Curtis Gore v. Patricia (Gore) White

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 5/4/12 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 2100636 C u r t i s Gore v. Patricia (Gore) White Patricia (Gore) White v. C u r t i s Gore Appeals from Montgomery C i r c u i t Court (DR-03-1215.02) BRYAN, J u d g e . 2100636 Curtis Gore ("the former husband") j u d g m e n t o f t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t that ordered him to pay appeals ("the trial from a court") postminority-educational-support a r r e a r s and t h a t m o d i f i e d h i s p o s t m i n o r i t y - e d u c a t i o n a l - s u p p o r t obligation. P a t r i c i a White ("the former wife") cross-appeals f r o m t h e same j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as t h e t r i a l c o u r t m o d i f i e d former husband's p o s t m i n o r i t y - e d u c a t i o n a l - s u p p o r t and failed t o award her the obligation a g r e a t e r amount o f a t t o r n e y fees. Procedural History The p a r t i e s were d i v o r c e d by the t r i a l court i n January 2004, and t h e i r 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 an a g r e e m e n t o f the p a r t i e s . awarded ("the The Pursuant primary child"), to t h a t agreement, the former w i f e p h y s i c a l custody the o n l y remaining pertinent parts of the of parties' daughter minor c h i l d of the parties. parties' the agreement provided follows: " 4 . ( E ) The p a r t i e s a g r e e t o be r e s p o n s i b l e on a pro rata basis, meaning the percentage each c o n t r i b u t e d t o a c a l c u l a t i o n of j o i n t income, f o r t h e c o l l e g e e d u c a t i o n e x p e n s e s o f t h e ... child, i n c l u d i n g t u i t i o n , room and b o a r d , b o o k s and f e e s . " "10. C o n t e m p t : S h o u l d e i t h e r p a r t y f a i l t o a b i d e 2 was as 2100636 by t h e t e r m s o f t h i s a g r e e m e n t o r t a k e some a c t i o n w h i c h a m o u n t [ s ] t o contempt o f t h e c o u r t , and i t becomes n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e o t h e r p a r t y t o s e e k t h e r e l i e f of the court to enforce h i s or her r i g h t s under t h i s agreement, then t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g r e l i e f s h a l l be e n t i t l e d t o r e i m b u r s e m e n t o f h i s o r h e r a t t o r n e y s fees and o t h e r c o s t s . " On May 2, 2007, t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d f i l e d modify h i s child-support d e c r e a s e i n h i s income. obligation based The f o r m e r w i f e filed a petition to on an alleged an a n s w e r a n d a c o u n t e r c l a i m r e q u e s t i n g m o d i f i c a t i o n o f c e r t a i n terms o f t h e divorce judgment. The f o r m e r w i f e also requested that the former husband pay a p r o r a t a share o f expenses i n c u r r e d by t h e c h i l d f o r summer c o l l e g e c o u r s e s t h a t s h e h a d t a k e n she graduated from h i g h school. second agreement t h a t p r o v i d e d , The p a r t i e s e n t e r e d before into a i n pertinent part: "4. The f o r m e r w i f e a g r e e s t h a t i f [ t h e c h i l d ] w a n t s t o a t t e n d any o t h e r p r e - h i g h s c h o o l g r a d u a t i o n c o l l e g e c o u r s e s , t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d w i l l be c o n s u l t e d a n d w i l l have t h e r i g h t t o a p p r o v e them b e f o r e he i s f i n a n c i a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p a y i n g a pro r a t a share o f t h e c o s t s ; and "5. When [ t h e c h i l d ] g r a d u a t e s f r o m h i g h s c h o o l , the former w i f e and [the] c h i l d w i l l c o n s u l t w i t h the former husband c o n c e r n i n g t h e c h i l d ' s c o l l e g e p l a n s , a n d w i l l do s o i n s u f f i c i e n t t i m e s o t h a t he may s e e k a l e g a l remedy i f he s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e s w i t h [the c h i l d ] ' s d e c i s i o n . not "6. A l l o t h e r t e r m s o f t h e [ d i v o r c e m o d i f i e d h e r e i n s h a l l remain i n f u l l 3 judgment] f o r c e and 2100636 effect." (Emphasis added.) The p a r t i e s ' modifying a g r e e m e n t was the p a r t i e s ' i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o a judgment divorce judgment ("the m o d i f i c a t i o n j u d g m e n t " ) on November 20, 2007. The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e c h i l d began a t t e n d i n g U n i v e r s i t y o f Texas i n f a l l former w i f e filed 2009. the On September 18, 2009, t h e a show-cause p e t i t i o n seeking to h o l d the former husband i n contempt f o r h i s f a i l u r e t o pay h i s p r o r a t a share of the c h i l d ' s c o l l e g e e x p e n s e s , among o t h e r violations of the divorce judgment. The former wife judgment and the modification s o u g h t an a w a r d o f a t t o r n e y b a s e d on p a r a g r a p h 10 o f t h e d i v o r c e judgment. the former w i f e ' s fees 1 On J a n u a r y 19, 2010, t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d f i l e d to alleged an a n s w e r contempt p e t i t i o n and a c o u n t e r c l a i m to m o d i f y t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t and t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n j u d g m e n t . He a l l e g e d t h a t t h e r e h a d b e e n a m a t e r i a l change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s since the e n t r y of the l a s t judgment because t h e c h i l d had T h e f o r m e r w i f e s u b s e q u e n t l y f i l e d two amended p e t i t i o n s s e e k i n g t o h o l d the former husband i n contempt f o r v a r i o u s v i o l a t i o n s o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s p r e v i o u s j u d g m e n t s . However, t h o s e i s s u e s were r e s o l v e d and a r e n o t p e r t i n e n t t o t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d on a p p e a l . 