Tamila Ann Jacklin v. Timothy David Austin

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 2110064 Tamila Ann J a c k l i n v. Timothy David A u s t i n Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t (DR-99-1016.03) Court PITTMAN, J u d g e . T a m i l a Ann J a c k l i n ("the m o t h e r " ) a p p e a l s from a judgment of the Madison C i r c u i t Court t h a t , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , d i r e c t e d her t o pay p o s t m i n o r i t y - e d u c a t i o n a l support pursuant t o Ex p a r t e B a y l i s s , 550 So. 2 d 986 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) , on b e h a l f o f two o f her three c h i l d r e n born o f h e r marriage t o Timothy David 2110064 Austin and ("the father"). affirm i n part, reverse i n part, remand w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s . The p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e was marriage, three b o r n i n 1990, in 1996. to the d i s s o l v e d i n 1999. b o r n i n 1992, and in the divorce failed to pay m o t h e r and in child ordered; the mother custody. The trial court entered the mother's terminating of the the $5,191 and the support. f i l e d on b e h a l f a contempt a g a i n s t c h i l d r e n was judgment, $350 i n m o n t h l y c h i l d 2004, a c o m p l a i n t was finding for In a as that modification completion of not modify and instead and pay private-school orthodontic the younger daughter, but expenses the c o u r t school was had and her on did custody. I n A p r i l 2009, a p p r o x i m a t e l y 11 months a f t e r t h e daughter of child-support f e e s on b e h a l f o f t h e y o u n g e r d a u g h t e r t h r o u g h o f t h e son to grade she a j u d g m e n t i n December 2005 t u i t i o n and eighth a previously and the was September averring $350-per-month d i r e c t i n g her mother father seeking support counterclaimed awarded obligation behalf the a second daughter born P h y s i c a l custody of a l l three father During c h i l d r e n were b o r n t o t h e p a r t i e s : a d a u g h t e r a son d i r e c t e d t o pay had We left private school and enrolled a p p r o x i m a t e l y 7 months b e f o r e t o r e a c h t h e age the in older younger a public daughter of m a j o r i t y , the f a t h e r f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t 2 2110064 seeking reinstitution o f c h i l d - s u p p o r t payments award o f p o s t m i n o r i t y support a n d a l s o an as t o t h e o l d e r d a u g h t e r was t o e n t e r c o l l e g e d u r i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g a u t u m n ) . again asserted custody, a a counterclaim seeking an award (who The m o t h e r of physical as t o w h i c h c l a i m t h e f a t h e r moved f o r t h e e n t r y o f partial summary judgment; t h e mother then amended c o u n t e r c l a i m t o seek, i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , i n c r e a s e d rights. During her visitation t h e pendency o f t h e a c t i o n , t h e p a r t i e s ' son a l s o e n r o l l e d i n c o l l e g e , and t h e f a t h e r amended h i s c l a i m t o seek p o s t m i n o r i t y support daughter. circuit During judges as t o t h e s o n as w e l l as t h e o l d e r t h e pendency o f t h e case, i n the c i r c u i t c i r c u i t j u d g e f r o m an a d j a c e n t the recused a l l the s i t t i n g themselves, c i r c u i t was a p p o i n t e d and to a hear case. After motion court an o r e t e n u s for a partial entered visitation requests, setting obligation a t $250 child provided denying finding which the father's the mother's the mother the mother's p e r month, support postminority-support during summary j u d g m e n t was d e n i e d , a judgment unemployed, retroactive hearing, and directing o f $5,000. claim, the As and voluntarily child-support her t o pay to the father's court's judgment t h a t t h e m o t h e r was t o p a y " p o s t - m i n o r i t y education 3 trial custody t o be prospective the t r i a l 2110064 support fees, i n the books, children of "contingent degree in children amount o f room the on and board parties; the four and a following the that (30%) years least of obligation receiving half denial percent expenses" children maintaining at mother, thirty and a 'C' a the was tuition, two