Judy Faust v. Bryan W. Knowles

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/04/2012 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 2100513 Judy Faust v. Bryan W. Knowles Bryan W. Knowles v. Judy Faust Appeals from M a r s h a l l C i r c u i t Court (DR-00-178 and CV-10-17) PITTMAN, Judge. Judy Faust ("the ("the m o t h e r " ) a p p e a l s , father") cross-appeals, a n d B r y a n W. K n o w l e s from a judgment o f t h e M a r s h a l l C i r c u i t Court entered i n a postdivorce m o d i f i c a t i o n proceeding 2100513 and in a related civil a c t i o n brought p a r t i e s ' c h i l d r e n , Andrew W. Tana K n o w l e s Knowles ("the d a u g h t e r " ) by t h e m o t h e r and ("the son") and Patricia seeking equitable r e l i e f c e r t a i n c u s t o d i a l f i n a n c i a l accounts c o n t a i n i n g funds t o b e l o n g t o the son. We i s the second a f f i r m i n p a r t and r e v e r s e i n p a r t time that t h e m o t h e r and I n F a u s t v. K n o w l e s , 2d this ( A l a . C i v . App. p a r t i e s had daughter 2006), exercised true under the t h a t t h e s o n was terms "13 joint of remand. the have a p p e a r e d b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t . 380 as t o alleged as t o t h e a p p e a l ; a f f i r m as t o t h e c r o s s - a p p e a l ; and This the father 952 So. that the c u s t o d y o f t h e s o n and the their court agreed noted d i v o r c e judgment; y e a r s o l d and [ t h e ] d a u g h t e r ... was 10 y e a r s o l d " when a p r e v i o u s m o d i f i c a t i o n a c t i o n h a d b e e n h e a r d in February 2004, 2 0 0 4 ; and declined judgment. to that modify I d . a t 381-82. court's decision the the trial c o u r t had, custody provisions I n F a u s t , we not t o modify in custody, October of r e v e r s e d the that trial concluding that the t r i a l c o u r t h a d a p p l i e d an i m p r o p e r c u s t o d y s t a n d a r d ; h o w e v e r , the trial court, conforming to t h i s on remand, did not a judgment S e p t e m b e r 2009. In t h e September 2009 j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d on remand, t h e m o t h e r was awarded the primary daughter's c o u r t ' s mandate u n t i l enter physical j o i n t c u s t o d y was custody not 2 of changed. the son, but 2100513 In J a n u a r y 2010, t h e s o n a n d t h e m o t h e r b r o u g h t a action against the father allegedly held account under funds civil and t h e i n v e s t m e n t bank t h a t had b e l o n g i n g t o t h e son i n a custodial the control of the f a t h e r ; i n that action, the son a n d t h e m o t h e r s o u g h t a j u d g m e n t d i r e c t i n g t h e f a t h e r t o provide an accounting and requiring the father disbursement of funds i n t h e c u s t o d i a l account. filed as to cease A m o t i o n was i n t h a t a c t i o n i n May 2010 s e e k i n g t o a d d t h e d a u g h t e r a plaintiff, account father who c l a i m e d t o have a t t h e same filed financial institution. financial Although the an a n s w e r g e n e r a l l y d e n y i n g t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f the c o m p l a i n t , he s u b s e q u e n t l y f i l e d he averred custodial a custodial that t h e moneys accounts had been a c o u n t e r c l a i m i n which deposited given i n the children's t o him by t h e f a t h e r ' s parents f o rthe educational b e n e f i t of the c h i l d r e n , i . e . , t o defray college c o s t s not covered by p r e p a i d - c o l l e g e - t u i t i o n p l a n s a c q u i r e d on b e h a l f o f t h e c h i l d r e n ; he s o u g h t a j u d g m e n t d e c l a r i n g t h a t he was t h e a c t u a l owner o f t h e a c c o u n t s o r , i n the alternative, a judgment a g a i n s t t h e p l a i n t i f f s f o r money p a i d by m i s t a k e . At t h e same custodial time accounts seeking a finding that the c i v i l was p e n d i n g , action the father regarding the filed pleadings o f contempt a g a i n s t t h e mother f o r h a v i n g 3 2100513 allegedly failed to allow him to have