1 4 2100636 c h o s e n t o a t t e n d an o u t - o f - s t a t e c o l l e g e . He a l l e g e d t h a t t h e c o s t o f a t t e n d i n g t h e o u t - o f - s t a t e c o l l e g e was " e x p o n e n t i a l l y higher not t h a n any i n - s t a t e p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n a n d was contemplated by t h e former p r e v i o u s agreements." he d i d n o t have husband when he otherwise signed the The f o r m e r 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 the funds necessary to contribute to the c h i l d ' s o u t - o f - s t a t e c o l l e g e e x p e n s e s , a n d he a s k e d t h e t r i a l court to modify the terms " r e f l e c t a more a p p r o p r i a t e The 2010, trial the previous postminority judgments an o r d e r [ p a r a g r a p h ] number f i v e to s u p p o r t payment." c o u r t c o n d u c t e d an o r e t e n u s h e a r i n g a n d A u g u s t 27, 2010. court entered of on May 3, On S e p t e m b e r 7, 2010, t h e t r i a l that stated, i n pertinent part, "that ... i n t h e [ m o d i f i c a t i o n j u d g m e n t ] i s vague a n d o v e r l y b r o a d , a n d f u r t h e r , t h a t i t c o n t a i n s a l a t e n t ambiguity a n d i s t h e r e f o r e due t o be modified." On November 23, 2010, t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o n d u c t e d a h e a r i n g on t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s p e t i t i o n t o m o d i f y b a s e d on a m a t e r i a l change i n circumstances regarding his ability t o pay the c h i l d ' s o u t - o f - s t a t e c o l l e g e e x p e n s e s . On December 2 1 , 2010, the trial specific court entered a j u d g m e n t t h a t made t h e f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and l e g a l 5 conclusions: 2100636 "The f o r m e r w i f e c o n t e n d s t h a t [ , ] a t t h e t i m e o f the d i v o r c e , the former husband a g r e e d t o pay h i s pro r a t a share o f the c o l l e g e e d u c a t i o n expenses o f t h e ... c h i l d i n c l u d i n g t u i t i o n , room and b o a r d , b o o k s and f e e s . The f o r m e r w i f e a l s o c o n t e n d s t h a t i n the s e t t l e m e n t agreement o f the m o d i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n , t h e p a r t i e s a g r e e d t h a t t h e ... child would c o n s u l t w i t h the former husband concerning [the c h i l d ] ' s c o l l e g e p l a n s i n s u f f i c i e n t t i m e t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d may s e e k l e g a l remedy i f he strongly disagreed with [the c h i l d ] ' s d e c i s i o n . [The] f o r m e r w i f e c o n t e n d s t h a t t h r o u g h o u t [the c h i l d ] ' s s e n i o r y e a r i n h i g h s c h o o l , she and [ t h e c h i l d ] c o n s u l t e d w i t h [the] former husband r e g a r d i n g c o l l e g e a p p l i c a t i o n s and t h e s e l e c t i o n process. Further, [the c h i l d ] n o t i f i e d her f a t h e r [ , the f o r m e r husband,] w e l l i n a d v a n c e o f h e r h i g h s c h o o l graduation of her s e l e c t i o n of a c o l l e g e choice of t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f T e x a s . The f o r m e r w i f e r e q u e s t e d i n w r i t i n g t h a t the former husband seek h i s l e g a l remedy p u r s u a n t t o t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n [judgment] i f he d i s a g r e e d w i t h [the c h i l d ] ' s c o l l e g e c h o i c e . R a t h e r t h a n s e e k h i s l e g a l remedy, t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d s i m p l y r e f u s e d t o pay h i s p r o r a t a [share] (87%) o f [the child]'s c o l l e g e expenses and l i m i t e d h i s c o n t r i b u t i o n to t h a t of h i s pro r a t a share (87%) of in-state college t u i t i o n costs " E v i d e n c e was c l e a r t h a t the former w i f e ' s P e t i t i o n t o Show C a u s e f i l e d S e p t e m b e r 18, 2009, was the r e s u l t of the former husband's r e f u s a l t o seek legal remedy as contemplated i n the parties' m o d i f i c a t i o n a g r e e m e n t . E v i d e n c e was f u r t h e r c l e a r t h a t t h e f o r m e r w i f e a t t e m p t e d s e r v i c e on t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d by c e r t i f i e d m a i l , w h i c h t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d n e v e r p i c k e d up. F u r t h e r , t h e f o r m e r w i f e ' s a t t e m p t s t o s e r v e t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d by p r o c e s s s e r v e r were not s u c c e s s f u l . The former h u s b a n d was served f o l l o w i n g t h e December 7, 2009, o r d e r granting f o r m e r w i f e ' s M o t i o n f o r S e r v i c e o f P r o c e s s by Ordinary Mail, and former husband filed his r e s p o n s i v e p l e a d i n g more t h a n f o u r months a f t e r t h e 6 2100636 f o r m e r w i f e f i l e d h e r P e t i t i o n t o Show C a u s e . Such a delay r e s u l t e d i n delay of t h i s matter being heard and a d d i t i o n a l a t t o r n e y ' s fees i n c u r r e d by t h e former w i f e . Evidence i s c l e a r t h a t the p a r t i e s ' settlement agreement i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t h e [ d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t ] i n c l u d e d no r e s t r i c t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e c h o i c e o f c o l l e g e made b y t h e ... c h i l d r e s t r i c t e d t o t h a t o f an i n - s t a t e p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n . Further, t h e e v i d e n c e was c l e a r t h a t t h e r e c o g n i z e d p r o r a t a share o f t h e former husband's c o n t r i b u t i o n t o the minor c h i l d ' s c o l l e g e expenses s i n c e the p a r t i e s ' 2 0 0 [ 4 ] d i v o r c e was 8 7 % a n d t h e f o r m e r w i f e 1 3 % . C l e a r l y , t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s income h a s i n c r e a s e d s i n c e the time o f d i v o r c e as w e l l as t h e 2007 modification. " E v i d e n c e was a l s o c l e a r t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d purchased a residence i n 2006, p r i o r t o t h e 2007 m o d i f i c a t i o n , s a i d residence purchase p r i c e being $ 5 6 3 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 . E v i d e n c e was f u r t h e r c l e a r t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d p u r c h a s e d a v e h i c l e i n 2006, s a i d purchase p r i c e o f the v e h i c l e being i n excess of $30,000.00. "... E v i d e n c e shows t h a t i n t h e f a l l 2009 s e m e s t e r , t h e ... c h i l d ' s a c t u a l c o l l e g e e x p e n s e s were $ 2 0 , 2 4 6 . 