Sharon Carmelia Moloney v. Edward Joseph Papie

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/20/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 2100459 Sharon Carmelia Moloney v. Edward Joseph Papie Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t Court (DR-02-500017.01) MOORE, Judge. Sharon judgment the Carmelia Moloney of the Mobile extent that Circuit i tdetermined ("the mother") Court appeals ("the t r i a l t h e amount from a court") t o of past-due child 2100459 support to owed b y E d w a r d award past-due mother the mother Joseph Papie i n t e r e s t on child-support i n t e r e s t on ("the f a t h e r " ) , the the amount i t ordered The trial of p a r t i e s were court the three i n pertinent "4. by the father's t o award the father other History entered awarded to pay insurance." a judgment children to d e n t a l , or That judgment on A u g u s t 1, 2 0 0 2 . parties' provided, and P r o c e d u r a l divorced the medical, r e l a t e d expenses not c o v e r e d by Facts of o b l i g a t i o n , and d e c l i n e d toward the children's "extraordinary health amount declined the mother by the custody and also part: The C o u r t w i l l order [ t h e f a t h e r ] to pay t o [ t h e m o t h e r ] t h e amount o f $1,179.00 p e r month as c h i l d support. ( C h i l d support i s a deviation from the G u i d e l i n e s o f R u l e 3 2 , [ A l a . R. J u d . A d m i n . , ] but includes the sum of $500.00 representing one-third of the p r i v a t e school tuition f o r the minor c h i l d r e n . ) "6. [The m o t h e r ] s h a l l m a i n t a i n h e a l t h insurance on t h e m i n o r c h i l d r e n , a n d t h e p a r t i e s a r e o r d e r e d e q u a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r any e x t r a o r d i n a r y medical, d e n t a l , or other h e a l t h r e l a t e d expenses not covered by insurance." On the J u n e 5, trial court, 2009, the mother among o t h e r filed things, 2 a petition to order requesting the father to 2100459 pay p o s t m i n o r i t y child, to order medical and the father support. petition. include the father A a claim child was 21 , on that, the p a r t i e s July children, for his failure fees. had 12, 2010. answered child support the father that that the father had p a i d that he had not paid testified that have t o pay c h i l d mother's being awarded allowed to the the t r i a l , the judgment was he would pay regarding to pay. for a t h e mother f o r that The period testified support but period. d i d not i n exchange f o r the divorce that The he t o k e e p some p e r s o n a l 3 was t h e amount o f mother certain had agreed i n the monthly judgment $750 p e r m o n t h i n c h i l d father 21, 2010, t h e y d i d n o t h a v e t o go judgment anything support petition At the divorce him that had January the divorce the agreed the mother had t o l d On to pay petition. before the terms of the d i v o r c e father of the the father s u p p o r t o f $750 a n d t h a t , a f t e r entered, been 200 9, f o r attorney held testified entered, on b e h a l f i n contempt July oldest to reimburse her f o r extraordinary a n s w e r e d t h e amended trial father On f o r the p a r t i e s ' On J a n u a r y 8, 2 0 1 0 , t h e m o t h e r a m e n d e d h e r to by the father support e x p e n s e s she had expended to hold child educational property t h a t had judgment. The 2100459 mother denied having support payments. her $20,132.57 The child not p a i d any the had not It any was of wanted the to She trial c h i l d r e n had testified not care certain of f o r the those owed also introduced into that she was father She the testified due amount. owed $ 9 , 6 6 1 t h a t the testified medical that, Mobile that issues bills him to about the but the father Texas to and father him a m o t h e r and the the expenses. 4 consulted that he him had children testified c r e d i t of attended private school. c h i l d r e n and not she o b l i g a t i o n f o r the not had because that The allow she been them. i n J u l y 2005, the to since f a t h e r had that in father c h i l d r e n ' s medical expenses t h a t t h e m o t h e r had medical father that month t o w a r d h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t the the child-support medical court child- that She attended public school. the father's past-due argue w i t h from the indicating the of the undisputed moved thereafter he part children's wanted children support. testified parties divorced. the waive medical expenses. had submitted testified i n i n t e r e s t on mother a l s o of mother calculations extraordinary aware to The $50,132 i n p a s t - d u e evidence agreed The per months that father also before not $500 that seeking agreed with 2100459 On stating, July 16, 2 0 1 0 , t h e t r i a l i n pertinent court entered a judgment part: " 3 . THAT t h e C o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e [ f a t h e r ] h a s n o t p a i d m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s w h i c h h e was o r d e r e d t o pay. Judgment i s awarded i n f a v o r o f t h e [mother] and a g a i n s t t h e [ f a t h e r ] i n t h e amount o f $ 9 , 6 6 1 . 