Melinda Wellborn v. John D. Wellborn

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 7/20/12 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2012 2101216 Melinda Wellborn v. John D. Wellborn Appeal from C l a y C i r c u i t Court (DR-01-88.03) BRYAN, J u d g e . Melinda entered modified Wellborn by t h e C l a y ("the m o t h e r " ) a p p e a l s Circuit Court from a judgment ("the t r i a l the child-support obligation o f John court") D. that Wellborn ("the f a t h e r " ) b y d e c r e a s i n g 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 r o m 2101216 $2,000 a month t o $829 a month. We reverse and remand. The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e p a r t i e s were d i v o r c e d by a judgment of pursuant to that physical custody of the p a r t i e s ' minor c h i l d was the ordered indicates to that trial court judgment, pay the mother child the d i v o r c e i n February was support. The j u d g m e n t was 2002 and awarded that, primary and t h e f a t h e r record modified further twice t h a t , p u r s u a n t t o t h e l a s t m o d i f i c a t i o n j u d g m e n t i n May the f a t h e r was child t o pay t h e mother $2,000 2006, a month i n support. On modify January 14, 2011, his child-support experienced 32, the father obligation filed a alleging petition that a d e c r e a s e i n income s i n c e May 2006 t h a t a modification Rule ordered and of h i s child-support A l a . R. Jud. Admin. The he had justified o b l i g a t i o n pursuant mother filed to an to answer d e n y i n g t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n was due t o be decreased, and she filed a counterclaim father's child-support o b l i g a t i o n seeking to modify an i n c r e a s e d the award o f c h i l d s u p p o r t b a s e d on t h e i n c r e a s e d needs o f t h e c h i l d and the f a t h e r ' s i n c r e a s e i n income. award o f a t t o r n e y fees. 2 The m o t h e r a l s o r e q u e s t e d an 2101216 The record from t h e ore tenus h e a r i n g f a t h e r worked f o r Wellborn Cabinets, that he owned a 20% i n t e r e s t reveals that the I n c . ("the company"), a n d i n t h e company. s a l a r y o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y $92,142 a y e a r . He e a r n e d a According t o Joseph A n d e r s o n , a c e r t i f i e d p u b l i c a c c o u n t a n t who h a d w o r k e d on t h e company's a c c o u n t s i n c e distributions those to their 1990, t h e company h a d made two l a r g e i n 2006 a n d 2007. the distributions, shareholders received father $400,000 i n 2006 a n d $600,000 i n 2007. that the father got a small d i s t r i b u t i o n father had n o t r e c e i v e d s i n c e 2008. any future. approximately The r e c o r d indicates i n 2008 b u t t h a t t h e any d i s t r i b u t i o n s from t h e company A n d e r s o n s t a t e d t h a t t h e company c o u l d n o t make distributions company From would i n 2011 a n d t h a t make Anderson any he d i d n o t b e l i e v e t h e distributions stated that i n the t h e company foreseeable had faced a s i g n i f i c a n t d e c l i n e a n d t h a t t h e company h a d l o s t $10 m i l l i o n i n 2010. The f a t h e r ' s i n c o m e - t a x r e t u r n f r o m 2010 r e f l e c t s t h a t he had net c a p i t a l capital gains losses carried gains totaling i n 2010 e q u a l e d $79,012 $203,000 but that before o v e r f r o m 2009 were f a c t o r e d i n . 3 his total any capital The f a t h e r ' s 2101216 income-tax return from 2009 reveals that he had claimed c a p i t a l l o s s t o t a l i n g $3,000 b u t t h a t h i s a c t u a l c a p i t a l a loss h a d b e e n much l a r g e r and t h a t he h a d c a r r i e d o v e r t h a t l o s s i n order t o decrease h i s t a x burden earned i n 2010. 1 capital totaling gains As o f A u g u s t 9, 2011, $11,000. testified that regarding t h e amount o f c a p i t a l earn each year, was 500 there on t h e c a p i t a l g a i n s was an he the f a t h e r had Anderson and enormous amount o f gains that earned the father fluctuation the f a t h e r and t h e f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e s t o c k points "down" on the date of the had might market hearing. The f a t h e r ' s 2010 i n c o m e - t a x r e t u r n a l s o i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e f a t h e r received gains" $20,332 totaling totaling $9,651. in interest, $9,824 the because The the "other $954, and " f r i n g e b e n e f i t s " f r o m t h e company The 2010 income-tax that the f a t h e r r e c e i v e d a t a x refund, that i n dividends, tax refund was not actually return also indicates but Anderson testified income to the father he h a d t o r e p a y t h a t amount t o t h e company. father testified that he p a i d c h i l d and t h a t h i s h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e health insurance c o s t was $58 for a week. A n d e r s o n t e s t i f i e d t h a t $3,000 was t h e maximum c a p i t a l l o s s t h a t c o u l d be c l a i m e d on t h e f a t h e r ' s 2009 i n c o m e - t a x return. 