Kaylea Jill (Ritter) Muellen v. Hollis Talmadge (Tab) Ritter

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/11/2012 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 Reporter of Decisions, 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 2100615 Kaylea J i l l (Ritter) Muellen v. H o l l i s Talmadge (Tab) R i t t e r Appeal from Houston C i r c u i t Court (DR-03-1170.02) PITTMAN, J u d g e . Kaylea Talmadge Jill (Ritter) (Tab) R i t t e r Houston C i r c u i t Court the Muellen ("the m o t h e r " ) ("the f a t h e r " ) i n 2004. were and H o l l i s divorced by t h e The d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t a w a r d e d mother s o l e p h y s i c a l custody o f t h e p a r t i e s ' t h r e e minor 2100615 c h i l d r e n and In May 2009, t h e m o t h e r p r o p e r l y n o t i f i e d t h e f a t h e r t h a t she and the minor f a t h e r t o pay c h i l d r e n w o u l d be 2009 t o j o i n at o r d e r e d the moving c h i l d support. from Houston County the mother's husband at h i s m i l i t a r y Malmstrom A i r F o r c e Base i n Great Falls, f a t h e r f i l e d no o b j e c t i o n t o t h e move and a r e v i s e d schedule of v i s i t a t i o n w i t h On July judgment 19, that, child-support 2010, among other obligation month, a l t e r e d t h e children, the made the from father's father the $380 Montana. The obtain children. Court increased the per to month schedule of v i s i t a t i o n responsible July assignment no a c t i o n t o Houston C i r c u i t things, in for entered a father's $573 per with the all expenses a s s o c i a t e d w i t h e x e r c i s i n g h i s v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s , and provided the f a t h e r w i t h a c r e d i t a g a i n s t h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n for all expenses Specifically, incurred in exercising the judgment p r o v i d e d the those rights. following: "[The f a t h e r ] s h a l l be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e e n t i r e c o s t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h e x e r c i s i n g v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the children, including, without l i m i t a t i o n , airline t i c k e t s (and l o d g i n g f o r h i m s e l f and t h e c h i l d r e n when he t r a v e l s to t h e i r l o c a t i o n to exercise visitation), and shall be relieved of the r e q u i r e m e n t t o pay c h i l d s u p p o r t i n an amount e q u a l t o s u c h c o s t s i n c u r r e d f o r t h e same and s h a l l be allowed to take a c r e d i t against c h i l d support i n t h e m o n t h ( s ) i n w h i c h he a c t u a l l y i n c u r s s u c h c o s t s 2 2100615 and s h a l l costs." On provide January 26, the 2011, [mother] with the Alabama proof of Department R e s o u r c e s ("DHR"), whose S t a t e D i s b u r s e m e n t U n i t was child-support-enforcement 2010, of Human providing s e r v i c e s f o r the p a r t i e s pursuant to § 3 0 - 3 - 1 9 5 ( c ) , A l a . Code 1975, J u l y 19, such f i l e d a "motion to c l a r i f y " judgment, r e q u e s t i n g c l a r i f i c a t i o n as the to "what d o l l a r amount t o w a r d c h i l d s u p p o r t i s t o be g i v e n , e s p e c i a l l y a t t i m e s when t h e v i s i t a t i o n c o s t s f a r exceed the c h i l d support. The p a r t i e s have d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e s as t o how much t h e [ f a t h e r ] s h o u l d be c r e d i t e d f o r t r a v e l e x p e n s e s . "The [ m o t h e r ] l i v e s i n Montana and t h e [ f a t h e r ] l i v e s i n A l a b a m a , and t h e v i s i t a t i o n o c c u r s only c e r t a i n t i m e s o f t h e y e a r as t h e c h i l d r e n a r e s c h o o l age." On January f o l l o w i n g order 31, 2011, the trial court entered i n r e s p o n s e t o DHR's m o t i o n : "The court's order contemplates that [the father] shall receive a dollar-for-dollar credit for the entire cost associated with exercising