Henry J. Frye v. Charmann Frye

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/28/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2012 2110024 Henry J . Frye v. Charmann Frye Appeal from Limestone C i r c u i t (DR-08-395.02) PITTMAN, Court Judge. I n J u l y 2010, H e n r y J . F r y e a postdivorce a c t i o n seeking o b l i g a t i o n t o Charmann F r y e ("the f o r m e r husband") filed t o reduce h i s p e r i o d i c - a l i m o n y ("the f o r m e r w i f e " ) . F o l l o w i n g an 2110024 ore tenus proceeding, the t r i a l stated, c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment t h a t i n pertinent part: "Pursuant to the terms of the divorce [ j u d g m e n t ] , t h e [ f o r m e r h u s b a n d ] was o r d e r e d t o pay a l i m o n y t o t h e [ f o r m e r w i f e ] i n t h e amount o f $1,825.00 p e r month f o r a p e r i o d o f s i x t e e n (16) months and t h e r e a f t e r i n t h e amount o f $2,200.00 p e r month f o r a p e r i o d o f f o r t y - f o u r (44) months. The total obligation of payments i n the alimony p r o v i s i o n i s $126,000.00. "Since the rendering of the d i v o r c e [judgment], t h e r e has been a change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n r e g a r d to the economic a b i l i t y of the [ f o r m e r husband] t o c o n t i n u e t o pay t h e s a i d a l i m o n y o r d e r e d p u r s u a n t t o s a i d [judgment]. I t i s the f i n d i n g of the court t h a t t h e [ f o r m e r h u s b a n d ] i s no l o n g e r e m p l o y e d i n a way c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e income e a r n e d d u r i n g t h e t i m e t h a t t h e [ f o r m e r h u s b a n d ] was o r d e r e d t o p a y the p r e v i o u s alimony. The [ f o r m e r h u s b a n d ] has l o o k e d d i l i g e n t l y and c o n s i s t e n t l y t o f i n d w o r k c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the p r i o r income. The c o u r t i s satisfied that the [former husband] i s not u n d e r e m p l o y e d b u t i s e m p l o y e d t o an e x t e n t t h a t he has r e a s o n a b l e i n c o m e and a r e a s o n a b l e a b i l i t y t o c o n t i n u e t o a d v a n c e h i s income w i t h t h e company he i s now e m p l o y e d w i t h . I t i s , t h e r e f o r e , t h e f i n d i n g of t h i s c o u r t t h a t t h e t o t a l a l i m o n y o b l i g a t i o n o f $126,000.00 s h a l l be p a i d by t h e [ f o r m e r h u s b a n d ] h e r e i n . I t i s f u r t h e r the f i n d i n g of the court t h a t t h e [ f o r m e r h u s b a n d ] has p a i d $31,250.00 on s a i d a l i m o n y o b l i g a t i o n . The c o u r t , t h e r e f o r e , f i n d s t h a t the b a l a n c e owing from the [ f o r m e r husband] t o the [former wife] i n the amount of alimony is $94,750.00. I t i s o r d e r e d by t h e c o u r t , g i v e n t h e c u r r e n t economic s t a n d i n g of the p a r t i e s h e r e t o , the amount o f m o n t h l y a l i m o n y t o be p a i d on t h e o u t s t a n d i n g a l i m o n y o b l i g a t i o n s h a l l be $500.00 p e r month, commencing t h i r t y (30) d a y s f r o m t h e e n t r y o f t h i s order. S a i d amount o f a l i m o n y s h a l l c o n t i n u e 2 2110024 to be p a i d until [ t h e former w i f e ' s ] death, r e m a r r i a g e , open c o h a b i t a t i o n w i t h a member o f t h e o p p o s i t e s e x o r t e r m i n a t i o n o f s a i d payments as p r o v i d e d by law, w h i c h e v e r e v e n t s h a l l f i r s t o c c u r . " The record before us does judgment, b u t i t appears t h a t July 2009. not contain the divorce t h a t j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d i n The e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t , a t the time o f the d i v o r c e , t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d h a d been e m p l o y e d as a s t r u c t u r a l superintendent earning f o r BE&K, an a n n u a l I n c . , i n Birmingham income o f $95,000 a n d h a d been t o $100,000. I n June 2010, t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d was l a i d o f f f r o m h i s employment a t BE&K. He r e c e i v e d u n e m p l o y m e n t - c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s until November 2010, when he was h i r e d b y I n t e r n a t i o n a l P a p e r Co. t o work a t i t s p u l p w o o d o p e r a t i o n i n M a n s f i e l d , L o u i s i a n a , he e a r n e d an h o u r l y wage o f $14.25. A t the time where of the m o d i f i c a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s , t h e former husband had r e m a r r i e d and was earning a monthly annually). His approximately $27,000, totaling since $3,129. the time gross wife's gross income annual and t h e c o u p l e The f o r m e r w i f e ' s of the divorce. of $2,300 income ($27,600 was had monthly expenses income h a d n o t c h a n g e d She was still earning h o u r l y wage o f $10, o r a g r o s s m o n t h l y income o f $1,600. 