1 4 2101216 He a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t he from a previous financial she had marriage custody of a 1 7 - y e a r - o l d and that support f o r that c h i l d . e a r n e d $3,093 a month and The The 2011, trial that regarding the a l l mother t e s t i f i e d the that gotten o l d e r , i t was had more him. court entered made the for provided t h a t t h e needs o f t h e c h i l d i n c r e a s e d b e c a u s e , as t h e c h i l d had expensive to care he child a f i n a l j u d g m e n t on S e p t e m b e r following specific p a r t i e s ' competing findings petitions to of modify father's child-support o b l i g a t i o n : "2. The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t a t t h e t i m e o f t h e l a s t [ o ] r d e r of [ m ] o d i f i c a t i o n r e l a t i v e to c h i l d support, the [ f a t h e r ] had received a large financial distribution i n the way of a bonus from his employer. The [father] received these large d i s t r i b u t i o n s i n t h e y e a r s 2006, 2007 and 2008. The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e [ f a t h e r ] has received no b o n u s e s o r o t h e r lump sum d i s t r i b u t i o n s f r o m h i s e m p l o y e r s i n c e t h a t t i m e and i s u n l i k e l y t o r e c e i v e any s u c h d i s t r i b u t i o n s i n t h e f u t u r e . "3. The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e [ f a t h e r ] ' s income a t t h i s t i m e c o n s i s t s p r i m a r i l y o f t h e wages he receives from ... the company, together with interest and dividends received from various investment accounts. The [ f a t h e r ] has received income i n t h e p a s t i n t h e way o f c a p i t a l g a i n s f r o m s a l e o f s t o c k b u t he has a l s o had l o s s e s on h i s stock investments. The C o u r t n o t e s t h a t t h e s t o c k m a r k e t i n t o d a y ' s economy does n o t a p p e a r t o o f f e r t h e [ f a t h e r ] an o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e c e i v e any c a p i t a l gains which might provide the [ f a t h e r ] w i t h a 5 2, fact the 2101216 r e g u l a r s o u r c e o f income w h i c h c o u l d be u s e d f o r c a l c u l a t i o n o r payment o f c h i l d s u p p o r t . the "4. B a s e d upon t h e t e s t i m o n y and t h e e x h i b i t s o f f e r e d i n t o e v i d e n c e , the C o u r t f i n d s t h a t the [father]'s employer has suffered substantial f i n a n c i a l l o s s e s r e c e n t l y and t h e [ f a t h e r ] , h i m s e l f , has had s u b s t a n t i a l losses through h i s personal i n v e s t m e n t i n [ t h e company]. "5. The C o u r t t h e r e f o r e f i n d s t h a t t h e [ r e ] has b e e n a m a t e r i a l change i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s e x i s t i n g since the r e n d i t i o n of the last [modification j u d g m e n t ] when t h e c h i l d s u p p o r t was set at Two T h o u s a n d and 00/100 ( $ 2 , 0 0 0 ) D o l l a r s p e r month and t h a t t h e [ m o d i f i c a t i o n j u d g m e n t ] s h o u l d be amended a c c o r d i n g l y t o b r i n g t h e amount o f c h i l d s u p p o r t i n s u b s t a n t i a l compliance w i t h the mandatory child s u p p o r t g u i d e l i n e s o f R u l e 32 " B a s e d on those f i n d i n g s of f a c t , and c o n s i d e r i n g t h a t the f a t h e r p r o v i d e d old child t h a t the from a p r e v i o u s f a t h e r pay application of r u l e on specifically support f o r h i s 17-year- m a r r i a g e , the trial court ordered $829 a month i n c h i l d s u p p o r t p u r s u a n t the appendix to Rule after child-support 32. The trial guidelines court t h e m o t h e r ' s r e q u e s t f o r an d i d not found in to the specifically award of a t t o r n e y fees. The m o t h e r f i l e d a t i m e l y