 9 ( A l a . 200 4)." Ex parte Sealy, L.L.C., 904 S o . 2 d 1 2 3 0 , 1232 (Ala. 2004). Discussion In orders his petition, the husband i s s u e d by Judge Johnson first i n case contends that a l l no. DR-99-138.01 a r e v o i d because Judge Johnson d i d n o t have t h e a u t h o r i t y t o e n t e r those orders because Judge Greene and t h e r e case no. DR-99-138.01 i s no i n d i c a t i o n 15 was assigned t h a t t h e c a s e was to ever 2100670 formally the reassigned husband authority t o Judge argues that Johnson. even as t h e P r e s i d i n g In the a l t e r n a t i v e , 3 i f Judge Johnson Judge o f t h e R u s s e l l C i r c u i t to d i r e c t the c l e r k of the R u s s e l l C i r c u i t QDRO r e n d e r e d any other wife orders argues, raise this thus by Judge Greene, i n case argument has waived issue enter In response, the the husband before to failed the t r i a l by t h i s court court. to and See Ex State 2001) ( c i t i n g A n d r e w s v . M e r r i t t O i l C o . , 612 S o . 2 d 4 0 9 , 410 (Ala. 1992)) of a w r i t "privilege & C a s . C o . , 794 S o . 2 d 3 6 8 , 377 ( A l a . (concluding irregularity" failing Fire of t h i s that Court parte issuance Farm things, the to enter the he h a d no a u t h o r i t y a t any time review Court no. DR-99-138.01. among o t h e r had that t h e p e t i t i o n e r , who o f mandamus, had waived r e l a t e d to the respondent's to raise the issue i n the t r i a l In response t o t h e w i f e ' s that this court that prevented should him from "any failure l o g " pursuant to Rule 45(d)(2), sought the procedural to attach A l a . R. C i v . P., b y court). argument, t h e husband consider raising "mitigating this a issue contends circumstances" below, i.e., that I n h i s p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus, t h e h u s b a n d s t a t e d t h a t " [ i ] t was a p p a r e n t , i n t h e w e e k s l e a d i n g up t o t h e March 16, 2011, hearing, that Judge Greene had been u n a v a i l a b l e due t o m e d i c a l i s s u e s . " 3 16 2100670 he was u n a w a r e t h a t t h e c a s e to Judge April the Johnson until after 15, 2011, o r d e r . time already Judge a petition In support should consider this husband c i t e s Ex p a r t e 78-79 (Ala. 2000), petitioners' a trial the Jim Walter i n which i n their objection case because "the f i r s t proceeding i n the case," because there presented to this this was case Judge Johnson court pending acted entering any o r d e r because the husband orders entered 776 S o . 2 d 7 6 , court petitioners [the t r i a l among held that the other judge] The Jim Walter that t h e husband, before the t r i a l the scope in of the a present Homes, I n c . , the materials a t any time court, argued while that o f h i s a u t h o r i t y by no. DR-99-138.01. to the t r i a l Accordingly, court Johnson were v o i d because 17 to conducted reasons. indication argued to a waiver objected i s no outside by Judge the an o b j e c t i o n t o t h e a s s i g n m e n t o f time never this was n o t t a n t a m o u n t i n case had that Homes, I n c . , i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m Ex p a r t e supra, time, circumstance," o u r supreme the assignment case the o f mandamus of h i s argument "mitigating delay i n f i l i n g judge had entered for a writ to run. court Johnson The h u s b a n d a r g u e s t h a t , b y t h a t for filing begun had not been f o r m a l l y r e a s s i g n e d that a l l he d i d n o t 2100670 have the a u t h o r i t y to e n t e r the orders, husband has w a i v e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h a t we conclude that issue. 4 the See E x p a r t e Although the issue of a court's subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, see Ex parte Progressive S p e c i a l t y I n s . Co., 31 So. 3 d 6 6 1 , 662 n. 1 ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) , we know o f no l a w , a n d t h e h u s b a n d h a s n o t d i r e c t e d o u r a t t e n t i o n t o any c o n t r o l l i n g authority, t h a t w o u l d make t h e o r d e r s e n t e r e d by Judge Johnson v o i d f o r l a c k of s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s i m p l y b e c a u s e , as f a r a s we c a n t e l l f r o m t h e m a t e r i a l s p r o v i d e d b y t h e p a r t i e s , c a s e n o . D R - 9 9 - 1 3 8 . 