3 also an 2110024 The court's the evidence finding time of presented at of a m a t e r i a l the divorce trial the trial The court's the that warranted former w i f e j u d g m e n t , and a reduction Instead, failing to $94, 750 -- he reduce the argues his does n o t c r o s s - a p p e a l f r o m t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d does the t r i a l alimony unpaid balance of court $126, 000, the former husband contends that, not monthly erred obligation," a l i m o n y p a y m e n t s c o n t e m p l a t e d by t h e d i v o r c e The the f r o m $2,200 p e r month t o that "total since of a r g u e t h a t he i s f i n a n c i a l l y u n a b l e t o pay t h e r e d u c e d amount. trial change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s former husband's a l i m o n y o b l i g a t i o n $500 p e r month. supports sum in i.e., of a l l judgment. because periodic a l i m o n y i s b a s e d upon an o b l i g o r ' s c u r r e n t a b i l i t y t o pay, he i s n o t o b l i g a t e d t o pay t h e b a l a n c e due on t h e o r i g i n a l sum of $126,000 b e c a u s e , he says, that sum had been calculated in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h h i s a b i l i t y t o pay a t t h e t i m e o f t h e d i v o r c e . The former husband, however, does not argue the logical c o r o l l a r y of t h a t c o n t e n t i o n : t h a t he s h o u l d be r e q u i r e d t o pay per reduced payments remaining i n the judgment. of $500 month 60-month payment p e r i o d only f o r the time s e t i n the divorce Both p a r t i e s e v i d e n t l y understand the t r i a l court's 4 2110024 modification judgment to mean a l i m o n y o b l i g a t i o n , as m o d i f i e d , $94,750 i s p a i d . the following "Provision that the former husband's w i l l end when t h e b a l a n c e of T h a t u n d e r s t a n d i n g i s , p r e s u m a b l y , b a s e d on 1 portion of the judgment, which we designate A": " I t i s , t h e r e f o r e , the f i n d i n g of t h i s c o u r t t h a t t h e t o t a l a l i m o n y o b l i g a t i o n o f $126,000.00 s h a l l be p a i d by t h e [ f o r m e r husband] h e r e i n . I t i s f u r t h e r t h e f i n d i n g o f t h e c o u r t t h a t t h e [ f o r m e r husband] has p a i d $31,250.00 on s a i d a l i m o n y o b l i g a t i o n . The c o u r t , t h e r e f o r e , f i n d s t h a t the b a l a n c e owing from the [former husband] t o the [former w i f e ] i n the amount o f a l i m o n y i s $94,750.00. I t i s o r d e r e d by the c o u r t , g i v e n the c u r r e n t economic s t a n d i n g of t h e p a r t i e s h e r e t o , t h e amount o f m o n t h l y a l i m o n y t o be p a i d on t h e o u t s t a n d i n g a l i m o n y o b l i g a t i o n s h a l l be $500.00 p e r month, commencing t h i r t y (30) d a y s from the e n t r y of t h i s o r d e r . " (Emphasis added.) In order to conclude that the former h u s b a n d ' s a l i m o n y o b l i g a t i o n w i l l end when t h e $94,750 b a l a n c e is paid, court's one w o u l d have t o i g n o r e judgment, however, j u d g m e n t t h a t we designate the remainder of the specifically "Provision that portion trial of the B": " S a i d amount o f a l i m o n y [$500 p e r month] shall c o n t i n u e t o be p a i d u n t i l [ t h e f o r m e r w i f e ' s ] d e a t h , r e m a r r i a g e , open c o h a b i t a t i o n w i t h a member o f t h e I n her a p p e l l a t e b r i e f , the former w i f e argues t h a t " [ i ] t i s a b u n d a n t l y c l e a r ... t h a t [ t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ] j u s t w a n t s o u t o f t h e o b l i g a t i o n [ t o pay $94,750] a l t o g e t h e r , and the [ t r i a l ] c o u r t f o u n d no