Edward Dyess v. Lajune White Dyess

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/13/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter of Decisions, A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 2110020 Edward Dyess v. Lajune White Dyess Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (DR-10-273) Court THOMAS, J u d g e . Edward Circuit Dyess Court appeals determining from a judgment that of the Jefferson he a n d L a j u n e White Dyess e n t e r e d i n t o a common-law m a r r i a g e , d i v o r c i n g t h e p a r t i e s , a n d awarding Lajune c e r t a i n r e a l p r o p e r t y . We r e v e r s e a n d remand. 2110020 On F e b r u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 0 , E d w a r d f i l e d a "complaint to sale [sic] and d i v i d e " c e r t a i n r e a l p r o p e r t y l o c a t e d i n Birmingham ("the real property"). Both p a r t i e s t o g e t h e r i n t h e house c o n s t i t u t i n g agree that they some o f t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y s i n c e t h e t i m e t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y was p u r c h a s e d . 26, lived On F e b r u a r y 2010, t h e c a s e was t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e d o m e s t i c - r e l a t i o n s d i v i s i o n of the Jefferson C i r c u i t Court. May 25, 2010, L a j u n e I n h e r answer, counterclaimed f o r a divorce, t h a t she a n d E d w a r d h a d a m a r r i a g e filed claiming r e l a t i o n s h i p by v i r t u e o f a common-law m a r r i a g e . The which had trial court conducted a h e a r i n g on May 24, 2 0 1 1 , a t i t h e a r d o r e t e n u s e v i d e n c e as t o w h e t h e r t h e p a r t i e s entered into a common-law m a r r i a g e , divide the m a r i t a l property. a n d i f s o , how t o As t h e p a r t y c o u n t e r c l a i m i n g f o r a d i v o r c e , Lajune p r e s e n t e d h e r case f i r s t . The t r i a l court h e a r d t e s t i m o n y from v a r i o u s w i t n e s s e s , i n c l u d i n g d i r e c t and c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n o f Edward and L a j u n e . of However, a t t h e c l o s e L a j u n e ' s p r e s e n t a t i o n o f e v i d e n c e , she r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e trial court regarding failed preclude the issue to f i l e Edward from o f common-law p r e s e n t i n g any marriage because evidence he h a d an answer t o h e r c o u n t e r c l a i m f o r a d i v o r c e . 2 2110020 A l t h o u g h E d w a r d i n f o r m e d t h e c o u r t t h a t he h a d w i t n e s s e s to t e s t i f y as t o t h a t i s s u e , t h e t r i a l request. court granted ready Lajune's The h e a r i n g t h u s c o n c l u d e d a t t h e c l o s e o f L a j u n e ' s presentation of evidence. The trial court entered a judgment d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t a common-law m a r r i a g e the parties. The judgment also on June 1, 2 0 1 1 , e x i s t e d and d i v o r c i n g awarded Lajune the real p r o p e r t y b u t made E d w a r d " s o l e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e d e b t on this p r o p e r t y " a n d r e q u i r e d h i m t o make payments relating allowed to retain to the r e a l a l l t h e mortgage property. a l l "financial accounts, Each party was r e t i r e m e n t and p e n s i o n f u n d s , and a l l p r o p e r t y he [ o r s h e ] b r o u g h t into the marriage." On June 3 0 , 2 0 1 1 , E d w a r d f i l e d alter, July amend, o r v a c a t e t h e judgment, 1, 2011, s p e c i f i c a l l y asserting common-law m a r r i a g e was i n e r r o r . to alter, a postjudgment which motion t o was amended on that the f i n d i n g of a Lajune a l s o f i l e d a motion amend, o r v a c a t e on June 3 0 , 2011. The t r i a l court e n t e r e d an amended o r d e r on A u g u s t 29, 2 0 1 1 , i n s t r u c t i n g t h e parties to s e l l and e q u a l l y d i v i d e a time-share property i n M e x i c o a n d i n s t r u c t i n g E d w a r d t o g i v e L a j u n