contact d a u g h t e r and a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e d i v o r c e him with the judgment t o award s o l e c u s t o d y o f t h e d a u g h t e r ; t h e m o t h e r f i l e d an a n s w e r denying the counterclaim father's seeking right sole to relief, custody c h i l d s u p p o r t and p o s t m i n o r i t y and she asserted o f t h e d a u g h t e r and educational support. a both Pendente l i t e c u s t o d y o f t h e d a u g h t e r was a w a r d e d t o t h e m o t h e r p e n d i n g a final hearing, and contempt c l a i m a g a i n s t the mother the father subsequently stemming asserted a from h i s a l l e g e d r e f u s a l t o pay l e g i t i m a t e expenses of t h e c h i l d r e n . I n November 2010, t h e t r i a l claims court held a t r i a l of the mother, the f a t h e r , actions. and t h e c h i l d r e n i n b o t h A t t h a t t r i a l , the mother, the f a t h e r , the c h i l d r e n , and t h e f a t h e r ' s m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d r e g a r d i n g issues as t o a l l i n controversy, and a l lparties the substantive appearing at trial a g r e e d t h a t t h e i n v e s t m e n t b a n k was n o t a p r o p e r p a r t y t o t h e action. The trial court subsequently entered a judgment awarding t h e mother p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y of t h e d a u g h t e r , subject to the father's v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s ; d i r e c t e d the father t o p a y $346 p e r month i n c h i l d s u p p o r t b a s e d upon an e x p r e s s d e v i a t i o n f r o m t h e R u l e 32, A l a . R. J u d . Admin., g u i d e l i n e s ; d i r e c t e d both parents t o maintain with respect t o the daughter; d i r e c t e d 4 child-support health the father insurance to pay 2100513 $6,035.49 t o t h e m o t h e r f o r u n p a i d c o l l e g e - e d u c a t i o n and m e d i c a l other e x p e n s e s o f t h e c h i l d r e n ; and o t h e r w i s e requests for relief. The expenses denied a l l mother's t i m e l y postjudgment m o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e t h e j u d g m e n t a v e r r e d , other t h i n g s , t h a t the trial court had erred in among determining t h e f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n as t o t h e d a u g h t e r , e r r e d i n d e c l i n i n g t o f i n d him failing to address the disbursing moneys court denied claims from the that motion. cross-appealed from the i n c o n t e m p t , and t h a t the We note trial the father judgment; the address the f a t h e r ' s c r o s s - a p p e a l , in failing that The during t o a w a r d him the court acted 1-1, pendency of these B e c a u s e t h e d a u g h t e r i s now A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ) , h e r controversy, and this i n which daughter. appeals, the reached the age an a d u l t (see § c u s t o d y i s no l o n g e r t h e s u b j e c t court cannot and outside i t s custody of the d a u g h t e r (whose b i r t h d a y i s F e b r u a r y 25, 1993) of m a j o r i t y . son appeals. he p r i m a r i l y c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l discretion accounts. court's the daughter are not p a r t i e s t o the We w i l l f i r s t improperly m o t h e r a p p e a l e d and trial erred i n f a t h e r was custodial The had had grant of relief. The father's contention his p e t i t i o n f o r c u s t o d y as t o t h e d a u g h t e r i s t h e r e f o r e moot. E.g., t h a t the t r i a l effective 26¬ Wendel v. W e n d e l , 331 P.2d 5 370, court erred i n denying 371 ( O k l a . 1958) (when, 2100513 pending appeal reached age of became m o o t ) . from custody-modification majority, Thus, t h e question trial of 5 Am. (1962) order ("A judgment or propriety court's a f f i r m e d as t o t h a t i s s u e . judgment, of child judgment j u d g m e n t i s due to J u r . 