0 1 was n e v e r f o r m a l l y r e a s s i g n e d t o J u d g e J o h n s o n . The h u s b a n d c i t e s an o p i n i o n f r o m t h e A l a b a m a C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s , Ex p a r t e S a n d i f e r , 925 So. 2 d 2 9 0 , 2 91 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ) , t o s u p p o r t h i s a s s e r t i o n t h a t an o r d e r i s s u e d b y a j u d g e i n a c a s e t h a t has not been p r o p e r l y a s s i g n e d t o t h a t j u d g e i s void. However, i n S a n d i f e r , the C o u r t of C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s b a s e d i t s d e c i s i o n on A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 , § 1 3 A - 5 - 9 . 1 , p a r t o f t h e Habitual Felony Offender Act ("HFOA"), which vests j u r i s d i c t i o n i n the s e n t e n c i n g judge or the p r e s i d i n g judge of the circuit court to consider a motion to reconsider a s e n t e n c e f i l e d m o r e t h a n 30 d a y s a f t e r a d e f e n d a n t h a s b e e n s e n t e n c e d . See K i r b y v . S t a t e , 899 So. 2 d 968 , 971 ( A l a . 2004). The husband i n the present case refers to the i n d i c a t i o n i n S a n d i f e r that the Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals, i n a p r i o r a p p e a l i n v o l v i n g S a n d i f e r , h a d h e l d t h a t an a u t o m a t i c assignment of a motion to r e c o n s i d e r a sentence pursuant to § 1 3 A - 5 - 9 . 1 t o a c i r c u i t j u d g e t h a t was n e i t h e r t h e s e n t e n c i n g j u d g e n o r t h e p r e s i d i n g j u d g e was v o i d . See a l s o B u l g e r v . S t a t e , 904 So. 2 d 2 1 9 , 221 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) ( d i s m i s s i n g an a p p e a l a s h a v i n g b e e n t a k e n f r o m a v o i d j u d g m e n t when a m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r a s e n t e n c e p u r s u a n t t o § 13A-5-9.1 had b e e n c o n s i d e r e d b y a j u d g e t h a t was n e i t h e r t h e s e n t e n c i n g j u d g e n o r t h e p r e s i d i n g j u d g e ) . The r e m a i n d e r o f t h e S a n d i f e r o p i n i o n h o l d s t h a t the p r e s i d i n g judge of the Madison C i r c u i t C o u r t h a d no a u t h o r i t y t o d e l e g a t e h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i t e s a s p r e s i d i n g j u d g e t o a n o t h e r c i r c u i t j u d g e who had not been e l e c t e d o r a p p o i n t e d a s a p r e s i d i n g j u d g e . 925 S o . 2 d a t 2 9 6 . A c c o r d i n g l y , the p r e s e n t case i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from S a n d i f e r b e c a u s e t h e r e i s no C o d e s e c t i o n t h a t r e q u i r e d t h e w i f e ' s p e t i t i o n t o be a s s i g n e d t o a n y c e r t a i n j u d g e , n o r i s t h e r e a n y 4 18 2100670 State Farm F i r e The husband QDRO e n t e r e d (1) & Cas. and Andrews, contends, i n the alternative, on M a r c h 16, 2011, i s due t o be v a c a t e d motion t o implement t h esubject-matter given court by t h i s jurisdiction court i n Montgomery, o f the t r i a l a motion t o implement failed t o invoke thesubject-matter required to a n d (3) b e c a u s e a QDRO. file a According separate that modified paragraph nine t h ew i f e , by merely a QDRO i n h e r c o n t e m p t jurisdiction action, of the t r i a l t o t h e h u s b a n d , t h e w i f e was modification amendment t o h e r r u l e n i s i p e t i t i o n , The c o u r t , (2) supra. t h e husband contends t h a t filing to enter because f a i l e d t o comply w i t h the express i n s t r u c t i o n s Initially, court that the a QDRO d i d n o t p r o p e r l y b e c a u s e h i s d u e - p r o c e s s r i g h t s were v i o l a t