4 5 . The f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s p r o r a t a s h a r e o b l i g a t i o n o f t h o s e c o l l e g e e x p e n s e s s h o u l d have been $ 1 7 , 6 1 4 . 4 1 . However, t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d o n l y c o n t r i b u t e d $8,318.95 f o r t h e f a l l o f 2009. The d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e amount t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d p a i d t o w a r d t h e 2009 f a l l s e m e s t e r a n d t h e p r o r a t a 8 7 % s h a r e was $ 9 , 2 9 5 . 4 6 . " F o r t h e s p r i n g 2010 s e m e s t e r , t h e m i n o r c h i l d ' s actual expenses were $21,913.02. The former h u s b a n d ' s 8 7 % p r o r a t a s h a r e o f t h a t amount s h o u l d have b e e n $ 1 9 , 0 6 4 . 3 3 . The f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s a c t u a l c o n t r i b u t i o n was $ 8 , 6 1 8 . 9 4 , l e a v i n g a d i f f e r e n c e o f $10,445.39. "For t h e 2010 f a l l semester, 7 evidence showed 2100636 that the minor child's actual expenses were $20,935.60, t o w h i c h t h e f o r m e r Husband's 8 7 % p r o r a t a s h a r e w o u l d have b e e n $18,213.97. E v i d e n c e shows t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d a c t u a l l y c o n t r i b u t e d $8,818.94, l e a v i n g a d i f f e r e n c e o f $9,395.03. "The f o r m e r w i f e showed e v i d e n c e t h a t she h a s i n c u r r e d a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s as o f t h e November 23, 2010 t r i a l d a t e i n t h e amount o f $18,901.41. [The f ] o r m e r wife's a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s began d u r i n g t h e minor c h i l d ' s s e n i o r year i n high s c h o o l i n attempts t o e n c o u r a g e t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d t o s e e k l e g a l remedy i f he d i s a g r e e d w i t h [ t h e c h i l d ] ' s c o l l e g e c h o i c e a n d continued through the date o f t r i a l , including e f f o r t s t o have t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d s e r v e d w i t h t h e P e t i t i o n t o Show C a u s e . " I n i t s S e p t e m b e r 7, 2 0 1 0 , o r d e r , t h i s C o u r t found a l a t e n t ambiguity e x i s t e d i n the m o d i f i c a t i o n agreement, and t h e r e f o r e , will modify former h u s b a n d ' s p r o r a t a s h a r e o f t h e ... c h i l d ' s c o l l e g e t u i t i o n a n d e x p e n s e s . ... "The r e m a i n i n g i s s u e s [ f o r ] t h e C o u r t t o d e c i d e were t h e i s s u e o f c o n t e m p t , t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s o b l i g a t i o n toward [the c h i l d ] ' s c o l l e g e expenses, the i s s u e s o f a t t o r n e y ' s fees and t h e e f f e c t i v e date of t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n o f c o l l e g e expenses. " B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , i t i s ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED as f o l l o w s : "1. That t h e former husband's p r o r a t a share o f c o l l e g e expenses i s hereby m o d i f i e d t o t h a t o f 65% of t h e t u i t i o n a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Texas. Should the [ c h i l d ] r e t u r n t o t h e s t a t e o f Alabama f o r t h e balance of her college e d u c a t i o n , the former husband's p r o r a t a share s h a l l r e v e r t t o t h a t o f 87% e f f e c t i v e t h e semester [the c h i l d ] a t t e n d s a p u b l i c c o l l e g e i n t h e s t a t e o f Alabama. "2. That the modified pro rata 8 share of [the] 2100636 former husband's o b l i g a t i o n t o [the c h i l d ] ' s c o l l e g e expenses a t the U n i v e r s i t y of Texas shall be e f f e c t i v e f oo r t h e s p r i n g 2011 s e m e s t e r , and n o t fr and ive. Therefore, the former husband i s o b l i g a t e d t o the former w i f e i n t h e amount o f $9,295.45 f o r t h e f a l l 2009 s e m e s t e r , $10,445.39 f o r t h e s p r i n g 2010 s e m e s t e r , $9,395.03 f o r t h e f a l l 2010 s e m e s t e r , t o t a l i n g $29,135.87 t o be p a i d t o t h e f o r m e r w i f e w i t h i n n i n e t y ( 9 0 ) days o f t h i s O r d e r . The former husband's o b l i g a t i o n f o r these past e x p e n s e s i s due t o h i s f a i l u r e t o a s s e r t h i s r i g h t t o s e e k l e g a l remedy as p r o v i d e d i n t h e p a r t i e s ' m o d i f i c a t i o n agreement. "3. B e g i n n i n g t h e s p r i n g s e m e s t e r o f 2011, f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s p r o r a t a s h a r e s h a l l be i n amount o f 6 5 % o f c o l l e g e t u i t i o n e x p e n s e s the the "4. T h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d s h a l l be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e l e g a l f e e s o f t h e f o r m e r w i f e i n t h e amount o f $1,000.00." Although the t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t does n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y address the former w i f e ' s requests in contempt, i t i s evident from t o h o l d the former husband our review of the record, including the t r a n s c r i p t s from the ore tenus h e a r i n g s , the c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d was trial contempt. final wife's Accordingly, because requests we i t included to hold F a e l l a c i v. F a e l l a c i , conclude an that implicit the that not i n judgment d e n i a l of the former the former husband i n contempt. 