Susan Lynn Caswell v. Barry Scott Caswell

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 7/27/12 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 2110004 Susan Lynn Caswell v. Barry S c o t t Caswell Appeal from Lee C i r c u i t Court (DR-01-402.03) BRYAN, J u d g e . Susan L y n n C a s w e l l entered ("the m o t h e r " ) a p p e a l s by t h e Lee C i r c u i t awarded B a r r y S c o t t C a s w e l l child-support arrearage. Court from a judgment ("the t r i a l court") that ("the f a t h e r " ) c r e d i t t o w a r d h i s We r e v e r s e a n d remand. 2110004 Facts and P r o c e d u r a l History The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r d i v o r c e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t on December 19, 2001. The were divorce j u d g m e n t a w a r d e d t h e m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r j o i n t p h y s i c a l and joint legal custody of their three K a t h r y n , and two s o n s , Ryan and C l a y as " t h e c h i l d r e n " ) . was required children: a daughter, (referred to c o l l e c t i v e l y P u r s u a n t t o t h a t judgment, n e i t h e r t o pay child support. However, the party judgment r e q u i r e d the p a r t i e s t o share e q u a l l y i n expenditures r e l a t e d to the e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s c o l l e g e or v o c a t i o n a l education 2003, the t r i a l court entered o f t h e c h i l d r e n and t o t h e of the c h i l d r e n . a judgment that On May 22, modified the d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t and i n c o r p o r a t e d an a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s . 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 j u d g m e n t , t h e m o t h e r was awarded s o l e l e g a l and p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n and t h e f a t h e r a g r e e d t o p a y c h i l d s u p p o r t i n t h e amount o f $ 6 1 7 e a c h month. On O c t o b e r 5, 2010, t h e m o t h e r f i l e d to hold the f a t h e r a petition i n c o n t e m p t f o r , among o t h e r seeking things, h i s a l l e g e d f a i l u r e t o p a y c h i l d s u p p o r t s i n c e December 2005. November 2, 2010, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d the a l l e g a t i o n s c o n t a i n e d an a n s w e r , p r o s e , d e n y i n g i n the mother's p e t i t i o n . 2 On With the 2110004 assistance February accord The of counsel, the father 18, 2 0 1 1 , t o i n c l u d e and s a t i s f a c t i o n , father also filed amended h i s answer on the a f f i r m a t i v e defenses of offset, laches, a counterclaim and u n c l e a n seeking hands. to hold the mother i n contempt f o r h e r a l l e g e d f a i l u r e t o pay o n e - h a l f o f the college expenses o f t h e p a r t i e s ' two o l d e s t children, K a t h r y n a n d R y a n , as o r d e r e d i n t h e p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e judgment. On mother May 10, counterclaim, 2011, the the father's denying i t s contentions. On May 12, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l hearing. answered The parties court stipulated c o n d u c t e d an o r e t e n u s that no child-support payments h a d been made b y t h e f a t h e r s i n c e December 2005 a n d that the t o t a l arrearage $40,100. terminated that owed b y t h e f a t h e r was The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d that the father approximately unilaterally h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t payments a f t e r December 2005 a n d she h a d n o t a g r e e d t o a l l o w c h i l d - s u p p o r t payments. However, and t h e m o t h e r h a d m u t u a l l y would pay f o r expenditures arose i n l i e u t h e f a t h e r t o stop according making t o t h e f a t h e r , he a g r e e d i n December 2005 t h a t he on b e h a l f o f t h e c h i l d r e n as t h e y o f making monthly c h i l d - s u p p o r t payments. The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t , s i n c e December 2005, i t was common f o r 3 2110004 the c h i l d r e n t o s p e n d two o r t h r e e father. nights e a c h week w i t h t h e The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t i t was common f o r C l a y t o s p e n d more t i m e a t t h e f a t h e r ' s h o u s e t h a n a t t h e m o t h e r ' s . The parties also s t i p u l a t e d that, although no child- s u p p o r t p a y m e n t s h a d b e e n made s i n c e December 2005, t