p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. the t r i a l On court. appeal, C i v . P., The the w h i c h was subsequently denied mother t i m e l y f i l e d a n o t i c e of mother p r e s e n t s 6 three arguments by appeal. for our 2101216 c o n s i d e r a t i o n : (1) t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n m o d i f y i n g t h e father's child-support o b l i g a t i o n without 3 2 ( E ) , A l a . R. J u d . Admin.; consider his complying with Rule (2) t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t f a i l e d t o a l l the f a t h e r ' s sources o f income when determining g r o s s income f o r p u r p o s e s o f c a l c u l a t i n g h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t obligation; compel the and (3) t h a t t h e t r i a l father to produce c o u r t e r r e d by f a i l i n g t o certain documentation discovery. "Because t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e c e i v e d ore tenus e v i d e n c e , o u r r e v i e w o f i t s j u d g m e n t i s g o v e r n e d by the f o l l o w i n g p r i n c i p l e s : "'"'"[W]hen a t r i a l c o u r t h e a r s o r e t e n u s t e s t i m o n y , i t s f i n d i n g s on d i s p u t e d f a c t s a r e 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 based on those findings w i l l not be r e v e r s e d u n l e s s the judgment 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 . " ' " Water Works & S a n i t a r y Sewer Bd. v. P a r k s , 97 7 So. 2d 440, 443 ( A l a . 2007) (quoting F a d a l l a v. F a d a l l a , 929 So. 2d 429, 433 (Ala. 2 0 0 5 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n P h i l p o t v. S t a t e , 843 So. 2d 122, 125 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ) . "'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 , h o w e v e r , i s r e b u t t a b l e and may be overcome where there i s i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence presented to the t r i a l c o u r t t o s u s t a i n i t s judgment.'" Waltman v. R o w e l l , 913 So. 2d 1083, 1086 (Ala. 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 with a presumption of correctness a t r i a l judge'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 o f l a w t o t h e f a c t s . " Waltman 7 in 2101216 v. R o w e l l , Parker v. (quoting 913 Parker, Retail So. Initially, 985 we the So. 581, of 2d note trial 2d a t 3d Developers Golf Club, Inc., appeal that 87 So. court 583 (Ala. Civ. Alabama, 924, that 1086.'" the erred 929 LLC v. App. East 2012) Gadsden (Ala. 2007)). mother does not i n finding that argue there 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 u f f i c i e n t t o a modification Accordingly, Crouch, of the that 923 So. issue 2d i s confined has 1130, B o s h e l l v. K e i t h , 418 court father's been w a i v e d 1136 So. child-support 2d on 89, 92-93 by the parties extent t h a t the mother argues t h a t the because the t r i a l increase that the the are court father's trial waived."). the court implicitly counterclaim f o r an increased g r a n t e d the father's request c h i l d support. ("[T]his arguments arguments to judgment i s not denied award of c h i l d the not the final counterclaim o b l i g a t i o n , we v. (citing Furthermore, f a i l e d t o r u l e on h e r child-support Gary ( A l a . 1982)) r a i s e d by t h e p a r t i e s i n t h e i r b r i e f s on a p p e a l ; raised justify 2005) i n i t s review to addressing had obligation. appeal. ( A l a . C i v . App. on to conclude mother's s u p p o r t when i t f o r a downward m o d i f i c a t i o n of M o r e o v e r , i n r e s p o n s e t o t h e m o t h e r ' s argument 8 2101216 t h a t the trial court's judgment i s not n o t r u l e on h e r r e q u e s t that a t r i a l fees does because i t d i d f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s , t h i s c o u r t has c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o r u l e on a r e q u e s t not j u d g m e n t . See n.2 final affect the ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) of the v. B l a n k e n s h i p , Blankenship finality 963 for attorney trial So. ("[A]n u n a d j u d i c a t e d held court's 2d 112, 114 claim for an a t t o r n e y ' s f e e does n o t a f f e c t t h e f i n a l i t y o f a j u d g m e n t . " ) . The modifying mother the r e c o r d does n o t first argues father's reflect that the child-support trial court obligation compliance with Rule erred when 2 in the 32(E). " ' T h i s c o u r t has h e l d t h a t i f t h e r e c o r d does n o t r e f l e c t c o m p l i a n c e w i t h R u l e 32(E) ... (which r e q u i r e s the f i l i n g of " C h i l d Support O b l i g a t i o n Income S t a t e m e n t / A f f i d a v i t " f o r m s (Forms CS-41) and a " C h i l d S u p p o r t G u i d e l i n e s " f o r m (Form C S - 4 2 ) ) , and i f c h i l d s u p p o r t i s made an i s s u e on a p p e a l , t h i s c o u r t w i l l remand (or r e v e r s e and remand) f o r c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e r u l e . See M a r t i n v. M a r t i n , 637 So. 2d 901, 903 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1994) . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h i s c o u r t has a f f i r m e d c h i l d - s u p p o r t awards when, d e s p i t e t h e a b s e n c e o f t h e Because the mother's request f o r attorney fees c o l l a t e r a l t o t h e d e c i s i o n on t h e m e r i t s , see Edwards E d w a r d s , 999 So. 2d 939, 941-42 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) , b e c a u s e i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t has n o t r u l e d on m o t h e r ' s r e q u e s t f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s , we d e c l i n e t o a d d r e s s m o t h e r ' s c o n t e n t i o n on a p p e a l t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d f a i l i n g t o award her a t t o r n e y f e e s . 2 9 was v. and the the by 2101216 r e q u i r e d f o r m s , we c o u l d d i s c e r n f r o m t h e a p p e l l a t e r e c o r d what f i g u r e s t h e trial c o u r t used i n computing the c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n . See, e.g., Dunn v. Dunn, 891 So. 2d 891, 896 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004); R i m p f v. C a m p b e l l , 853 So. 2d 957, 959 (Ala. C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) ; and D i s m u k e s v. D o r s e y , 686 So. 2d 298, 301 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996). Nevertheless, without the child-support-guidelines forms, i t is s o m e t i m e s i m p o s s i b l e f o r an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t to d e t e r m i n e from the r e c o r d whether the trial court correctly applied the g u i d e l i n e s i n e s t a b l i s h i n g or m o d i f y i n g a c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n . See H o r w i t z v. TT^,,T,-;-i-r, Ton a ^ 1110 -r-ron / A -, H o r w i t z , 739 So. 2d 1118, 1120 (-A Tl a . CO-; v . i App. 1 9 9 9 ) . ' " H a r r i s v. H a r r i s , 59 So. 3d 731, ( q u o t i n g Hayes v. Hayes, 949 So. 736-37 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2d 150, 154 2010) (Ala. Civ. App. 2006)). In the present case, the trial court made specific f i n d i n g s of f a c t i n i t s judgment, i n c l u d i n g a f i n d i n g t h a t the f a t h e r ' s income i n c l u d e d p r i m a r i l y h i s s a l a r y , i n t e r e s t , dividends. not The trial court s p e c i f i c a l l y found t h a t i t would c o n s i d e r p o t e n t i a l income f r o m c a p i t a l g a i n s b e c a u s e stock market, as "appear t o o f f e r i t e x i s t e d at the [ f a t h e r ] an the o f income w h i c h c o u l d be 10 of opportunity c a p i t a l gains which might p r o v i d e the source time and trial, the did not to receive any [father] with a regular used f o r the ... payment of 2101216 child it support." had taken insurance for into his calculations guidelines child brief determination that judgment a l s o s t a t e d the father provided and t h a t t h e f a t h e r p r o v i d e d i n his on purport the support to using support of his child-support father miscalculation health support the the sets of the father's trial obligation. monthly forth child-support court's However, t h e c a l c u l a t i o n s i n c l u d e d i n t h e f a t h e r ' s b r i e f on a p p e a l a contain health-insurance c o s t , w h i c h r e s u l t s i n an e r r o n e o u s c a l c u l a t i o n o f h i s support o b l i g a t i o n . 