j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h a t . " 1 5 2110024 o p p o s i t e s e x o r t e r m i n a t i o n o f s a i d payments as p r o v i d e d by l a w , w h i c h e v e r e v e n t s h a l l f i r s t o c c u r . " The parties apparently i n t e r p r e t P r o v i s i o n A as an the former w i f e of the specific sum representing the unpaid the of balance of sum o f $94,750, a l l alimony award payments to due u n d e r t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t , b u t p a y a b l e i n i n c r e m e n t s o f $500 p e r month. former $500, To pay o f f t h e o u t s t a n d i n g b a l a n c e husband plus 1 would have payment of to make $250. o f $94,750, t h e 18 9 m o n t h l y Thus, under r e a d i n g o f P r o v i s i o n A, the t r i a l p e r i o d d u r i n g which the f o r m e r h u s b a n d was payments the c o u r t extended the parties' 60-month o r i g i n a l l y to a l i m o n y so t h a t he w o u l d c o n t i n u e t o pay a l i m o n y f o r 15 10 of pay years, months. P r o v i s i o n B, on t h e o t h e r h a n d , i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e former h u s b a n d i s t o pay p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y f o r t h e i n d e f i n i t e f u t u r e , s u b j e c t o n l y to the terminating familiar, payments w h a t e v e r e l s e may of l e g a l l y recognized p e r i o d i c alimony. reasons f o r I r r e s p e c t i v e of be s a i d o f P r o v i s i o n s A and B, i t i s e v i d e n t t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t ' s m o d i f i c a t i o n judgment extended the time for p a y i n g p e r i o d i c alimony beyond the term e s t a b l i s h e d i n the d i v o r c e judgment. she was asking the At t r i a l , the former w i f e acknowledged t h a t court to order 6 payment o f $94,750 and to 2110024 have t h e payments " s t r e t c h e d o u t " o v e r t i m e t o e n s u r e t h a t she would r e c e i v e the " f u l l not argue that the trial amount." court The had no p e r i o d f o r payment o f a l i m o n y , and t h a t , "where a t e r m i n a t i o n alimony, the court only before the 762 856, So. Banks, 2d 336 generally Spousal authority date i s provided modify the 858 2d Support (Ala. Civ. 1365, G. 1367 Award with Divorce, Permanent, 62 1999) a Limited A and in construing divorce that there P r o v i s i o n B, we alimony Tibbetts, (citing Annot., 180 (1988). case, the m o d i f i c a t i o n o c c u r r e d b e f o r e To t h e e x t e n t periodic Banks 1976)). Power Term, to v. See Modify Issued in So as t o E x t e n d t h e Term o r Make t h e A.L.R.4th p e r i o d s p e c i f i e d i n the f o r the App. the recognized T i b b e t t s v. (Ala. Civ. for extend award of p e r i o d i c App Donaldson, to i t i s generally date of t e r m i n a t i o n . " Russell Conjunction Award So. can f o r m e r h u s b a n d does In the present t h e end o f t h e 60-month judgment. i s a c o n f l i c t between P r o v i s i o n a r e g o v e r n e d by t h e f o l l o w i n g p r i n c i p l e s the m o d i f i c a t i o n judgment: "[D]ivorce judgments should 'be interpreted or construed l i k e other w r i t t e n instruments.' Sartin v. S a r t i n , 678 So. 2d 1181, 1183 (Ala. Civ. App. 1 9 9 6 ) ; see a l s o S p r i n g e r v. D a m r i c h , 993 So. 2d 481, 48 8 ( A l a . C i v . App. 20 08) . 7 2110024 "'"Separate p r o v i s i o n s o f judgments, l i k e provisions of contracts, should be c o n s t r u e d i n p a r i m a t e r i a , and t h e e n t i r e judgment a l l p r o v i s i o n s c o n s i d e r e d -¬ s h o u l d be r e a d as a w h o l e i n t h e l i g h t o f a l l t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , as w e l l as o f t h e conduct of the p a r t i e s . . . . F u r t h e r , i f the terms o f a judgment a r e n o t ambiguous, t h e y s h o u l d be g i v e n t h e i r u s u a l a n d o r d i n a r y meaning."' "Ex p a r t e S n i d e r , ( q u o t i n g Moore v . C i v . App. 1 9 9 1 ) ) ; 2d 351, 354 ( A l a . 929 So. 2 d 447, 456-57 ( A l a . 