h e f a t h e r had provided financially c h i l d r e n were i n v o l v e d . f o r other activities i n which the The f a t h e r s u b m i t t e d an e x h i b i t i n t o e v i d e n c e t h a t i t e m i z e d t h e e x p e n d i t u r e s he h a d made on b e h a l f of t h e c h i l d r e n d u r i n g support t o t h e mother. bank statements list were clothing, The e x p e n d i t u r e s and t r a n s a c t i o n expenditures fishing telephone b i l l s , should t h e t i m e t h a t he was n o t p a y i n g equipment, dirt-bike truck parts, on t h e things, school, parts, guns, cellular- be n o t e d t h a t , g e n e r a l l y s p e a k i n g , m o r t g a g e , grocery the f a t h e r ' s h o u s e were n o t i n c l u d e d his other Included and s k a t e b o a r d p a r t s . and The were s u p p o r t e d b y receipts. f o r , among expenditures I t utility, f o r the time the c h i l d r e n spent a t f a t h e r a r g u e d t h a t he s h o u l d child-support child i n the l i s t . receive credit against a r r e a r a g e f o r t h e e x p e n d i t u r e s t h a t he made on b e h a l f o f t h e c h i l d r e n as l i s t e d i n t h e e x h i b i t he p r o v i d e d to the t r i a l court. The m o t h e r a r g u e d t h a t , b e c a u s e 4 several 2110004 of t h e e x p e n d i t u r e s i n c l u d e d on t h e l i s t were n o t e s s e n t i a l t o the support and m a i n t e n a n c e o f t h e c h i l d r e n , they should be c r e d i t e d a g a i n s t t h e f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e . mother argued t h a t the f a t h e r s h o u l d r e c e i v e c r e d i t not The totaling, a t most, $5,567.76 a g a i n s t t h e a r r e a r a g e , b e c a u s e t h a t number, in her o p i n i o n , r e p r e s e n t e d the l i s t e d e x p e n d i t u r e s r e l a t e d to e s s e n t i a l c h i l d support On J u l y among other $3,000 as 6, 2011, the t r i a l things, ordered reimbursement expenditures. Regarding maintenance. c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r the for and mother Kathryn's the to pay and father's the Ryan's request a g a i n s t h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t arrearage, the t r i a l to by t h e f a t h e r d u r i n g t h e o r e t e n u s hearing. struck the expenditures from list that, father college for credit court attached i t s o r d e r t h e l i s t o f e x p e n d i t u r e s t h a t had b e e n certain actually The submitted trial provided court by the f a t h e r , e i t h e r b e c a u s e t h o s e e x p e n d i t u r e s had b e e n i n c u r r e d on behalf of a child who because the e x p e n d i t u r e the l i s t . credit had had Additionally, against his obtained the age been a c c o u n t e d the t r i a l of m a j o r i t y or f o r elsewhere c o u r t awarded the f a t h e r child-support arrearage for automobile i n s u r a n c e he had p a i d on b e h a l f o f Ryan and C l a y , and he 5 on was 2110004 a l s o awarded c r e d i t a g a i n s t h i s a r r e a r a g e an a u t o m o b i l e f o r Clay. The total f o r the purchase of amount o f c r e d i t against the f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t arrearage was awarded $27,449.80. The t r i a l c o u r t r e s e r v e d r u l i n g on t h e amount o f i n t e r e s t owed t o t h e m o t h e r , and i t o r d e r e d t h e p a r t i e s t o s u b m i t a p r o p o s e d o r d e r t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e g a r d i n g t h e amount o f i n t e r e s t t h a t h a d a c c u m u l a t e d on t h e f a t h e r ' s In compliance with the t r i a l subsequently that arrearage. the filed court's order, a j o i n t n o t i c e t o the t r i a l father's including interest, outstanding the p a r t i e s court child-support t o t a l e d $15,902.30 stating arrearage, a f t e r a p p l y i n g , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t c r e d i t s a w a r d e d i n t h e J u l y 6, 2011, o r d e r . The j o i n t n o t i c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s h a d a g r e e d t o s u b t r a c t $405.19 from the t o t a l the Thus, July 6, 2011, order. awarded c r e d i t t o t a l i n g arrearage. $27,044.61 credit awarded i n t h e f a t h e r was u l t i m a t e l y against h i s child-support On J u l y 29, 2011, t h e t r i a l court entered a f i n a l judgment h o l d i n g t h a t the f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e interest totaled $15,902.30. On