2d A p p e a l & E r r o r § may be affirmed 932 without c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e m e r i t s o f t h e c a s e where t h e q u e s t i o n become m o o t . " ) ; a c c o r d see a l s o L.R.M. v. App. 2007) 5 C.J.S. A p p e a l & E r r o r § 1024 D.M., (holding 962 that So. 2d issue 864, of 872 n.7 propriety be has (2007); (Ala. of Civ. award of c u s t o d y of c h i l d t o p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s f o r s i x - m o n t h p e r i o d was moot b e c a u s e s i x months had elapsed). j u d g m e n t as to c h i l d support should event that t h i s court reverses issue, his cross-appeal because t h a t the t r i a l the f a t h e r ' s p r i n c i p a l b r i e f contends Further, court's be reversed only in t h a t j u d g m e n t as t o t h e i s , as t o t h e s e c o n d i s s u e , custody predicated upon t h e h a p p e n i n g o f an e v e n t t h a t has not taken p l a c e , warrants as Waffle affirmance as to House, I n c . , 824 So. that issue 2d 783, 787 well. on which occurred). the pertinent was when t h e predicated which Bess v. 2001) condition had not 1 The f a t h e r f i l e d , a motion seeking leave 1 argument See ( A l a . C i v . App. ( a f f i r m i n g as t o c o n d i t i o n a l c r o s s - a p p e a l the d u r i n g the pendency of t h e s e a p p e a l s , to f i l e a p e t i t i o n i n the t r i a l court 6 2100513 We now t u r n t o t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d i n t h e m o t h e r ' s The mother first contends that the trial court appeal. erred t o the daughter. in c a l c u l a t i n g c h i l d support with respect The record r e f l e c t s that the t r i a l c o u r t p r e p a r e d a Form CS-42 t o d e t e r m i n e t h e s u p p o r t p a y a b l e u n d e r t h e R u l e 32, A l a . R. J u d . Admin., child-support income-affidavit Form CS-41 guidelines, Form The CS-41 father's t h e f a t h e r ' s m o n t h l y income as $4,386, amount c o n s i d e r a b l y a c t u a l l y earning; father paying f o r the an l e s s t h a n t h e f a t h e r ' s pay s t u b s i n d i c a t e d t h a t he was coverage a form s u p p l i e d by t h e f a t h e r . listed was utilizing $551.01 that per daughter. form a l s o noted t h a t the month The for trial health-insurance court's judgment i n d i c a t e s that the t r i a l c o u r t had c a l c u l a t e d t h e g u i d e l i n e s amount upon deviated of support upward by based $200. postjudgment motion, counsel those In a figures, response but the to court the mother's f o r the father candidly admitted t h a t t h e m o n t h l y i n c o m e l i s t e d on t h e f a t h e r ' s Form CS-41 o b t a i n e d by d i v i d i n g t h e f a t h e r ' s y e a r - t o - d a t e was income as shown on a p a y s t a t e m e n t d a t e d O c t o b e r 2010 b y 12 months r a t h e r t h a n to modify h i s child-support o b l i g a t i o n ; that motion was submitted f o r d e c i s i o n along with the appeals. Because the d a u g h t e r has a t t a i n e d t h e age o f m a j o r i t y , we c o n c l u d e t h a t a change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s w a r r a n t i n g a m o d i f i c a t i o n of the f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n has o c c u r r e d ; t h e r e f o r e , h i s motion i s granted. 7 2100513 by 10 months, but trial court's inclusion premiums in its the father's of counsel the calculations father's was trial that the health-insurance warranted p a r t i e s had b e e n r e q u i r e d t o p r o v i d e The contended because both coverage f o r the daughter in the judgment. c o u r t d i d not m o d i f y i t s judgment in response t o the mother's motion or the f a t h e r ' s averments, however. We agree w i t h the mother t h a t the t r i a l i t s determination of the father i n terms of support determination father's using the of the therefrom. of determination the support, reverse erred the t r i a l i n using court's an child- and remand f o r t h a t c o u r t t o r e c a l c u l a t e o b l i g a t i o n under the to enter a guidelines child-support t h a t e i t h e r conforms t o the p r o p e r a p p l i c a t i o n or that However, we guidelines on We child-support guidelines inclusion child c o