Billy Wes Howell v. Patricia Dantone (Howell)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 12/07/2012 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 2110290 B i l l y Wes Howell v. Patricia Dantone (Howell) Appeal from C h i l t o n C i r c u i t (DR-09-249.01) PITTMAN, Billy Court Judge. Wes H o w e l l ("the f a t h e r " ) ordering h i m t o be e q u a l l y Dantone (Howell) a p p e a l s from a judgment responsible, ("the m o t h e r " ) , along f o r the with Patricia postminority 2110290 e d u c a t i o n a l expenses ("the daughter"). o f Raven H o w e l l , the p a r t i e s ' We r e v e r s e and daughter remand. F a c t u a l and P r o c e d u r a l Background D u r i n g the p a r t i e s ' marriage, the mother's t h r e e c h i l d r e n from a previous marriage father's son (two daughters from a p r e v i o u s marriage p a r t i e s ' d a u g h t e r was b o r n i n 1991. by the Jefferson d a u g h t e r was Circuit Court and a son) and l i v e d w i t h them. the The The p a r t i e s were d i v o r c e d i n August l e s s than three years o l d . 1994, when the The d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t i n c o r p o r a t e d t h e p a r t i e s ' a g r e e m e n t t h a t t h e m o t h e r w o u l d have physical custody of the daughter standard v i s i t a t i o n and pay I n 1995, filed the f a t h e r and the father would have c h i l d s u p p o r t o f $350 p e r month. a second complaint f o r a divorce, a l l e g i n g t h a t a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e 1994 d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t t h e p a r t i e s h a d r e c o n c i l e d and h a d l i v e d t o g e t h e r as h u s b a n d wife u n t i l t h e y s e p a r a t e d i n J u l y 1995. The m o t h e r moved t o d i s m i s s t h e c o m p l a i n t , d e n y i n g t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had and resumed t h e i r m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . order dated determined January that 2, after 1996, the the first 2 I n an Jefferson divorce and reconciled interlocutory Circuit the parties Court had 2110290 r e c o n c i l e d and h a d t h e r e a f t e r l i v e d i n a common-law m a r r i a g e . The f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s o f f a c t were i n c l u d e d i n t h e o r d e r : "The Court finds that from the evidence p r e s e n t e d , the p a r t i e s s i g n e d a j o i n t t a x r e t u r n f o r t h e y e a r 1994, as h u s b a n d and w i f e , and [ t h e m o t h e r ] was k e p t on [ t h e f a t h e r ' s ] g r o u p h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y f o l l o w i n g t h e A u g u s t 1994 [ j u d g m e n t ] . The e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t on A p r i l 15, 1995, the [ m o t h e r ] was d e s i g n a t e d as the spouse of the [ f a t h e r ] on a Q u a l i f i e d J o i n t and S u r v i v o r A n n u i t y w i t h t h e C a r p e n t e r s L o c a l # 127 P e n s i o n T r u s t Fund. F u r t h e r t h e e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t i n June o f 1995, $11,000.00 dollars from the pension fund was w i t h d r a w n . The [ f a t h e r ] t e s t i f i e d he gave a l l t h e money t o t h e [ m o t h e r ] . The [ m o t h e r ] a d m i t t e d t o u s i n g a s u b s t a n t i a l amount o f t h e f u n d s t o p a y o f f her van and to purchase a swimming pool. Furthermore, the [father] testified that he d e p o s i t e d the m a j o r i t y of h i s paycheck i n t o the [ m o t h e r ' s ] a c c o u n t , up u n t i l t h e p a r t i e s ' s e p a r a t i o n on J u l y 10, 1995. A l t h o u g h t h e [ m o t h e r ] i s n o t e m p l o y e d and has no a p p a r e n t means o f s u p p o r t , she has n o t s o u g h t t o e n f o r c e t h e d i v o r c e [ j u d g m e n t ] d a t e d A u g u s t 4, 1994. "The [ f a t h e r ] t e s t i f i e d t h a t he a g r e e d t o t h e q u i c k d i v o r c e , because the [ m o t h e r ] had a c c u s e d him o f m o l e s t i n g h i s s t e p d a u g h t e r and i n s i s t e d t h a t he agree t o the terms of the d i v o r c e t o p r e v e n t the D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s ( D H R ) f r o m r e m o v i n g t h e s t e p d a u g h t e r as w e l l as t h e p a r t i e s ' c h i l d f r o m t h e home. The [father] further testified that the [ m o t h e r ] l a t e r a d m i t t e d t h a t t h e d i v o r c e was a sham and t h a t t h e y w o u l d c o n t i n u e t o l i v e t o g e t h e r as man and w i f e . The [ m o t h e r ] d e n i e d t h i s t e s t i m o n y . "While the testimony of the p a r t i e s i s i n d i r e c t c o n t r a d i c t i o n , the c o u r t f i n d s t h a t the testimony of t h e [ f a t h e r ] i s t h e most c r e d i b l e . The court t h e r e f o r e f i n d s t h a t t h e r e was more t h a n a mere 3 2110290 reunification after a divorce i n this situation. The e v i d e n c e was s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h a commonlaw m a r r i a g e r e l a t i o n between the p a r t i e s . See g e n e r a l l y , S k i p w o r t h v. S k i p w o r t h , 360 So. 2d 975 ( A l a . 1 9 7 8 ) ; C o p e l a n d v. R i c h a r d s o n , 551 So. 2d 353 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ; and W a l t o n v. W a l t o n , 409 So. 2d 858 ( A l a . C i v . App. [ 1 9 8 2 ] ) . " On November 21, 1996, t h e J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t d i v o r c e d t h e parties f o r the second t i m e , awarded p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y of the daughter t o the mother, support and o r d e r e d t h e f a t h e r o f $323.70 p e r month. moved t o C h i l t o n County reside i n Jefferson In September Circuit Court alleging that a child m o t h e r and the The i n 2000. continued to father daughter County. 2009, the mother filed to modify the petition the The t o pay daughter intended to in the divorce attend Chilton judgment, college s e e k i n g p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l s u p p o r t from the f a t h e r . J u l y 29, 2011, t h e t r i a l c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g on t h e and On mother's petition. At her the time of the h e a r i n g , freshman year at Troy U n i v e r s i t y , grade-point average, list. The She mother the d a u g h t e r had maintained a and had b e e n named t o t h e p l a n s t o major testified had that completed 4.0 chancellor's i n b i o l o g y and t o become a n u r s e . the 4 expenses of the daughter's 2110290 f r e s h m a n y e a r had b e e n p a i d f r o m t h e f o l l o w i n g s o u r c e s : a Pell g r a n t , a student l o a n , a s c h o l a r s h i p , the daughter's part-time job from the m a t e r n a l aunt s t a t e d t h a t she at a fast-food restaurant, m o t h e r and a m a t e r n a l a u n t . had paid tuition f o r the and The daughter's contributions textbooks t h a t the daughter " [ c o u l d not] grants [ d i d not] cover." of the daughter's u n s u r e as to the The student and half amount o f t h e or college r a i s e and t h a t t h e mother d i d not loan the s t a t e the scholarship, P e l l grant. and She amount she presented i n v o i c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the c o s t s , e x c l u s i v e of t e x t b o o k s , t h e f i r s t s e m e s t e r o f t h e d a u g h t e r ' s sophomore y e a r i n the fall The o f 2011 that tumor t h a t had had disability payments payments of of $323.70 p e r an for beginning d i s a b l e d as t h e been d i a g n o s e d n i n e a f f e c t e d her was $7,574.85. m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she was of a b r a i n and w o u l d be Pell vision. $577 per month. Her 1 month She years income and result earlier consists of child-support acknowledged that the f a t h e r had r e g u l a r l y made a l l h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t payments u n t i l J u l y 2011, five weeks b e f o r e trial. The m a t e r n a l a u n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s d i s a b i l i t y b e e n b a s e d upon a d i a g n o s i s o f b i p o l a r d i s o r d e r . 