A u g u s t 5, 2011, t h e m o t h e r moved t o a l t e r , vacate and the judgment pursuant to Rule 6 amend, o r 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., 2110004 arguing, among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t had e r r e d awarding the f a t h e r c r e d i t toward h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t for items that were not essential maintenance of the children. court relief denied the postjudgment motion. On to the On A u g u s t 18, requested by the arrearage support 2011, by the mother and trial in her 1 S e p t e m b e r 27, 2011, of appeal to t h i s c o u r t . the mother f i l e d On appeal, a timely notice the mother contends that t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d by a w a r d i n g t h e f a t h e r a t o t a l c r e d i t i n the amount improperly of $27,044.61 considered matters the of credit and allowed c r e d i t against the expenditures (1) certain amount for the because: (2) in trial the trial court determining court the improperly father's child-support obligation t h a t were n o t e s s e n t i a l to the support and maintenance of the c h i l d r e n . Standard of Review "Where e v i d e n c e i s p r e s e n t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t o r e t e n u s , 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 e x i s t s as t o t h e court's conclusions on issues of fact; its The t r i a l c o u r t , a t t h e r e q u e s t o f t h e m o t h e r , amended p a r t of i t s f i n a l judgment r e g a r d i n g the f a t h e r ' s ongoing c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n . The amendment d i d n o t a f f e c t t h e c r e d i t a w a r d e d a g a i n s t t h e f a t h e r ' s a r r e a r a g e and i s n o t an i s s u e on a p p e a l . 1 7 2110004 d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d u n l e s s c l e a r l y erroneous, without supporting evidence, m a n i f e s t l y unjust, or against the great weight of the evidence." D i x o n v . W i n d s o r , 596 So. 2d 898, 899 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . this court novo. App. reviews the t r i a l court's Henderson v. Henderson, legal However, conclusions 978 So. 2d 36, 39 de (Ala. C i v . 2007). Analysis I n i t s j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t "some o f t h e things playing into the Court's decision" included " l a i s s e z f a i r e " l i v i n g arrangement o f t h e c h i l d r e n , concerning the testimony t h e a l l e g e d o r a l agreement between t h e mother and father, father's the mother's delay i n seeking child-support obligation, to enforce and K a t h r y n ' s support i n December 2005. the a n d Ryan's r e a c h i n g t h e age o f m a j o r i t y a f t e r t h e f a t h e r s t o p p e d child the paying The m o t h e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n by c o n s i d e r i n g those matters when m a k i n g a d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e f a t h e r s h o u l d be a w a r d e d credit against h i s child-support This arrearage. c o u r t has h e l d t h a t " [ c ] h i l d s u p p o r t ... [ i s a ] m a t t e r [ ] t h a t r e s t [ s ] w i t h i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t and t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment i n r e g a r d t o c h i l d 8 2110004 s u p p o r t w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d a b s e n t a s h o w i n g o f abuse o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n . B r a n n o n v. B r a n n o n , 477 So. 2d 445 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 5 ) . Further, the award o r d e n i a l o f c r e d i t s a g a i n s t an a r r e a r a g e l i e s w i t h i n t h e s o u n d d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , and i t s d e c i s i o n r e g a r d i n g c r e d i t s w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d without a s h o w i n g o f p l a i n and p a l p a b l e abuse. K i n s e y v. K i n s e y , 425 So. 2d 483 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1983)." Hillis The v. Boggs, trial court's a child-support surrounding 1006, 1008 The 646 So. 2d 124, ( A l a . C i v . App. 1994). d e c i s i o n t o award o r deny a c r e d i t a g a i n s t arrearage must be made a f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g a l l circumstances. See L e w i s v. W i n s l o w , 587 So. ( A l a . C i v . App. mother 125 first 2d 1991). takes issue with the trial