v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n when he t r a v e l s t o t h e l o c a t i o n where t h e y a r e a t i n M o n t a n a (or e l s e w h e r e i f the c h i l d r e n are r e s i d i n g w i t h the mother a t a location that i s 200 miles or more f r o m the [father's] residence). T h i s c r e d i t i s t o be g i v e n e v e n when t h e c o s t o f v i s i t a t i o n e x c e e d s t h e m o n t h l y amount o f c h i l d s u p p o r t . F u r t h e r , i f the c o s t of visitation i s i n excess of one month's child s u p p o r t , [ t h e f a t h e r ] s h a l l be a l l o w e d t o t a k e a c r e d i t a g a i n s t f u t u r e c h i l d s u p p o r t payments u n t i l 3 the 2100615 the cost o f v i s i t a t i o n c h i l d support." On F e b r u a r y 31, i s fully credited against 8, 2 0 1 1 , t h e m o t h e r moved t o s e t a s i d e t h e J a n u a r y 2011, o r d e r , arguing (1) t h a t t h e o r d e r c o n s t i t u t e d an i m p e r m i s s i b l e m o d i f i c a t i o n r a t h e r than a v a l i d of the July 19, 2010, j u d g m e n t argued, the t r i a l days) violated the t h e mother the p u b l i c p o l i c y of The c i r c u i t c o u r t e n t e r e d no r u l i n g on t h e m o t h e r ' s motion t o s e t aside i t s January February judgment, c o u r t h a d no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o m o d i f y a f t e r 30 a n d (2) t h a t t h e o r d e r Alabama. (which clarification 25, 2 0 1 1 , i t o r d e r e d issue, stating 3 1 , 2011 o r d e r . I n s t e a d , on the p a r t i e s to mediation that " [ i ] f after mediation as t o i s completed, a l l i s s u e s a r e n o t r e s o l v e d , e i t h e r p a r t y may f i l e a m o t i o n t o set this matter for trial." On A p r i l 4, 2011 (63 d a y s a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e J a n u a r y 31, 2011, o r d e r ) , t h e mother f i l e d mandamus i n t h i s court, arguing a petition f o r a writ of t h a t the January 31, 2011, o r d e r c o n s t i t u t e d an i m p e r m i s s i b l e m o d i f i c a t i o n r a t h e r t h a n a valid c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f t h e J u l y 19, 2010, j u d g m e n t . "'[A] p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t o f mandamus i s a p r o p e r means to review questions of subject-matter jurisdiction.' Shamburger v . L a m b e r t , 24 So. 3d 1139, 1142 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) ( c i t i n g Ex p a r t e Davidson, 782 So. 2d 237, 240 ( A l a . 2000)). 4 2100615 N e v e r t h e l e s s , [a p e t i t i o n e r i s ] r e q u i r e d , as i s t h i s c o u r t , t o a b i d e b y t h e p r o c e d u r a l mandates o f R u l e 21, [ A l a . R. App. P.,] w h i c h d e s i g n a t e s t h e p r o p e r p r o c e d u r e f o r p e t i t i o n i n g an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t f o r a w r i t o f mandamus." Ex p a r t e R.W., 41 So. 3d 800, 805 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) . Rule 2 1 ( a ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. App. P., p r o v i d e s : "(3) Time f o r F i l i n g . The p e t i t i o n s h a l l be f i l e d w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e . The p r e s u m p t i v e l y reasonable time f o r f i l i n g a p e t i t i o n seeking review o f an o r d e r o f a t r i a l c o u r t o r o f a l o w e r a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s h a l l be t h e same as t h e t i m e f o r t a k i n g an appeal. I f a petition i s filed outside this presumptively reasonable time, i t s h a l l i n c l u d e a s t a t e m e n t o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s c o n s t i t u t i n g good c a u s e for the appellate court t o consider the p e t i t i o n , notwithstanding that i t was filed beyond t h e presumptively reasonable time." Although days t h e m o t h e r ' s mandamus p e t i t i o n was f i l e d w i t h i n 42 of the entry mediation trial of the t r i a l order, the r e l i e f c o u r t ' s January