1 had 5 2110290 The mother stated that the f a t h e r had visited the d a u g h t e r o n l y once a f t e r t h e d i v o r c e , when t h e d a u g h t e r was 4 or 5 y e a r s o l d , and t h a t , u n t i l t h e h e a r i n g i n t h i s case, the f a t h e r a n d t h e d a u g h t e r h a d n o t s e e n e a c h o t h e r f o r 15 y e a r s . The mother d e n i e d t h a t she had a l i e n a t e d o r had a t t e m p t e d t o a l i e n a t e t h e d a u g h t e r f r o m t h e f a t h e r , i n s i s t i n g t h a t she h a d a l w a y s e n c o u r a g e d a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e two a n d t h a t she had r e g u l a r l y s e n t t h e d a u g h t e r ' s r e p o r t c a r d s a n d p h o t o g r a p h s of the daughter when the t o the f a t h e r . daughter was 16 The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d years o l d , the telephoned the father t o discuss her plans On had cross-examination, accused the f a t h e r t h e mother of molesting that, daughter to attend had college. acknowledged t h a t she h e r two d a u g h t e r s b y a p r e v i o u s m a r r i a g e and t h a t h e r a c c u s a t i o n had p r e c i p i t a t e d t h e parties' first had i n 1994. r e c o n c i l e d or l i v e d together first divorce, Jefferson the divorce a as h u s b a n d a n d w i f e a f t e r t h e a n d , when c o n f r o n t e d Circuit parties She d e n i e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s with the f a c t that the Court had f o u n d o t h e r w i s e and had g r a n t e d second divorce, that she " n e v e r c o u l d u n d e r s t a n d " t h e r e a s o n why a s e c o n d d i v o r c e was necessary. 6 t h e mother stated 2110290 The daughter testified i n c l u d i n g textbooks, had been that her t o t a l e d $7,600 p e r awarded a P e l l grant college expenses, s e m e s t e r and o f $2,700 p e r that semester. she The d a u g h t e r s t a t e d t h a t she had a p p l i e d f o r s c h o l a r s h i p s , b u t she did She not s t a t e w h e t h e r she had t e s t i f i e d t h a t she f a t h e r and had was scholarships. w a n t e d t o have a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t r i e d on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s , beginning a b o u t 12 y e a r s o l d , t o s p e a k t o t h e f a t h e r , b u t , whenever she had dialed herself identified to answered the telephone. time had r e c e i v e d any when telephone number. calls, the father's her paternal the p a t e r n a l explained t h a t she the paternal grandmother The that he had daughter given stated that said, number who the the reached her f a t h e r one had not the his cellular-telephone she had answered telephoned f a t h e r had refused her f o l l o w i n g a previous hearing i n t h i s c a s e , she had request. t e x t m e s s a g e s t o h e r f a t h e r b e c a u s e , she him" f o r not h e l p i n g her with college 7 and had f a t h e r d u r i n g h e r f r e s h m a n y e a r i n c o l l e g e t o a s k f o r $200 that she hung up had her she grandmother, g r a n d m o t h e r had She and telephone when her She admitted and that, s e n t "mean" s a i d , she was expenses. the "mad at 2110290 At and the time of the h e a r i n g , had recently carpenter earning with been a laid t h e f a t h e r was 54 y e a r s o l d o f f f r o m h i s employment construction company, where $19.50 p e r h o u r when he w o r k e d . he as had a been He s t a t e d t h a t h i s g r o s s income i n 2010 h a d b e e n $36,000 and t h a t he h a d n e v e r earned in more construction than $40,000 work. He annually had applied his f o r but r e c e i v e d unemployment-compensation b e n e f i t s . estate, has a s a v i n g s account c o n t a i n i n g 31 years of not yet had He owns no r e a l $25 and a checking a c c o u n t c o n t a i n i n g $650, and l i v e s w i t h h i s 7 5 - y e a r - o l d i n a house h i s m o t h e r o w n s . "to go t o w a r d b i l l s insurance He p a y s h i s m o t h e r $600 p e r month and f o o d , " and he p a y s f o r h i s h e a l t h - coverage pursuant t o the Consolidated R e c o n c i l i a t i o n A c t , 29 U.S.C. §§ 1161-1169. retirement but, he without a The savings said, he account c o n t a i n i n g look Omnibus B u d g e t He has a 4 0 1 ( k ) approximately cannot withdraw funds $50,000, from t h a t account penalty. father testified that he h a d n o t l o o k e d work b u t h a d s p e n t t h e f i v e weeks his mother mother's house. f o r other He since h i s layoff acknowledged t h a t f o r other fixing up he w o u l d have t o employment, b u t , he s a i d , he d i d n o t t h i n k he 8 2110290 c o u l d h a n d l e c o n s t r u c t i o n work anymore b e c a u s e he h a d p a i n i n h i s back, knees, and elbow and i s " s h o r t - w i n d e d a l i t t l e b i t . " The had