William Clyde Adams, Sr. v. Phoebe Nicole Adams

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/20/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , 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 2100787 W i l l i a m Clyde Adams, S r . v. Phoebe N i c o l e Adams Appeal from Tuscaloosa C i r c u i t (DR-07-48.01) Court PITTMAN, J u d g e . This appeal, which a r i s e s from a p o s t d i v o r c e between W i l l i a m Clyde Nicole Adams, S r . ("the f a t h e r " ) , Adams ( " t h e m o t h e r " ) , impression: presents a question proceeding a n d Phoebe of f i r s t w h e t h e r a n o n c u s t o d i a l f a t h e r who i s r e q u i r e d b y 2100787 t h e t e r m s o f a d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t t o pay later reaches retirement age and c h i l d support, receives Social and Security retirement b e n e f i t s , i s e n t i t l e d to c r e d i t against h i s support obligation benefits. and The the Social Security dependent reverse remand. The and Procedural p a r t i e s were d i v o r c e d l e s s t h a n two years o l d . gross monthly exceeded the schedule in (Appendix). income was uppermost effect. The $ 4 , 1 6 6 . 6 7 , and $100,000; t h e i r See Rule level 32, of the combined the Ala. R. t h e p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d , had child-support reasonable" and Jud. f a t h e r would they " s u f f i c i e n t to provide support." (a) pay Admin. the p a r t i e s ' father an amount t h a t , not been c a l c u l a t e d a c c o r d i n g schedule but, m i n o r c h i l d ' s c a r e and the support, incomes child-support judgment i n c o r p o r a t e d $2,000 p e r month i n c h i l d The agreed, was "fair appropriately for to and the p a r t i e s a l s o agreed that for private-school tuition, 2 the father's a g r e e m e n t , w h i c h , among o t h e r t h i n g s , p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e w o u l d pay child At the time of the d i v o r c e , income divorce History i n M a r c h 2007, when t h e m o t h e r ' s g r o s s m o n t h l y i n c o m e was the child- c i r c u i t c o u r t d i s a l l o w e d t h e c r e d i t ; we Facts was child's who books, 2100787 fees, and o t h e r child enrolled i n kindergarten, coverage child, s c h o o l - r e l a t e d expenses b e g i n n i n g f o r the c h i l d , (b) p r o v i d e (c) e s t a b l i s h when t h e health-insurance a trust fund f o r the a n d (d) e s t a b l i s h a "529" c o l l e g e - s a v i n g s p l a n f o r t h e child. I t i s undisputed 1 that, since t h e time of the d i v o r c e , t h e f a t h e r h a s b e e n p a y i n g $2,000 p e r month i n c h i l d support, that $892 p e r month covers the child, f o r a family health-insurance and a n n u a l t o t a l i n g $6,294.50 f o r t h e c h i l d . plan s c h o o l - r e l a t e d expenses In addition, he h a s b e e n r e g u l a r l y c o n t r i b u t i n g t o t h e c h i l d ' s t r u s t f u n d a n d 529 p l a n . I n December 2009, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n s e e k i n g t o to modify that t h e d i v o r c e judgment, a s s e r t i n g v a r i o u s are not at issue contempt against counterclaimed, c h i l d support. the seeking, on a p p e a l mother. and s e e k i n g The mother among o t h e r relief, grievances a finding answered of and an i n c r e a s e i n I n 2010, t h e f a t h e r , who was s t i l l w o r k i n g a n d C o n g r e s s c r e a t e d a t a x e x e m p t i o n f o u n d i n 26 U.S.C. § 529 i n o r d e r t o encourage t a x p a y e r s t o save f o r f u t u r e c o l l e g e e x p e n s e s . See S. Rep. No. 104-281, 106, Pub. L. No. 104-188, !996 U.S.S.C.A.N. 1474, 1580 ( s t a t i n g t h a t t h e r e a s o n f o r t h e change i n t h e l a w was t o " c l a r i f y t h e t a x t r e a t m e n t o f State-sponsored prepaid tuition programs and e d u c a t i o n a l s a v i n g s p r o g r a m s i n o r d e r t o e n c o u r a g e p e r s o n s t o s a v e t o meet post-secondary e d u c a t i o n a l expenses"). 1 3 2100787 earning Social per income, r e a c h e d Security month. retirement Pursuant became e l i g i b l e the to years of age benefits i n the 42 U.S.C. began receiving amount o f f o r S o c i a l S e c u r i t y dependent b e n e f i t s equal child's representative 2 402(d)(2), $2,326 child father's benefits. § and the to o n e - h a l f of the m o t h e r , as 66 I n November 2010, payee, began the receiving S o c i a l S e c u r i t y d e p e n d e n t b e n e f i t s i n t h e amount o f $1,163 p e r month f o r t h e child. I n December 2010, the father f i l e d a p e t i t i o n to modify the c h i l d - s u p p o r t p r o v i s i o n of the d i v o r c e judgment, a s s e r t i n g t h a t he was e n t i t l e d to a d o l l a r - f o r - d o l l a r reduction child-support 2 S t u l t z v. o b l i g a t i o n corresponding to the amount o f " [ T ] h e r e t i r e d p a r e n t p a y s no a d d i t i o n a l premiums i n o r d e r t o e n t i t l e h i s o r h e r c h i l d t o b e n e f i t s -- t h e amount o f s o c i a l s e c u r i t y c o n t r i b u t i o n s p a i d by t h e r e t i r e d p a r e n t and h i s o r h e r e m p l o y e r a r e t h e same w h e t h e r t h e p a r e n t i s m a r r i e d o r s i n g l e and w h e t h e r he o r she has c h i l d r e n o r n o t . ... [T]he r e t i r e d p a r e n t ' s own s o c i a l s e c u r i t y retirement b e n e f i t s are not reduced or c h a n g e d by t h e b e n e f i t s h i s o r h e r c h i l d r e n receive." S t u l t z , 659 N.E.2d 125, 4 130 (Ind. in his 1995). the 2100787 c h i l d ' s d e p e n d e n t - b e n e f i t s payment. d e n i