court's February t h e mother seeks 31, 2011, o r d e r 25, 2 0 1 1 , vacating the on t h e g r o u n d t h a t i t c o n s t i t u t e d a m o d i f i c a t i o n r a t h e r than a c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f the July 19, 2010, j u d g m e n t -- stems f r o m t h e J a n u a r y o r d e r and n o t from t h e February 25, 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r . from the e n t r y of t h e January p e t i t i o n was n o t t i m e l y f i l e d , for 31, 2011, o r d e r , 31, 2011, As measured the mother's a n d i t d i d n o t s t a t e good c a u s e the delay. 5 2100615 Upon mother's court initial review, this mandamus p e t i t i o n , had judgment, no court which jurisdiction to asserted modify from however, treated we a void judgment. conclude as petition to that the circuit 19, 2010, an that appeal because Upon the from which allows f o r further mother's the the t r i a l C i v . P., denial consideration, petition a be Rule 60(b)(4) d i d n o t deny t h e court of cannot mother's Instead, the c o u r t o r d e r e d t h e p a r t i e s t o m e d i a t i o n as t o t h e i s s u e , stating are the i t s July m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e t h e J a n u a r y 31, 2011, o r d e r . trial treat as an a p p e a l f r o m t h e d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n f o r r e l i e f p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) , A l a . R. relief elected that "[i]f after mediation i s completed, n o t r e s o l v e d , e i t h e r p a r t y may file a l l issues a motion t o set t h i s matter f o r t r i a l . " The mother had a clear legal g r a n t i n g or denying her motion right t o an o r d e r , and t h e t r i a l enter s u c h an o r d e r . See Ex p a r t e Gamble, 709 (Ala. C i v . App. order, however, merits of the The indicated mother's either to set aside the January 2011, 1998). order 31, c o u r t had a c o r r e s p o n d i n g d u t y t o trial an 6 2d 67, c o u r t ' s F e b r u a r y 25, unwillingness motion So. in an to apparent 70 2011, address attempt the to 2100615 encourage Ex the p a r t i e s t o reach a settlement of the issue. p a r t e F o r d Motor Credit, 607 So.2d 169, 170 Cf. ( A l a . 1992) ( w r i t o f mandamus i s s u e d t o c o m p e l a r u l i n g b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t on a c r e d i t o r ' s m o t i o n f o r a w r i t o f s e i z u r e , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 64, A l a . R. C i v . P., when t h e t r i a l the motion i n an attempt c o u r t r e f u s e d t o r u l e on t o encourage settlement of the dispute). Because i n t h e p r e s e n t case the t r i a l 25, 2 0 1 1 , m e d i a t i o n o r d e r d i d n o t c o n s t i t u t e merits 2011, of the mother's motion o r d e r , we petition deem court's February a r u l i n g on t h e t o s e t a s i d e t h e J a n u a r y 31, i t appropriate to treat as one f o r a w r i t o f mandamus the mother's t o compel t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o r u l e on h e r m o t i o n , w h i c h m o t i o n was, i n e s s e n c e , one s e e k i n g r e l i e f under R u l e 60(b)(4). 1 "'A p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus b a s e d on a t r i a l c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o r u l e on a m a t t e r does n o t have a benchmark d a t e f r o m w h i c h t o b e g i n [ t o ] measure a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e . Thus, [Rule 21(a)(3), A l a . R. App. P . ] , s e t t i n g t h e p r e s u m p t i v e l y reasonable time w i t h i n which t o f i l e a p e t i t i o n , w i l l n o t a f f e c t t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f what i s a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e for f i l i n g a p e t i t i o n b a s e d on t h e f a i l u r e t o r u l e . ' " Ex p a r t e D a v i s , 834 So. 2d 830, 832-33 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2002) ( q u o t i n g C o m m i t t e e Comments t o Amendments t o R u l e 2 1 ( a ) a n d R u l e 2 1 ( e ) ( 4 ) e f f e c t i v e S e p t e m b e r 1, 2 0 0 0 ) . 