e $5,369.70 3 toward 2110020 payment of her attorney f e e s . requested postjudgment The o r d e r denied relief. On a p p e a l , E d w a r d a r g u e s ( 1 ) t h a t t h e t r i a l in finding a a l l other common-law marriage, ( 2 ) that court erred this case was improperly t r a n s f e r r e d t o the d o m e s t i c - r e l a t i o n sd i v i s i o n of the J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court, ( 3 ) t h a t the t r i a l to court failed e q u i t a b l y d i v i d e t h e p a r t i e s ' p r o p e r t y , (4) t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d h i m due p r o c e s s court considered improper issue whether trial court's finding t h e r e was common-law m a r r i a g e Our o f l a w , a n d (5) t h a t t h e t r i a l evidence. sufficient We first evidence t h a t Edward and Lajune address to support the entered into relationship. supreme c o u r t h a s h e l d : "'Courts of t h i s state c l o s e l y s c r u t i n i z e claims of common l a w m a r r i a g e and r e q u i r e c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g p r o o f t h e r e o f . ' B a k e r v . Townsend, 484 So. 2d 1097, 1098 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 6 ) , citing W a l t o n v. W a l t o n , 409 So. 2d 858 ( A l a . C i v . App. A t r i a l j u d g e ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t s b a s e d on 1982). ore tenus e v i d e n c e a r e presumed c o r r e c t , and a judgment based on t h o s e findings will n o t be r e v e r s e d u n l e s s t h e y a r e f o u n d t o be p l a i n l y a n d p a l p a b l y w r o n g . C o p e l a n d v. R i c h a r d s o n , 551 So. 2d 353, 354 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . The t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t must be v i e w e d i n l i g h t o f a l l t h e e v i d e n c e a n d a l l logical inferences therefrom, and i t ' w i l l be a f f i r m e d i f , u n d e r any r e a s o n a b l e a s p e c t o f t h e testimony, there i s c r e d i b l e evidence to support the 4 the a 2110020 j u d g m e n t . ' Adams v. Boan, 559 So. ( A l a . 1990) ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) . " 2d 1084, 1086 L o f t o n v . E s t a t e o f Weaver, 611 So. 2d 335, 336 ( A l a . 1992). C l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e i s " ' [ e ] v i d e n c e t h a t , when w e i g h e d a g a i n s t evidence i n o p p o s i t i o n , w i l l produce i n the mind o f t h e t r i e r o f f a c t a f i r m c o n v i c t i o n as t o e a c h e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t o f t h e c l a i m and a high probability as to the correctness of the conclusion. P r o o f by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e r e q u i r e s a l e v e l of proof g r e a t e r than a preponderance of t h e e v i d e n c e o r t h e s u b s t a n t i a l w e i g h t of t h e e v i d e n c e , b u t l e s s than beyond a reasonable doubt.' "§ 6 - 1 1 - 2 0 [ ( b ) ] ( 4 ) , A l a . Code 1975." L.M. v. D.D.F., 840 So. 2d 1 7 1 , 179 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) . "In Alabama, recognition of a common-law marriage requires proof of the f o l l o w i n g elements: (1) capacity; (2) p r e s e n t , m u t u a l a g r e e m e n t t o permanently enter the marriage r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the e x c l u s i o n o f a l l o t h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s ; a n d (3) p u b l i c r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p as a m a r r i a g e a n d public assumption of marital duties and cohabitation. Stringer [ v . S t r i n g e r ] , 689 So. 2d [194,] 195 [ ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) ] , q u o t i n g C r o s s o n v. C r o s s o n , 668 So. 2d 868, 870 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 5 ) , c i t i n g B o s w e l l v. B o s w e l l , 497 So. 2d 479, 480 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . W h e t h e r t h e e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s o f a common-law m a r r i a g e e x i s t i s a q u e s t i o n o f f a c t . S t r i n g e r , s u p r a , c i t i n g J o h n s o n v . J o h n s o n , 270 A l a . 