further older held complete overall on to th[ose] The motion 1 by appealed to l a p s e of time under Rule 59.1, t h i s c o u r t ; i n her b r i e f , t h e m o t h e r has c h a l l e n g e d o n l y t h a t aspect directing of the judgment e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e n s e s o f t h e two her C i v . P., be college average." of her postjudgment A l a . R. of to pay 30% of the older children. "The g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s c o n c e r n i n g c h i l d s u p p o r t are ' e q u a l l y a p p l i c a b l e to a [proceeding] for p o s t - m i n o r i t y college support.' C h i l d support i s a m a t t e r t h a t r e s t s w i t h i n the sound d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t , and i t s j u d g m e n t w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d , absent a showing t h a t i t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n . A d d i t i o n a l l y , where t h e e v i d e n c e i s p r e s e n t e d o r e tenus i n a c h i l d support case, the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment i s presumed c o r r e c t . " Wells v. Wells, (citations 656 648 So. 2d 617, 619 ( A l a . C i v . App. o m i t t e d ; q u o t i n g B e r r y v. B e r r y , 579 ( A l a . C i v . App. So. 1994) 2d 654, 1991)). A l t h o u g h t h e m o t h e r ' s m o t i o n c i t e d b o t h R u l e 59 and R u l e 60, A l a . R. C i v . P., t h e m o t i o n i n v o k e d none o f t h e c r i t e r i a f o r r e l i e f u n d e r e i t h e r s u b d i v i s i o n o f R u l e 60 so as t o c o n s t i t u t e a bona f i d e m o t i o n u n d e r t h a t r u l e . See g e n e r a l l y C u r r y v. C u r r y , 962 So. 2d 261, 263-64 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) . 1 4 2110064 Citing Civ. Thrasher App. 1 9 9 0 ) , trial courts v. W i l b u r n , i n which this i n determining postminority 574 So. 2d 839, 841 court stressed whether a parent c a p a c i t y , o r income t o p r o v i d e f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e w i t h o u t undue h a r d s h i p " mother the role of from whom s u p p o r t u n d e r B a y l i s s i s s o u g h t "has s u f f i c i e n t estate, earning the (Ala. first contends that the [postminority] (emphasis added), postminority-support obligation placed upon h e r c o n s t i t u t e s an undue h a r d s h i p i n light i n the record of evidence indicating that she i s n o t c u r r e n t l y employed and has t i t l e t o o n l y one s a v i n g s containing evidence might w e l l tend t o $175. Although that account negate t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e mother has a l a r g e e s t a t e i n her name o r a s i g n i f i c a n t court's that express t h e mother current determinations i n c o m e , we n o t e t h e t r i a l regarding " i s n o t employed," that earning capacity: s h e "has shown no j u s t i f i e d r e a s o n t h a t s h e i s n o t e m p l o y e d , " a n d t h a t t h e r e was "no o b j e c t i v e b a s i s w h e r e b y a f i n d i n g c o u l d be made t h a t s h e i s unemployable." Compare L y n n v. L y n n , 772 So. 2d 1189, (Ala. C i v . App. 2000) ( w h i c h i n v o l v e d an e x p r e s s that a parent voluntarily d i r e c t e d t o pay p o s t m i n o r i t y underemployed). mother worked at four The r e c o r d different travel 1192 determination s u p p o r t was n o t reflects agencies that the and f o r a m a j o r n a t i o n a l a i r l i n e b e f o r e v o l u n t a r i l y q u i t t i n g i n 2003 a n d 5 2110064 s t a y i n g home w i t h h e r now son from a subsequent m a r r i a g e i n e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l ) ; the mother a d m i t t e d (who at t r i a l is that, i f she were t o w o r k e a c h weekday f o r s i x h o u r s w h i l e t h a t was i n school and were t o a p p l y h e r wages t o a son postminority- s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n , t h a t s o n ' s l i f e w o u l d n o t be a f f e c t e d she "would s t i l l have t h e same amount o f money." further i n d i c a t e s that, although t h e m o t h e r has The few, and record i f any, a s s e t s t i t l e d i n h e r name, h e r c u r r e n t h u s b a n d has p r o v i d e d automobile c o s t i n g $30,000 enjoys a comfortable upon evidence of f o r her use and that the family l i f e s t y l e i n a five-bedroom house. the mother's earning capacity, Based then, we cannot conclude t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g the mother parties' could two contribute older i s w i t h i n the only [a p a r e n t ' s ] to the c h i l d r e n without A r n e t t v. A r n e t t , 812 ("it to So. trial 2d 1246, court's earnings, but collegiate costs undue h a r d s h i p . 