1 7 2100615 I n Ex p a r t e Gamble, s u p r a , t h i s c o u r t h e l d t h a t , when t h e trial c o u r t ' s o r d e r i n d i c a t e d "an u n w i l l i n g n e s s ... t o a d d r e s s t h e m e r i t s " o f an e m p l o y e e ' s c l a i m , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e s and 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., f o r r e l i e f f r o m t h e u n d e r l y i n g workers' writ compensation o f mandamus w o u l d judgment issue i n favor t o compel address the merits of the claim. this court granted," of the employer, the t r i a l "expressly disavow[ed] motion any o p i n i o n should However, concerning or should n o t be b e c a u s e " ' [ w ] h i l e t h e w r i t [ o f mandamus] w i l l compel t h e e x e r c i s e o f d i s c r e t i o n by a c i r c u i t will not issue t o compel the exercise issue judge, i t of d i s c r e t i o n p a r t i c u l a r manner.'" 709 So. 2d a t 70 ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e M o t o r C r e d i t Co., 607 So. 2d 169, 170 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) ; added by t h i s The in supra, trial in a Ford emphasis c o u r t i n Gamble). present Ex p a r t e a court t o 709 So. 2d a t 69. [the employee's] whether to 60(b)(2) case i s n o t s u b j e c t t o t h e r u l e , Gamble supra, a n d Ex p a r t e t h a t t h e w r i t o f mandamus w i l l Ford applicable Motor Credit, n o t i s s u e t o compel t h e court's exercise of d i s c r e t i o n i n a p a r t i c u l a r manner, because, " ' [ w ] h e n t h e g r a n t o r d e n i a l o f r e l i e f t u r n s on t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e j u d g m e n t , as u n d e r R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) , 8 2100615 d i s c r e t i o n h a s no p l a c e . I f t h e j u d g m e n t i s v a l i d , i t must s t a n d ; i f i t i s v o i d , i t must be s e t a s i d e . A judgment i s v o i d o n l y i f t h e c o u r t r e n d e r i n g i t lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n of the subject matter or of the p a r t i e s , o r i f i t a c t e d i n a manner i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h due p r o c e s s . S a t t e r f i e l d v. W i n s t o n I n d u s t r i e s , I n c . , 553 So. 2d 61 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . ' " Orix F i n . Servs., 2008) I n c . v . Murphy, 9 So. 3d 1 2 4 1 , 1244 ( A l a . ( q u o t i n g I n s u r a n c e Mgmt. & A d m i n . , I n c . v. P a l o m a r I n s . Corp., 590 So. 2d 209, 212 Because t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n 31, 2011, o r d e r (Ala. 1991); whether t h e t r i a l constituted a valid emphasis added). court's January clarification o r an i m p e r m i s s i b l e m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e J u l y 19, 2010, judgment d o e s not call f o r an e x e r c i s e o f j u d i c i a l a p p l i c a t i o n of the law t o undisputed a determination discretion, b u t f o r an f a c t s , we now p r o c e e d t o of that issue. "'A " m o t i o n f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n " i s j u s t what t h e name i m p l i e s : a r e q u e s t f o r an e x p l a n a t i o n f r o m t h e t r i a l c o u r t as t o t h e meaning o f a p r i o r , a l l e g e d l y u n c l e a r , o r d e r . A " m o t i o n f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n " does not seek t o persuade t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h a t a p r i o r judgment should be changed, modified, or i n v a l i d a t e d . I f i t does s e e k t o do any o f t h o s e t h i n g s , then i t i s n o t a "motion t o c l a r i f y " a j u d g m e n t , b u t a m o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e a j u d g m e n t , one t h a t , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. Civ. P., must be f i l e d n o t l a t e r t h a n 30 d a y s a f t e r e n t r y o f t h e judgment. I f a t r i a l c o u r t ' s response to a "motion f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n " i s to explain, r a t h e r t h a n t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e a prior order, then t h a t response i s a strong i n d i c a t o r t h a t t h e m o t i o n was, i n f a c t , one s e e k i n g c l a r i f i c a t i o n . 