tried alienated father stated that, a f t e r the p a r t i e s ' divorce, t o s e e t h e d a u g h t e r , b u t , he s a i d , t h e m o t h e r h a d the daughter from him and had r e f u s e d s p e a k w i t h t h e d a u g h t e r when he h a d t e l e p h o n e d . that he he had stepdaughters never and t h a t behaved t o l e t him He t e s t i f i e d inappropriately the mother's with allegations of his sexual abuse were u n t r u e , as t h e J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t h a d f o u n d . The f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t he h a d w a n t e d a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e daughter, mother's b u t , he sexual-abuse "what he m i g h t never sought he had allegations be a c c u s e d relationship with with said, been t r a u m a t i z e d by the and had been o f n e x t " i f he t r i e d the daughter. legal assistance He a c k n o w l e d g e d fearful t o pursue of a t h a t he h a d i n establishing a relationship the daughter. The f a t h e r ' s 3 1 - y e a r - o l d s o n b y a p r e v i o u s m a r r i a g e , who h a d l i v e d w i t h t h e p a r t i e s when he was b e t w e e n t h e ages o f 10 and 13, c o n f i r m e d t h e f a t h e r ' s t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d alienated the daughter from the father. He said that the f a t h e r h a d b e e n a good p a r e n t a n d t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d b e e n an 9 2110290 abusive stepparent who had beat throat with laundry detergent him and had " b r u s h e d " h i s when he t o l d a l i e o r s a i d a b a d w o r d , h a d a s k e d h i m t o b r i n g h e r sweet t e a w h i l e she l a y n a k e d in the bathtub, and h a d l o c k e d h o u s e on h o t summer d a y s w h i l e a l l the c h i l d r e n out of the she t o o k a nap i n s i d e a n d t h e c h i l d r e n s h o t BB-gun p e l l e t s a t e a c h o t h e r outside. At the c o n c l u s i o n of the hearing, the t r i a l the court entered f o l l o w i n g judgment: "Upon h e a r i n g t h e t e s t i m o n y on p o s t m i n o r i t y s u p p o r t by t h e f a t h e r , t h i s c o u r t f i n d s (1) p o s t m i n o r i t y s u p p o r t i s g r a n t e d f o r [ t h e ] p a r t i e s ' c h i l d , Raven H o w e l l , [ a n d ] (2) [ t h e ] p a r t i e s a r e t o e q u a l l y be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the t u i t i o n , books, board, food, transportation, [ a n d ] medical insurance, after applying any s c h o l a r s h i p s . [ T h e ] c h i l d i s to maintain a B average i n order t o maintain the b e n e f i t of t h i s postminority order." The f a t h e r f i l e d a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on A u g u s t 28, 2011. September hearing 1, 2011, t h e t r i a l on November 7, 2 0 1 1 . court set that The t r i a l motion On for a court f a i l e d to rule on t h e m o t i o n , and i t was, t h e r e f o r e , d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w on November 28, 2011, p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 9 . 1 , A l a . R. C i v . P. 2 The f a t h e r t i m e l y a p p e a l e d on December 19, 2011. The 90th day f o l l o w i n g t h e f i l i n g o f t h e f a t h e r ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on A u g u s t 28, 2 0 1 1 , was S a t u r d a y , November 26, 2 0 1 1 . The f a t h e r ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was, t h e r e f o r e , 2 10 2110290 Standard of Review "'The general principles concerning child support 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 c o l l e g e 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 o f t h e 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 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 evidence i s p r e s e n t e d ore tenus i n a c h i l d support c a s e , the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment i s presumed c o r r e c t . ' " i t s J a c k l i n v. A u s t i n , 3d So. , [Ms. 2110064, S e p t e m b e r 28, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2d 617, v. B e r r y , 619 579 2012) ( A l a . C i v . App. So. 2d 654, 656 2012] So. ( q u o t i n g W e l l s v. W e l l s , 1994), q u o t i n g ( A l a . C i v . App. i n turn 648 Berry 1991)). Discussion The f a t h e r argues t h a t the t r i a l court erred i n ordering him 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 s u p p o r t (a) he in and 15 t h e d a u g h t e r had years and educational plans, earning expenses he (b) he c a p a c i t y , or without had not says, seen or spoken t o each other been consulted about does n o t have s u f f i c i e n t assets undue not b e c a u s e , he t o pay hardship, postminority (c) the her earnings, educational trial court's deemed d e n i e d on Monday, November 28, 2011. See W i l l i a m s o n v. F o u r t h Ave. S u p e r m a r k e t , I n c . , 12 So. 3d 1200, 1203-04 ( A l a . 