Jacob Allen Thomas v. Leeann G. Thomas

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 10/19/2012 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2110223 Jacob A l l e n Thomas v. Leeann G. Thomas Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (DR-10-900673) Court PITTMAN, J u d g e . This appeal arises J a c o b A l l e n Thomas ("the w i f e " ) , who m a r r i e d minor children. Jefferson divorce proceedings involving husband") a n d L e e a n n G. Thomas ("the i n 2 0 0 0 a n d who a r e t h e p a r e n t s The w i f e Circuit irretrievable from Court breakdown filed in a divorce August of the marriage of four complaint 2010 i n the alleging and s e e k i n g , an among 2110223 other things, support, of the c h i l d r e n , an a w a r d o f a l i m o n y , property; custody custody t h e husband award and a d i v i s i o n answered i n h i s favor an a w a r d and of child of the m a r i t a l counterclaimed for a or, i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , f o r an award o f s h a r e d custody. husband filed one pursuant t o an a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s , t h e t r i a l in 2011, April lite order") custody motion, entered that, pendente lite e a c h month as c h i l d The w i f e f i l e d two m o t i o n s , a n d t h e seeking an o r d e r among other pendente lite relief; court, ( h e r e i n a f t e r "the pendente things, awarded the wife a n d d i r e c t e d t h e h u s b a n d t o p a y $800 support a n d $365 e a c h month t o w a r d t h e d e d u c t i b l e amounts o f t h e c h i l d r e n ' s h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e c o v e r a g e from A p r i l 1, 2 0 1 1 , t h r o u g h the entry of a f i n a l On May 4, 2 0 1 1 , e i g h t d a y s b e f o r e t r i a l , judgment. the wife sought c o n t e m p t s a n c t i o n s a g a i n s t t h e h u s b a n d b a s e d upon h i s a l l e g e d f a i l u r e t o make t h e s u p p o r t a n d i n s u r a n c e - d e d u c t i b l e payments r e q u i r e d i n the pendente l i t e order. that trial t h a t matter w o u l d be h e a r d court received testimony The t r i a l c o u r t d i r e c t e d a t t h e time at t r i a l 22, 2 0 1 1 , an o r d e r awarding the wife primary setting the husband's was e n t e r e d 2 Subsequently, on d i v o r c i n g the p a r t i e s , p h y s i c a l custody prospective The from both p a r t i e s and e v i d e n t i a r y e x h i b i t s i n t r o d u c e d by t h e w i f e . June of t r i a l . of the children, monthly child-support 2110223 o b l i g a t i o n a t $1,767.18, d i r e c t i n g t h e h u s b a n d t o pay monthly r e h a b i l i t a t i v e alimony deeming o f $1,500 f o r t h r e e y e a r s , and c e r t a i n r e t i r e m e n t funds or accounts for t h a t had b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d t h e h u s b a n d ' s b e n e f i t by t h r e e p a r t i c u l a r a l l e g e d b u s i n e s s e n t i t i e s c o n t r o l l e d by t h e h u s b a n d t o be an a r t i f i c e to s h i e l d m a r i t a l f u n d s f r o m t h e w i f e so as t o be a later division proceeding. f o u n d t h e h u s b a n d t o be having Additionally, in criminal the designed subject trial to court contempt f o r p u r p o r t e d l y f a i l e d t o make t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t payment f o r t h e month of A p r i l 2011 and the months o f A p r i l 2011 i n s u r a n c e - d e d u c t i b l e payments f o r and May o f i n c a r c e r a t i o n ( w i t h 10 June 24, 2011. sentence, the 2011 and s e n t e n c e d days b e i n g the him t o 15 d a y s suspended) t o b e g i n When t h e h u s b a n d d i d n o t a p p e a r t o s e r v e wife sought a f u r t h e r contempt finding on his as to t h a t f a i l u r e and as t o h i s a l l e g e d nonpayment o f t h e r e q u i r e d monthly c h i l d support the full order. f o r June; the t r i a l court then imposed 15-day s e n t e n c e f i r s t i m p o s e d i n t h e June 22, The husband then filed a motion 2011, challenging various a s p e c t s of t h a t o r d e r , e s p e c i a l l y those p e r t a i n i n g t o contempt and t h e d i v i s i b i l i t y of the r e t i r e m e n t p l a n s or accounts, sought a s t a y of enforcement of the order. on A u g u s t 25, his 2011, denied i n c a r c e r a t i o n to f i v e The trial the husband's motions but days. 3 and court, reduced 2110223 On October seeking 17, a finding 2011, the wife o f contempt filed another as t o t h e h u s b a n d , motion asserting t h a t he h a d f a i l e d t o c o m p l y w i t h a number o f o b l i g a t i o n s s e t forth