587, 120 So. 2d 739 ( 1 9 6 0 ) , a n d A r r o w T r u c k i n g L i n e s v. R o b i n s o n , 507 So. 2d 1332 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1987) . Whether t h e p a r t i e s had t h e i n t e n t , o r t h e m u t u a l assent, to enter the marriage r e l a t i o n s h i p i s also 5 2110020 a question (1896)." of fact. See M i c k l e v. S t a t e , G r a y v. B u s h , 835 So. 2d 192, 194 21 So. 66 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2001) . Edward s t i p u l a t e s i n h i s b r i e f to this court p a r t i e s possessed the r e q u i s i t e c a p a c i t y t o marry. whether the parties evidence entered into permanently enter of a l l other supported a the present, that both We a d d r e s s conclusions the agreement mutual that to the marriage r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the e x c l u s i o n relationships and that there was public r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p as a m a r r i a g e a n d t h e p a r t i e s p u b l i c l y assumed m a r i t a l d u t i e s and c o h a b i t e d w i t h e a c h o t h e r . Edward and L a j u n e first met i n 1996. y e a r , E d w a r d moved f r o m W i s c o n s i n Later that same t o Birmingham, a t which time he l i v e d w i t h L a j u n e i n a house t h a t she was r e n t i n g . Edward p u r c h a s e d a h o u s e i n B i r m i n g h a m sometime s h o r t l y a f t e r m o v i n g to Birmingham. 2002. L a j u n e l i v e d i n t h i s house w i t h Edward I n 2002, E d w a r d a n d L a j u n e p u r c h a s e d t h e r e a l where t h e y lived together until until property, 2010, a t w h i c h p o i n t Edward moved b a c k t o W i s c o n s i n . At Lajune trial, t o be explained Edward testified h i s wife. He t o Lajune that further at the beginning 6 he d i d not stated that consider he had of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p 2110020 that he d i d n o t i n t e n d t o g e t m a r r i e d previous failed marriages. r e f e r r e d t o Lajune a time-share told put Edward because admitted o f h i s two that he h a d as h i s w i f e one t i m e i n o r d e r t o p u r c h a s e i n Mexico. According t o h i s testimony, "they [him] i n o r d e r t o b u y t h e p r o p e r t y down t h e r e [he] h a d t o h u s b a n d a n d w i f e " ; t h e r e f o r e , he t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d intentionally misrepresented t h e i r relationship. L a j u n e p r e s e n t e d t h r e e w i t n e s s e s who t e s t i f i e d t o t h e i r beliefs that described wife Lajune was married i n s t a n c e s when L a j u n e a n d he d i d n o t p u b l i c l y t o Edward. Each witness was r e f e r r e d t o as Edward's object. However, when asked d i r e c t l y by o p p o s i n g c o u n s e l i f Edward had e v e r i n t r o d u c e d h e r as h i s w i f e , L a j u n e r e s p o n d e d , this " [ s ] e v e r a l t i m e s , ... [he s a i d ] i s my s i g n i f i c a n t o t h e r . " ( E m p h a s i s added.) She f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t , i n 1997, when a s k e d b y Edward's c o u s i n i f t h e y were m a r r i e d , she r e p l i e d , "no, n o t y e t . " E d w a r d a n d L a j u n e b o t h t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y d i d n o t have any j o i n t bank a c c o u n t s . special Both of t h e i r names a p p e a r on t h e w a r r a n t y d e e d a n d t h e m o r t g a g e document f o r t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y i n Birmingham. However, on t h e s p e c i a l w a r r a n t y d e e d t h e y a r e l i s t e d as "Edward L. D y e s s , a s i n g l e 7 man, a n d L a j u n e 2110020 W h i t e , a s i n g l e woman, as j o i n t t e n a n t s . . . . " Likewise, Dyess, t h e mortgage an u n m a r r i e d woman." document man, ( E m p h a s i s added.) and Lajune them a s "Edward White, an L. unmarried The