court's c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the " l a i s s e z f a i r e " l i v i n g arrangement of the c h i l d r e n when d e t e r m i n i n g against the father's child-support i n d i c a t e s that the t r i a l s p e c i f i c expenditures There t h e amount o f c r e d i t t o be court arrearage. The awarded record awarded t h e f a t h e r c r e d i t f o r t h a t he p a i d on b e h a l f o f t h e c h i l d r e n . i s no i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e judgment that the t r i a l court awarded t h e f a t h e r c r e d i t a g a i n s t h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n b a s e d on t h e c h i l d r e n ' s l i v i n g a r r a n g e m e n t . S m i t h , 16 So. 3d 109, 112 Compare Odom v. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) ( a w a r d i n g c r e d i t against the f a t h e r ' s arrearage 9 full f o r a p e r i o d because the 2110004 c h i l d r e n l i v e d p r i m a r i l y with the f a t h e r during that p e r i o d , the father provided period, and period). the a l l the c h i l d r e n ' s support mother Therefore, provided no during during support that that any c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h a t t h e t r i a l court gave t o t h e " l a i s s e z f a i r e " l i v i n g a r r a n g e m e n t o f t h e c h i l d r e n was general court's i n nature and was not an abuse considered testimony concerning the p a r t i e s that ( A l a . C i v . App. court trial improperly the a l l e g e d o r a l purportedly child-support obligation. 478 the discretion. The m o t h e r a l s o c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l between of modified agreement the father's See Dodd v. Dodd, 588 So. 2d 476, 1991) ("The cannot n u l l i f y or modify a p r e v i o u s parents of a minor c h i l d support child j u d g m e n t by t h e i r m u t u a l agreement w i t h o u t r e c e i v i n g a p p r o v a l o f t h e t r i a l court to do so."). However, the trial s p e c i f i c a l l y f i n d t h a t an a g r e e m e n t e x i s t e d . court did Furthermore, the t e r m s o f t h e a l l e g e d o r a l a g r e e m e n t w o u l d have p e r m i t t e d father to finance the c h i l d r e n ' s general expenditures of paying c h i l d support. Had t h e t r i a l the in lieu court enforced t e r m s , t h e f a t h e r w o u l d have been a w a r d e d c r e d i t expenditures not those f o r a l l the he made on b e h a l f o f t h e c h i l d r e n , b u t t h e t r i a l 10 2110004 court's judgment arrearages. generally required The record considered the father to indicates testimony pay child-support that the concerning the a g r e e m e n t when m a k i n g t h e enforce agreement. intended Thus, we to the terms not of oral that i t s the alleged court's conclude t h a t the t r i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n of such testimony court alleged credit determination, j u d g m e n t was trial general does n o t amount t o an abuse o f discretion. Regarding the t r i a l c o u r t ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the mother's delay in seeking obligation, trial enforce we court's the to enforce note t h a t the consideration the father's mother appears t o c o n s t r u e of her delay So. 3d 630, D a i l e y , 38 l a w has in So. 632 (Ala. Civ. 3d 731, 735 App. 2008) (quoting ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008)) l o n g h e l d t h a t the defense of l a c h e s defense of laches, i f i t had been o p e r a t e d as a c o m p l e t e b a r t o r e c o v e r y . at 735 (quoting Ex parte Grubbs, 11 542 to improper See W i l l i a m s v. Hobson, So. 2d v. is inapplicable applied, See Mills ("'Alabama to actions enforcing child-support o b l i g a t i o n s . ' " ) . the the attempting 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 as an a p p l i c a t i o n of the defense of l a c h e s . 