i n t h e June 22, 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r . The h u s b a n d moved t o d i r e c t t h e e n t r y o f a f i n a l judgment p u r s u a n t t o R u l e Ala. R. trial C i v . P. court finding After a hearing entered the incarceration on O c t o b e r 19, 2 0 1 1 , t h e (a) an O c t o b e r husband in 54(b), contempt 27, and 2011, o r d e r sentencing again him to f o r 15 d a y s a n d (b) a November 4, 2011, o r d e r d e n y i n g t h e husband's m o t i o n s e e k i n g a d i r e c t i o n f o r t h e e n t r y o f a f i n a l j u d g m e n t b u t v a c a t i n g t h a t p o r t i o n o f t h e June 22, 2011, order reserving jurisdiction to divide alleged r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t s a n d s u b s t i t u t i n g a new p r o v i s i o n e f f e c t i n g a division stated that closed." finalized, to thereof; i n the l a t t e r i t "consider[ed The h u s b a n d raising t h e contempt order, t h e ] cause the t r i a l t o be court final t i m e l y a p p e a l e d from t h e judgment and as f o u r i s s u e s on a p p e a l : one i s s u e p e r t a i n s finding i n the judgment and t h r e e issues c o n c e r n t h e p r o p e r t y - d i v i s i o n and c h i l d - s u p p o r t a s p e c t s o f t h e judgment. The h u s b a n d ' s f i r s t trial review court's judgment o f t h e June issue concerns the correctness of the finding t h e husband 22, 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r 4 i n contempt. and t h e t r i a l A court's 2110223 subsequent orders for the t r i a l indicates that the stated underlying court's initial contempt d e t e r m i n a t i o n basis was t h e husband's f a i l u r e t o s a t i s f y h i s pendente l i t e support-payment o b l i g a t i o n s , as s p e c i f i e d subsequent t r i a l - c o u r t i n t h e June 2 2 , 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r ; order each f i n d i n g t h e husband i n contempt r e f e r s t o t h e husband's h a v i n g f a i l e d t o r e p o r t f o r a s e n t e n c e of incarceration underlying points to substantive be that determination. o u t , however, that uniformly served stemmed The h u s b a n d the recorded lite order, t h e husband required f o r A p r i l March trial that with that he h a d made a l l payments $800 i n m o n t h l y c h i l d 2011. Thus, to the extent court's i n the A p r i l had complied a n d May 2 0 1 1 , a n d t h e w i f e j u d g m e n t as f i n a l i z e d that actually testified the husband had p a i d in at t e n d e d t o show t h a t t h e h u s b a n d , r a t h e r t h a n h a v i n g pendente order; that correctly testimony f a i l e d t o make t h e s u p p o r t p a y m e n t s as r e q u i r e d 2011 from that admitted support the t r i a l that beginning court's has a t t e m p t e d t o s a n c t i o n , p u r s u a n t t o contempt jurisdiction, the husband for n o n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e A p r i l 2011 p e n d e n t e l i t e o r d e r without e v i d e n c e t h e r e o f , t h a t j u d g m e n t i s due t o be r e v e r s e d because it i s " ' u n s u p p o r t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e s o as t o be p l a i n l y a n d p a l p a b l y wrong.'" C a v e n d e r v. S t a t e Mut. I n s . Co., 748 So. 2d 5 2110223 863, 56 868 ( A l a . C i v . App. We his ( A l a . 1999) now v. Stack, whether the on that appeal, court the The "[t]he "totally [h]usband's second major worked and at several work as ultimately in employment the "MedLabs, with health-care liaison, labor However, the during which year, the in this industry, a a medical- orthopedic-device concern, a corporation record also known as more than reflects the w i f e t e s t i f i e d , h u s b a n d t h a t she was that she had contemplating husband opened s e p a r a t e of three business entities ("Live and "Pioneer, LLC") . The LLC"; were s e r v i c e as for the names funds a c o n s u l t a n t / s p e c i a l i s t paying i n d i c a t e d to the divorce undisputed and t h e t r i a l i n the representative, 2010. a f t e r 2008 ... retirement[] a physical-therapy " O r g a n o g e n e s i s " as first jobs m a n u f a c t u r e r , work f o r an $150,000 51, r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t the husband, d u r i n g pharmaceutical-sales device 2d issue," i.e., disregarded 10 y e a r s b e t w e e n h i s c o l l e g e g r a d u a t i o n including So. 1994)) . trial legitimate." cause, 646 t u r n t o what t h e h u s b a n d l a b e l s , i n h i s summary o f arguments evidence (quoting Stack checking accounts Free, wife a in LLC"; showed at t