3 child- When t h e c o r r e c t amount o f t h e f a t h e r ' s monthly health-insurance cost i s used i n the f a t h e r ' s s u p p o r t c a l c u l a t i o n s , i t does n o t r e n d e r a c h i l d - s u p p o r t in that custody. appeal, as t o c h i l d that court's account f o rthe c h i l d a 17-year-old In The t r i a l childaward t h e amount o f $829 a month. B e c a u s e we do n o t have t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t forms r e q u i r e d by Rule 32(E), trial court we c a n n o t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e made t h e same e r r o r child-support i n c a l c u l a t i n g the father's o b l i g a t i o n or i f the t r i a l court's c a l c u l a t i o n The f a t h e r ' s b r i e f i n d i c a t e s t h a t $58 x 4.33 = when, i n a c t u a l i t y , $58 x 4.33 = $251.14. 3 11 $294, 2101216 o f t h e f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n was b a s e d on f i g u r e s e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h o s e r e l i e d on by t h e f a t h e r i n h i s brief. Accordingly, we a r e u n a b l e t o d e t e r m i n e how the trial court c a l c u l a t e d the f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n i n the absence of the Because we child-support are determination reversing on other i n s t r u c t the t r i a l court forms the required trial grounds, see by court's Rule 32(E). child-support discussion infra, on remand t o c o m p l y w i t h R u l e by i n c l u d i n g i n t h e r e c o r d CS-41 we 32(E) and CS-42 f o r m s u s e d i n t h e computation of the f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n . Next, failing the mother argues that the trial court erred to i n c l u d e i n i t s c a l c u l a t i o n of the f a t h e r ' s s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n a l l t h e a p p l i c a b l e income o f t h e A l t h o u g h we forms are unable to determine, i n the absence r e q u i r e d by R u l e 3 2 ( E ) , t h e s p e c i f i c that the t r i a l amount o f by childfather. of the income court determined that the f a t h e r earned, i t i s c l e a r from the judgment t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n c l u d e d a t l e a s t the income f r o m t h e f a t h e r ' s s a l a r y , i n t e r e s t , and that the c a p i t a l gains. trial court trial court d i d not include any and dividends income A c c o r d i n g l y , we w i l l c o n s i d e r o n l y w h e t h e r e r r e d by failing to include 12 income f r o m from the capital 2101216 gains i n i t s determination obligation. Rule income," of the father's child-support 4 32(B)(2), A l a . R. J u d . Admin., f o r purposes of computing c h i l d defines "gross s u p p o r t as "income f r o m any s o u r c e , [that] includes, but i s not l i m i t e d to, c a p i t a l gains " must t a k e when support o b l i g a t i o n s " and t h a t has no d i s c r e t i o n " t o i g n o r e computing court i n t o a c c o u n t a l l s o u r c e s o f income o f t h e p a r e n t s computing court T h i s c o u r t has h e l d t h a t " t h e t r i a l ... a parent's child-support sources "[t]he o f income trial when o b l i g a t i o n . Massey v. M a s s e y , 706 So. 2d 1272, 1274 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1997) ( e m p h a s i s added). Despite the f a c t that a trial court must consider a l l The mother contends t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d by f a i l i n g t o i n c l u d e income f r o m t h e f a t h e r ' s t a x r e f u n d , c a p i t a l g a i n s , " o t h e r g a i n s , " and " f r i n g e b e n e f i t s " i n t h e f a t h e r ' s g r o s s income f o r purposes of c a l c u l a t i n g h i s child-support o b l i g a t i o n . W i t h o u t t h e r e q u i r e d c h i l d - s u p p o r t f o r m s , we a r e unable t o determine with c e r t a i n t y that the t r i a l court f a i l e d to consider the father's t a x refund, " o t h e r g a i n s , " and " f r i n g e b e n e f i t s " ( o r any c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h o s e i t e m s ) i n calculating the father's gross income. A c c o r d i n g l y , we p r e t e r m i t d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e m o t h e r ' s argument r e g a r d i n g t h e t r i a l court's f a i l u r e t o include the t a x refund, the "other g a i n s , " a n d " f r i n g e b e n e f i t s " i n t h e f a t h e r ' s g r o s s income i n l i g h t of our r e v e r s a l o f the t r i a l c o u r t ' s child-support determination. 