1250 that of the Accord ( A l a . C i v . App. 2001) d i s c r e t i o n to determine also an [that parent's] not ability earn"). The mother also postminority-support academic-progress notes that this court has a w a r d s h o u l d have r e a s o n a b l e parameters, a principle held temporal that this a p p e a r s t o have f i r s t a p p l i e d i n K e n t v. K e n t , 587 (Ala. Civ. App. 1991): "[b]ased 6 on the that particular So. a and court 2d facts 409 of 2110064 [ t h a t c a s e ] , " we d i r e c t e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n t h a t c a s e t o " s e t a reasonable for t i m e l i m i t a t i o n on t h e [ p a r e n t ' s ] post-minority c o l l e g e support," for the [child's] ... a t t a i n m e n t responsibility i n c l u d i n g (a) " t i m e l i m i t s of a 'four-year' college d e g r e e , " a n d f u r t h e r i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n be conditioned (b) "upon the [ c h i l d ' s ] maintenance a v e r a g e " a n d (c) " f u l l - t i m e s t u d e n t 587 So. 2d a t 413. the "particular this court have of that deemed 'C' status while i n college." Notwithstanding facts" of a the reference case, i n Kent t o subsequent opinions the i n c l u s i o n of the three of time- l i m i t a t i o n and a c a d e m i c - p r o g r e s s p r o v i s i o n s i d e n t i f i e d above t o be m a n d a t o r y when p o s t m i n o r i t y E.g., s u p p o r t i s awarded. L y n n , 772 So. 2d a t 1192 ( q u o t i n g B a h r i v. B a h r i , 678 So. 2d 1179, 1181 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) ) , 719, 725 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) . In our view, contains in a n d J . F . v. R . J . , 59 So. 3d Kent: expressly the t r i a l court's judgment i n this case two o f t h e t h r e e p r o v i s i o n s d i r e c t e d t o be i n c l u d e d the mother's "contingent postminority-support on t h e [older daughter obligation i s a n d t h e son] r e c e i v i n g a complete c o l l e g e degree i n f o u r and a h a l f years" 2 The i n c l u s i o n o f a f o u r - a n d - a - h a l f - y e a r p e r i o d , as opposed t o a f o u r - y e a r p e r i o d , i s n o t f a t a l t o t h e judgment. See Thomas v. C a m p b e l l , 960 So. 2d 694, 700 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006) ( i n d i c a t i n g t h a t f i v e y e a r s t o c o m p l e t e c o l l e g i a t e s t u d i e s i s a reasonable time l i m i t a t i o n ) . 2 7 2110064 and i s further conditioned 'C' overall average." maintain to the at d i r e c t i o n that a h a l f y e a r s m i g h t be equivalent of f u l l - t i m e - s t u d e n t s t a t u s , we K e n t ' s p r o g e n y and mother the "maintaining p a r t i e s must e a r n a " c o m p l e t e d e g r e e " w i t h i n f o u r and functional their Although 3 o l d e r c h i l d r e n of the implicit, on a of an the two college considered d i r e c t i o n that the they cannot, c o n s i s t e n t w i t h i n response to a d i r e c t challenge omission least a express by the full-time-status r e q u i r e m e n t , i g n o r e t h e a b s e n c e o f t h a t e x p r e s s c o n d i t i o n upon the mother's p o s t m i n o r i t y - s u p p o r t t h e f a t h e r has decided. To o b l i g a t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y when n o t c o n t e n d e d t h a t K e n t ' s p r o g e n y were w r o n g l y the extent that the judgment under review does T h e m o t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e p a r t i e s ' son does n o t have a "C" a v e r a g e i n h i s c o l l e g i a t e c o u r s e w o r k and t h a t he i s , t h e r e f o r e , n o t e n t i t l e d t o p o s t m i n o r i t y s u p p o r t as a m a t t e r o f law. The mother, i n her trial testimony on direct e x a m i n a t i o n , " a p p r o x i m a t e [ d ] " t h e s o