r i a l t h a t t h o s e e n t i t i e s had n e v e r b e e n r e g i s t e r e d t o c o n d u c t business in questioning Alabama, of the and she focused h u s b a n d upon t h e 6 the financial bulk of activities her of 2110223 the husband r e g a r d i n g those accounts and investment accounts that l e a d i n g up t o t h e f i l i n g took and v a r i o u s r e t i r e m e n t place during the period of the wife's divorce complaint i n A u g u s t 2010. The husband admitted in his trial testimony that the " L i v e F r e e " e n t i t y e x i s t e d s o l e l y as an " e n t i t y f o r r e t i r e m e n t accounts," indicated majority and e x h i b i t s not only that o f t h e funds admitted that into entity i n an evidence at was t h e s o u r c e account with T. trial of the Rowe Price Investments denominated " L i v e Free LLP I n d i v i d u a l 401k" which sum 1 into $16,500 h a d b e e n d e p o s i t e d i n 2009, b u t a l s o t h a t t h e o f $28,800 h a d b e e n t r a n s f e r r e d from t h a t e n t i t y ' s bank a c c o u n t t o an A m e r i c a n C e n t u r y I n v e s t m e n t s a c c o u n t i n t h e name of " L i v e f r e e R o t h 401k P l a n T r u s t June 2010 a n d J u l y 2010, the initiation J a c o b A. Thomas" d u r i n g t h e two months i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d i n g of the divorce action. The r e c o r d further r e f l e c t s t h a t f u n d s f r o m t h e b a n k a c c o u n t o p e n e d i n t h e name of " P i o n e e r , LLC" (which t h e husband i d e n t i f i e d entity he c r e a t e d t o h a n d l e transactions as b e i n g an involving certain T h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e " L i v e F r e e " e n t i t y was a c t u a l l y o p e r a t e d o r was i n t e n d e d t o be o p e r a t e d as a l i m i t e d - l i a b i l i t y company so as t o w a r r a n t t h e u s e o f t h e i d e n t i f i e r " L L C " o r as a l i m i t e d - l i a b i l i t y p a r t n e r s h i p so as to warrant t h e use o f t h e i d e n t i f i e r "LLP." 1 7 2110223 c o n s u l t i n g work he h a d done f o r a p a r t i c u l a r also been directed to the "Live Free" physician) entity r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t h e l d by t h e h u s b a n d a t V a n g u a r d (the latter 2010). having received Similarly, to a Investments a $16,285.62 d e p o s i t the w i f e adduced and had i n January e v i d e n c e t e n d i n g t o show t h a t $26,000 f r o m t h e bank a c c o u n t f o r "MedLabs, LLC" h a d b e e n directed 2010, t o two one Livefree w i t h Vanguard LLP made 4 0 1 ( k ) " and to a was asked at t r i a l particular had held maybe e a r l y l a s t y e a r , " i . e . , d u r i n g finalizing the E*TRADE whether he had individual-retirement- a p p r o x i m a t e l y $7,720, t h e h u s b a n d The with a c c o u n t w i t h Zecco T r a d i n g t h a t h a d b e e n o p e n e d i n name i n F e b r u a r y 2009 and worth one TR ("E*TRADE") i n t h e h u s b a n d ' s i n d i v i d u a l name. deposits arrangement his Roth when t h e h u s b a n d any May I n v e s t m e n t s i n t h e name o f "VFTC Individual S e c u r i t i e s LLC Finally, i n v e s t m e n t a c c o u n t s b e t w e e n J a n u a r y and trial court, in securities responded "[m]aybe, 2010. i t s November i t s property division, "LiveFree" entity, c a s h and 4, expressly 2011, order determined "MedLabs, LLC" and " P i o n e e r , LLC" each been " i n v e n t e d t o s h i e l d m a r i t a l funds that had from t h e " w i f e , and i t a w a r d e d t h e w i f e 50% o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s h o l d i n g s i n t h e American Century Investments account, the Vanguard accounts, t h e T. Rowe P r i c e a c c o u n t , and 8 Investments t h e Zecco account. 2110223 Although t h e husband c o r r e c t l y p o i n t s out t h a t those accounts, b e i n g i n t h e n a t u r e o f i n d i v i d u a l - r e t i r e m e n t a r r a n g e m e n t s , may well have fallen benefits" whose statutorily married within inclusion conditioned the in divisible upon of "retirement marital property i s the p a r t i e s ' f o r a p e r i o d o f 10 y e a r s was b e i n g definition "hav[ing] been during which the retirement a c c u m u l a t e d , " s e e A l a . Code 1975, § 30-2-51(b)(1), A l a b a m a l a w s i m u l t a n e o u s l y r e c o g n i z e s b o t h t h a t "a t r a n s f e r o f p r o p e r t y made t o d e f e a t a s p o u s e ' s r i g h t s i n m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y i s v o i d a b l e " a n d t h a t " [ w ] h e t h e r a t r a n s f e r i s made t o d e f e a t a spouse's p r o p e r t y r i g h t s i s a q u e s t i o n o f f a c t " Pattillo, 414 So. 2d 915, 916 ( A l a . 