Andrew Arthur Duerr v. Anne Marie Duerr

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 08/17/2012 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2012 2100539 Andrew A r t h u r Duerr v. Anne Marie Duerr Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t (DR-09-768.02) Court PITTMAN, J u d g e . Andrew A r t h u r a Duerr ("the f o r m e r husband") a p p e a l s j u d g m e n t o f t h e Montgomery contempt o f c o u r t Circuit Court holding from him i n on t h e s t a t e d b a s i s t h a t he h a d f a i l e d t o comply w i t h a pendente l i t e o r d e r i s s u e d d u r i n g t h e course o f 2100539 divorce proceedings involving the former husband and Anne M a r i e D u e r r ("the f o r m e r w i f e " ) . During parties, lite the pendency the t r i a l order court requiring of a divorce issued the action involving i n November 2001 former husband the a pendente t o , among other t h i n g s , " m a i n t a i n t h e s t a t u s quo as r e l a t e s t o t h e m a i n t e n a n c e and payment payment, a l l major automobile customary [the] of expenses family." A family and h o u s e that have final bills such insurance and i n the past judgment as house reasonable been divorcing the incurred the p a r t i e s and by was e n t e r e d i n June 2003; h o w e v e r , t h a t j u d g m e n t was v a c a t e d and was r e p l a c e d b y a new In May modification against failed The 2010, of final j u d g m e n t i n O c t o b e r 2003. the former w i f e child support filed and a a complaint finding of seeking contempt t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d b a s e d upon h i s a l l e g e d l y having t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e November 2001 p e n d e n t e l i t e order. former husband answered t h a t denying the allegations in the a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e s . The t r i a l hearing, entered a contempt b a s e d upon judgment c o m p l a i n t i n O c t o b e r 2010, complaint 2 asserting c o u r t , a f t e r a November holding h i s having and 2010 the former husband i n failed to comply with the 2100539 November husband 2001 p e n d e n t e to indemnify lite order t h e former and d i r e c t e d wife as to a the former $12,927.41 j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d a g a i n s t h e r f o l l o w i n g an a u t o m o b i l e c o l l i s i o n as t o which she had been found at fault; the t r i a l court denied the former w i f e ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t - m o d i f i c a t i o n request. The former husband t i m e l y The after record reveals t h e pendente appealed. the following lite facts. o r d e r had been A t some issued time i n November 2001, b u t b e f o r e t h e e n t r y o f a f i n a l j u d g m e n t i n t h e p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e a c t i o n , t h e f o r m e r w i f e was i n v o l v e d i n an a u t o m o b i l e collision. 1 collision, A separate c i v i l action i n t o r t and a judgment i n that action rendered a g a i n s t the former w i f e i n A p r i l c o n t e m p t a c t i o n was i n i t i a t e d after response t o the former was wife's ultimately 2010. The p r e s e n t the A p r i l had been e n t e r e d a g a i n s t h e r i n t h e t o r t In arose out of that 2010 j u d g m e n t action. contempt claim, the f o r m e r h u s b a n d a s s e r t e d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e a f f i r m a t i v e defense of res judicata. The trial court opined, in i t s The former w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e c o l l i s i o n had o c c u r r e d i n A p r i l 2002, b u t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t i t h a d a c t u a l l y o c c u r r e d i n A p r i l 2003. 