5 child-support However, would have M i l l s , 38 So. 927, 928 3d (Ala. 2110004 1989), d e f i n i n g laches as and e x p l a i n i n g t h a t l a c h e s a bar'" t o recovery on a claim). The "'operates trial judgment o r d e r e d t h e f a t h e r t o pay a c h i l d - s u p p o r t Therefore, apply the record i n d i c a t e s that the t r i a l the defense of laches award o f a c h i l d - s u p p o r t court's arrearage. court d i d not t o the mother's request f o r an arrearage. The l a s t m a t t e r w i t h w h i c h t h e m o t h e r t a k e s i s s u e i s t h e trial court's c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p a r t i e s ' two oldest c h i l d r e n obtained t h e age o f m a j o r i t y a f t e r t h e f a t h e r s t o p p e d p a y i n g c h i l d s u p p o r t i n December 2005. trial court's consideration trial judgment of that clearly However, t h e indicates fact benefited that i t s t h e mother because t h e c o u r t d i d n o t award t h e f a t h e r c r e d i t f o r some e x p e n s e s he i n c u r r e d obtained on b e h a l f o f t h e two o l d e s t children after they t h e age o f m a j o r i t y . Accordingly, committed we cannot reversible conclude error by that the t r i a l considering the court living arrangement of t h e c h i l d r e n , t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g t h e a l l e g e d oral agreement seeking between t o enforce the p a r t i e s , t h e mother's the father's child-support K a t h r y n ' s and Ryan's r e a c h i n g delay in o b l i g a t i o n , and t h e age o f m a j o r i t y when m a k i n g 12 2110004 the determination child-support t o award t h e f a t h e r c r e d i t a g a i n s t arrearage. Next, the mother argues t h a t the t r i a l awarded c r e d i t a g a i n s t for expenditures We required equally extracurricular obligation is the f a t h e r ' s related activities. to agree. child-support To t h e e x t e n t activities that of and the "minor distinct related 320, 323 See also ( A l a . C i v . App. to children," from ( A l a . C i v . App. 1999) g u i d e l i n e s are designed t o provide a child."). arrearage the p a r t i e s are i n expenditures g u i d e l i n e s i n R u l e 32, A l a . R. J u d . Admin. 747 So. 2d, 332, 337 improperly to the c h i l d r e n ' s e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r share separate court o b l i g a t i o n t o pay c h i l d s u p p o r t p u r s u a n t t o t h e of the h i s the the that father's child-support See Deas v. Deas, ("The c h i l d s u p p o r t f o r t h e b a s i c s u p p o r t needs S t r i n g e r v. S h e f f i e l d , 451 So. 1984) court's ( a f f i r m i n g the t r i a l r e f u s a l t o award t h e f a t h e r c r e d i t a g a i n s t 2d h i s child-support a r r e a r a g e f o r the purchase of s p o r t s equipment f o r the c h i l d ) . Therefore, that 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 t o t h e e x t e n t i t awarded t h e f a t h e r arrearage for expenditures c r e d i t against he 13 incurred his child-support related to the 2110004 extracurricular The mother a l s o awarded the t r i a l the father's made on Ryan's b e h a l f of m a j o r i t y . "child of the c h i l d r e n . argues t h a t c r e d i t against expenditures pay activities 2 court arrearage f o r several a f t e r he o b t a i n e d The m o d i f i c a t i o n j u d g m e n t o r d e r e d support improperly f o r the support t h e age the father to and maintenance of the minor c h i l d r e n o f t h e p a r t i e s , " and i t d i d n o t o b l i g a t e t h e f a t h e r t o pay f o r t h e c h i l d r e n ' s p o s t m i n o r i t y Therefore, father's Ryan's court's child-support behalf reversed. App. the t r i a l after he award arrearage obtained of c r e d i t expenditures. against f o r expenditures t h e age made 3 the on of majority i s See Weaver v . Weaver, 401 So. 2d 77, 78 ( A l a . C i v . 1981) ( " [ T ] h e r e i s no a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e c o u r t t o c r e d i t We do n o t h o l d t h a t t h e f a t h e r i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o reimbursement f o r 50% o f t h e e x p e n d i t u r e s r e l a t e d to the e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e c h i l d r e n , o n l y t h a t such e x p e n d i t u r e s may n o t be c r e d i t e d a g a i n s t h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e , because t h e o b l i g a t i o n s a r e s e p a r a t e and d i s t i n c t . 2 The d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t d i d r e q u i r e t h e p a r t i e s t o s h a r e e q u a l l y i n t h e c h i l d r e n ' s c o l l e g e expenses. That o b l i g a t i o n , however, i s separate from the father's child-support o b l i g a t i o n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 32 a r i s i n g f r o m t h e May 2003 judgment m o d i f y i n g t h e d i v o r c e judgment. On a p p e a l , t h e m o t h e r does n o t c h a l l e n g e t h e p o r t i o n o f t h e t r i a l court's judgment o r d e r i n g h e r t o r e i m b u r s e t h e f a t h e r f o r K a t h r y n ' s and Ryan's c o l l e g e e x p e n s e s . 