4 13 2101216 s o u r c e s o f income t o t h e not i n c l u d e any o b l i g o r parent, the income f r o m c a p i t a l g a i n s trial i n the court did calculation of the f a t h e r ' s g r o s s income b e c a u s e i t f o u n d t h a t t h e market i n the tenus hearing receive a economy as any would not source calculation "regular the to we case, substantial If an could from and to o f f e r the record no the be f o r the very and existence of a trial court to income f r o m c a p i t a l gains ignore gains of likelihood, include income" from result income from in capital the child-support capital gains 14 record earn was not capital In father had capital gains t o t a l i n g $11,000. evidence simply gains, the income. i t the there "regular could, judgments because of because no g u a r a n t e e t h a t t h e o b l i g o r p a r e n t w o u l d have a source for of to with father to nature that c a p i t a l g a i n s as o f A u g u s t 2011 allowed used guarantee of revealed ore father A l t h o u g h the capital i t i s the the opportunity c a p i t a l l o s s e s i n 2009, s u b s t a n t i a l we was that income" that time of that would provide income" of note fluctuate present i n 2010, father t h a t the p o t e n t i a l source guaranteed, gains of the the o r payment o f c h i l d s u p p o r t . supports a f i n d i n g a offer c a p i t a l gains "regular i t e x i s t e d at stock in a l l that never capital gains 2101216 constantly f l u c t u a t e -- n o t o n l y year to year, b u t month t o month and day t o d a y . Thus, we conclude that the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d by failing t o i n c l u d e income f r o m c a p i t a l g a i n s i n t h e c a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e father's 962, gross 966 i n c o m e . See B u s h n e l l ( A l a . C i v . App. child-support 1997) determination v. B u s h n e l l , (reversing because 713 So. a trial i t failed 2d court's to include income f r o m c a p i t a l g a i n s as w e l l o t h e r s o u r c e s i n d e t e r m i n i n g the father's court had no child-support d i s c r e t i o n to purposes of determining supra, obligation). ignore Although the sources of income trial for t h e f a t h e r ' s g r o s s i n c o m e , see M a s s e y , i f the t r i a l c o u r t had b e l i e v e d t h a t a p p l i c a t i o n of the g u i d e l i n e s w o u l d have been m a n i f e s t l y u n j u s t o r i n e q u i t a b l e i t c o u l d have made a w r i t t e n f i n d i n g on t h e r e c o r d i n g i n d i c a t i n g its f i n d i n g supporting a deviation from the child-support g u i d e l i n e s . See R u l e 32(A) ( i i ) , A l a . R. J u d . Admin. there i s no i n d i c a t i o n i n the record intended to Instead, the record applied deviate from application clearly the c h i l d - s u p p o r t income f r o m c a p i t a l g a i n s , that of guidelines but the t r i a l the indicates that However, guidelines. the t r i a l failed court to court include i . e . , income f r o m e v e r y s o u r c e , i n 15 2101216 c a l c u l a t i n g the f a t h e r ' s g r o s s income. court's judgment calculating obligation i s reversed from c a p i t a l gains the A c c o r d i n g l y , the father's trial child-support i n s o f a r as i t f a i l e d t o i n c l u d e income i n i t s c a l c u l a t i o n of the father's child- support o b l i g a t i o n . Finally, the mother argues t h a t the t r i a l court erred by f a i l i n g t o compel the f a t h e r t o produce c e r t a i n d o c u m e n t a t i o n in P., discovery. In v i o l a t i o n o f R u l e 28(a) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . R. App. t h e m o t h e r c i t e s no a u t h o r i t y t o s u p p o r t t h e argument makes on appeal. further. argument Motley, Accordingly, See 909 Showers, 812 So. 2d So. State 806, 2d Farm 822 277, we will Mut. (Ala. 281 (Ala. not consider Auto. 2005) 2001)) Ins. (citing this Co. Ex she v. parte ("[I]t i s well s e t t l e d t h a t a f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h the r e q u i r e m e n t s of Rule 28(a)(10) requiring citation arguments p r e s e n t e d for provides d i s r e g a r d i n g those Accordingly, the of a u t h o r i t y i n support of the [an a p p e l l a t e c ] o u r t w i t h a b a s i s arguments."). trial court's judgment setting the f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n a t $829 a month i s r e v e r s e d , and we remand t h e with this cause for further proceedings opinion. 16 consistent 2101216 REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, concur. P . J . , and P i t t m a n , 17 Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . ,

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

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