m o r t g a g e on t h e r e a l was p a i d s o l e l y b y Edward. for lists ( E m p h a s i s added.) property L a j u n e was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p a y i n g the u t i l i t i e s . L a j u n e i n t r o d u c e d i n t o e v i d e n c e , o v e r Edward's o b j e c t i o n , a f u n e r a l program, a g r e e t i n g c a r d , The program surviving lists was f o r Edward's f a m i l y members. and a newspaper niece's funeral article. and listed Lajune t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e program h e r as Edward's w i f e . E d w a r d a n d L a j u n e were included i n t h e p r o g r a m i n t h e f o l l o w i n g m a n n e r : "Edward ( L a J u n e ) Dyess of Birmingham, Alabama." w i f e " on t h e f r o n t . The g r e e t i n g card reads L a j u n e t e s t i f i e d t h a t Edward s e n t h e r t h e c a r d f o r h e r b i r t h d a y ; however, Edward d i d n o t r e c a l l the card a n d was u n s u r e i f t h e s i g n a t u r e actually h i s signature. newspaper article " f o r my Finally, as L a j u n e Dyess, t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e d i d n o t know who p r o v i d e d 8 on t h e c a r d Lajune i s i d e n t i f i e d White t o t h e newspaper. sending although this was ina Lajune information 2110020 In parties support of the t r i a l court's conclusion that the h a d e n t e r e d i n t o a common-law m a r r i a g e , Lajune K i n g v. K i n g , 269 A l a . 468, 114 So. 2d 145 ( 1 9 5 9 ) . however, i s e a s i l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d from t h i s case. in King were ceremonially married and cites That case, The p a r t i e s lived together as husband and w i f e f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y s i x y e a r s b e f o r e Mrs. K i n g d i s c o v e r e d a l e g a l impediment t o t h e i r m a r r i a g e . 470, 114 So. 2d a t 146. 1 269 A l a . a t Once t h e i m p e d i m e n t was removed, t h e K i n g s l i v e d t o g e t h e r f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y f o u r months. a t 4 7 1 , 114 So. 2d a t 147. d i d n o t have a n o t h e r 269 A l a . Mr. K i n g a r g u e d t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e y marriage ceremony a f t e r the removal of t h e l e g a l i m p e d i m e n t , t h e two were n e v e r m a r r i e d . I d . I n K i n g , o u r supreme c o u r t h e l d : " I t i s t h e w e l l - s e t t l e d rule that i f parties impediment exists i n good f a i t h m a r r y when i n f a c t a l e g a l to their marriage, and t h e y continue to c o h a b i t as man a n d w i f e a f t e r t h e r e m o v a l o f t h e i m p e d i m e n t t o their Id. lawful u n i o n , t h e l a w p r e s u m e s a common-law m a r r i a g e . " ( c i t i n g B a r n e t t v. B a r n e t t , 262 A l a . 655, 80 So. 2d 626 (1955); Hunter v. L y n n , 256 A l a . 5 0 1 , 55 So. 2d 849 (1952); M r s . K i n g l e a r n e d t h a t Mr. K i n g ' s p r e v i o u s m a r r i a g e h a d not been d i s s o l v e d . 1 9 2110020 and Hill the v. L i n d s e y , 223 present preventing case, the A l a . 550, there parties was 137 no from So. 395 such legal marrying. (1931)). impediment Although t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l t h a t Edward's c o u s i n , a In Lajune preacher, "blessed t h e i r u n i o n , " a t no t i m e d i d E d w a r d and L a j u n e p a r t i c i p a t e i n a marriage license. ceremony must be case. evidence a duly issued marriage 2 s t a t e d a b o v e , t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a common-law shown by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e . 611 So. 2d a t 336. Lajune to Therefore, the h o l d i n g i n K i n g i s not a p p l i c a b l e to the present As pursuant is We the See L o f t o n , c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d by insufficient that to show parties' agreement t o permanently by clear exhibited a enter the marriage and convincing present, was publicly p u b l i c l y assumed m a r i t a l recognized and mutual relationship the e x c l u s i o n of a l l other r e l a t i o n s h i p s or t h a t the relationship marriage that the to parties' parties duties. L a j u n e a l s o c i t e s B a r n e t t v. B a r n e t t , 262 A l a . 