e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r was On all F e b r u a r y 1, 2011, disputed submit that matters issue to The mother answered e n t i t l e d to a child-support and credit. the p a r t i e s reached a s e t t l e m e n t except the child circuit support; court s t i p u l a t i o n s and d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e . to the f o l l o w i n g m a t t e r s : the for they of agreed to r e s o l u t i o n upon The p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d f a t h e r ' s current gross monthly i n c o m e , i n c l u d i n g employment i n c o m e , nonemployment i n c o m e , Social Security retirement benefits, was $101,485 and -- an i n c r e a s e o f $1,485 s i n c e t h e d a t e o f t h e d i v o r c e ; t h e m o t h e r ' s current decrease gross of monthly $1,500.67 employment since the income date of was $2,666 the -- divorce; the m o t h e r ' s m o n t h l y e x p e n s e s were $5,205.50 -- an amount t h a t not increased s i n c e t h e t i m e o f t h e d i v o r c e and a had that included m o n t h l y p a y m e n t s t o t a l i n g $899 on 7 c r e d i t c a r d s ; t h e father's a n n u a l e x p e n d i t u r e s f o r t h e c h i l d , o v e r and above h i s m o n t h l y c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n and e x c l u d i n g h i s t r u s t - f u n d and plan c o n t r i b u t i o n s , amounted t o $8,294.50 -- $2,400 o f he a t t r i b u t e d t o c l o t h i n g , s h o e s , and t o y s f o r t h e c h i l d , the remainder being school-related 5 expenses. 529which with 2100787 The decided circuit c o u r t r e c e i v e d no t e s t i m o n i a l e v i d e n c e . It t h e c a s e on t h e b r i e f s a n d a r g u m e n t s o f c o u n s e l . On March 11, 2011, t h e c i r c u i t the mother's request court entered f o r an i n c r e a s e denying the f a t h e r ' s request a judgment d e n y i n g i n child support to credit the child's and dependent b e n e f i t s against 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 , f o l l o w i n g which the father t i m e l y appealed. Standard o f Review "The t r i a l c o u r t i n t h i s c a s e a p p l i e d t h e l a w t o undisputed, s t i p u l a t e d f a c t s . Our r e v i e w t h e r e f o r e i s de novo. "'"When r e v i e w i n g a c a s e i n w h i c h t h e t r i a l c o u r t s a t w i t h o u t a j u r y and heard evidence i n t h e form o f s t i p u l a t i o n s , b r i e f s , and the w r i t i n g s of t h e p a r t i e s , t h i s Court s i t s i n judgment o f t h e e v i d e n c e ; t h e r e i s no presumption of correctness. Old S o u t h e r n L i f e I n s . Co. v . W i l l i a m s , 544 So. 2d 941, 942 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ; C r a i g C o n s t r . Co. v. H e n d r i x , 568 So. 2d 752, 756 ( A l a . 1990). When [an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ] must determine i f the t r i a l court misapplied the law t o t h e u n d i s p u t e d f a c t s , t h e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w i s de novo, a n d no p r e s u m p t i o n o f correctness i s given the decision of the t r i a l court. S t a t e Dep't o f Revenue v . G a r n e r , 812 So. 2 d 380, 382 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) ; s e e a l s o Ex p a r t e Graham, 702 So. 2 d 1215 ( A l a . 1997). I n t h i s case t h e t r i a l court based i t s decision upon the stipulations, briefs, writings, and arguments o f t h e p a r t i e s ' a t t o r n e y s . No t e s t i m o n y was p r e s e n t e d . T h e r e f o r e , we must 6 2100787 s i t i n j u d g m e n t o f t h e e v i d e n c e , and t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g c a r r i e s no p r e s u m p t i o n of c o r r e c t n e s s . " ' " Town o f W e s t o v e r 2011) (quoting v. Bynum, 68 So. 3d 840, 842 American Res. Ins. Co. C o n s t r . , I n c . , 939 So. 2d 868, 872-73 v. ( A l a . C i v . App. H & H Stephens ( A l a . 2006), q u o t i n g i n t u r n Bean D r e d g i n g , L.L.C. v. A l a b a m a Dep't o f Revenue, So. 2d 513, 516-17 855 (Ala. 2003)). Discussion This entitled court to held credit, obligation, child has the receives a against Social child-support his Security or her dependent obligor So. 685 So. 2d 732 v. Maddox, 57 A l a . App. 2d 876 benefits ( A l a . C i v . App. ( A l a . C i v . App. 230, 327 So. 2d 726 ( C i v . App. have a l s o h e l d t h a t t h e e s t a t e o f a c h i l d - s u p p o r t is entitled for Social v. Bowden, 426 So. 2d 448 ( A l a . C i v . App. obligor i s entitled 7 See 1997); 1976). obligor 1983). to a credit a See Bowden We have n o t , h o w e v e r , a d d r e s s e d t h e i s s u e p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s c a s e -child-support a Security benefits that c h i l d r e c e i v e s on a c c o u n t o f t h e o b l i g o r ' s d e a t h . a that 1 9 9 6 ) ; and B i n n s We to a credit is child-support on a c c o u n t o f t h e o b l i g o r ' s d i s a b i l i t y . H a r b i s o n v. H a r b i s o n , 688 S e l f v. S e l f , that for whether Social 2100787 S e c u r i t y dependent b e n e f i t s of the obligor's that a c h i l d receiving Social receives on a c c o u n t Security retirement benefits. There majority matter is a split of authority of states holding of law, to a on t h a t issue, with t h a t an o b l i g o r i s e n t i t l e d , credit for dependent a as a benefits, i r r e s p e c t i v e o f w h e t h e r t h o s e b e n e f i t s a r e p a i d on a c c o u n t o f the o b l i g o r ' s death, d i s a b i l i t y , o r r e t i r e m e n t . Michael A. DiSabatino, Support Payments Annot., for Social Right Security Dependency Payments Made f o r B