2 1 . Due t o t h e [mother's] having not provided the [ f a t h e r ] w i t h c o p i e s o f s a i d b i l l s o r a demand f o r payment o f s a i d b i l l s , the Court orders that the [ f a t h e r ] p a y s a i d judgment a t t h e r a t e o f $200.00 per m o n t h , a n d no i n t e r e s t s h a l l a c c r u e on t h e a f o r e s a i d judgment. fl " 5 . THAT j u d g m e n t i s a w a r d e d i n f a v o r o f t h e [mother] a n d a g a i n s t t h e [ f a t h e r ] i n t h e amount o f $50,132.00 r e p r e s e n t i n g c h i l d s u p p o r t w h i c h should h a v e b e e n p a i d b u t w h i c h was n o t p a i d , excluding interest." 1 On A u g u s t 13, 2010, t h e f a t h e r amend, o r v a c a t e was due a c r e d i t the t r i a l court's o f $500 p e r month filed judgment, court m o t h e r r e s p o n d e d t o t h a t m o t i o n on A u g u s t a motion to alter, that he that the t o w a r d t h e amount t h e d e t e r m i n e d h e owed i n p a s t - d u e c h i l d same d a y , s h e f i l e d to alter, arguing f o r t h e months c h i l d r e n had not attended p r i v a t e school trial a motion support. The 14, 2 0 1 0 , a n d , t h a t amend, or vacate the The t r i a l c o u r t r u l e d i n f a v o r o f t h e m o t h e r on h e r request for postminority educational support for the p a r t i e s ' oldest child. On a p p e a l , neither party r a i s e s an i s s u e pertaining to that ruling. 1 5 2100459 judgment. In her postjudgment motion, the mother a l l e g e d the trial the amount child court had e r r e d in failing i t determined support t o a w a r d h e r i n t e r e s t on the father r e l a t e d expenses On October granting, a 15, medical, not covered by 2010, the t r i a l her f o r past-due the father stated, i n pertinent t o pay d e n t a l , or other insurance." court entered i n part, the father's postjudgment motion c r e d i t toward h i s past-due order owed and on t h e amount i t o r d e r e d toward the children's "extraordinary health that child-support an order requesting obligation. That part: " 1 . THAT t h e [ f a t h e r ' s ] M o t i o n To Amend, A l t e r or Vacate i s hereby g r a n t e d i n p a r t . A judgment i s entered f o r t h e sum o f $20 , 4 3 4 . 0 0 i n f a v o r o f t h e [ m o t h e r ] and a g a i n s t t h e [ f a t h e r ] w i t h t h e i n t e r e s t not c a l c u l a t e d . " Both the mother's and t h e f a t h e r ' s otherwise denied to the extent that order. to a l t e r , order, the determined 12, 2010, t h e m o t h e r the that the t r i a l father's amount and by f a i l i n g court court's father filed a motion O c t o b e r 15, 2010, had e r r e d by r e t r o a c t i v e l y child-support the were t h a t t h e y were not a d d r e s s e d i n amend, o r v a c a t e t h e t r i a l arguing reducing support On N o v e m b e r postjudgment motions owed obligation when f o r past-due i t child t o a w a r d h e r i n t e r e s t on t h e a m o u n t i t 6 2100459 determined On the father owed 4, 2011, the January postjudgment On motion F e b r u a r y 14, her f o r past-due trial court the mother filed support. the mother's denied d i r e c t e d to the October 2011, child 15, 2010, her n o t i c e 2 order. of appeal. the amount Discussion I. The of mother first argues the father's past-due court erred by that, i n determining child-support retroactively reducing obligation, the the father's trial monthly The f a t h e r argues i n h i s b r i e f t o t h i s c o u r t t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t d i d not have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r t a i n a second p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n f i l e d by t h e mother and, t h u s , t h a t t h e f i l i n g of t h a t motion d i d not t o l l the time f o r the mother t o f i l e her notice of appeal. We n o t e , h o w e v e r , t h a t b e c a u s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t had g r a n t e d the f a t h e r ' s postjudgment motion i n p a r t , t h e r e b y a g g r i e v i n g t h e m o t h e r , t h e m o t h e r was entitled to file a second postjudgment motion and that motion e f f e c t i v e l y t o l l e d the time to f i l e a n o t i c e of appeal. See, e . g , J . H . F . v . P . S . F . , 835 S o . 