2009) . 11 2110290 judgment support does not specify obligation d a u g h t e r may or take the amount into be r e c e i v i n g , and of account his postminoritygrants (d) t h e t r i a l or In Ex parte Bayliss, the c o u r t ' s judgment does n o t c o n d i t i o n h i s s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n upon t h e maintaining full-time-student aid daughter's status. 550 So. 2d 986 ( A l a . 1989), our supreme c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t has d i s c r e t i o n w h e t h e r to o r d e r p o s t m i n o r i t y s u p p o r t a t a l l and t h a t , that discretion, the t r i a l court s h a l l in exercising consider " a l l r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s t h a t s h a l l appear reasonable and n e c e s s a r y , i n c l u d i n g p r i m a r i l y t h e financial r e s o u r c e s o f t h e p a r e n t s and t h e c h i l d and the child's commitment to, and aptitude for, the requested education." 550 So. 2d a t 987. In a d d i t i o n , the t r i a l c o u r t may consider " t h e s t a n d a r d o f l i v i n g t h a t t h e c h i l d w o u l d have e n j o y e d i f t h e m a r r i a g e had n o t b e e n d i s s o l v e d and t h e f a m i l y u n i t h a d b e e n p r e s e r v e d and t h e c h i l d ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h h i s p a r e n t s and r e s p o n s i v e n e s s t o p a r e n t a l a d v i c e and g u i d a n c e . " Id. In the present case, the daughter's commitment t o and a p t i t u d e f o r a c o l l e g e e d u c a t i o n were u n d i s p u t e d . The trial determined shared court heard evidence from which t h a t the mother, the f a t h e r , some r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and t h e d a u g h t e r a l l f o r the estrangement 12 i t c o u l d have between the 2110290 f a t h e r and the daughter. that a t r i a l In l i g h t c o u r t i s not r e l a t i o n s h i p to required to consider [her] p a r e n t s a d v i c e and g u i d a n c e , " of the h o l d i n g i n B a y l i s s 550 and So. "the responsiveness 2d a t 987, child's to parental i t i s c l e a r t h a t the e s t r a n g e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e f a t h e r and t h e d a u g h t e r i s n o t sufficient to opportunity "'preclude to obtain the a W i l l i a m s , 678 So. 2d 1118, Thrasher v. 1990)). Wilburn, "In no 574 daughter college 1122 from 2d has this having education.'" ( A l a . C i v . App. So. instance ... 839, 841 court between p a r e n t and impediment the Bruning, 64 to So. 3d at t r i a l child 1996) receipt 645, so b r o k e n as of 651 such reversed App. a trial solely relationship t o be support." ( A l a . C i v . App. v. (quoting (Ala. Civ. r e f l e c t e d t h a t the was the Payne c o u r t ' s i m p o s i t i o n of p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l support because the evidence alone a complete Dunigan 2010) v. (second emphasis added). In d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a p a r e n t s h o u l d be o r d e r e d 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 e x p e n s e s , a t r i a l c o u r t must c o n s i d e r whether the parent or income to "has provide hardship to himself." s u f f i c i e n t estate, earning capacity, financial Thrasher 13 assistance v. W i l b u r n 574 without So. 2d a t undue 841. 