e n e f i t 447, is §§ 9-11 that (1995). such as have obligor's as a substitute wage e a r n i n g s . " Social Security Benefits Obligation, See or Other on been Child Government o f C h i l d , 34 A.L.R. 5 t h generated view by t h e o b l i g o r I f S o c i a l S e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s are viewed a p a r e n t ' s own e a r n i n g s , applied to Credit "The r a t i o n a l e f o r [ t h e m a j o r i t y ] benefits p a r e n t ' s own e a r n i n g s . See g e n e r a l l y t h e payments s h o u l d be f o r support Rebecca payments Spencer, properly from Comment, the Using as a C r e d i t Towards a C h i l d S u p p o r t 16 J . Am. A c a d . M a t r i m o n i a l a l s o T o r i R.A. K r i c k e n , Law. 223, 223 ( 1 9 9 9 ) . C h i l d Support and S o c i a l Security Dependent B e n e f i t s : A C o m p r e h e n s i v e A n a l y s i s a n d P r o p o s a l f o r 8 2100787 Wyoming, 2 Wyo. L. Rev. 39, 62-63 (2002) (stating " m a j o r i t y v i e w r e g a r d s s o c i a l s e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s as of the c o n t r i b u t i n g parent insurance-type child on system. that this For the parent's b e h a l f have b e e n reason, should be account See, of e.g., 2002) applies the obligor's to benefits death, from other that "'[a]lthough security disability benefits -- the type of benefits or the to rather at issue a child That paid on 907 (Iowa relevant cases i s s u e i n the benefits an retirement. 654 N.W.2d 902, most o f benefits paid payout."). disability, s t a t e s have a d d r e s s e d the in c r e d i t e d toward dependent In re M a r r i a g e of B e l g e r , (noting social equally the 'earnings' 'invested' s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n s as w o u l d be an i n s u r a n c e rationale that context than of retirement here -- there a p p e a r s t o be no t h e o r e t i c a l b a s i s f o r d i s t i n g u i s h i n g b e t w e e n the P.2d two types 574, 577 of payment'") (Alaska (quoting Miller for Miller, 890 1995))). Alabama cases have adopted the " e a r n i n g s " rationale v. allowing c r e d i t against child "insurance" support for Social S e c u r i t y dependent d i s a b i l i t y or death b e n e f i t s . In Binns, supra, we a and stated: " ' S o c i a l S e c u r i t y d i s a b i l i t y payments r e p r e s e n t money w h i c h an e m p l o y e e has earned during his 9 2100787 employment a n d a l s o t h a t w h i c h h i s e m p l o y e r h a s p a i d f o r h i s b e n e f i t i n t o a common t r u s t f u n d u n d e r t h e S o c i a l S e c u r i t y A c t . 42 U.S.C. § 301 e t s e q . These payments a r e f o r t h e purpose o f r e p l a c i n g income l o s t b e c a u s e o f t h e e m p l o y e e ' s i n a b i l i t y t o work upon becoming disabled. Thus, these payments s u b s t i t u t e f o r income.'... " 57 Ala. Horton, App. a t 2 3 3 , 327 So. 2d a t 728 (quoting Horton v. 219 Ga. 177, 178, 132 S.E.2d 200, 201 ( 1 9 6 3 ) ) . Bowden, s u p r a , we In stated: " [ T ] h e p u r p o s e o f S o c i a l S e c u r i t y i s t h e same as t h a t o f an i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y w i t h a p r i v a t e c a r r i e r , wherein a parent insures against death or l o s s of physical ability to f u l f i l l moral and l e g a l o b l i g a t i o n s t o d e p e n d e n t c h i l d r e n . The premiums on s u c h i n s u r a n c e may be s a i d t o have b e e n p a i d e i t h e r by t h e p a r e n t o r b y t h e p a r e n t a n d [ t h e ] e m p l o y e r . The b e n e f i t s o f S o c i a l S e c u r i t y a r e n o t g r a t u i t o u s . The terms of 'insured,' 'insurance,' and 'beneficiary' a r e used throughout the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C.A. C h a p t . 7. "The Supreme C o u r t o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s h a s r e f e r r e d t o t h e S o c i a l S e c u r i t y system as s o c i a l i n s u r a n c e and has s a i d t h e r i g h t t o t h e b e n e f i t s i s i n one s e n s e e a r n e d . F l e m m i n g v. N e s t o r , 363 U.S. 603, 80 S . C t . 1367, 4 L.Ed.2d 1435 ( 1 9 6 0 ) . " 426 889, So. 2d a t 450. 891 (Ala. See a l s o B r a z e a l C i v . App. 1 9 9 9 ) ; A c c o r d M i l l e r v. M i l l e r , v. B r a z e a l , Self, 756 So. 2d 685 So. 2d a t 734. supra: " C o u r t s have been c a r e f u l t o p o i n t o u t t h a t , u n l i k e w e l f a r e and o t h e r forms o f p u b l i c a s s i s t a n c e , s o c i a l security benefits represent contributions t h a t a w o r k e r h a s made t h r o u g h o u t t h e c o u r s e o f 10 2100787 employment; in this sense, benefits represent e a r n i n g s i n much t h e same way as do a n n u i t i e s p a i d by an i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y . "'The p a y m e n t s p r e s c r i b e d by [ t h e S o c i a l S e c u r i t y Act] are not g r a t u i t i e s or m a t t e r s of grace; they are not p u b l i c a s s i s t a n c e ; they are not w e l f a r e p a y m e n t s . On the c o n t r a r y , t h e law c r e a t e d a c o n t r i b u t o r y insurance s y s t e m , u n d e r w h i c h what i n e f f e c t c o n s t i t u t e premiums a r e s h a r e d by e m p l o y e e s and e m p l o y e r s . C o n s e q u e n t l y , i n spirit at l e a s t , i f not strictly and t e c h n i c a l l y , t h e e m p l o y e e , who throughout h i s w o r k i n g l i f e has c o n t r i b u t e d p a r t o f t h e premiums i n t h e f o r m o f d e d u c t i o n s f r o m h i s wages o r s a l a r y , s h o u l d be deemed t o have a vested r i g h t to the payments p r e s c r i b e d by t h e s t a t u t o r y scheme, w h i c h in e f f e c t comprises the terms of the insurance policy. He has earned the b e n e f i t s ; he i s n o t r e c e i v i n g a g i f t . ' " 890 P.2d a t 576-77 ( q u o t i n g Supp. 825, There 827 dependent F. (D.D.C. 1 9 6 5 ) ) . appear w h e t h e r an S c h m i e d i g e n v. C e l e b r e e z e , 245 t o be two minority views on the o b l i g o r i s e n t i t l e d to a child-support retirement benefits. Some s t a t e s issue of credit for have adopted a case-by-case approach, l e a v i n g the matter to the d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l 862, court. 