2 d 1 0 2 4 , 1 0 2 6 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) (when p a r t y filed second postjudgment motion after having been a g g r i e v e d by the g r a n t i n g of a postjudgment motion f i l e d by the other p a r t y , the second postjudgment motion effectively tolled the time to appeal); and W o o d a l l v. W o o d a l l , 5 0 6 S o . 2 d 1 0 0 5 , 1007 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1987) ("In s i t u a t i o n s where a j u d g e has g r a n t e d a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n f o r one p a r t y , t h e n o n m o v i n g p a r t y a g g r i e v e d b y t h e m o t i o n h a s t h e r i g h t u n d e r o u r r u l e s t o f i l e h i s o r h e r own postjudgment motions."). 2 7 2100459 child-support children had obligation by $500 not attended p r i v a t e for the months that the school. " I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t c h i l d s u p p o r t payments become f i n a l j u d g m e n t s on t h e d a y t h e y a r e due a n d may b e c o l l e c t e d a s a n y o t h e r j u d g m e n t i s c o l l e c t e d ; a n d t h a t p a y m e n t s t h a t m a t u r e o r become due b e f o r e the filing of a petition to modify are not m o d i f i a b l e . S e e S t a t e e x r e l . H o w a r d v . H o w a r d , 671 So. 2 d 83 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1995); Cunningham v. C u n n i n g h a m , 641 S o . 2 d 807 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1994); G l e n n v . G l e n n , 626 So. 2 d 638 (Ala. Civ. App. 1 9 9 3 ) ; F r a s e m e r v . F r a s e m e r , 578 S o . 2 d 1 3 4 6 ( A l a . Civ. App. 1 9 9 1 ) ; B a r n e s v. S t a t e ex r e l . S t a t e o f Virginia, 558 S o . 2 d 948 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1990); E n d r e s s v . J o n e s , 534 S o . 2 d 307 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1988). Furthermore, i t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t h a s no p o w e r t o f o r g i v e a n a c c r u e d a r r e a r a g e . S e e , S t a t e e x r e l . M c D a n i e l v . M i l l e r , 659 S o . 2 d 640 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ) ; H a r d y v . H a r d y , 600 S o . 2 d 1013 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 2 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , Ex p a r t e H a r d y , 600 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 6 ( A l a . 1992). A l t h o u g h the trial c o u r t has the d i s c r e t i o n to give the o b l i g a t e d p a r e n t c r e d i t f o r money a n d g i f t s g i v e n t o the c h i l d o r f o r amounts expended w h i l e t h e c h i l d l i v e d with the o b l i g a t e d parent or a t h i r d party, i t may n o t d i s c h a r g e c h i l d s u p p o r t p a y m e n t s o n c e t h e y have matured and come due under the divorce judgment. See, Frasemer v. F r a s e m e r , s u p r a . " Ex parte State 1997). child "A ex r e l . Lamon, p a r e n t may not 702 2d unilaterally 449, 450-51 (Ala. reduce c o u r t - o r d e r e d s u p p o r t p a y m e n t s when t h e j u d g m e n t d o e s n o t p r o v i d e f o r a reduction i n c h i l d support." Snell, So. 681 So. 2d 620, 621 S t a t e ex r e l . ( A l a . C i v . App. Killingsworth 1996). Neither v. can a c u s t o d i a l parent agree to waive c o u r t - o r d e r e d c h i l d support. 8 2100459 McWhorter 1997); 1981) the v. McWhorter, see a l s o H o l l a n d v. H o l l a n d , ( A l a . C i v . App. 406 S o . 2 d 8 7 7 , 8 7 9 ( A l a . ( " [ P ] a r t i e s t o a d i v o r c e d e c r e e may n o t c h a n g e o r m o d i f y d e c r e e m e r e l y b y an a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e m s e l v e s . " ) . In provide the present case, f o ra reduction no l o n g e r child-support to waive or obligation. third to I d . ; see and g i f t s while conclude that retroactively obligation when child [did]not 681 S o . 2 d a t 6 2 1 . to unilaterally o b l i g a t i o n a n d t h e m o t h e r was n o t agree party." past-due Snell, modify father's Holland, also the 406 given So. to the child[ren] the child[ren] Lamon, 702 the trial reducing the lived So. with 2d a t 451. court father's erred reduce permitted child-support 2d the father d i d not prove h i s entitlement "money expended judgment i n c h i l d s u p p o r t " i f t h e c h i l d r e n were t h e f a t h e r was n o t p e r m i t t e d his Further, the "[divorce] attending private school. Therefore, for 705 S o . 2 d 4 2 3 , 426 at to a 879. credit o r f o r amounts the [father] or a Accordingly, by monthly we effectively child-support i t d e t e r m i n e d t h e amount t h e f a t h e r owed f o r support. 