1 3 2100539 judgment, t h a t t h e former husband had one o r more e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s At t r i a l , failed to demonstrate of t h a t a f f i r m a t i v e defense. t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d s t a t e d t h a t he d i d n o t h a v e automobile i n s u r a n c e c o v e r i n g the former w i f e at the time of the a u t o m o b i l e c o l l i s i o n o r a t any t i m e t h e r e a f t e r . The former h u s b a n d f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d n o t w i l l f u l l y n e g l e c t e d t o a b i d e by t h e p e n d e n t e l i t e o r d e r by t a k i n g any action discontinue on his part cancel, the Instead, to he p o s i t e d the former wife's maintenance affirmative of, or to automobile-insurance policy. t h a t t h e i n s u r a n c e company h a d canceled a u t o m o b i l e - i n s u r a n c e coverage as to the former w i f e by J a n u a r y 2002 and t h a t he had i n f o r m e d t h e f o r m e r w i f e t h a t t h e insurance husband company had that testified insurance canceled he coverage f o r the had that tried former coverage. to wife obtain from The former automobile- six different i n s u r a n c e c o m p a n i e s b u t t h a t h i s e f f o r t s were r e j e c t e d by e a c h company; the former evidence letters husband that, he attempted c l a i m e d , had to introduce to him company had canceled the former w i f e ' s a u t o m o b i l e - i n s u r a n c e coverage. The f r o m h i s i n s u r a n c e company i n d i c a t i n g former husband also c l a i m e d t o have 4 been w r i t t e n into that a that letter from another 2100539 i n s u r a n c e c a r r i e r i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he had a p p l i e d f o r i n s u r a n c e coverage f o r the former wife from another company and that t h a t a p p l i c a t i o n had b e e n d e n i e d by t h a t company as w e l l . The letters his that, the former husband claimed, p o s i t i o n t h a t he had n o t a c t e d c o n t e m p t u o u s l y b y t h e f o r m e r w i f e ' s a t t o r n e y on h e a r s a y admitted The into supported were o b j e c t e d t o g r o u n d s and were n o t evidence. former t o l d her before wife the testified collision that the former t h a t t h e r e was husband a problem had with h e r i n s u r a n c e c o v e r a g e and t h a t , i n h e r o p i n i o n , she b e l i e v e d that there should ostensibly not have been such a problem s h o u l d have b e e n a b l e t o m a i n t a i n because that he coverage. The f o r m e r w i f e r e s p o n d e d " n o " when she was asked whether she had d i r e c t l y c o n t a c t e d t h e i n s u r a n c e company and w h e t h e r she had b e e n t o l d by t h a t company t h a t she was t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s i n s u r a n c e . She was was still covered under f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she u n c e r t a i n as t o w h e t h e r she had e v e r b e e n t o l d t h a t t h e r e not stated, attention a problem the former nine years by the insurance husband had before, been a " l o n g time ago." The brought a time trial 5 company the t h a t , she because, she issue to her claimed, had c o u r t ' s judgment, however, 2100539 stated that t h e former wife had been "unaware that the [ f o r m e r ] husband had a l l o w e d t h e automobile i n s u r a n c e coverage t o l a p s e " a n d t h a t t h e f o r m e r w i f e h a d i n s t e a d " [ b e c o m e ] aware of t h e l a p s e i n c o v e r a g e some y e a r s l a t e r when s h e was s e r v e d w i t h a l a w s u i t by t h e i n s u r a n c e c a r r i e r o f [ t h e o t h e r d r i v e r w i t h whom s h e h a d been i n v o l v e d i n t h e a u t o m o b i l e The t r i a l collision]." c o u r t ' s judgment n o t e d t h a t t h e former husband h a d a d m i t t e d i n h i s t e s t i m o n y t h a t he h a d n o t h a d a u t o m o b i l e insurance collision. judgment not the former Additionally, that authority trial covering the the former t o support wife trial husband at the court time of the opined i ni t s had p r e s e n t e d his inability-to-pay no contention. c o u r t reasoned t h a t , a l t h o u g h t h e former husband purchase insurance to retroactively legal cover the The could former w i f e ' s a u t o m o b i l e a t t h e t i m e t h a t t h e c o l l i s i o n happened, t h e former husband had t h e c u r r e n t a b i l i t y t o a b i d e by t h e " s p i r i t of the [pendente earned $80,000 an income lite] o r d e r " because o f $360,000 i n s a v i n g s , and earned t a x e s and p e r s o n a l expenses" per year, husband had a p p r o x i m a t e l y a "net y e a r l y o f more t h a n 6 the former income $100,000. after 2100539 On a p p e a l , the former the former husband a s s e r t s f o u r i s s u e s . F i r s t , husband argues that the trial court erred denying a d m i s s i o n i n t o evidence l e t t e r s from v a r i o u s offered to comply demonstrate