67 So. 3d 923, 925 ( A l a . C i v . App. was See 2011) ( c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e a b s e n c e o f a s p e c i f i c r u l i n g on a p e n d i n g 9 2100636 p e t i t i o n f o r a r u l e n i s i d i d not r e n d e r t h e judgment n o n f i n a l because an "the t r i a l intention petition to c o u r t ' s judgment s u f f i c i e n t l y i n d i c a t e [ d ] conclusively for a rule rule on the wife's pending nisi"). B o t h p a r t i e s f i l e d t i m e l y p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n s , and b o t h postjudgment m o t i o n s were d e n i e d . The timely notice of appeal, and former husband the former w i f e filed filed a a timely cross-appeal. Issues On a p p e a l , the former husband a r g u e s : (1) t h a t t h e trial c o u r t e r r e d by f a i l i n g t o p l a c e l i m i t a t i o n s on h i s p r o s p e c t i v e obligation t o p a y p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l s u p p o r t ; (2) t h a t the court trial erred by r e q u i r i n g him t o pay 87% of the c h i l d ' s p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l expenses from the f a l l 2009 semester (3) t h a t t h e trial court through the f a l l erred by 2010 requiring him semester; to pay 65% of the child's p r o s p e c t i v e p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l expenses b e g i n n i n g i n the spring 2011 requiring attorney s e m e s t e r ; and him to pay (4) t h a t t h e t r i a l the former wife court erred $1,000 toward by her fees. In her c r o s s - a p p e a l , t h e f o r m e r w i f e a r g u e s : (1) t h a t t h e 10 2100636 trial court fees; (2) erred that ambiguity by the existed j u d g m e n t ; and awarding trial in court only $1,000 e r r e d by paragraph (3) t h a t t h e t r i a l former husband's pro educational her five in attorney concluding of the that modification c o u r t e r r e d by m o d i f y i n g r a t a share of the child's an the postminority expenses. Standard of Review "'[W]hen a trial court hears ore tenus testimony, i t s f i n d i n g s on disputed facts are p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t and i t s j u d g m e n t b a s e d on those f i n d i n g s w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d u n l e s s t h e j u d g m e n t i s p a l p a b l y e r r o n e o u s o r m a n i f e s t l y u n j u s t . ' P h i l p o t v. S t a t e , 843 So. 2d 122, 125 ( A l a . 2002). '"The p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s , however, i s r e b u t t a b l e and may be overcome where t h e r e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d to the t r i a l c o u r t to s u s t a i n i t s j u d g m e n t . " ' Waltman v. R o w e l l , 913 So. 2d 1083, 1086 ( A l a . 2005) ( q u o t i n g D e n n i s v. Dobbs, 474 So. 2d 77, 79 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ) . ' A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e o r e t e n u s r u l e does n o t e x t e n d t o c l o a k w i t h a p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s a t r i a l j u d g e ' s c o n c l u s i o n s of law or the i n c o r r e c t a p p l i c a t i o n of law t o the f a c t s . ' I d . " Fadalla v. Fadalla, "Questions of law are P a r t y v. M c G i n l e y , 893 R o u t z o n g v. ("This with court respect Baker, 20 reviews to 929 So. 2d reviewed So. So. de whether de 2d 337, 3d novo an 802, a 429, (Ala. novo." Alabama 2005). Republican 342 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) . See 806 ( A l a . C i v . App. trial agreement 11 433 court's also 2009) determination incorporated into a 2100636 divorce judgment i s ambiguous."). Discussion Because t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d i n t h e former husband's a p p e a l overlap, a t times, with issues r a i s e d by the former w i f e i n h e r c r o s s - a p p e a l , we w i l l a d d r e s s t h e a r g u m e n t s r a i s e d b y e a c h p a r t y b y i s s u e a n d , when n e c e s s a r y , presented by b o t h parties w i l l d i s c u s s t h e arguments within t h e scope o f each issue raised. I. A m b i g u i t y o f P a r a g r a p h F i v e o f t h e M o d i f i c a t i o n Judgment Because presented former i t affects our a n a l y s i s of c e r t a i n b y t h e p a r t i e s on a p p e a l , we w i l l wife's concluding argument that paragraph trial arguments f i r s t consider the that the court five erred of the m o d i f i c a t i o n was a m b i g u o u s . "'"[A] settlement agreement which i s i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o a d i v o r c e decree i s i n t h e n a t u r e o f a c o n t r a c t . " S m i t h v. S m i t h , 568 So. 2d 838, 839 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 0 ) . A d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t s h o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d o r c o n s t r u e d as o t h e r w r i t t e n i n s t r u m e n t s a r e i n t e r p r e t e d o r c o n s t r u e d . S a r t i n v. S a r t i n , 678 So. 2d 1181 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) . "The words o f t h e a g r e e m e n t a r e t o be g i v e n t h e i r o r d i n a r y meaning, and t h e i n t e n t i o n s o f t h e p a r t i e s a r e t o be d e r i v e d from them." I d . , a t 1183. Whether an a g r e e m e n t i s ambiguous i s a q u e s t i o n o f l a w f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Wimpee v. Wimpee, 641 So. 2d 12 by judgment 2100636 287 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 4 ) . An a g r e e m e n t t h a t by i t s t e r m s i s p l a i n and f r e e f r o m a m b i g u i t y must be e n f o r c e d as written. J o n e s v. J o n e s , 722 So. 2d 768 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 8 ) . An a m b i g u i t y e x i s t s i f t h e a g r e e m e n t i s s u s c e p t i b l e t o more t h a n one m e a n i n g . V a i n r i b v. Downey, 565 So. 2d 647 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 0 ) . However, i