868-69 (Ind. See, Ct. e.g., Thompson v. Thompson, 868 N.E.2d App. 2007) proper (stating that treatment of the S o c i a l S e c u r i t y r e t i r e m e n t benefits by a c h i l d i n c a l c u l a t i n g c h i l d s u p p o r t s h o u l d be 11 "the received l e f t to the 2100787 sound d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l 117 Md. vacated court"); A n d e r s o n v. A n d e r s o n , App. 474, 476, 700 A . 2 d 844, 845 on o t h e r grounds, 349 Md. (1997), judgment 294, 708 A.2d 296 (1998) ( h o l d i n g t h a t S o c i a l S e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s r e c e i v e d d i r e c t l y by a dependent c h i l d as a r e s u l t o f t h e p a r e n t ' s r e t i r e m e n t offset such p a r e n t ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t law b u t t h a t t h e t r i a l or i n any c a s e t h a t income l e v e l s " ) . o b l i g a t i o n as a m a t t e r o f c o u r t may c o n s i d e r d e c i d i n g whether t o d e v i a t e such b e n e f i t s from t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t "involves do n o t parents with when guidelines above-guidelines Other s t a t e s take the p o s i t i o n t h a t there i s a rebuttable presumption favoring a c r e d i t f o r S o c i a l S e c u r i t y dependent r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s . Haw. 435 459, 134 P.3d 625 See, e . g . , C l a r k v. C l a r k , 110 ( C t . App. 2 0 0 6 ) ; P r e s t o n P a . S u p e r . 459, 646 A . 2 d 1186 v. Preston, (1994). In t h e p r e s e n t case, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s judgment s t a t e s : "After c a r e f u l consideration, t h i s court believes t h a t i n A l a b a m a no b l a n k e t r u l e s h o u l d a p p l y , a n d e s p e c i a l l y where t h e p a r t i e s ' i n c o m e s e x c e e d t h e g u i d e l i n e s s e t o u t i n t h e Alabama R u l e s o f J u d i c i a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , a case-by-case determination should be made. B a s e d on s u c h i n d i v i d u a l r e v i e w i n t h i s matter, t h i s c o u r t f i n d s from t h e evidence t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a s f a i l e d t o meet h i s b u r d e n o f p r o o f i n h i s claim. The f a t h e r ' s i n c o m e i s so much h i g h e r t h a n the mother's, [ t h a t ] t h i s c o u r t c a n n o t s e e any c o m p e l l i n g r e a s o n t o g i v e h i m t h e c r e d i t he demands w i t h o u t s u b s t a n t i a l l y more e v i d e n c e d e m o n s t r a t i n g 12 2100787 why, i n f a i r n e s s and e q u i t y i n t h i s i n s t a n t c a s e , he s h o u l d be e n t i t l e d t o s u c h c r e d i t . I t appears t h a t (1) the c h i l d w o u l d be r e c e i v i n g these social s e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s now i f t h e p a r t i e s were still married, (2) t h e i n c o m e o f t h e m o t h e r has been reduced s i n c e the date of the d i v o r c e , (3) the i n c o m e o f t h e f a t h e r has i n c r e a s e d , and (4) c l e a r l y , the c h i l d ' s s o c i a l s e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s are not e x a c t l y e q u i v a l e n t t o c h i l d s u p p o r t , i f f o r no r e a s o n s o t h e r t h a n t h e a d d i t i o n a l l i m i t a t i o n s on t h e u s e o f s u c h f u n d s , and t h e r e p o r t i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s i m p o s e d on t h e [ r e p r e s e n t a t i v e ] payee." We a g r e e w i t h t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t h a t no apply i n t h i s c a s e and "blanket rule" t h a t the d e c i s i o n whether to grant f a t h e r a c r e d i t f o r d e p e n d e n t r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s was w i t h i n the circuit court's A l a b a m a t h a t when " t h e uppermost limit of discretion. the of trial discretion." 735, 741 a matter I t i s s e t t l e d law child-support child-support ( A l a . C i v . App. the p a r t i e s ' c o m b i n e d income e x c e e d s determination court's a should obligation McGowin v. the schedule, the i s within McGowin, 991 in the So. 2d 2008). In order to determine whether the c i r c u i t court acted o u t s i d e the l i m i t s of i t s d i s c r e t i o n , we w i l l a n a l y z e t h e f o u r r e a s o n s t h e c o u r t o f f e r e d i n s u p p o r t o f i t s d e c i s i o n t o deny t h e First, receiving were still the c i r c u i t court these social married." father a credit. s t a t e d t h a t "the security benefits The now l e g a l reasoning 13 c h i l d would i f the be parties underlying that 2100787 statement the i s not circuit immediately apparent to t h i s court, c o u r t i n t e n d e d t o make a f i n d i n g that, p a r t i e s r e m a i n e d m a r r i e d , t h e c h i l d ' s a c c e s s t o an $1,163 i n d e p e n d e n t b e n e f i t s e v e r y month w o u l d but i f had additional a l l o w her e n j o y a more l a v i s h l i f e s t y l e t h a n h e r f a t h e r ' s When t h e p a r t i e s ' the uppermost l i m i t of the c h i l d - s u p p o r t