e d , the t r i a l supra. also the wife's invoke Co., s u p r a ; i norder action, o r an t o o b t a i n a QDRO o f the p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e judgment. h u s b a n d ' s a r g u m e n t i s b a s e d on t h e p r e m i s e t h a t the entry i n d i c a t i o n t h a t a n a p p o i n t m e n t o f a s p e c i a l c i r c u i t j u d g e was r e q u i r e d f o r the c o m p l e t i o n o f case no. DR-99-138.01. S u b j e c t matter j u r i s d i c t i o n g e n e r a l l y l i e s w i t h a c o u r t , i n t h i s case the R u s s e l l C i r c u i t Court, and n o t w i t h a s p e c i f i c judge s i t t i n g on t h a t c o u r t . The h u s b a n d d o e s c o n t e n d t h a t t h e R u s s e l l C i r c u i t Court d i d not have s u b j e c t - m a t t e r jurisdiction t o e n t e r t h e M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 1 , QDRO, b u t he d o e s a s s e r t t h a t t h e court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction based on other reasons that are addressed l a t e r i n t h i s opinion. 19 2100670 of a QDRO w o u l d divorce "the of judgment. entry result i n a modification division." o f a QDRO w i l l the was divorce we c o n c l u d e judgment. that thewife's cognizable action. file a seeking a modification i n the parties' that thewife's o f a QDRO was n o t , i n a n d o f i t s e l f , conclude judgment," i d . , divorce 5 Accordingly, entry divorce n o t be c o n s i d e r e d the property-division provisions judgment. So l o n g a s more t h a n " i m p l e m e n t t h e d i v i s i o n as s t a t e d i n t h e p a r t i e s ' then t h eentry supra, i snot a m o d i f i c a t i o n 37 S o . 3 d a t 1 7 3 n . 7. c o u r t does n o t h i n g of p r o p e r t y of the H o w e v e r , a s we s t a t e d i n M o n t g o m e r y , o f a QDRO, i n a n d o f i t s e l f , a property the t r i a l of necessarily See Montgomery, motion as a r e q u e s t separate action that to obtain a method o f e n f o r c i n g a request supra. We further o f a QDRO i n a pending contempt thewife a for the to modify f o r implementation for relief I n M o n t g o m e r y , we h e l d request QDRO was r e q u i r e d t o because s h e was or implementing paragraph nine I n f a c t , i t i s w e l l s e t t l e d that "'"[a] court cannot modify property p r o v i s i o n s [ i n divorce judgments], except t o correct clerical errors, after 30 d a y s from the final j u d g m e n t . " ' " J a r d i n e v . J a r d i n e , 918 S o . 2 d 1 2 7 , 1 3 0 - 3 1 ( A l a . Civ. A p p . 2005) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e L i t t l e p a g e , 796 So. 2d 2 9 8 , 301 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n H a m i l t o n v . H a m i l t o n , 647 S o . 2d 7 5 6 , 7 5 9 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ) ) . 5 20 2100670 of thedivorce to hold a provisions judgment. party i n contempt o f an e x i s t i n g enforcing compliance generally Decker 2007); with that domestic-relations existing method divorce judgment. conclude that QDRO subsequent effort divorce the on a m o t i o n compliance d i d n o t have of a t h e terms 37 of a divorce the entry with QDRO an i s a a t 172 ("We power t o i s s u e a judgment i n an or to render the T h u s , we c a n n o t subject-matter used i n o f an e x i s t i n g So. 3d o r e n f o r c e t h e judgment requesting j u d g m e n t . See are routinely has t h e inherent judgment e f f e c t i v e . " ) . court i s a method o f the entry See Montgomery, court by t h e 7 0 A , A l a . R. C i v . P. to enforce to the entry t o implement trial rule f o r contempt or implementing a trial t o abide divorce t o Rule Similarly, of enforcing seeking 984 S o . 