f o n l y one r e a s o n a b l e meaning c l e a r l y emerges, then the a g r e e m e n t i s u n a m b i g u o u s . I d . F i n a l l y , i f a p r o v i s i o n o f an a g r e e m e n t i s c e r t a i n and c l e a r , i t i s t h e d u t y o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e i t s m e a n i n g , and t h e c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s a f f o r d e d a heavy p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s and w i l l n o t be disturbed unless i t i s c l e a r l y erroneous. Id.'" R o u t z o n g v. B a k e r , 20 So. 3d a t 806 So. 2d 490, In 494 ( A l a . C i v . App. i t s September 7, 2010, o r d e r , and l a t e r the trial c o u r t found agreement incorporated into overly Initially, and we broad, note m a i n t a i n s on and that the modification contained a five 771 the judgment was latent the d i v o r c e provisions limiting final of ambiguity. the former husband argued appeal, that t h e r e were no i n the that paragraph at trial, j u d g m e n t and m o d i f i c a t i o n j u d g m e n t were o v e r l y b r o a d and, because v. G.G., 2000)). judgment, vague, ( q u o t i n g R.G. the t h u s , ambiguous the scope of the former husband's p o s t m i n o r i t y - e d u c a t i o n a l - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n . See generally Lindenmuth v. Lindenmuth, 13 66 So. 3d 267, 272 2100636 (Ala. C i v . App. 2010) ("In cases involving e s t a b l i s h or modify a postminority-support [Ex p a r t e ]Bayliss, [550 So. 2d 986 parent's responsibility support, because hardship on t h e p a y i n g held that apply undertaking to do ( A l a . 1989)], o f Ex context 960 So. 2d 694, mere f a c t a However, this of a binding 697 education impose parte court l i m i t a t i o n s on may Bayliss an undue court ... parent's to provide p o s t m i n o r i t y support into this postminority so parent."). i n the i s incorporated Campbell, the failure "the p r i n c i p l e s generally that a for to award g o v e r n e d by has h e l d t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t must s e t r e a s o n a b l e the requests do has not contractual to minor c h i l d r e n judgment." ( A l a . C i v . App. Thomas 2006). t h a t , p u r s u a n t t o the agreements v. Thus, incorporated i n t o t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t and t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n j u d g m e n t , t h e c h i l d c o u l d have a t t e n d e d earning any c o l l e g e , f o r any l e n g t h o f t i m e , below-average grades, does n o t make t h e agreements ambiguous. The contained 'appear[s] trial a court latent only as found that ambiguity, the result the m o d i f i c a t i o n i . e . , an of judgment ambiguity extrinsic or "that collateral e v i d e n c e s h o w i n g t h a t a w o r d , t h o u g h t t o have b u t one m e a n i n g , 14 2100636 a c t u a l l y has 2d 384, 392 two o r more m e a n i n g s . ' " Meyer v. M e y e r , 952 ( A l a . C i v . App. W i l l i s t o n on C o n t r a c t s of the 2006) ( q u o t i n g 11 R i c h a r d A. § 33:40 a t 816 e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t the ( 4 t h ed. ore 2003)). tenus hearings 2 So. Lord, Most revolved around the meaning of the term " c o n s u l t " i n p a r a g r a p h f i v e the modification "consult" ed. judgment. The of the term i n M e r r i a m - W e b s t e r ' s C o l l e g i a t e D i c t i o n a r y 268 2003) i n c l u d e : " t o have r e g a r d opinion definitions of"; D u r i n g the ore "to refer t o " ; and tenus hearings, the t o " ; " t o ask "to of the a d v i c e (11 or deliberate together." former husband repeatedly e x p r e s s e d t h a t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e t e r m " c o n s u l t " meant t h a t he had was to approve of the c h i l d ' s c o l l e g e p l a n s before he l e g a l l y o b l i g a t e d t o pay h i s p r o r a t a s h a r e o f t h e c h i l d ' s c o l l e g e expenses. A l t h o u g h paragraph f o u r of the judgment r e q u i r e s the former husband's a p p r o v a l pre-high-school-graduation required to c o n t r i b u t e meaning of the term college expenses of the c h i l d ' s before to those expenses, u s i n g "consult," there i s no modification way he was the ordinary to construe F o r p u r p o s e s o f c o m p a r i s o n , we note t h a t a p a t e n t a m b i g u i t y i s an a m b i g u i t y t h a t i s " a p p a r e n t upon t h e f a c e o f the instrument, arising by reason of inconsistency or u n c e r t a i n t y i n t h e l a n g u a g e e m p l o y e d . " Meyer v. M e y e r , 952 So. 2d a t 391. 2 15 2100636 p a r a g r a p h f i v e as r e q u i r i n g t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s a p p r o v a l the child's college plans before he was l i a b l e r a t a share o f the c h i l d ' s c o l l e g e The term expenses. as r e q u i r i n g h e r a n d t h e c h i l d husband process, aware college decision. the f o r h i s pro r e c o r d i n d i c a t e t h a t the former w i f e i n t e r p r e t e d the "consult" former of the child's acceptances, husband and t o keep t h e college-application and, e v e n t u a l l y , Although the record former supports the former her final the conclusion wife had that different i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f t h e word " c o n s u l t , " such a c o n c l u s i o n not of render paragraph five of the modification does judgment l a t e n t l y a m b i g u o u s . See T w i n C i t y F i r e I n s . Co. v . A l f a Mut. I n s . Co., 817 So. 2d 687, 692 ( A l a . 2001) ("The f a c t t h a t t h e p a r t i e s i n t e r p r e t the insurance the rules insurance of contracts,] p o l i c y [ , which i s governed by differently p o l i c y ambiguous."); does a n d Wayne n o t make J. Griffin Elec., Inc. v . Dunn C o n s t r . ("The mere f a c t t h a t t h e p a r t i e s a r g u e d i f f e r e n t c o n s t r u c t i o n s of t h e document disputed language conclude that Co., 622 So. 2d 314, 317 the does not force i s ambiguous."). paragraph five ( A l a . 