schedule, the focus of the s u p p o r t awarded " r a t i o n a l l y r e l a t e [ s ] reasonable necessary account the l i f e s t y l e inquiry c h i l d - s u p p o r t award i s whether the amount o f c h i l d and finding appeal. combined incomes exceed i n e s t a b l i s h i n g an i n i t i a l to child-support payments a r e c u r r e n t l y p r o v i d i n g f o r h e r , t h e n such a i s n o t germane t o t h e i s s u e p r e s e n t e d on t h i s the needs to which of the child, t h e c h i l d was to the taking accustomed into and the standard of l i v i n g the c h i l d enjoyed b e f o r e the d i v o r c e . " Dyas v. Dyas, (emphasis parte there So. 2d 971, 973 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1995) added; f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d ) , a f f i r m e d b u t remanded, Ex Dyas, different 683 683 So. lifestyle been no 2d 974 ( A l a . 1996). that the child might divorce is immaterial A hypothetically have for enjoyed had purposes of m o d i f i c a t i o n proceedings because the focus of the i n q u i r y i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether t o modify child 14 support i s whether t h e r e 2100787 has 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 s i n c e the date of t h e d i v o r c e -- i . e . , f o r p r e s e n t p u r p o s e s , w h e t h e r t h e child's "reasonable whether and such needs are necessary still Poh v. needs" being award. See Poh, 2010). In the p r e s e n t met 64 by So. reasonable" and the initial 49, 56 or child-support App. case, the p a r t i e s agreed at the time c h i l d - s u p p o r t a w a r d was "sufficient t h e m i n o r c h i l d ' s c a r e and 3d increased (Ala. Civ. of the d i v o r c e t h a t the i n i t i a l and have to provide support." The "fair appropriately for mother p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s n e e d s had i n c r e a s e d since the date of the d i v o r c e other than the f a c t t h a t the c h i l d enrolled i n private-school kindergarten, t h a t the The f a t h e r has paid a l l school c i r c u i t court's a child-support been r e d u c e d credit since the -- t h a t "the date of expenses documentary of $1,940, t h e had p r e s e n t e d $5,205.50 "no expenses f o r the child. exceeded father income of the mother has divorce" not on a p p e a l . evidence c i r c u i t court the her -- i s also A l t h o u g h the mother indicating specifically net that her monthly monthly income found t h a t the e v i d e n c e o f c h a n g e s i n [her] e x p e n s e s 15 had undisputed second reason f o r denying the germane t o t h e i s s u e p r e s e n t e d submitted and i t i s no of mother since 2100787 the date of the divorce, n o r any b e n e f i t t o t h e c h i l d from many i f n o t most o f h e r e x p e n s e s . " C f . F a e l l a c i v. F a e l l a c i , [Ms. 2100752, F e b r u a r y 3, 2012] So. 3d App. 2012) ( a f f i r m i n g a $ 4 , 0 0 0 - p e r - m o n t h , (Ala. C i v . child-support award t o t h e c u s t o d i a l mother, d e s p i t e t h e mother's t e s t i m o n y that " h o u s e h o l d e x p e n s e s " f o r h e r s e l f a n d t h e c h i l d r e n amounted t o $5,165, b e c a u s e t h e m o t h e r d i d n o t t e s t i f y t h a t t h e e x p e n s e s "were r e l a t e d o n l y t o t h e n e e d s o f t h e c h i l d r e n " a n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d have c o n c l u d e d t h a t o n l y a p o r t i o n o f t h e expenses were " a t t r i b u t a b l e to the ... children"). Moreover, as p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d , t h e m o t h e r p r e s e n t e d no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g that, because o f t h e r e d u c t i o n child-support the payments were i n h e r income, t h e f a t h e r ' s inadequate t o meet t h e needs o f child. Leaving reason that aside f o r denying the child's f o r t h e moment t h e c i r c u i t a credit, we t u r n dependent court's to the fourth benefits are not third reason: "exactly e q u i v a l e n t " t o c h i l d support because o f l i m i t a t i o n s on t h e i r use requirements and t h e i m p o s i t i o n representative stated that, payee, of reporting i . e . , t h e mother. i n reaching that 16 on t h e The c i r c u i t conclusion, i t had court taken 2100787 j u d i c i a l n o t i c e o f a p p l i c a b l e f e d e r a l r e g u l a t i o n s as i n A Guide f o r R e p r e s e n t a t i v e No. 05-10076, (hereinafter P a y e e s , Soc. referred to understand why Sec. as set out Admin. P u b l ' n the "Guide for Payees"). We are at a loss to the circuit determined t h a t S o c i a l S e c u r i t y dependent r e t i r e m e n t are not equivalent, support. The representative any subject their for Guide Payees e s t a b l i s h an u n u s e d f u n d s , and to audit) to b e n e f i t the essential the annual report t h e p a y e e has compels a p a y e e t o s e g r e g a t e t h e f u n d s , t o document and serve Both d i f f e r e n t i a t e the payments kinds for (which i s used the funds The child- fact that representative r e p o r t on their t o be s u b j e c t t o a p o s s i b l e a u d i t d o e s n o t i n any to benefit child's t h a t a c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t must use Social Security Administration and the child child's benefits in a s u p p o r t payments f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e c h i l d . use, to child. It i s axiomatic the benefits i n t e r e s t - b e a r i n g account make an d e t a i l i n g how nature, s p e c i f i e s that p a y e e must m a i n t a i n separate account, saving in court from e s s e n t i a l nature court-ordered o f payments must be 17 used of child-support f o r the way dependentpayments. benefit of the 2100787 c h i l d , see "if you I n t r o d u c t i o n t o the Guide f o r Payees a g r e e t o be person's receipt benefits of both a representative to use kinds on of his parent to p o t e n t i a l l i a b i l i t y funds, c f . R.G. (noting that custodial v. G.G., the parent 771 trial to her you the behalf"), and the subjects 2d 490 court has an the custodial use f o r an a c c o u n t i n g modification of child p a y m e n t s were t o o discretion accounting of to benefits to the a retirement Civ. a App. order a child-support father's nor made a showing that his c a s e , t h e m o t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t i t w o u l d be allow child the benefits, father receives substantial " l o s t " income. 