655, 80 So. 2d 626 ( 1 9 5 5 ) . L i k e i n K i n g , t h e p a r t i e s i n B a r n e t t a l s o overcame a l e g a l i m p e d i m e n t t o a c e r e m o n i a l m a r r i a g e , and, t h e r e f o r e , the h o l d i n g i n B a r n e t t i s not a p p l i c a b l e to t h i s case. 2 10 2110020 " ' I t i s indispensable t h a t t h e p a r t i e s must c o m p o r t t h e m s e l v e s i n s u c h a manner as t o a c h i e v e p u b l i c r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e i r s t a t u s as common-law man and w i f e . ' B i s h o p v. B i s h o p , 57 A l a . App. 619, 622, 330 So. 2d 443, 445 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1976). "We have s t a t e d : " ' " [ T ] h e m a r r i a g e r e l a t i o n s h i p may be shown i n any way t h a t can be known by o t h e r s , s u c h as l i v i n g t o g e t h e r as man and wife, referring to each other in the presence of others as being in that r e l a t i o n , d e c l a r i n g the r e l a t i o n i n v a r i o u s types of documents and transactions, s h a r i n g h o u s e h o l d d u t i e s and e x p e n s e s , and g e n e r a l l y e n g a g i n g i n ' a l l o f t h e numerous a s p e c t s of day-to-day mutual e x i s t e n c e of married persons.'"' " H a l l v. D u s t e r , 727 So. 2d 834, 837 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1999) ( q u o t i n g B i s h o p v. B i s h o p , 57 A l a . App. at 621, 330 So. 2d a t 4 4 5 ) . The f a c t t h a t t h e p a r t i e s may have l i v e d t o g e t h e r or c o h a b i t e d , standing a l o n e , i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o show t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had entered i n t o a common-law m a r r i a g e . See B e c k v. B e c k , 286 A l a . 692, 698, 246 So. 2d 420, 426 (1971) ('[I]n order to constitute a valid common-law m a r r i a g e , t h e man and woman, f o l l o w i n g t h e i r m u t u a l c o n s e n t t o l i v e as man and w i f e , must so l i v e as t o g a i n the r e c o g n i t i o n of the p u b l i c t h a t they are l i v i n g as man and w i f e r a t h e r t h a n i n a s t a t e o f concubinage.')." R e e s e v. H o l s t o n , 67 So. 3d 109, 112-13 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) . F i r s t , t h e e v i d e n c e d i d n o t show t h a t t h e p a r t i e s managed their finances in a way that would be consistent with a m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . The p a r t i e s m a i n t a i n e d s e p a r a t e b a n k i n g accounts. In fact, E d w a r d r e c e n t l y added h i s d a u g h t e r , 11 who 2110020 has his power of attorney, owner/signer to h i s checking not Lajune, account. as Although a both of t h e i r names do a p p e a r on t h e d e e d and t h e m o r t g a g e document to the r e a l property, those documents clearly testified returns last that he consistently filed an u n m a r r i e d i n d i v i d u a l . filed an i n c o m e - t a x r e t u r n w h i c h t i m e she a l s o f i l e d Second, t h e r e i n e i t h e r 1999 i s insufficient beliefs were who o r 2000, a t instances as a common-law testified t h a t E d w a r d and L a j u n e were m a r r i e d . upon when to Their Edward their beliefs d i d not p u b l i c l y o b j e c t t o i n f e r e n c e s by o t h e r p e o p l e t h a t Lajune his "you all wife. the time." According was One w i t n e s s t e s t i f i e d t h a t E d w a r d once s a i d t o h e r , [ a r e ] t h e one t h a t i s k e e p i n g introduced she e v i d e n c e t o show t h a t t h e Lajune produced witnesses p r i m a r i l y based that individual. p a r t i e s ' r e l a t i o n s h i p was p u b l i c l y r e c o g n i z e d marriage. Further, h i s income-tax Lajune t e s t i f i e d as an u n m a r r i e d relating indicate that t h e p a r