1993) the conclusion Accordingly, of the modification 16 that we the cannot judgment 2100636 contains a latent II. ambiguity. Payment o f P o s t m i n o r i t y - C h i l d - S u p p o r t A r r e a r s The former husband argues t h a t the t r i a l r e q u i r i n g him t o pay the the child at semester through i.e., 87% an order University financial hardship. 1990) court estate, Texas whether t o an should the fall parent adult child and constitutes a 574 So. 2d 839 t o Ex p a r t e B a y l i s s , should provide the parent income to when financial has a trial sufficient provide financial a s s i s t a n c e w i t h o u t undue h a r d s h i p ) , and E a s t i s v. Bredehoft, 599 So. 2d 53 or former (Ala. Civ. f o r c o l l e g e expenses, whether capacity, judgment, of h i s argument, the v. W i l b u r n , the 2009 b e c a u s e , he a s s e r t s , oppressive In support consider earning from semester, (holding t h a t , pursuant determining assistance 2010 financially husband c i t e s Thrasher App. of the time of the e n t r y of the f i n a l is by o f t h e c o l l e g e e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d by t h e end o f t h e f a l l such court erred ( A l a . C i v . App. p o s t m i n o r i t y support pursuant 1992) ( r e v e r s i n g an award of t o Ex p a r t e B a y l i s s b e c a u s e t h e judgment f a i l e d t o s e t r e a s o n a b l e postminority-support obligation). l i m i t a t i o n s on t h e f a t h e r ' s Both Thrasher and Eastis are d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from the p r e s e n t case because they i n v o l v e 17 2100636 an i n i t i a l a w a r d o f p o s t m i n o r i t y - e d u c a t i o n a l t o Ex p a r t e B a y l i s s . As we have a l r e a d y e x p l a i n e d , t h e f o r m e r husband f a i l e d t o n e g o t i a t e postminority support support pursuant l i m i t a t i o n s on h i s o b l i g a t i o n o f i n e i t h e r the divorce m o d i f i c a t i o n judgment judgment or the b o t h w h i c h i n c o r p o r a t e d an a g r e e m e n t of the p a r t i e s . In violation former husband conclusion of Rule fails to that the t r i a l 28(a)(10), cite any A l a . R. authority App. to P., support and t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n judgment modification his obligation postminority-educational-support r e t r o a c t i v e t o t h e d a t e he o b l i g a t i o n . See g e n e r a l l y 595 493 2d judgment and b y d e c l i n i n g t o make t h e modify that So. a c o u r t e r r e d by e n f o r c i n g t h e p l a i n terms o f the agreements i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the d i v o r c e of the ( A l a . C i v . App. filed his petition S i m p k i n s v. 1991) (when an to Simpkins, agreement i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e judgment d i d n o t p l a c e any limitations of the father's obligation to pay the d a u g h t e r ' s c o l l e g e e x p e n s e s and o t h e r w i s e d i d not r e q u i r e the father's of college approval of the c h i l d ' s choice and t h e f a t h e r , b a s e d on h i s d a u g h t e r ' s c h o i c e o f an e x p e n s i v e out-of- state college college, failed to pay 18 the full amount of 2100636 expenses trial that he h a d a g r e e d court's judgment t o pay, t h i s that ordered postminority-educational-support F r a s e m e r , 578 So. 2d 1346, court the affirmed father arrears); t o pay Frasemer properly find v. 1349 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1991) ("Where t h e o b l i g a t e d p a r e n t h a s f a i l e d t o make c h i l d s u p p o r t because o f f i n a n c i a l a inability the parent t o do s o , t h e t r i a l n o t i n contempt, payments c o u r t may ... b u t t h e t r i a l c o u r t may n o t ' f o r g i v e ' o r s e t a s i d e t h e a c c r u e d arrearage."); but 20, 2012] So. s e e W a r r e n v. W a r r e n , 3d , (Ala. [Ms. 2100785, A p r i l C i v . App. 2012) (noting that m o d i f i c a t i o n made t o an a w a r d o f p o s t m i n o r i t y s u p p o r t made r e t r o a c t i v e t o t h e d a t e t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n filed). further. Civ. Accordingly, will See Asam v . D e v e r e a u x , App. 1996) propositions appellate we (holding are not court "will not address supporting (emphasis added)). i n s o f a r as i t o r d e r e d postminority-support arrears. 19 argument "[i]napplicable only and f o r which s u p p o r t i n g judgment t o m o d i f y was this authority" presented Therefore, may be 686 So. 2d 1222, 1224 ( A l a . that address any those and issues general that properly a u t h o r i t y has been we a f f i r m the t r i a l the former husband an cited" court's t o pay 2100636 III. M o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e Former Husband's Educational-Support The former w i f e modifying the contends terms educational-support of the Postminority- Obligation t h a t the former trial court husband's erred postminority- o b l i g a t i o n b a s e d on a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t m o d i f i c a t i o n judgment c o n t a i n e d a l a t e n t a m b i g u i t y . We It the i s evident court's the from our review judgment t h a t the former obligation was of trial husband's the record court's by and basis for the agree. trial modifying postminority-educational-support i t s conclusion that paragraph five of the p a r t i e s ' agreement i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the m o d i f i c a t i o n judgment contained a l a t e n t ambiguity. Although we have c o n c l u d e d paragraph f i v e d i d not c o n t a i n a l a t e n t ambiguity, had determined ambiguity, that paragraph five e v e n i f we contained the e x i s t e n c e of a l a t e n t ambiguity that a latent i s not a v a l i d basis for modifying t h e t e r m s o f an a g r e e m e n t . The p r e s e n c e o f a l a t e n t ambiguity i n an a g r e e m e n t a l l o w s a t r i a l court to l o o k beyond the four corners o f t h e a g r e e m e n t i n an to i n t e r p r e t t h e a g r e e m e n t . See Judge v. J u d g e , 14 So. 165-66 Bank ( A l a . C i v . App. of Mobile, 412 2009) So. (citing 2d 20 250, Martin 253 v. First (Ala. only effort 3d 162, Nat'l 1982)). 