with husband former the asserts pendente that husband in he was Third, the judicata lite trial former bars the husband's order. court erred insurers inability Second, f o r having the to former i n holding failed to the maintain f o r the former w i f e ' s v e h i c l e because, u n a b l e t o comply husband contends with the pendente husband a s s e r t s former that wife's the that the d o c t r i n e lite order. the doctrine claim. Last, of the res former bars the claim. raised former husband is consideration of the other The husband former contempt for his failure of laches he we c o n c l u d e t h a t r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e t h i r d i s s u e Because by the former contempt automobile insurance says, the in dispositive, we pretermit issues presented. argues to that comply he cannot with be held the pendente o r d e r b a s e d on t h e d o c t r i n e o f r e s j u d i c a t a . The t r i a l judgment rejected that argument, stating that the in lite court's former h u s b a n d h a d n o t d e m o n s t r a t e d t h e e l e m e n t s o f r e s j u d i c a t a . The former husband takes the position 7 that, after a court has 2100539 r u l e d on t h e m e r i t s o f a c l a i m , a new c l a i m i n v o l v i n g t h e same p a r t i e s and cause o f a c t i o n i s b a r r e d . The f o r m e r w i f e d i d n o t a d d r e s s t h e r e s j u d i c a t a i s s u e i n h e r b r i e f on a p p e a l except t o s u m m a r i l y c o n t e n d t h a t t h e f o r m e r husband's arguments as t o all f o u r o f h i s i s s u e s were n o t v a l i d . "When a c o u r t o f c o m p e t e n t j u r i s d i c t i o n r e n d e r s a j u d g m e n t on t h e m e r i t s o f a c a s e , a new c l a i m i n v o l v i n g s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e same p a r t i e s a n d t h e same c a u s e o f a c t i o n i s b a r r e d . See P a r m a t e r v . Amcord, I n c . , 699 So. 2 d 1238, 1241 ( A l a . 1997) . When t h e s e e l e m e n t s e x i s t , a n y c l a i m t h a t was a d j u d i c a t e d i n t h e p r i o r a c t i o n , o r t h a t c o u l d have been adjudicated i n that prior action, is p r o h i b i t e d . See i d . ... [ T ] h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f [ t h e doctrine of res judicata] i s a question of law. Thus, t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w i s de novo. See Ex p a r t e Graham, 702 So. 2d 1215, 1221 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) ; P l u s I n t ' l , I n c . v . P a c e , 689 So. 2d 160, 161 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996) ." W a l k e r v. B l a c k w e l l , 800 So. 2d 582, 587 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) . "'"'Res j u d i c a t a a p p l i e s n o t o n l y t o t h e exact l e g a l t h e o r i e s advanced i n t h e p r i o r case, b u t t o a l l l e g a l t h e o r i e s and c l a i m s arising o u t o f t h e same nucleus of operative facts. O l d R e p u b l i c I n s . Co. v . L a n i e r , 790 So. 2 d 922, 928 ( A l a . 2000) ( q u o t i n g Wesch v . F o l s o m , 6 F.3d 1465, 1471 (11th C i r . 1993)). ' " G a t l i n v. J o i n e r , App. 2 0 0 9 ) . " Mosley v. B u i l d e r s App. 31 So. 3 d 126, 133 (Ala. C i v . S., I n c . , 41 So. 3 d 8 0 6 , 813 ( A l a . 2010). 8 Civ. 2100539 "'The p u r p o s e s a n d p o l i c i e s p r o m o t e d by t h e d o c t r i n e o f r e s j u d i c a t a i n c l u d e t h e i n t e r e s t s o f b o t h t h e p u b l i c a t l a r g e and t h e p a r t i e s t o a p a r t i c u l a r a c t i o n i n (a) f i n a l i t y o f j u d g m e n t s , (b) r e d u c i n g waste o f p r i v a t e and j u d i c i a l r e s o u r c e s , a n d (c) a v o i d i n g i n c o n s i s t e n t r u l i n g s . Hughes v. M a r t i n , 533 So. 2d 188, 190 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) . ' "Herring-Malbis I , LLC v. TEMCO, 158, 167 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . " Mosley, I n c . , 37 So. 3d 41 So. 3d a t 814. A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d r e l i e s on t h e a u t h o r i t y o f Maddox v. Maddox, 276 A l a . 