2005) Graham, 590 So. 2d 293, 295 ( A l a . s e e a l s o W a l l v . B o r o s k y , 850 So. C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) . "When interpreting possibly conflicting p r o v i s i o n s i n a judgment, s p e c i f i c terms a r e g i v e n more w e i g h t t h a n a r e more g e n e r a l p r o v i s i o n s . See Ex p a r t e Dan T u c k e r A u t o S a l e s , I n c . , 718 So. 2d 33, 36 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) . M o r e o v e r , "'"where t h e r e i s a c h o i c e b e t w e e n a v a l i d c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d an i n v a l i d c o n s t r u c t i o n the court has a duty t o accept the c o n s t r u c t i o n t h a t w i l l uphold, r a t h e r than destroy, the [instrument]." Homes o f L e g e n d , I n c . v. M c C o l l o u g h , 776 So. 2d 7 4 1 , 746 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . See a l s o C l a r k v. B o a r d o f D e n t a l Exam'rs o f G e o r g i a , 2 40 Ga. 28 9, 294, 240 S.E.2d 250, 254 (1977) ("'When a j u d g m e n t i s s u s c e p t i b l e o f two m e a n i n g s , one o f w h i c h w o u l d r e n d e r i t i l l e g a l a n d the other proper, t h a t c o n s t r u c t i o n w i l l , i f r e a s o n a b l y p o s s i b l e , be g i v e n i t t h a t w o u l d r e n d e r i t l e g a l . ' " ( q u o t i n g B y r d v. Goodman, 195 Ga. 621, 25 S.E.2d 34 (1943))).' "[Ex p a r t e ] 2005)]." Snider, 929 So. 2 d 8 [447,] 457 [(Ala. 2110024 Cockrell v. Cockrell, 40 So. 3d 712, 715 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009). In the p r e s e n t construction c a s e , t h e r e i s "'"a c h o i c e b e t w e e n a v a l i d and an invalid construction"'" of the m o d i f i c a t i o n j u d g m e n t , i d . , b e c a u s e a c c e p t i n g t h e " ' " u s u a l and o r d i n a r y meaning,"' " i d . , of the language i n P r o v i s i o n A would be consistent with the divorce former w i f e alimony i n gross time and amount o f payment, therefore, nonmodifiable, 299 So. 2d 743, 750 divorce court's having court's having awarded the an award t h a t i s c e r t a i n as t o that i s vested, and that i s , see Ex p a r t e H a g e r , 293 A l a . 47, 55, (1974) inconsistent with the awarded t h e w i f e p e r i o d i c alimony. We acknowledge t h a t the t r i a l and court's statement of the substance o f t h e a l i m o n y a w a r d c o u l d , c o n c e i v a b l y , be deemed t o d e s c r i b e an a w a r d o f a l i m o n y i n g r o s s . However, t h e d i v o r c e judgment i s n o t b e f o r e us and b o t h p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a t t h e a w a r d was of periodic alimony. Moreover, the i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e a w a r d was i n t e n d e d record contains t o be i n s e t t l e m e n t t h e f o r m e r w i f e ' s i n c h o a t e m a r i t a l r i g h t s and e v e r y that i t was former w i f e intended payable t o be f o r the from the c u r r e n t 9 future earnings one no of indication support of the of the former 2110024 husband. See H u l d t q u i s t v. H u l d t q u i s t , 465 So. 2d 1146, ( A l a . C i v . App. 1984) 1148 ( c o n s t r u i n g a j u d g m e n t o r d e r i n g payments o f $350 p e r month f o r 12 months, and t h e n $300 a month f o r 8 years, t o be p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y , d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t t h e t i m e o f payment and amount o f payment were c e r t a i n , b e c a u s e "the p u r p o s e o f t h e payments was n o t t o r e p l a c e t h e w i f e ' s i n c h o a t e r i g h t s i n the husband's e s t a t e (alimony i n g r o s s ) , but rather t o pay a f u t u r e a l l o w a n c e f o r s u p p o r t o f t h e w i f e o u t o f t h e husband's future earnings"). t h e a w a r d was Alfred, 89 Accordingly, we conclude e i t h e r " r e h a b i l i t a t i v e a l i m o n y , " see A l f r e d v. So. 3d 786 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2012), or "periodic a l i m o n y l i m i t e d t o a p e r i o d o f 60 months," i d . , 89 So. 791 (Moore, that J., concurring i n part and concurring 2d a t in the result). An i n i t i a l a w a r d o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y and any m o d i f i c a t i o n t h e r e o f must be b a s e d on t h e o b l i g o r ' s t h e n c u r r e n t earnings. " P e r i o d i c a l i m o n y ... ' i s an a l l o w a n c e f o r t h e f u t u r e s u p p o r t o f the [ r e c i p i e n t spouse] payable from the c u r r e n t e a r n i n g s of the [paying s p o u s e ] . ' [Hager v.] H a g e r , 293 A l a . [47] a t 55, 299 So. 2d [743] a t 750 [ ( 1 9 7 4 ) ] . I