2110290 Although the father readily-accessible was funds unemployed a t the time f a t h e r a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t he was a b l e he had postponed h i s search accomplish necessary and had only of the hearing, the t o be e m p l o y e d a n d t h a t f o r employment o n l y repairs limited t o h i s mother's i n order house. f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t he h a d w o r k e d as a c a r p e n t e r to The f o r 31 y e a r s and h a d r e c e n t l y e a r n e d $19.50 p e r h o u r when he h a d w o r k e d b u t t h a t , w i t h t h e slowdown i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n t r a d e s , there had n o t b e e n enough work f o r h i m t o do a n d he h a d b e e n l a i d Although ability the father expressed some reservation t o engage i n h e a v y - c o n s t r u c t i o n in the past, the t r i a l off. about h i s l a b o r as he h a d done c o u r t was p r e s e n t e d w i t h e v i d e n c e from w h i c h i t c o u l d have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d t h e s k i l l s to obtain a carpentry j o b t h a t was l e s s p h y s i c a l l y d e m a n d i n g and t h a t w o u l d p a y a wage a p p r o x i m a t i n g h i s p r e v i o u s See 2001) Arnett v. A r n e t t , (stating discretion that 812 So. 2d 1246, 1250 ( A l a . C i v . App. i t was t o determine not only also h i s a b i l i t y earnings. "within the the father's trial court's earnings, but to earn"). Notwithstanding the foregoing t h a t h e r e , as i n B a g g e t t v . F o s t e r , 14 discussion, we conclude 622 So. 2d 350, 353 ( A l a . 2110290 Civ. App. defined 1992), "the p o s s i b i l i t y i n Thrasher, e x i s t s under t h e t r i a l written." hardship, court's f o r the t u i t i o n , transportation, [and] m e d i c a l scholarships." (Emphasis indicated that daughter stated insurance, only obligation subject added.) Although that father's daughter's she h a d a p p l i e d the f o r scholarships, o r t h e income job, e i t h e r of which the t r i a l the f a t h e r ' s p o s t m i n o r i t y - s u p p o r t court's financial specific that N o r does i t make to the a p p l i c a t i o n of the d i s c r e t i o n , have d e c l i n e d t o c o n s i d e r trial mother t o the a p p l i c a t i o n of the P e l l grant loan any any s c h o l a r s h i p s . obligation subject student food, a scholarship, the t h e d a u g h t e r t e s t i f i e d she h a d b e e n a w a r d e d . the as after applying t h e daughter had r e c e i v e d t h a t she h a d r e c e i v e d part-time order books, board, S e c o n d , t h e j u d g m e n t does n o t make t h e f a t h e r ' s the as F i r s t , t h e judgment s t a t e s t h a t "the p a r t i e s a r e t o e q u a l l y be r e s p o n s i b l e not o f undue from court could, as s o u r c e s t h a t obligation. mention the daughter's 3 i nits reduced Nevertheless, of "scholarships" a I f the t r i a l court intended that the daughter's student loan d i d not reduce the father's educational-support o b l i g a t i o n , i t s judgment f a i l s t o i n d i c a t e whether t h e f a t h e r has any o b l i g a t i o n t o r e p a y t h e l o a n . 3 15 2110290 funding source that apparently and trial the grant, court's student failure l o a n , and d i d not exist in this to mention the case daughter's income f r o m p a r t - t i m e f u n d i n g sources t h a t d i d e x i s t i n t h i s case Pell employment c a s t d o u b t upon t h e e x t e n t o f t h e f a t h e r ' s f i n a n c i a l o b l i g a t i o n as s e t o u t the in judgment. T h i r d , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t does n o t s e t reasonable l i m i t a t i o n s on t h e f a t h e r ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e daughter's college expenses. " F o l l o w i n g B a y l i s s , t h i s c o u r t has h e l d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t must s e t r e a s o n a b l e l i m i t a t i o n s on t h e parent's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for postminority education s u p p o r t , b e c a u s e a f a i l u r e t o do so may i m p o s e an undue hardship on the paying parent. These l i m i t a t i o n s i n c l u d e (1) l i m i t i n g t h e s u p p o r t t o a reasonable period, (2) r e q u i r i n g the child to m a i n t a i n a t l e a s t a 'C' a v e r a g e , and (3) r e q u i r i n g t h a t t h e c h i l d be e n r o l l e d as a f u l l - t i m e s t u d e n t . " Penney v. Penney, 785 (citations daughter to So. omitted). maintain 2d 376, Although a "B" 379 the average, ( A l a . C i v . App. judgment i t does father's support o b l i g a t i o n to a reasonable 2000) requires not limit