n ' s g r a d e - p o i n t a v e r a g e as b e i n g 1.3 o u t o f a p o s s i b l e 4, a l t h o u g h she was " n o t s u r e " o f i t ; t h e m o t h e r ' s t e s t i m o n y i s n o t c l e a r as t o w h e t h e r t h a t a p p r o x i m a t e a v e r a g e i s c u m u l a t i v e o r a mere s e m e s t e r a v e r a g e . The m o t h e r ' s p r o s p e c t i v e p o s t m i n o r i t y - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n as t o t h e son i s c o n d i t i o n e d upon h i s m a i n t e n a n c e o f a "C" o v e r a l l a v e r a g e , and t h e m o t h e r c i t e s no a u t h o r i t y p r e v e n t i n g the t r i a l c o u r t f r o m d e e m i n g s u c h a c o n d i t i o n t o be a s u f f i c i e n t a c a d e m i c - p r o g r e s s r e q u i r e m e n t t o p r o t e c t a g a i n s t an undue hardship on t h e p a r t o f t h e m o t h e r . C f . L i n d e n m u t h v. L i n d e n m u t h , 66 So. 3d 267, 273 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) ("[w]e do n o t p e r c e i v e j u s t i c e i n t h e ... p r e m i s e t h a t i f a c h i l d i n c o l l e g e has one 'bad' s e m e s t e r , a l l p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l support should n e c e s s a r i l y end"). 3 8 2110064 not contain maintain We an e x p r e s s c o n d i t i o n t h a t t h e two o l d e r f u l l - t i m e - s t u d e n t status, i t i s erroneous. last consider the judgment s h o u l d be r e v e r s e d not children prove the costs attendance. We mother's contention that the because the f a t h e r o s t e n s i b l y d i d o f t h e two disagree. older children's The f a t h e r testified college that both c h i l d r e n had e n r o l l e d a t Auburn U n i v e r s i t y a f t e r h a v i n g taken c o u r s e s a t C a l h o u n Community C o l l e g e ; t h e f a t h e r s t a t e d he that h a d p a i d $3,920.94 f o r l i v i n g a c c o m m o d a t i o n s f o r t h e two older children introduced during into the year evidence preceding an e x h i b i t trial, and he indicating h i s actual t u i t i o n p a y m e n t s on b e h a l f o f t h e p a r t i e s ' two o l d e r c h i l d r e n (who attending intend Although we t o continue have cannot p r o p e r l y held that Auburn the question i n the f u t u r e ) . o f undue hardship be d e t e r m i n e d when "no l e g a l e v i d e n c e [ i s ] p r e s e n t e d as t o t h e amount r e q u i r e d f o r books and t u i t i o n o f f o r a c t u a l c o s t s o f room a n d b o a r d , " s e e T h r a s h e r , 574 So. 2d at 841 (emphasis evidence" of such added), we have monetary never obligations held that "legal be i n any must p a r t i c u l a r f o r m , o r come f r o m any p a r t i c u l a r s o u r c e , i n o r d e r t o s u p p o r t a B a y l i s s s u p p o r t judgment. court may, i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n , deem In our view, a a parent's trial testimony c o n c e r n i n g p r i o r e x p e n s e p a y m e n t s on b e h a l f o f a c h i l d r e l a t e d 9 2110064 to that child's obtaining a college education, coupled with d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e o f t h e amount o f t h o s e p r i o r p a y m e n t s , t o be probative o f t h e amount n e c e s s a r y college i n the future. We cannot conclude See R u l e s that fora child to attend 401 a n d 402, A l a . R. E v i d . the t r i a l court acted outside d i s c r e t i o n i n d i r e c t i n g t h e mother t o pay 30% o f " a l l fees, books, room and b o a r d expenses" its tuition, of the parties' two older children. Based upon the foregoing reverse the t r i a l not expressly facts and authorities, we c o u r t ' s judgment t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t i t does condition t h e mother's postminority-support o b l i g a t i o n upon t h e two o l d e r c h i l d r e n ' s m a i n t e n a n c e o f f u l l ¬ time-student court s t a t u s , a n d we remand t h e c a u s e t o amend i t s judgment respects presented t o so p r o v i d e . f o r review, the t r i a l f o r the t r i a l In a l l other court's judgment i s affirmed. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , Bryan a n d Thomas, J . , c o n c u r . a n d Moore, JJ., concur writings. 10 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.