2000) because the f a t h e r n e i t h e r sought a support r e t i r e m e n t b e c a u s e , she earning the high). In the p r e s e n t inequitable of ( A l a . C i v . App. payments, but a f f i r m i n g the d e n i a l of a n o n c u s t o d i a l request that pay to account f o r the So. provide p a y e e , we or payments (stating says, on a child-support account of credit for the father's the f a t h e r i s s t i l l working income therefore, and his are not Social a C i t i n g L i g h t e l v. M y e r s , 791 Security substitute So. and 2d 955 for (Ala. 2000), the mother argues t h a t Alabama c a s e l a w a l l o w s child-support obligation to 18 be offset by third-party 2100787 payments to a child constitute earning, only a substitute to the extent f o r income t h e o b l i g o r as i n t h e c a s e o f d i s a b i l i t y retirement benefits that that payments i s no longer or death b e n e f i t s , are being paid or t o an o b l i g o r who i s no l o n g e r w o r k i n g and e a r n i n g an i n c o m e . an o b l i g o r l i k e t h e f a t h e r r e c e i v e s such B u t , she s a y s , when Social Security retirement b e n e f i t s and c o n t i n u e s t o e a r n i n c o m e f r o m o t h e r s o u r c e s , t h e Social Security receives and, that are not child-support due to be that a father's child-support o f f s e t by t h e S u p p l e m e n t a l that his children credited were In that a substitute earnings against the obligation Security receiving case, t h i s Income on f o r the o b l i g o r ' s could ("SSI") account m e n t a l d i s a b i l i t i e s b e c a u s e , as we e x p l a i n e d , not child obligation. The m o t h e r o v e r r e a d s L i g h t e l . held the o b l i g o r ' s are not a s u b s t i t u t e f o r the o b l i g o r ' s l o s t therefore, obligor's dependent b e n e f i t s of n o t be benefits their We are a stated: "In Alabama, a p a r e n t ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n may be o f f s e t by p a y m e n t s b y a t h i r d - p a r t y s o u r c e where t h o s e p a y m e n t s c o n s t i t u t e a s u b s t i t u t e i n c o m e source. See S e l f v. S e l f , [685 So. 2d 732 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) ] ; B i n n s v. Maddox, [57 A l a . App. 230, 327 So. 2d 726 ( C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) ] . However, SSI 19 own SSI b e n e f i t s a r e income b u t , r a t h e r , supplement t o t h e r e c i p i e n t ' s income. court 2100787 benefits are a supplement to income, not a s u b s t i t u t e f o r i t . T h e r e f o r e , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o r r e c t l y r e f u s e d to o f f s e t the f a t h e r ' s o b l i g a t i o n to provide f o r the c h i l d r e n ' s reasonable l i v i n g e x p e n s e s by t h e amount o f SSI b e n e f i t s t h e children receive." Lightel, 791 So. 2d at 960. As can foregoing q u o t e , t h i s c o u r t u s e d t h e p h r a s e " s u b s t i t u t e income source" in c o n t r a d i s t i n c t i o n to the income" in Lightel; be hold Security retirement we did not discerned phrase or from "supplement imply that the to Social b e n e f i t s a r e a " s u b s t i t u t e income s o u r c e " o n l y i f t h e r e c i p i e n t i s no l o n g e r w o r k i n g and e a r n i n g income. Granted, when i t i s more child-support often obligor dependent r e t i r e m e n t the obligor is no Security retirement than seeks a not the child-support b e n e f i t s h i s or her longer employed and e x i s t i n o r d e r t o make an retirement Childerson 1070, benefits v. 1073, " [ s ] i n c e the determined Hess, 144 that, credit for a the child i s receiving, his or her Social b e n e f i t s c o n s t i t u t e a s u b s t a n t i a l , i f not the s o l e , s o u r c e of h i s or her income. need not case a Ill. amount o f l a r g e l y by Ill. Dec. App. 551, child such c i r c u m s t a n c e s obligor's Social "substitute 198 But income 3d 554 395, source." 399, (1990) support required income, 20 this court Security can 555 N.E.2d (stating t o be see no See that, paid is reason 2100787 why, i n discharging t h e o b l i g a t i o n t o pay child support, s o c i a l s e c u r i t y p a y m e n t s s h o u l d n o t be c r e d i t e d b e c a u s e o f t e n social security substitutes added)); Spencer, Using Towards a Matrimonial Child for lost income" (emphasis S o c i a l S e c u r i t y B e n e f i t s as a C r e d i t Support Law. a t 223 Obligation, (stating that 16 J. Am. Acad. " [ i ] f Social Security b e n e f i t s a r e v i e w e d as a p a r e n t ' s own e a r n i n g s , t h e payments should a for be properly applied as p a y m e n t s f r o m t h e o b l i g o r ' s wage substitute support earnings"). We c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s i n e q u i t a b l e n e s s a r g u