t i e s a r e s i n g l e and u n m a r r i e d , r e s p e c t i v e l y . Edward second However, Lajune my w i f e away f r o m t h e house also t e s t i f i e d h e r as h i s s i g n i f i c a n t to the record, the only other, instance that Edward n o t as h i s w i f e . i n which Edward r e f e r r e d t o L a j u n e as h i s w i f e was when he p u r c h a s e d t h e t i m e - 12 2110020 share i n Mexico. I t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t L a j u n e d i d n o t change h e r name on h e r c h u r c h r o l l , t h e u t i l i t y b i l l s , account, her widow's pension, or with the her r e t i r e m e n t Social Security Administration. The only other evidence documentary greeting evidence card, and Lajune including the introduced at t r i a l the newspaper funeral article. 3 was program, However, the those documents a r e i n s u f f i c i e n t t o "'meet t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d o f a p e r s u a s i v e p a t t e r n of unambivalent too few and isolated.'" Reese, B i s h o p v. B i s h o p , 57 A l a . App. (Ala. C i v . App. Because 67 619, conduct, but r a t h e r So. 3d at 622, 330 So. 113 are (quoting 2d 443, 446 court was 1976). the evidence before the trial i n s u f f i c i e n t to support i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t the p a r t i e s had c l e a r l y and c o n v i n c i n g l y e n t e r e d i n t o a common-law m a r r i a g e , we r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as i t d e t e r m i n e d E d w a r d a r g u e s 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 i n a d m i t t i n g t h o s e i t e m s i n t o e v i d e n c e , b e c a u s e , he a r g u e s , t h e y were n o t p r o p e r l y a u t h e n t i c a t e d , as r e q u i r e d by R u l e 901, A l a . R. E v i d . B e c a u s e we c o n c l u d e t h a t , e v e n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e f u n e r a l p r o g r a m , t h e g r e e t i n g c a r d , and t h e n e w s p a p e r a r t i c l e , t h e e v i d e n c e was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a common-law m a r r i a g e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s e r r o r , i f any, i n a d m i t t i n g t h o s e i t e m s i n t o e v i d e n c e was h a r m l e s s . See D i n m a r k v. F a r r i e r , 510 So. 2d 819, 820-21 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . 3 13 2110020 t h a t t h e p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d . C o n s e q u e n t l y , b e c a u s e we h o l d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s were n o t m a r r i e d , of p r o p e r t y the the trial i s a l s o due t o be r e v e r s e d . court's holding division remaining the t r i a l instructions We f o r the consistent with this B e c a u s e we division reverse t h a t t h e p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d a n d of property, issues. court's we need therefore trial court not address Edward's remand t h e cause to a enter with judgment opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n , Moore, J . , concurs J . , concur. i n t h e judgment of r e v e r s a l but d i s s e n t s as t o t h e r a t i o n a l e a n d t h e remand i n s t r u c t i o n s , w r i t i n g , which Bryan, J . , j o i n s . 14 with 2110020 MOORE, J u d g e , concurring d i s s e n t i n g as t o t h e The the judgment r a t i o n a l e and the of reversal but remand i n s t r u c t i o n s . main o p i n i o n c o n c l u d e s t h a t "the e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t r i a l c o u r t was [Edward in the i n s u f f i c i e n t to support i t s determination Dyess and Lajune White Dyess] had that clearly and c o n v i n c i n g l y e n t e r e d i n t o a common-law m a r r i a g e , " r e v e r s e s the trial that the d i v i d e d the p a r t i e s ' p r o p e r t y , and court's judgment p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d " " i n s o f a r as and i t determined remands t h e c a u s e w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t enter a judgment c o n s i s t e n t w i t h 3d at but I ___ . I agree disagree the that the the main o p i n i o n . judgment should be ___ So. reversed, w i t h t h e m a i n o p i n i o n ' s b a s i s f o r r e v e r s i n g and with remand i n s t r u c t i o n s . Unlike the could have ___ opinion, White court found t h a t common l a w , 2012] Lajune s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e upon w h i c h t h e t r i a l Dyess p r e s e n t e d main see So. she M e l t o n v. 3d ___ , ___ I and conclude that E d w a r d Dyess were m a r r i e d Jenkins, [Ms. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2101111, M a r c h 2012) the erred issue, i n not I would p e r m i t t i n g Edward t o p r e s e n t reverse the 15 trial court's 16, (Moore, J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) ; however, because I a l s o c o n c l u d e t h a t the court at trial evidence judgment on and 2110020 remand the cause present h i s evidence. The f o r the t r i a l court record i n d i c a t e s that the t r i a l to allow Edward c o u r t ended i t s o r e tenus hearing a t the c l o s e of Lajune's c a s e - i n - c h i e f . point i n the proceedings, At that Lajune p o i n t e d o u t t h a t Edward had f a i l e d t o r e p l y t o h e r c o u n t e r c l a i m a n d moved t h e t r i a l to b a r Edward from p r e s e n t i n g any e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g allegation i n the counterclaim common l a w . that they were court Lajune's married at L a j u n e b a s e d h e r m o t i o n on R u l e 7, A l a . R. C i v . P., w h i c h r e q u i r e s a p a r t y t o r e p l y t o a c o u n t e r c l a i m , R u l e 8 ( d ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., w h i c h p r o v i d e s in to a pleading t o which a responsive that pleading and on "[a]verments i s required a r e a d m i t t e d when n o t d e n i e d i n t h e r e s p o n s i v e p l e a d i n g . " ... The t r i a l court granted Lajune's motion by t e r m i n a t i n g the hearing without allowing Edward to present any w i t n e s s e s evidence t o support h i s e a r l i e r testimony c h i e f t h a t he h a d n e v e r i n t e n d e d had not p u b l i c l y recognized The the trial grounds or other i n Lajune's c a s e - i n - t o m a r r y L a j u n e a n d t h a t he t h a t t h e y were h u s b a n d a n d w i f e . court erred to r e v e r s a l i n ending the t r i a l asserted by Lajune. In h i s complaint, on Edward a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s were " u n m a r r i e d o w n e r s " o f c e r t a i n 16 2110020 real estate Lajune t h a t he w a n t e d e q u i t a b l y p a r t i t i o n e d o r d i v i d e d . answered that complaint by denying that a l l e g a t i o n . B a s e d s o l e l y on t h e c o m p l a i n t a n d t h e a n s w e r , t h e p a r t i e s were c l e a r l y a t i s s u e over t h e i r m a r i t a l s t a t u s and t h e e q u i t a b l e d i v i s i o n of their property; reply to Lajune's the f a i l u r e counterclaim o f Edward t o f u r t h e r d i d not obviate those controversies. I n Hawk v . B a v a r i a n M o t o r 1 9 7 7 ) , o u r supreme c o u r t Works, 342 So. 2d 355 ( A l a . addressed the issue whether, " i n a l l circumstances, the f a i l u r e to f i l e a w r i t t e n denial of a pleading t o which a response i s r e q u i r e d , u n d e r R u l e 8 ( d ) , [ A l a . R. C i v . P.,] a d m i t s t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f t h a t p l e a d i n g where t h e i s s u e s t r i e d a r e embraced i n p r i o r p l e a d i n g s t h a t were responded t o i n w r i t i n g . " 342 So. 2d a t 356. generally I n Hawk, t h e d e f e n d a n t d e n y i n g t h e averments complaint a l l e g i n g that defects filed i n the p l a i n t i f f ' s an a n s w e r original i n a m o t o r c y c l e t h a t had been manufactured and d i s t r i b u t e d by t h e defendant had caused t h e p l a i n t i f f personal injuries. However, t h e d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t