197, 160 So. 2d 481 (1964), a case had i n which, after a rendered, a former wife contempt f o r f a i l u r e divorce judgment been sought t o h o l d h e r former husband i n t o pay temporary awarded i n t h e pendente because an a w a r d lite of temporary nature, the f i n a l divorce the final order. alimony alimony that The court had been held that i s interlocutory i n judgment had r e n d e r e d u n e n f o r c e a b l e r i g h t to accrued installments o f alimony pendente lite, "unless t h e r i g h t t o such i n s t a l l m e n t s a r e saved by [the f i n a l divorce judgment]." 482; So. Maddox, see a l s o A t k i n s o n 198, 200 (1936) 276 A l a . a t 198, 160 So. 2d a t v. A t k i n s o n , (pointing 9 233 A l a . 125, 127-28, 170 out the d i f f e r e n c e s between 2100539 maintenance without divorce and a divorce judgment for alimony). The f o r m e r h u s b a n d a r g u e s t h a t Maddox p r e s e n t s a s c e n a r i o p a r a l l e l t o t h e p r e s e n t c a s e . We a g r e e . The f o r m e r h u s b a n d d i d not p r o v i d e a u t o m o b i l e - i n s u r a n c e coverage in t o the former w i f e 2002 i n t h e manner t h a t he h a d b e e n o r d e r e d t o do pendente lite order issued i n 2001. Payment of a i n the spouse's premiums d u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y o f a d i v o r c e a c t i o n on t h e p a r t of another spouse is a alimony pendente l i t e 3d 958, 960 spouse's form to temporary 2010). pendente It i s well lite Thompson v. 1976) 598, (citing 601 Thompson, Ex (1961) party)). So. Parte Thornton, (a f i n a l marriage r e l a t i o n s h i p either 337 The final 2d 272 1, just as 65 So. settled that a support t e r m i n a t e d upon t h e i s s u a n c e o f t h e See support, i s . See A l e x a n d e r v. A l e x a n d e r , ( A l a . C i v . App. right of is immediately d i v o r c e judgment. 3 (Ala. Civ. A l a . 4, 8, 127 App. So. 2d d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t p u t s an end t h e t o "as e f f e c t i v e l y as w o u l d " right to alimony the death pendente lite is of not v e s t e d i n the spouse d u r i n g l i t i g a t i o n so as t o p e r m i t a c l a i m for of that judgment. right after Maddox, 276 the issuance A l a . at 10 198-99, the 160 final So. 2d divorce at 482. 2100539 Therefore, a final d i v o r c e judgment b a r s a s p o u s e ' s r i g h t t o " f u r t h e r recovery under the p r i o r [judgment o r c o u r t o r d e r ] . " T h o r n t o n , 272 A l a . a t 8, 127 So. 2d a t 602. B a s e d on t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d c a s e l a w , t h e f o r m e r w i f e ' s claim of should have pointing order, contempt been out and the with regard barred. to Under the interlocutory nature lite authority of Maddox, pendente lite of a m a i n t e n a n c e award, t h e f i n a l a of order the temporary nature Thornton, r e i t e r a t i n g pendente l i t e the pendente divorce judgment operated to f i n a l l y a d j u d i c a t e a l l claims t h a t the former w i f e asserted or could have asserted relationship and, therefore, arising to bar the from the m a r i t a l former w i f e from a s s e r t i n g a c o n t e m p t c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d f o r any f a i l u r e on h i s p a r t t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e p e n d e n t e l i t e order. The judgment o f t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t i s r e v e r s e d , and t h e c a u s e i s remanded with instructions to dismiss the c o n t e m p t a c t i o n . B e c a u s e we r e v e r s e t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l court finding the former husband former w i f e ' s claims are precluded i n contempt as a m a t t e r o f l a w , we not a d d r e s s t h e former husband's o t h e r 11 because arguments. the do 2100539 The f o r m e r w i f e ' s r e q u e s t f o r an a t t o r n e y ' s f e e on a p p e a l i s hereby denied. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h Bryan, without Thomas, a n d Moore, writings. 12 J J . , concur writing. i n the r e s u l t , 2100539 THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g I v. Maddox, court § So. disagree Judge, with 27 6 A l a . t h e supreme concur i n the court's 1 97 , 1 60 S o . 2 d 481 result. reasoning (1 9 6 4 ) . i n Maddox However, i s bound b y p r e c e d e n t e s t a b l i s h e d b y our supreme 1 2 - 3 - 1 6 , A l a . Code 2d concurring 832, 835 i n the 1975; Farmers ( A l a . C i v . App. result. 13 I n s . Exch. 2004). this court. v. R a i n e , For that reason, 905 I

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.