period. "[W]hen t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t has the potential to a l l o w the child to prolong [her] u n d e r g r a d u a t e s t u d i e s w e l l b e y o n d f o u r y e a r s , by n o t r e q u i r i n g t h e c h i l d t o t a k e a minimum number o f c o u r s e s e a c h s e s s i o n and by n o t l i m i t i n g t h e number o f c o u r s e s t h a t t h e c h i l d can w i t h d r a w f r o m e a c h 16 the the 2110290 s e m e s t e r , i t w i l l n o t be u p h e l d . This court has a l s o h e l d t h a t a reasonable l i m i t a t i o n would i n c l u d e l i m i t i n g t h e e x p e n s e s t o be p a i d by a p a r e n t t o a p a r t i c u l a r c o l l e g e or i n s t i t u t i o n . " Penney v. Penney, 785 So. 2d a t 379. r e q u i r e t h a t the daughter maintain See J a c k l i n v. A u s t i n the e x t e n t express So. Nor does t h e full-time-student 3d a t that the full-time-student status, i t i s Finally, the t r i a l court's status. (holding that, t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t u n d e r r e v i e w does n o t condition judgment ... "[t]o contain child[] an maintain erroneous"). j u d g m e n t does n o t address the u n d i s p u t e d e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e f a t h e r had made c h i l d s u p p o r t p a y m e n t s f o r 7 months a f t e r t h e d a u g h t e r had the i n d i c a t e whether age trial of 19 on court November 19, allocated postminority-support 2d 919, was " u n d i s p u t e d t h a t the f o r one those ( A l a . C i v . App. or payments obligation. So. son] 922 2010, See 1999) 4 to the reached father's M a n r i n g v. M a n r i n g , 744 ( s t a t i n g t h a t because i t [father] paid c h i l d support f o r y e a r a f t e r he the reached the age of m a j o r i t y [ , [the the T h e payments t o t a l e d $2,2 65.90. We have computed t h a t amount by m u l t i p l y i n g $323.70 ( t h e f a t h e r ' s m o n t h l y c h i l d s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n ) by 7 ( t h e number o f months t h a t t h e f a t h e r paid child support a f t e r the daughter reached her 19th birthday). 4 17 2110290 trial court could a l r e a d y met in have determined that the [father] a p o r t i o n of h i s p o s t m i n o r i t y - s u p p o r t supporting [ t h e son] past the date he had obligation reached the age of majority"). Conclusion Because the father's support the sources available daughter's of judgment that freshman l i m i t a t i o n s on t h e obligation, fails to address whether and t h a t the had, year, in evidence fact, (b) i n d i c a t e d had been used to impose fails are t o be obligation, (c) does extent of o b l i g a t i o n i s u n c l e a r , and whether the See Taylor not i n d i c a t e whether reasonable the 2008) extent Taylor, ("Because we of the this the 991 So. turned postminority-support father's postminority-support court i s unable to determine 2d f a t h e r t o undue 228, 235 hardship. (Ala. Civ. cannot determine from the r e c o r d the father's child- father's judgment s u b j e c t s the v. the father's postminority-educational-support a l l o c a t e d to the the of been during s u p p o r t p a y m e n t s made by t h e f a t h e r a f t e r t h e d a u g h t e r 19 the o b l i g a t i o n i s s u b j e c t to the a p p l i c a t i o n funding and (a) App. total postminority-educational-support o b l i g a t i o n , we c a n n o t s a y t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t does 18 2110290 not s u b j e c t t h e f a t h e r t o undue h a r d s h i p . " ) ; B e r r y v . B e r r y , 579 So. 2d 654, 656 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 1 ) ) ( r e v e r s i n g an a w a r d of postminority support because this court was u n a b l e t o d e t e r m i n e from t h e judgment t h e t o t a l e x t e n t o f t h e f a t h e r ' s financial obligation). Accordingly, we reverse the t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t , a n d we remand 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 o address the d e f i c i e n c i e s d i s c u s s e d h e r e i n and t o c l a r i f y t h e judgment. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , and Bryan, concur. 19 Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . ,

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.