1 9 8 2 ) ) ; ( P a t t i l l o v. f u r t h e r , as t h i s c o u r t has p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d , " [ a ] c o u r t o f e q u i t y i n a d i v o r c e c a s e h a s power t o u s e a n y r e a s o n a b l e property settlement a just and a d j u s t t h e e q u i t i e s o f t h e p a r t i e s . " J e r n i g a n v. J e r n i g a n , 1977). means t o e f f e c t 344 So. 2d 778, 780-81 From t h e e v i d e n c e of record, ( A l a . C i v . App. the t r i a l court could p r o p e r l y have d e t e r m i n e d , as i t d i d , t h a t t h e h u s b a n d ' s h a v i n g shifted titled over $90,000 of m a r i t a l assets i n t h e names o f d u b i o u s c o r p o r a t e "retirement" accounts a f t e r having from bank entities accounts to various had n o t i c e o f the w i f e ' s d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e m a r r i a g e was an e f f o r t t o h i n d e r an equitable property settlement 9 upon dissolution of the 2110223 m a r r i a g e , a n d we a f f i r m t h e t r i a l accounts. The court's treatment of those 2 husband a l s o contends t h a t t h e t r i a l imputing a monthly income t o h i m o f $9,000 w i t h calculating h i s child-support setting child discretion support, t o impute voluntarily court erred i n unemployed obligation. the t r i a l income i s afforded to a parent to We n o t e t h a t , i n 3 court o r underemployed respect the when a p a r e n t i s a determination t h a t , i n t u r n , i s t o be made f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d . See B i t t i n g e r v. Byrom, 65 So. 3d 927, 934 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) . Although t h e husband c o r r e c t l y notes refers business entities as i n d i c a t i o n s o f t h e v o l u n t a r i n e s s o f t h e there is of the trial judgment unemployment, the existence the court's husband's to that substantial i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e husband i s v o l u n t a r i l y unemployed reference t o those e n t i t i e s . "sham" evidence without The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s Although t h e husband avers that the t r i a l court i m p r o p e r l y mandated t h a t t h e t r a n s f e r o f t h e w i f e ' s p o r t i o n o f t h o s e a c c o u n t s be " n o n - t a x a b l e , " he c i t e s no a u t h o r i t y t e n d i n g t o show t h a t a " Q u a l i f i e d D o m e s t i c R e l a t i o n s O r d e r " c o u l d n o t issue to the various plan administrators d i r e c t i n g recognition o f t h e w i f e ' s r i g h t s u n d e r t h e j u d g m e n t . C f . Stamm v. Stamm, 922 So. 2d 920, 922-23 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004) ( d i s c u s s i n g s u c h orders). 2 The t r i a l c o u r t a l s o imputed a federal-minimum-wage income t o t h e w i f e , who l a c k s a c o l l e g e d e g r e e a n d d i d n o t work o u t s i d e t h e home d u r i n g t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e . 3 10 2110223 employment w i t h O r g a n o g e n e s i s was in February denied 2011 having based sought upon to t e r m i n a t e d by t h a t company salary keep h i s c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , but job at a reduced he salary. A l s o , evidence r e g a r d i n g h i s subsequent j o b - s e a r c h e f f o r t s by no means testified "best clear and unequivocal. Although t h a t he was " e x h a u s t i v e l y " working recruiters in the business" of the husband w i t h 20 medical of he admitted that he had a p p l i c a t i o n s only through such recruiters any his own such continue a p p l i c a t i o n s on i n the court, through scheduled A p r i l cause, later actually In a the husband r e p r e s e n t e d 11, 2011, making motion to the h e a r i n g b e c a u s e o f "an at t r i a l Alabama o f new that, during simply to enjoy C a l i f o r n i a t h a t a male f r i e n d o f h i s had Under R u l e 3 2 ( B ) ( 5 ) , A l a . R. in r a t h e r than job to trial c o u n s e l , t h a t he w o u l d n o t be a b l e t o a t t e n d a admitted left daily submitted behalf. out of s t a t e i n v o l v i n g p o s s i b i l i t i e s he the consulting " t r y i n g t o f i n d g o o d employment" and t h a t he s p e n t t i m e "networking," was appointment employment," y e t t h a t month, he a free trip had to won. J u d . Admin., a t r i a l court, " d e t e r m i n i n g t h e amount o f income t o be i m p u t e d t o a p a r e n t who i s