2100636 Accordingly, we conclude that m a t t e r o f l a w by m o d i f y i n g educational-support the trial o b l i g a t i o n b a s e d on not former w i f e have the educational-support had been a there finding. A was a latent former change in trial husband's of evidence a material to change court could there because, support in for modifying educational-support affirm a presented trial the former court's judgment Although on any a circumstances husband's obligation. she such s i n c e the e n t r y of the m o d i f i c a t i o n judgment i s a v a l i d basis that postminority- circumstances insufficient finding a ambiguity. o b l i g a t i o n b a s e d on a f i n d i n g t h a t material argues, as i t s conclusion a l s o argues t h a t the modified erred the former husband's p o s t m i n o r i t y - the m o d i f i c a t i o n judgment c o n t a i n e d The court legal postminoritythis valid court legal may ground by t h e r e c o r d , e v e n i f i t has n o t b e e n c o n s i d e r e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t , see L i b e r t y N a t ' l L i f e I n s . Co. v. U n i v e r s i t y of Alabama H e a l t h Servs. (Ala. 2003), we cannot demonstrated, as a material change modification in Found., P.C., conclude matter of law, circumstances judgment. 21 881 that that since So. the 2d 1013, former there the had entry 1020 husband been of a the 2100636 F u r t h e r m o r e , we c a n n o t d e t e r m i n e , f r o m o u r r e v i e w record, whether the trial court husband's argument t h a t t h e r e circumstances considered the of the former h a d b e e n a m a t e r i a l change i n and r e j e c t e d t h a t argument because there was i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence or i f the t r i a l court f a i l e d to consider t h a t argument a f t e r i t determined t h a t the former postminority-educational-support modified based ambiguity. on the purported A determination change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s made o n l y b y a t r i a l Res., 986 So. ("[A]ppellate 2d courts evidence i n order o b l i g a t i o n was existence of the existence of husband's due t o be a latent of a material r e q u i r e s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t t h a t c a n be c o u r t . See J.C. v. S t a t e Dep't o f Human 1172, 1184 i n this ( A l a . C i v . App. s t a t e g e n e r a l l y do n o t r e v i e w t o make f a c t u a l c o n c l u s i o n s ; instead, review judgments i n o r d e r t o determine whether t h e t r i a l committed r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . not a c t as f a c t - f i n d e r s , proof but, instead, apply 2007) they court B e c a u s e o u r a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s do they do n o t u t i l i z e standards standards of appellate of review."). A c c o r d i n g l y , we r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t , i n s o f a r as it modified obligation the former husband's postminority-support on t h e g r o u n d t h a t a l a t e n t a m b i g u i t y 22 existed i n 2100636 the modification instructions to judgment, the and trial we remand court to the enter cause a with judgment s p e c i f i c a l l y r u l i n g on t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s r e q u e s t t o m o d i f y his postminority-educational-support material change modification in circumstances obligation since the based entry of on a the judgment. IV. L i m i t a t i o n s on t h e F o r m e r Husband's Prospective Postminority-Support Obligation The f o r m e r h u s b a n d a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d by failing to set reasonable postminority-support his obligation. this limitations on h i s p r o s p e c t i v e o b l i g a t i o n once t h e t r i a l c o u r t In l i g h t of our c o n c l u s i o n i n Part o p i n i o n , we p r e t e r m i t d i s c u s s i o n o f t h i s V. A t t o r n e y modified I I I of issue. Fees The h u s b a n d a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d b y o r d e r i n g h i m t o c o n t r i b u t e $1,000 t o w a r d t h e f o r m e r w i f e ' s fees because the t r i a l violating c o u r t d i d not h o l d him i n contempt f o r the d i v o r c e judgment or the m o d i f i c a t i o n judgment. See Sosebee v. S o s e b e e , 896 So. 2d 557, 564 2004) ("We attorney's ( A l a . C i v . App. a g r e e t h a t § 3 0 - 2 - 5 4 [ , A l a . Code 1975,] t h e a w a r d o f an a t t o r n e y fee to the p e t i t i o n e r 23 precludes i n a contempt 2100636 action when the t r i a l court fails t o make contempt a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d i n g p a r t y . " ) . the parties i n their briefs on a p p e a l a finding I t i s u n d i s p u t e d by that the t r i a l court d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d was n o t i n c o n t e m p t . former husband o t h e r grounds f u r t h e r argues trial she was the t r i a l court The h a d no f o r a w a r d i n g t h e f o r m e r w i f e an a t t o r n e y f e e . However, t h e f o r m e r w i f e the that of argues that, despite the fact c o u r t d i d n o t f i n d t h e former husband i n contempt, entitled fees because 10 o f t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t , q u o t e d above, paragraph to an award of attorney required t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o a w a r d h e r a t t o r n e y f e e s . See S t a t e Dep't o f Human R e s . v. E s t a t e o f H a r r i s , 857 So. 2d 818, 820 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) ( i n A l a b a m a , an a t t o r n e y f e e may be r e c o v e r e d i f a fee i s a l l o w e d by s t a t u t e , by t h e terms a special equity). appropriately To awarded determine whether t o the former wife a t t o r n e y f e e s , and t o d e t e r m i n e whether by failing attorney divorce specific t o award the former wife f e e s , we must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r judgment a l l o w s o f a c o n t r a c t , or by the t r i a l a portion the t r i a l a of her court greater paragraph an a w a r d o f a t t o r n e y court erred award 10 o f t h e fees without a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d was i n c o n t e m p t . 