r r e c t i n c o m e f i g u r e and determination i n making c o n c e r n i n g what t h e g u i d e l i n e s w o u l d r e q u i r e e r r o n e o u s income f i g u r e . the court, the validly will father's calculations not and disturb who was mental-health conditions, mental-health conditions. the health-insurance given that that both parents should daughter, explicitly deviates trial court's premiums in its court's express carry health insurance shown t o have b e e n d i a g n o s e d because As we 8 of the suggested existence with of i n Volovecky her v. 2100513 Hoffman, 903 So. 2d 844, 848 & n.3 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 4 ) , a c o u r t c o n s i d e r i n g an i s s u e o f s u p p o r t f o r minor c h i l d r e n might w e l l d e t e r m i n e t h a t " i t w o u l d be a p p r o p r i a t e t o i m p o s e on b o t h parents an obligation t o provide children, even i f there policies" and even insurance i s some d e g r e e though the general covering of overlap rule the i n the i s that "a c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n w i l l be c a l c u l a t e d u s i n g t h e premium for a single health-insurance policy covering medical expenses." We n e x t c o n s i d e r t h e mother's c o n t e n t i o n that the t r i a l court e r r e d i n d e c l i n i n g t o address the issues r a i s e d i n the civil a c t i o n b r o u g h t by h e r and t h e c h i l d r e n r e g a r d i n g t h e custodial accounts. 2 As t h e t r i a l court noted during the t r i a l , w h e t h e r t o o r d e r an a c c o u n t i n g w i t h r e s p e c t t o a c c o u n t s created pursuant to the Uniform Transfers t o Minors A c t ("UTMA"), A l a . Code 1975, § 35-5A-1 e t s e q . , i s a m a t t e r o f trial-court discretion. See A l a . Code 1975, § 3 5 - 5 A - 2 0 ( c ) . The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l t h a t he h a d n o t u t i l i z e d any o f the funds i n t h e c u s t o d i a l account e s t a b l i s h e d f o r t h e b e n e f i t We r e j e c t t h e f a t h e r ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h i s i s s u e was n o t preserved f o r appellate review; t h e mother's pretrial statement, her e l i c i t a t i o n of t r i a l testimony from t h e p a r t i e s , and h e r postjudgment motion a l l invoke, or a t l e a s t p e r t a i n t o , her c l a i m t h a t the f a t h e r had misappropriated funds b e l o n g i n g t o t h e son and t h e daughter. 2 9 2100513 o f t h e d a u g h t e r , b u t he a d m i t t e d t h a t he h a d u s e d a p o r t i o n o f the funds i n t h e son's c u s t o d i a l account t o s a t i s f y t h e son's educational father's expenses other in lieu earnings or of making assets; payments although from t h e the father t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e son's account had c o n t a i n e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y $13,000 i n 2007 ( i . e . , when t h e s o n ' s p a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r h a d died and c u s t o d i a l father), the control account had of t h e funds been had passed reduced, by to the stock-market d e c l i n e s a n d e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e n d i t u r e s , t o b e t w e e n $8,000 a n d $9,000 a t t h e t i m e of t r i a l . The f a t h e r further testified t h a t t h e funds i n t h e c u s t o d i a l a c c o u n t s had been g i f t s t o him from the paternal grandparents and t h a t the intent of the g i f t s was s o t h a t t h e f a t h e r w o u l d pay, i n h i s w o r d s , "my h a l f of t h e c o l l e g e expenses" It i s true considering that, whether to o f t h e son and t h e daughter. under Alabama establish law, a trial court a postminority-support o b l i g a t i o n as t o a p a r t y ' s c h i l d p u r s u a n t t o Ex p a r t e B a y l i s s , 550 So. 2d 986, 987 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) , i s t o c o n s i d e r " a l l relevant f a c t o r s t h a t 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 primarily child" the f i n