f i l e an a n s w e r t o an amended c o m p l a i n t i n w h i c h t h e p l a i n t i f f asserted notice a new count of the defects. a l l e g i n g that When the defendant t h e case went had had to t r i a l , the p l a i n t i f f s e i z e d on t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s f a i l u r e t o f i l e a w r i t t e n 17 2110020 answer t o the amended c o m p l a i n t as a ground for a directed v e r d i c t , now known as a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w , 50, Civ. A l a . R. P., on the added count. The see trial Rule court d e n i e d t h a t m o t i o n , and, on a p p e a l , o u r supreme c o u r t a f f i r m e d the t r i a l denying the motion, s t a t i n g court's order that "mere f a i l u r e t o f i l e an a d d i t i o n a l answer t o a r e c a s t t h e o r y o f one issue already stated i n a p r e v i o u s l y f i l e d p l e a d i n g c o u l d not r e a s o n a b l y and f a i r l y r e q u i r e s t r i c t a p p l i c a t i o n of Rule 8 ( d ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] t o t h w a r t t h e j u s t d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h i s a c t i o n . " 342 So. 2d at 357. The supreme court reasoned that the amended c o m p l a i n t " s t a t e s n o t h i n g so m a t e r i a l l y d i f f e r e n t f r o m what i s s t a t e d i n t h e o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t the original would 342 So. 2d a t 357. 995 So. 2d 161 not See answer a l s o M a n c i v. ( A l a . 2008) amended c o u n t e r c l a i m , for sufficiently (failure which only so t h a t an answer t o the Ball, of law amendment." Koons & Watson, f i r m to r e p l y to amplified client's s e e k i n g a j u d g m e n t d e c l a r i n g t h a t he d i d n o t owe fees under a c o n t i n g e n c y - f e e grounds under Rule replied to original law agreement because of law a l l e g e d l e g a l m a l p r a c t i c e , d i d not those grounds 8(d) counterclaim allegations therein). 18 firm's amount t o an a d m i s s i o n when l a w and firm denied had the firm of previously material 2110020 B a s e d on Hawk a n d M a n c i , I c o n c l u d e erred that the t r i a l i n d i s a l l o w i n g Edward t o p r e s e n t counterclaim allegations status only amplified i n Edward's her reasons complaint and t h e e q u i t a b l e division of t h e i r d i d n o t add a c o m p l e t e l y only the o r i g i n a l admitted that division under m a r i t a l law. designed the The of a t h a t Edward had a t common l a w o r t h a t he h a d entitled ongoing property. L a j u n e o b v i o u s l y was n o t m i s l e d c o n c e d e d t h a t t h e y were m a r r i e d recognizing marital i n t h e form i n t o b e l i e v i n g by the s t a t e of the pleadings s h e was their the new c o n t r o v e r s y , b u t controversy counterclaim for a divorce. Lajune's f o r denying regarding counterclaim recast h i s case. court t o an equitable In her c a s e - i n - c h i e f , controversy, s o l e l y t o address those presented issues. property Lajune, evidence On t h e o t h e r hand, E d w a r d was p r e j u d i c e d b y n o t b e i n g a l l o w e d t o p r e s e n t h i s own evidence to on t h o s e i s s u e s because o f a t e c h n i c a l i t y i n f a i l i n g f i l e an a d d i t i o n a l p l e a d i n g t h a t w o u l d have o n l y r e p l i c a t e d the a l l e g a t i o n s i n h i s o r i g i n a l The rules complaint. of c i v i l procedure administered t o secure the just, determination of every action." 19 "shall speedy Rule be c o n s t r u e d and and inexpensive 1 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. 2110020 In s t r i c t l y a p p l y i n g Rule 8 ( d ) , the t r i a l court denied Edward an o p p o r t u n i t y t o be h e a r d , and i t s j u d g m e n t i s t h e r e f o r e due t o be r e v e r s e d and t h e c a s e remanded t o a l l o w f o r a f a i r of the m e r i t s . Bryan, J . , concurs. 20 trial

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.