m e n t i s without merit. Granting the father a c r e d i t i s not u n f a i r t o the c h i l d because, w i t h o r without the c r e d i t , the c h i l d be r e c e i v i n g t h e same amount o f c h i l d s u p p o r t t h a t was in the divorce sufficient Granting to judgment, meet the father her a an amount reasonable that and is ordered undisputedly necessary c r e d i t i s not u n f a i r needs. t o t h e mother because, " [ f ] r o m a p u r e l y economic p e r s p e c t i v e , t h e a c t u a l s o u r c e o f t h e payments i s n o t i m p o r t a n t to the c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t as l o n g as t h e p a y m e n t s c o n t i n u e t o be made i n c o n f o r m a n c e w i t h t h e [ d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t ] . See M i l l e r [ v . M i l l e r ] , 890 P.2d [574,] 577 [ ( A l a s k a 1 9 9 5 ) ] ( q u o t i n g D a v i s v . D a v i s , 141 V t . 398, 449 A.2d 947, 948 ( 1 9 8 2 ) ) ; s e e a l s o B i n n s v. Maddox, 57 A l a . App. 230, 327 So. 2d 726, 728 ( A l a . C i v . App. 21 will 2100787 1976) ( b e c a u s e s u p p o r t o r d e r i s f o r b e n e f i t o f t h e c h i l d , even t h o u g h c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t r e c e i v e s t h e payment, i f t h e sum t o be p a i d b y t h e n o n - c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t i s p a i d by t h e government v i a s o c i a l s e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s , the r e a l purpose of the c h i l d support o r d e r has been a c c o m p l i s h e d ) . " In r e M a r r i a g e o f B e l g e r , 654 N.W.2d a t 908. As previously discussed, second, and reasons support credit fourth court's t h i r d are i n v a l i d . reason the circuit f o r denying court's the father T h a t b r i n g s us t o t h e f o r denying the father's a first, childcircuit request f o r a c r e d i t -- t h a t t h e " f a t h e r ' s income i s so much h i g h e r t h a n t h e m o t h e r ' s " and h a s i n c r e a s e d s i n c e t h e t i m e o f t h e d i v o r c e . Dyas v. Dyas, s u p r a , t h i s court stated: " T h i s c o u r t h a s h e l d ... t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t ' s discretion [in determining child support in c i r c u m s t a n c e s where c o m b i n e d a d j u s t e d g r o s s income exceeds t h e uppermost l e v e l s of t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t s c h e d u l e ] i s n o t u n b r i d l e d and t h a t t h e amount o f c h i l d s u p p o r t a w a r d e d must r e l a t e t o t h e r e a s o n a b l e and n e c e s s a r y n e e d s o f t h e c h i l d r e n as w e l l as t o t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e o b l i g o r t o pay f o r t h o s e n e e d s . "When t h e c o m b i n e d a d j u s t e d g r o s s income e x c e e d s the uppermost l i m i t o f t h e c h i l d support s c h e d u l e , t h e amount o f c h i l d s u p p o r t a w a r d e d must r a t i o n a l l y r e l a t e t o t h e r e a s o n a b l e and n e c e s s a r y n e e d s o f t h e c h i l d , t a k i n g i n t o account the l i f e s t y l e t o which t h e c h i l d was a c c u s t o m e d and t h e s t a n d a r d o f l i v i n g t h e c h i l d e n j o y e d b e f o r e t h e d i v o r c e , and must 22 In 2100787 r e a s o n a b l y r e l a t e t o t h e o b l i g o r ' s a b i l i t y t o pay f o r t h o s e n e e d s . ... To a v o i d a f i n d i n g o f an a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n on a p p e a l , a t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment o f c h i l d s u p p o r t must s a t i s f y b o t h p r o n g s . " I n t h i s c a s e , t h e amount a w a r d e d t o t a l l y f a i l s on t h e f i r s t p r o n g ; i t i s a b u n d a n t l y c l e a r f r o m t h e record that the c h i l d support a w a r d e d was b a s e d s o l e l y on t h e h u s b a n d ' s p e r c e i v e d a b i l i t y t o p a y and does n o t r a t i o n a l l y r e l a t e t o t h e r e a s o n a b l e and n e c e s s a r y needs o f t h e two m i n o r c h i l d r e n . T h i s i s c o n t r a r y t o e s t a b l i s h e d case law; consequently, we f i n d an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n on t h e p a r t o f t h e t r i a l court." 683 So. 2d a t 973-74 (some e m p h a s i s added; f o o t n o t e omitted). We to his c o n c l u d e t h a t , by d e n y i n g t h e f a t h e r ' s r e q u e s t child-support obligation with the dependent credit retirement b e n e f i t s t h a t t h e m o t h e r i s r e c e i v i n g as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p a y e e for t h e c h i l d , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t v i o l a t e d t h e r u l e o f Dyas and thereby acted Earheart 2002) the outside v. E a r h e a r t , the 842 limits So. 2d of 695, i t s discretion. 698 See ( A l a . C i v . App. ( h o l d i n g t h a t "a c h i l d - s u p p o r t payment b a s e d s o l e l y ability impermissible, of the noncustodial parent to pay on is and ... a judgment o r d e r i n g s u c h a payment i s an a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n by t h e t r i a l The judgment o f t h e T u s c a l o o s a and t h e c a u s e i s remanded court"). C i r c u i t Court i s reversed f o r t h e r e n d i t i o n and e n t r y judgment i n f a v o r o f t h e f a t h e r . 23 of a 2100787 REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d Thomas, J . , c o n c u r . Moore, Bryan, J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , J., joins. 