9 2100615 See G o l d K i s t , I n c . v. C r o u c h , 671 So. 2d 695, 696 (Ala. C i v . App. 1995) (noting t h a t "the o r i g i n a l order was not m o d i f i e d by [the request for c l a r i f i c a t i o n ] ; t h e c o u r t s i m p l y c l a r i f i e d what we conclude was an abundantly clear order"). The converse i s also true. I f the t r i a l court's r e s p o n s e t o a m o t i o n f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n does "more than merely clarify the t r i a l court's previous o r d e r , " by m a k i n g , f o r e x a m p l e , " m o d i f i c a t i o n s t h a t [are] more s u b s t a n t i a l i n n a t u r e t h a n t h e c o r r e c t i o n of a mere m e c h a n i c a l m i s t a k e , " t h e n s u c h c o r r e c t i o n s must be made p u r s u a n t t o e i t h e r R u l e 59(e) o r R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. App. P. P a t e v. P a t e , 849 So. 2d 972, 976 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002).'" M o s l e y v. B u i l d e r s S., App. 2010) Civ. App. An judgment I n c . , 41 So. 3d 806, ( q u o t i n g Moss v. M o s l e y , (Ala. Civ. So. 2d 560, 565 ( A l a . 2006)). appellate like court other "construe[s] written construction for judgments." B o y k i n v. Law, (citing 948 809-10 Moore v. Graham, 590 946 applicable So. 2d 838, 521 So. 2d 953, So. trial instruments: c o n t r a c t s are Hanson v. H e a r n , [a] 2d 293, 295 954 court's the rules of for construing 848 ( A l a . 2006) ( A l a . 1988), ( A l a . C i v . App. and 1991)). " ' I f t h e t e r m s o f a judgment a r e n o t a m b i g u o u s , t h e n t h e y must be given t h e i r u s u a l and o r d i n a r y m e a n i n g and e f f e c t must be d e c l a r e d i n t h e l i g h t the language used" i n the C n t y . Bd. o f E d u c . , 882 10 "legal of the l i t e r a l meaning of judgment.'" So. 2d 855, their 858 Thornton v. ( A l a . C i v . App. Elmore 2003) 2100615 (quoting State P e r s . Bd. v. A k e r s , 2000), q u o t i n g i n turn So. 2d 6 8 1 , 686 The father trial W i s e v . Watson , 286 A l a . 22, 27, 236 (1970)). court's "responsible exercising 797 So. 2d 422, 424 ( A l a . J u l y 19, 2010, j u d g m e n t f o r the e n t i r e visitation with costs the t o such c o s t s father month(s) response to with support i n an amount i n c u r r e d f o r t h e same," a n d (c) a l l o w e d " t o take i n which associated t h e c h i l d r e n , " (b) r e l i e v e d t h e f a t h e r o f t h e "requirement t o pay c h i l d equal (a) made t h e a credit against he a c t u a l l y DHR's "motion child incur[red] to clarify" support such i n the costs." the In judgment, s p e c i f i c a l l y , w i t h r e s p e c t t o "what d o l l a r amount t o w a r d c h i l d support i s to visitation costs be given, especially f a r exceed the c h i l d at times when support," the t r i a l c o u r t ' s J a n u a r y 31, 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r f i r s t a d d r e s s e d t h o s e of the July subparts order 19, 2010, j u d g m e n t (a) a n d ( b ) . that we have portions labeled That p o r t i o n o f t h e January 31, states: "The court's [July 19, 2010, judgment] contemplates that [the father] s h a l l receive a dollar-for-dollar credit f o r the e n t i r e cost associated with exercising visitation with the c h i l d r e n when he t r a v e l s t o t h e l o c a t i o n where t h e y are a t i n Montana (or e l s e w h e r e i f t h e c h i l d r e n a r e 11 the as 2011, 2100615 r e s i d i n g w i t h t h e m o t h e r a t a l o c a t i o n t h a t i s 200 m i l e s o r more f r o m t h e [ f a t h e r ' s ] r e s i d e n