a n c i a l (some e m p h a s i s i n original; a l s o G o e t s c h v. G o e t s c h , 2011). It may resources of the parents some e m p h a s i s and t h e added); see 66 So. 3d 788, 791 ( A l a . C i v . App. likewise be 10 presumed that similar 2100513 considerations of the c h i l d ' s resources w o u l d be p e r t i n e n t i n a proceeding to modify such a p o s t m i n o r i t y - s u p p o r t However, t h e establish or trial court modify support; rather, i n t h i s c a s e was an obligation i t was the trial court's agreement of the costs not divorce m o t h e r and covered by of funds disburse funds for from a that minor's education, law, postminority been i n p l a c e father sources had as enforce since 2000, ratified to equally such a to say minor that, children's under the may f o r the UTMA, a generally benefit i n s u b s t i t u t i o n f o r , and does o b l i g a t i o n of a person t o support the minor." Code 1975, § 35-5A-15(c). directly The trial court's contravened § the son's funds as judgment i n t h i s 35-5A-15(c) a s u b s t i t u t e f o r the i n t e r e s t s of not not Ala. because t h a t judgment, i n e f f e c t , r a t i f i e d the f a t h e r ' s u n i l a t e r a l of of s u c h an e x p e n d i t u r e i s , as a m a t t e r o f a f f e c t any case the share a l l the beneficiary c u s t o d i a l account " i n a d d i t i o n t o , not particular to plans. i t i s correct custodian provide judgment the other prepaid-college-tuition Although c a l l e d upon c a l l e d upon t o i n t e r p r e t and a p r e e x i s t i n g o b l i g a t i o n t h a t had when to not obligation. father's only the use funds, thereby p r e j u d i c i n g the son, a l s o t h e m o t h e r (who n e c e s s a r i l y r e c e i v e d no b e n e f i t as t o but her h a l f of u n s a t i s f i e d p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l expenses i n c u r r e d 11 2100513 by the son). We must therefore reverse the trial court's j u d g m e n t t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h a t c o u r t d i d n o t a p p l y § 35-5A1 5 ( c ) , and we remand f o r a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f what were made by the substitution of f a t h e r from the the expenditures son's c u s t o d i a l account i n f a t h e r ' s duty t o pay half of the son's u n s a t i s f i e d c o l l e g e expenses. The m o t h e r f i n a l l y contends t h a t the t r i a l court e r r e d i n d e c l i n i n g t o f i n d the f a t h e r i n contempt. However, h e r page argument t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t t h e f a t h e r has w a n t o n l y r e f u s e d t o obey o r d e r s a u t h o r i t y only the d e f i n i t i o n Rule 7 0 A ( D ) , A l a . R. provision of a Civ. previous P., and court undisputedly willfully presented See Walden v. (authority not violated. Hutchinson, supporting 987 and court" cites as contempt c o n t a i n e d in directs order argument w a r r a n t i n g an "willfully of the t r i a l of c i v i l only general 2d judgment upon of the child-support failure the foregoing trial award court with respect utilized the not to that issue. to the law will authorities, the except as to t h a t the the the and daughter son's funds t o s a t i s f y 12 ( A l a . 2007) reversal). t o address the mother's c o n t e n t i o n s improperly has 1121 and i s affirmed no father p r o p o s i t i o n s of facts to m o t h e r has the 1109, court the r e v e r s a l as c o n s t i t u t e a s u f f i c i e n t argument f o r Based this that Thus, So. one- the father father's 2100513 own s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n . p r o c e e d i n g s as t o t h o s e The c a u s e s a r e remanded f o r f u r t h e r issues. AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED I N PART AS TO THE APPEAL; AFFIRMED AS TO THE CROSS-APPEAL; CAUSES REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , and Bryan, concur. 13 Thomas, and Moore, J J . ,

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

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