t s purpose ' i s to support t h e f o r m e r d e p e n d e n t s p o u s e and e n a b l e t h a t s p o u s e , to the e x t e n t p o s s i b l e , to m a i n t a i n the s t a t u s t h a t the p a r t i e s had e n j o y e d d u r i n g the m a r r i a g e , u n t i l t h a t spouse i s s e l f - s u p p o r t i n g or m a i n t a i n i n g a l i f e s t y l e o r s t a t u s s i m i l a r t o t h e one enjoyed 10 2110024 d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e . ' O'Neal v. O ' N e a l , 678 So. 2d 161, 164 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996) (emphasis added). P e r i o d i c a l i m o n y i s m o d i f i a b l e b a s e d upon c h a n g e s i n t h e p a r t i e s ' f i n a n c i a l c o n d i t i o n s o r n e e d s , s u c h as an i n c r e a s e i n t h e n e e d o f t h e r e c i p i e n t s p o u s e , a d e c r e a s e i n t h e income o f t h e p a y i n g s p o u s e , o r an i n c r e a s e i n t h e income o f t h e r e c i p i e n t s p o u s e . See T i b b e t t s v. T i b b e t t s , 762 So. 2d 856, 858 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1999) ." T e n E y c k v. T e n E y c k , 885 So. 2d 146, 152 ( A l a . C i v . App. I f P r o v i s i o n A were c o n s t r u e d t o r e q u i r e t h a t t h e h u s b a n d pay the reduced monthly amount o f p e r i o d i c 2003) former alimony o n l y u n t i l he had p a i d t h e o u t s t a n d i n g b a l a n c e on t h e o r i g i n a l amount due u n d e r t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t , t h e n t h a t p r o v i s i o n would c o n s t i t u t e r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . because in t h e sum the divorce T h a t i s so o f a l l payments r e q u i r e d by t h e a l i m o n y a w a r d judgment (a) was based upon husband's e a r n i n g s a t the time of the d i v o r c e , the former n o t upon h i s e a r n i n g s a t t h e t i m e o f t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g , and was n o t a v e s t e d r i g h t o f t h e f o r m e r w i f e b u t was based on the very change i n circumstances that, c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d , had o c c u r r e d i n t h i s On and modifiable the trial case. t h e o t h e r h a n d , a c c e p t i n g P r o v i s i o n B as r e g a r d i n g P r o v i s i o n A as (b) containing controlling superfluous factual f i n d i n g s would r e s u l t i n u p h o l d i n g the judgment m o d i f y i n g the 11 2110024 former husband's p e r i o d i c - a l i m o n y is a choice between a valid obligation. "[W]here construction a n d an there invalid c o n s t r u c t i o n t h e c o u r t has a duty t o accept t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n that w i l l uphold, r a t h e r than destroy [the j u d g m e n t ] . " o f L e g e n d , I n c . v. M c C o l l o u g h , 776 So. 2d 741, (quoted i n Cockrell, supra). language i n P r o v i s i o n A We, Homes 746 ( A l a . 2000) therefore, hold that the that "the t o t a l alimony obligation o f $126,000.00 s h a l l be p a i d b y t h e [ f o r m e r h u s b a n d ] " a n d t h a t "the b a l a n c e o w i n g f r o m t h e [ f o r m e r husband] t o t h e [ f o r m e r wife] the i n t h e amount o f a l i m o n y i s $94,750.00" trial that: court findings designated a "finding") of fact. The c o n c l u s i o n operative portion) contained (each o f w h i c h constitutes of law just (and t h e o f t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n judgment, however, i s i n P r o v i s i o n B: " S a i d amount o f a l i m o n y [$500 p e r month] shall c o n t i n u e t o be p a i d u n t i l [ t h e f o r m e r w i f e ' s ] d e a t h , r e m a r r i a g e , open c o h a b i t a t i o n w i t h a member o f t h e opposite s e x o r t e r m i n a t i o n o f s a i d payments as p r o v i d e d by law, w h i c h e v e r e v e n t s h a l l f i r s t o c c u r . " Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t , i n t e r p r e t e d as d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s o p i n i o n , i s due t o be a f f i r m e d . 12 2110024 The f o r m e r w i f e ' s r e q u e s t f o r an a t t o r n e y ' s f e e on a p p e a l is denied. AFFIRMED. Thompson, Bryan and P . J . , a n d Thomas, Moore, J . , concur. J J . , concur writings. 13 i n the result, 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.