c e ) . This credit i s t o be given e v e n when t h e cost of visitation e x c e e d s t h e m o n t h l y amount o f child support." The foregoing portion c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the (a) and may (b) o f t h e the c l e a r and J u l y 19, January 31, 2011, order unambiguous meaning of 2010, judgment: subparts t h a t the father the c o s t s i n c u r r e d i n e x e r c i s i n g v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the c h i l d r e n . It that portion labeled as the J u l y 19, subpart clarification, trial of h i s monthly c h i l d - s u p p o r t is obligation is o f f s e t against of and court's (c) 2010, for which about which the order j u d g m e n t t h a t we DHR have requested mother c o m p l a i n s t h a t purporting to clarify the a the judgment actually modified i t . Subpart (c) of the unambiguously permitted J u l y 19, the 2010, judgment c l e a r l y f a t h e r to "take a c r e d i t and against c h i l d s u p p o r t i n t h e m o n t h ( s ) i n w h i c h he a c t u a l l y i n c u r s s u c h costs." to In c o n t r a s t , clarify visitation the the J a n u a r y 31, judgment i s i n excess provides of one 2011, that, month's order " i f the child purporting cost support, f a t h e r ] s h a l l be a l l o w e d t o t a k e a c r e d i t a g a i n s t f u t u r e 12 of [the child 2100615 support payments until credited against We conclude impermissibly the July judgment permits month that 2010, future costs 19, the rather the father January than 31, is fully clarified the 2011, order subpart (c) o f July to c r e d i t against o r months i n which monthly he 19, 2010, h i s monthly against child-support the i n futurity incurs such costs, permits the father to c r e d i t father's against subpart (c) o f t h e J u l y 31, 2011, o r d e r allows child-support to The f a t h e r was o r d e r e d t o p a y child s u p p o r t i n t h e amount o f $573 p e r month, f o r an a n n u a l total o f $6,876. travels could obligation that altogether. conceivably the eliminate obligation and the obligation a l l visitation Unlike 2010, j u d g m e n t , t h e J a n u a r y operate visitation o b l i g a t i o n a l l v i s i t a t i o n costs i n c u r r e d i n the i n c u r r e d a t any t i m e . credit of j u d g m e n t . Whereas J a n u a r y 31, 2011, o r d e r his cost support." modified 19, child-support same child the I f t h e f a t h e r i n c u r s c o s t s o f $1,800 e a c h t i m e he t o and from Montana t o v i s i t the three c h i l d r e n , or a r r a n g e s f o r them t o v i s i t h i m i n A l a b a m a , a n d i f he e x e r c i s e s his visitation schedule provides rights 4 times a year (as t h e visitation i n odd-numbered y e a r s ) , t h e n he w i l l 13 owe 2100615 child support f o r that year. judgment a l l o w i n g he f a t h e r support i n t h e month(s) [visitation] Clearly, the July " t o take a c r e d i t i n which 19, 2010, against c h i l d he a c t u a l l y incurs c o s t s " d i d n o t p r o v i d e f o r such a r e s u l t . We c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a s shown a c l e a r l e g a l t o a r u l i n g on h e r m o t i o n order. the involve Because the exercise implicates final t o s e t a s i d e t h e January 31, T h e r e f o r e , we g r a n t t h e m o t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n writ. the r u l i n g t h e mother of j u d i c i a l order mother's motion we seeks discretion the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the t r i a l judgment, mediation such direct the t r i a l of February 25, right 2011, and i s s u e does n o t but, instead, court t o modify court t o vacate i t s 2011, and t o g r a n t t h e t o s e t a s i d e i t s J a n u a r y 31, 2011, o r d e r . PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d B r y a n a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t 14 a writing.

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

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