unemployed or underemployed," i s d i r e c t e d t o the employment p o t e n t i a l and probable earning level p a r e n t , b a s e d on t h a t p a r e n t ' s r e c e n t work h i s t o r y , 11 "determine of that education, 2110223 and occupational qualifications, o p p o r t u n i t i e s and e a r n i n g case, the husband a n d on t h e p r e v a i l i n g j o b l e v e l s i n t h e community." had earned $9,000 p e r month In this until three months b e f o r e t r i a l ; he h a d 10 y e a r s o f work e x p e r i e n c e health-care husband field himself following h i s college graduation; testified that he was "[v]ery" i n the and t h e optimistic a b o u t g a i n i n g employment a t t h e same a p p r o x i m a t e income he h a d p r e v i o u s l y earned. court, Acting within i t s discretion, the t r i a l f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e we have s u m m a r i z e d , c o u l d properly have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d h a d t h e a b i l i t y t o earn much t o make as he concerted court's had earned effort to obtain determination Bittinger, 65 previously So. i f he employment; was n o t " p l a i n l y were because the or palpably 3d a t 934, i t s j u d g m e n t as a trial wrong," i s due t o be a f f i r m e d as t o t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t i s s u e . Finally, he assails "inequitable "ignored we t u r n t o t h e h u s b a n d ' s f i n a l the property and u n j u s t " the undisputed division because, evidence as a he s a y s , i s s u e , i n which whole as being the t r i a l court of the legitimacy [h]usband's r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t s and imputed n o n e x i s t e n t to the [h]usband." argument as t o t h a t of the income The u n d e r l y i n g p r e m i s e o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s issue, however, presupposes that the r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t s w e r e , i n f a c t , l e g i t i m a t e a n d t h a t income 12 2110223 was, i n fact, contrary improperly i n our imputed; consideration our conclusions of the husband's t h i r d i s s u e s render t h a t premise unsound. to the second The t r i a l c o u r t , i n e x e r c i s i n g i t s d i s c r e t i o n to d i v i d e the m a r i t a l property, free to consider f a c t o r s other trial wife's court could questionable properly future young c h i l d r e n . (Ala. in C i v . App. dividing extent favored that have given custody property the the w i f e , we lack incident to a divorce). court's property the of 681 So. 2d 605, ( o u t l i n i n g numerous f a c t o r s trial 4 her of the p a r t i e s ' See G o l d e n v. G o l d e n , 1996) notably, deemed s i g n i f i c a n t prospects c o l l e g e d i p l o m a and h e r p r i m a r y was than the husband's c l a i m t h a t t h e w i f e was a t f a u l t i n p r e c i p i t a t i n g t h e d i v o r c e ; the and a four 608 considered Thus, t o t h e division may have cannot conclude t h a t i t i s i n e q u i t a b l e so as t o be p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y w r o n g . G o l d e n , 681 So. 2d a t 608. B a s e d upon t h e f o r e g o i n g f a c t s and a u t h o r i t i e s , we the trial court's judgment i n i t s entirety except affirm f o r that The husband, i n a t a b u l a r r e n d e r i n g o f the p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n c o n t a i n e d i n h i s b r i e f on a p p e a l , i n c o r p o r a t e s h i s p o s i t i o n t h a t he w i l l s u f f e r t a x l i a b i l i t i e s as a n e c e s s a r y component o f i m p l e m e n t i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i v i s i o n o f t h e r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t s stemming f r o m i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e husband had s e c r e t e d a s s e t s . That p o s i t i o n i s , however, unsupported. See n o t e 2, s u p r a . 4 13 2110223 p o r t i o n f i n d i n g t h e h u s b a n d t o be i n c o n t e m p t b a s e d upon h i s purported noncompliance w i t h order; as t o t h a t component and we remand t h e A p r i l 2011 alone, we the cause t o the t r i a l t h a t p o r t i o n of t h e judgment. reverse court t h e judgment, for vacation of i s denied. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND Thomas, and Moore, Thompson, P. J . , c o n c u r s lite The w i f e ' s r e q u e s t f o r an a w a r d o f an a t t o r n e y ' s f e e on a p p e a l Bryan, pendente REMANDED. J J . , concur. i n the r e s u l t , without 14 writing.

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.