24 of 2100636 Paragraph 10 p r o v i d e s that the former wife "shall be e n t i t l e d t o r e i m b u r s e m e n t o f ... h e r a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s a n d o t h e r c o s t s " i f t h e former husband o f [the] agreement [if] he [took] "fail[ed] t o a b i d e by t h e terms [ i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e d i v o r c e judgment] o r some a c t i o n which amount[ed] t o contempt o f c o u r t , a n d i t [became] n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e [ f o r m e r w i f e ] t o s e e k the r e l i e f agreement court of the court to enforce " (Emphasis added.) determined that ... h e r r i g h t s u n d e r this I t i s c l e a r that the t r i a l t h e former husband had " f a i l [ e d ] to a b i d e by t h e terms o f [the] agreement" incorporated i n t o the parties' terms divorce judgment. The p l a i n of the divorce judgment r e q u i r e d t h e former husband t o c o n t r i b u t e a p r o r a t a share of the c h i l d ' s c o l l e g e expenses, w i t h o u t l i m i t a t i o n . i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d d i d n o t do s o . It Because p a r a g r a p h 10 u s e s t h e c o n j u n c t i o n " o r , " t h e a g r e e m e n t does n o t r e q u i r e t h e former husband t o , i n a d d i t i o n t o f a i l i n g t o a b i d e by t h e terms o f t h e agreement, to a contempt." d i v o r c e judgment " t a k e some a c t i o n w h i c h amounts Furthermore, because paragraph 10 o f t h e t h e n u s e s t h e c o n j u n c t i o n "and," t h e f o r m e r w i f e w o u l d be e n t i t l e d t o r e i m b u r s e m e n t o f h e r a t t o r n e y fees and c o s t s o n l y i f " i t became n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e [ f o r m e r w i f e ] 25 2100636 to seek the under the the relief the court The record agreement." former relief of wife was required i n the t r i a l to to enforce ... her c l e a r l y demonstrates hire an attorney and incorporated conclude require that that ... her In trial divorce trial court f e e s and cross-appeal, c o u r t e r r e d by indicating We that $18,213.97. a of Accordingly, paragraph find the agreement 10 former does husband we not in other the costs." former wife argues that the f a i l i n g t o a w a r d h e r a g r e a t e r amount o f agree. she The had Although only judgment. language attorney's her seek the former w i f e i s " e n t i t l e d to reimbursement attorney fees. that the plain the contempt b e f o r e of into the that c o u r t as a r e s u l t o f t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s f a i l u r e t o a b i d e by t h e p l a i n t e r m s o f t h e p a r t i e s ' as rights portion incurred the of former w i f e presented trial the attorney court attorney could fees evidence fees totaling have concluded i n c u r r e d by the f o r m e r w i f e were b a s e d on t h e f o r m e r w i f e ' s a t t e m p t t o enforce the divorce terms judgment, of the agreement we cannot incorporated conclude that into i t was the reasonable determine t h a t the former w i f e ' s a t t o r n e y fees r e l a t e d enforcement action amount to 26 only $1,000 when more to to her than 2100636 $18,000 i n attorney reverse the t r i a l wife fees were award language of paragraph the p a r t i e s ' to the t r i a l of attorney fees remand court to determine a b a s e d on the plain 10 o f t h e a g r e e m e n t i n c o r p o r a t e d d i v o r c e judgment. we as i t a w a r d e d t h e f e e i n t h e amount o f $1,000, a n d we the cause w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s reasonable Accordingly, c o u r t ' s judgment i n s o f a r an a t t o r n e y more incurred. into 3 Conclusion The trial prospectively court's modified educational-support ambiguity attorney with and judgment the i s reversed former husband's as i t postminority- o b l i g a t i o n b a s e d on a f i n d i n g o f a l a t e n t insofar as i t awarded the f e e i n t h e amount o f $1,000. The instructions insofar to the trial consistent with this opinion. court The t r i a l former wife an c a u s e i s remanded to enter a judgment c o u r t ' s judgment, i n A l t h o u g h t h e p a r t i e s ' a g r e e m e n t does n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y l i m i t t h e a w a r d o f a t t o r n e y f e e s r e c o v e r a b l e by t h e f o r m e r w i f e t o a " r e a s o n a b l e " amount, "Alabama l a w r e a d s i n t o e v e r y agreement a l l o w i n g f o r the r e c o v e r y o f a t t o r n e y ' s fees a r e a s o n a b l e n e s s l i m i t a t i o n . " W i l l o w Lake R e s i d e n t i a l Ass'n, I n c . v. J u l i a n o , 80 So. 3d 226, 241 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) ( q u o t i n g A l a b a m a E d u c . A s s ' n v. B l a c k , 752 So. 2d 514, 519 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1999)) ("'In A l a b a m a , where t h e r e i s an a g r e e m e n t t o p a y an a t t o r n e y f e e and t h e a g r e e m e n t does n o t speak s p e c i f i c a l l y t o the r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f the f e e , a " r e a s o n a b l e " f e e w i l l be i n f e r r e d . ' " ) . 3 27 2100636 all other respects, i s affirmed. 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 f e e on a p p e a l i s g r a n t e d i n t h e amount o f $1,500. AFFIRMED I N PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n a n d M o o r e , J J . , c o n c u r . Thomas, J . , c o n c u r s i n the r e s u l t , 28 without writing. WITH

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.