2 d 1 2 1 6 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . actions judgment). nisi judgment the existing Comments petitions for a rule f o r failure divorce v. Decker, and Committee (noting A petition 6 conclude that jurisdiction to o f a QDRO t o implement We note that, unlike paragraph 10 o f t h e d i v o r c e judgment, paragraph 9 of the divorce judgment d i dnot c o n t e m p l a t e t h e e n t r y o f a QDRO t o i m p l e m e n t that award. Because t h e d i v o r c e judgment d i d n o t contemplate t h e e n t r y o f a QDRO f o r p a r a g r a p h 9, t h e w i f e was r e q u i r e d t o f i l e a n a c t i o n t o implement o r e n f o r c e paragraph 9 through t h e use o f a QDRO. 6 21 2100670 a provision of the divorce contempt husband next because hearing had to dismiss. motion request this court scheduled and oral hearing, 7 h i s motion that review reveals that t h e March Judge dismiss by on h i s O c t o b e r 14, t h e husband did not 16, 2 0 1 1 , h e a r i n g could "unless hearing." 7 o u r supreme c o u r t be h e a r d . there t h e c o u r t may e n t e r a n o r d e r oral Rule 78, i s a request denying Accordingly, for a motion t o because t h e has s t a t e d : " I t i sc l e a r that t h e requirements o f Rule 78[, A l a . R. C i v . P.,] d i f f e r , d e p e n d i n g o n w h e t h e r t h e trial court contemplates g r a n t i n g , as opposed t o denying, a motion f o ra f i n a l judgment. Under t h e 22 was so t h a t h e rmotions t o compel implementation P., s t a t e s t h a t , that that to Judge was no h e a r i n g that a on h i s m o t i o n , a n d t h e m a t e r i a l s p r o v i d e d t o for without We n o t e there the t r i a l that held o f t h e husband's a t the w i f e ' s request, R. C i v . dismiss denied thus, A indicate her motion Ala. existing conducting contends 16, 2 0 1 1 , h e a r i n g , to dismiss a hearing without The h u s b a n d implicitly a QDRO a n d , o f law because to dismiss h i s motion. a t t h e March rendering 2010, o f an t h a t t h e M a r c h 2 0 1 1 QDRO i s v o i d due p r o c e s s h i s motion on Johnson, motion argues he was d e n i e d denied Greene as p a r t action. The court judgment 2100670 husband d i d not request dismiss the wife's cannot violated without 463 motion conclude that when the t r i a l first an o r a l t h e husband's court conducting on h i s m o t i o n t o f o rimplementation o f a QDRO, we due-process denied rights h i s motion a hearing. were to dismiss See B l a n t o n v. B l a n t o n , So. 2 d 1 5 8 , 161 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1984) ( c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was n o t d e n i e d due p r o c e s s his motion without did not request to dismiss However, an o r a l only court's jurisdiction implementation a when t h e t r i a l a hearing limited further appearance to denied t h e husband consider 8 the wife's that i tgranted p l a i n language o f t h e r u l e and rule, a trial c o u r t may n o t dismiss without a hearing, c i r c u m s t a n c e s , i t may d e n y s u c h Burgoon v. Alabama S t a t e 133 (Ala. 2002). that because to challenge thewife's motion a QDRO a t t h e same t i m e because argues o f a QDRO, a n d b e c a u s e motion t o dismiss court hearing). t h e husband entered his hearing the t r i a l the he trial motion f o r court denied f o r implementation of the wife's motion f o r t h e comments t o t h e grant a motion t o although, i n some a motion." D e p ' t o f Human R e s . , 835 S o . 2 d 1 3 1 , T h e r e i s an i n d i c a t i o n t h a t Judge J o h n s o n , a t t h e March 16, 2 0 1 1 , h e a r i n g , s t a t e d h i s i n t e n t i o n t o d e n y t h e h u s b a n d ' s m o t i o n a n d t o e n t e r t h e QDRO r e n d e r e d by Judge Greene i n O c t o b e r 2 0 1 0 . H o w e v e r , t h e QDRO was e n t e r e d o n M a r c h 1 6 , 8 23 2100670 implementation were o f a QDRO, h i s p r o c e d u r a l violated respond because be h e a r d it was e n t e r e d . March he was n o t a f f o r d e d to thewife's to due-process motion on a c h a l l e n g e rights an o p p o r t u n i t y t o f o r implementation o f a QDRO o r t o t h e w i f e ' s p r o p o s e d QDRO before T h e h u s b a n d c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e QDRO e n t e r e d o n 16, 2 0 1 1 , i m p e r m i s s i b l y judgment and d e p r i v e d modified the parties' him of h i s property without o f l a w . See g e n e r a l l y U n i t e d States Constitution, divorce due p r o c e s s Amend. X I V , § 1 ("No s t a t e s h a l l ... d e p r i v e any person of l i f e , liberty, or p r o p e r t y , due p r o c e s s of law."); and Neal v. Neal, 856 without S o . 