24 with writing, which 2100787 MOORE, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g i n the r e s u l t . R u l e 32, A l a . R. J u d . A d m i n . , p r o v i d e s t h a t c h i l d is payable f r o m t h e income o f p a r e n t s . child-support purposes, Rule 32(B)(2)(a), Security includes "Gross income," f o r Social A l a . R. J u d . A d m i n . " c h i l d ' s insurance support Security benefits. By f e d e r a l l a w , S o c i a l benefits" are payable t o minor c h i l d r e n who a r e d e p e n d e n t upon an i n d i v i d u a l e n t i t l e d t o o l d age insurance insurance benefits. benefits 42 be may U.S.C. made § 402(d)(1). payable c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t as a " r e p r e s e n t a t i v e to Child's the child's p a y e e , " s e e 42 U.S.C. 4 0 5 ( j ) (1) (A) a n d 20 C.F.R. § 4 1 6 . 6 2 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , b u t t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t may e x p e n d t h o s e f u n d s o n l y the child, 20 maintenance C.F.R. § of the c h i l d . Alabama c a s e l a w h o l d s t h a t benefits s h o u l d be i n c l u d e d 416.635, So. 2d 918, 920 follows that, insurance when a c h i l d benefits noncustodial (Ala. parent, on the § 416.640. Social Security current Binding c h i l d ' s insurance a s income o f t h e p a r e n t on whose are paid. Dinkel C i v . App. 1 9 9 1 ) . receives account those including 20 C.F.R. account t h e dependent b e n e f i t s 598 f o r t h e use and b e n e f i t o f I t naturally Social Security of benefits, 25 v. D i n k e l , the child's o l d age of the as a m a t t e r of law, 2100787 should that be considered parent and child should support paid be o b l i g a t i o n of t h a t A l a . R. to the income of child-support parent. Rule 32(C)(1), applied from the t o use the Jud. Admin., a l l o w s a t r i a l i t s " d i s c r e t i o n " i n "determining" combined adjusted e x c e e d s $20,000 p e r gross month. income As child of a s u p p o r t when child's parents p r e v i o u s l y construed by c o u r t , t h a t l a n g u a g e r e f e r s t o t h e power o f a t r i a l use equitable p r i n c i p l e s to support t h a t would a l l o w the the child parents. App. court the That See Rule 32(C)(1) establishment of d i s c r e t i o n does regarding i f not Dyas v. Dyas, 683 So c o n s t r u e d , the amount So. f o r the 2d 971, the parent's not satisfaction extend of lifestyle of of the the 973-74 ( A l a . C i v . trial t o i t s d e c i s i o n as the to child divorce child-support to this court the d i s c r e t i o n a f f o r d e d to a relates solely a an c h i l d to maintain would have e n j o y e d 1995). by calculate court obligation. separate established to question child-support obligation. In t h i s c a s e , W i l l i a m C l y d e Adams, S r . ("the father"), and Phoebe N i c o l e Adams ("the m o t h e r " ) a g r e e d i n t h e i r proceedings in 2007 that the 26 father would pay divorce $2,000 in 2100787 monthly c h i l d s u p p o r t f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f E.A. would provide medical child's insurance private-school tuition, child's trust fund and f o r t h e c h i l d , would pay t h e and would c o n t r i b u t e college-savings a g r e e m e n t , w h i c h was i n c o r p o r a t e d judgment, Ordered the p a r t i e s herein is a into stipulated fair ("the c h i l d " ) , and fund. In the p a r t i e s ' "that the c h i l d reasonable to the amount that divorce support and i s s u f f i c i e n t t o provide a p p r o p r i a t e l y f o r the minor c h i l d ' s care and the support." As p a r t of the underlying mother p e t i t i o n e d t h e T u s c a l o o s a Circuit proceedings, Court ("the trial court") to increase the father's child-support o b l i g a t i o n , but the trial court denied that petition on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d f a i l e d t o show any m a t e r i a l change i n t h e n e e d s o f the c h i l d s i n c e the e n t r y of t h e o r i g i n a l c h i l d - s u p p o r t In should ruling receive on t h e s e p a r a t e a credit question whether f o r the Social order. the father Security child's i n s u r a n c e b e n e f i t s t h e c h i l d r e c e i v e s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t was n o t "determining" decided trial child adversely support, an issue that i t had already t o t h e m o t h e r b a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e . c o u r t was d e c i d i n g a q u e s t i o n of law regarding The whether the S o c i a l S e c u r i t y c h i l d ' s i n s u r a n c e b e n e f i t s r e c e i v e d by t h e 27 2100787 c h i l d s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d be credited against the support o b l i g a t i o n . a form of c h i l d support t h a t father's The already should established child- " d i s c r e t i o n " i n Rule 32(C)(1) n o t r e l a t e t o t h e c r e d i t i n q u i r y u n d e r t a k e n by t h e t r i a l and does not provide any basis for holding that court Social S e c u r i t y c h i l d ' s i n s u r a n c e b e n e f i t s c a n n o t be c o n s i d e r e d support i n cases i n which the the uppermost l i m i t s I n my i n the o p i n i o n , the income o f the child-support parents does child exceeds schedule. judgment of the t r i a l court i s due to be r e v e r s e d b e c a u s e , as a m a t t e r o f A l a b a m a l a w , the f a t h e r i s e n t i t l e d t o a c r e d i t a g a i n s t h i s $2,000 m o n t h l y child-support obligation f o r the $1,163 i n c h i l d ' s i n s u r a n c e monthly to the child on portion of the father's Bryan, J . , account concurs. old-age benefits. 28 of her Social benefits entitlement Security paid to a insurance

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.