9 2100459 II. The mother declining to the father it the not father medical, c o v e r e d by extraordinary medical that to i s added Child Support. order, the medical, both of dental, the and mother's the court amount pay toward or insurance." expenses award on the other erred the amount children's health of in i t determined the related payment child child-support Jud. Admin. the and Because 3 i s an basic addition to c o u r t may trial support dental, A l a . R. In the child to a parent's Rule 32(C)(4), that i n t e r e s t on owed f o r p a s t - d u e "extraordinary see argues award her ordered expenses next of support obligation, ( " A d d i t i o n a l Awards f o r recommended child-support make a d d i t i o n a l a w a r d s f o r extraordinary educational arguments "The requirement that a on u n p a i d c h i l d - s u p p o r t expenses " ) , we review together. t r i a l c o u r t award i n t e r e s t o b l i g a t i o n s i s one o f the We n o t e t h a t , i n t h e O c t o b e r 1 5 , 2 0 1 0 , p o s t j u d g m e n t o r d e r entered i n response to the f a t h e r ' s postjudgment motion, the t r i a l c o u r t amended i t s j u d g m e n t by a w a r d i n g t h e m o t h e r a j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t t h e f a t h e r i n t h e amount o f $20,434, " w i t h the i n t e r e s t not c a l c u l a t e d . " Although i t appears t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t was m e r e l y d e c l i n i n g t o c a l c u l a t e t h e a m o u n t o f i n t e r e s t o w e d b y t h e f a t h e r on t h e a m o u n t o f h i s p a s t - d u e child-support o b l i g a t i o n , not t h a t i t was precluding the c o l l e c t i o n o f s u c h i n t e r e s t , s u c h an i n t e n t i o n d o e s n o t c h a n g e t h e f a c t t h a t no s p e c i f i c a m o u n t o f i n t e r e s t was awarded. 3 10 2100459 more w e l l - s e t t l e d p r i n c i p l e s o f f a m i l y law. See C o r w i n v . C o r w i n , 29 So. 3 d 9 1 3 , 914 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) ( t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d by f a i l i n g t o compute t h e a m o u n t o f p o s t j u d g m e n t i n t e r e s t due on t h e f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e ) ; T.L.D. v . C.G., 849 So. 2 d 2 0 0 , 204 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) ('By f a i l i n g t o a w a r d postjudgment interest on the child-support arrearage, the t r i a l c o u r t e r r o n e o u s l y a p p l i e d the l a w t o t h e f a c t s . ' ) ; a n d W a l k e r v . W a l k e r , 828 So. 2 d 9 4 3 , 945 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) ('[A] t r i a l court with j u r i s d i c t i o n over proceedings to enforce an e a r l i e r c h i l d - s u p p o r t judgment i s without a u t h o r i t y to waive the imposition of statutorily imposed p o s t j u d g m e n t i n t e r e s t upon such p a y m e n t s . ' ) . " Faellaci v. Faellaci, [Ms. , v. ( A l a . C i v . App. G.C., 73 court So. must the due child pay toward other A l t h o u g h we the the and present those on related recognize the expenses, bills the ex on "extraordinary the not trial r e l . W.M.E. award conclude the the the mother's father medical, court or by to pastto dental, or insurance." declined to award failed demand payment i n a c t i o n should 11 mother father expenses because the mother had to trial f a t h e r owed f o r covered 3d child-support amount i t o r d e r e d expenses So. a u t h o r i t i e s , we i n d e c l i n i n g to the that 2012] (holding that a interest foregoing children's 3, also State ( A l a . 2011) erred i n t e r e s t on t h e m e d i c a l to Feb. amount i t d e t e r m i n e d t h e support health on court i n t e r e s t on t h e 596 see postjudgment Based trial 2012); 593, award judgment). that 3d 2100752, not deprive of the 2100459 children of the i n t e r e s t owed for their 565, 568-69 doctrine claim benefit. that i s due on See, e.g., Neny v. Neny, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) (stating d i d not bar the mother i n t h a t for child a payment that that was 989 S o . 2d clean-hands case from a s s e r t i n g a support). Conclusion Based trial court consistent on the foregoing, and remand t h i s with this reverse the judgment of the cause f o r the e n t r y of a judgment opinion. The m o t h e r ' s r e q u e s t appeal we f o r t h e a w a r d o f an a t t o r n e y f e e on i s denied. R E V E R S E D AND Thompson, REMANDED. P.J., and Pittman, concur. 12 Bryan, and Thomas, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.