2 d 7 6 6 , 782 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) (quoting Frahn v. G r e y l i n g R e a l i z a t i o n C o r p . , 2 3 9 A l a . 580 , 5 8 3 , 1 95 S o . 758 , 7 61 (1 9 4 0 ) ) ("'[D]ue p r o c e s s that notice, notice and a judgment entered and hearing.'"(emphasis According the o f l a w means n o t i c e , a h e a r i n g trial husband filed i n accordance entered several with such omitted)). to thematerials provided court according to t h e QDRO motions, to this on M a r c h with court, after 16, 2 0 1 1 , supporting the briefs, r e q u e s t i n g a h e a r i n g and c h a l l e n g i n g the substance o f t h e QDRO entered, nine alleging that i t had modified paragraph 2011, w h i c h was b e f o r e the t r i a l court denying t h e husband's motion t o d i s m i s s . 24 entered an of the order 2100670 divorce judgment retirement court by expanding benefits. There conducted a hearing challenges were opportunity we agree violated t o answer violation See E x p a r t e 2003) is i s no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t on a n y o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s that because he was A judgment o r order Third Generation, We t h e r e f o r e grant and order entered the t r i a l on M a r c h Finally, supra, that i s petition Court contends that entered i s void. t h a t a judgment due p r o c e s s ) . issue the to vacate t h e QDRO t h e QDRO e n t e r e d 16, 2 0 1 1 , i s v o i d because enter an o r d e r t h e QDROs e n t e r e d vacating the t r i a l F e b r u a r y 2008 i n c a s e n o . DR-99-138 that for i npart, March determined the 2011. t h e husband discussion request due p r o c e s s and concluding theRussell Circuit pretermit afforded I n c . , 855 S o . 2 d 4 8 9 , 492 ( A l a . t h e husband's 16, due-process on t h e w i f e ' s of p r i n c i p l e s of procedural (discussing Neal, not void i f i t violates p r i n c i p l e s of procedural writ, of h i s substantive t h e husband's a n d be h e a r d i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f a QDRO. in award t o t h e QDRO. Accordingly, rights the wife's of t h e March this 25 failed to o n May 2 0 0 5 a n d (the d i v o r c e argument 16, 2011, court on action). because we QDRO m u s t b e v a c a t e d We have for 2100670 other reasons. duty We n o t e , t o comply court. with however, t h a t t h e remand the t r i a l instructions court given has a by this S e e G i a r d i n a v . G i a r d i n a , 39 S o . 3 d 2 0 4 , 208 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) Civ. App. 2 0 0 9 ) ) . enter ( q u o t i n g Brown an o r d e r , entered v. Brown, Thus, t h e t r i a l i n case i n May 2 0 0 5 20 S o . 3 d 1 3 9 , 141 ( A l a . court i sstill no. DR-99-138, and February 2008, required to vacating t h e QDROs i f i t has not a l r e a d y done s o . Conclusion We part, deny the petition a n d we d i r e c t on M a r c h 16, 2 0 1 1 . the w i f e ' s denied. i n part the t r i a l and grant court to vacate The h u s b a n d ' s m o t i o n response t o h i sp e t i t i o n the p e t i t i o n i n t h e QDRO to strike f o ra writ entered parts of o f mandamus i s 9 P E T I T I O N GRANTED I N PART AND DENIED I N PART; WRIT Thompson, Moore, P.J., J . , concurs and Pittman ISSUED. a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . i n the result, without writing. We n o t e , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h i s c o u r t h a s o n l y c o n s i d e r e d t h e m a t e r i a l s p r o p e r l y b e f o r e u s . See g e n e r a l l y Ex p a r t e G u a r a n t y P e s t C o n t r o l , I n c . , 21 S o . 3 d 1 2 2 2 , 1 2 2 7 - 2 8 ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) . 9 26

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.