3 14 2110004 the father with any support furnished [to the child] after trial court [the c h i l d ] r e a c h e d m a j o r i t y . " ) . Finally, improperly the argues awarded c r e d i t a g a i n s t expenditures that maintenance of the mother trial court purchases, the were the the father's arrearage essential children. e r r e d by vehicle not that to Specifically, the she including expenditures accessories, for support and argues that for vehicle v e h i c l e - r e g i s t r a t i o n fees, v e h i c l e s e r v i c i n g , v e h i c l e p a r t s , automobile insurance, guns, a t r e e s t a n d , s k a t e b o a r d p a r t s , and m o n t h l y c e l l u l a r - t e l e p h o n e payments i n the d e t e r m i n a t i o n the f a t h e r was This court o f t h e amount o f c r e d i t t o w h i c h entitled. has held that " t h e t r i a l c o u r t has d i s c r e t i o n t o a w a r d c r e d i t s a g a i n s t an a r r e a r a g e . M c D a n i e l v. W i n t e r , 412 So. 2d 282 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 2 ) . However, a l t h o u g h t h e f a t h e r may be c r e d i t e d f o r e x p e n s e s t h a t he assumes gratuitously, these expenses must clearly be c a t e g o r i z e d as e s s e n t i a l t o b a s i c c h i l d s u p p o r t . E v a n s v. E v a n s , 500 So. 2d 1095 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986)." Hillis, held 646 So. 2d a t 125-26 (emphasis added). We have that " [ t ] h e c h i l d s u p p o r t g u i d e l i n e s are d e s i g n e d t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e b a s i c s u p p o r t needs o f a c h i l d . In determining what i t e m s may be c r e d i t e d a g a i n s t a 15 also 2110004 noncustodial parent's c h i l d support o b l i g a t i o n , t h i s c o u r t has d i s a l l o w e d c r e d i t s f o r ' e x t r a s ' s u c h as c a r s , g i f t s , and p r i v a t e s c h o o l t u i t i o n . S t a t e ex r e l . B u r t v. Morgan, 716 So. 2d 729 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 8 ) ; H i l l i s v. B o g g s , 646 So. 2d 124 (Ala. Civ. App. 1 9 9 4 ) ; R o t a r v. W e i l a n d , 591 So. 2d 893 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 1 ) ; Anonymous v. Anonymous, 428 So. 2d 109 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 3 ) . " Deas v. We Deas, 747 agree vehicle that 2d a t 337. expenditures accessories, servicing, stand, So. vehicle v e h i c l e p a r t s , automobile insurance, skateboard support," conclude as that parts, Hillis, the purchases, v e h i c l e - r e g i s t r a t i o n fees, and p a y m e n t s c a n n o t " c l e a r l y be child such guns, a t r e e cellular-telephone c a t e g o r i z e d as e s s e n t i a l t o b a s i c 646 trial monthly vehicle So. court 2d at 126. exceeded Accordingly, we i t s discretion by awarding the f a t h e r c r e d i t a g a i n s t h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t for those At harsh, arrearage expenditures. first blush, but we the e f f e c t of this d e c i s i o n may appear ignore the underlying policy cannot considerations that support i t . A n o n c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t may not r e c e i v e c r e d i t a g a i n s t h i s o r h e r c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n by providing the nonessential support of child "extras" the child. with that To gifts, do not hold 16 luxuries, directly otherwise go to may or other the basic allow the 2110004 noncustodial parent providing parent t o w i n f a v o r i n t h e eyes o f t h e c h i l d by nonessential "extras," a l l while i s p o t e n t i a l l y struggling t o provide necessities, such as, food, absence o f c o u r t - o r d e r e d Accordingly, clothing, the custodial the child's basic and s h e l t e r , c h i l d - s u p p o r t payments. the t r i a l court's judgment i s r e v e r s e d and t h i s c a s e i s remanded w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h e t r i a l recalculate the credit child-support arrearage i n the t o be a w a r d e d i n a manner against court t o the father's consistent with this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , Thomas writings. and P i t t m a n , a n d Moore, J . , concur. J J . , concur 17 i n the r e s u l t , without

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.