Ex parte Clark Daniel Montgomery. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Cynthia C. Montgomery v. Clark Daniel Montgomery)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 5/18/12 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 Reporter of Decisions, 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, 2011-2012 2110322 Ex p a r t e C l a r k D a n i e l Montgomery PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : C y n t h i a C . Montgomery v. C l a r k D a n i e l Montgomery) (Russell C i r c u i t Court DR-99-138.01) BRYAN, J u d g e . This i sthe third husband") and C y n t h i a t i m e t h a t C l a r k D a n i e l Montgomery ("the C. M o n t g o m e r y ("the w i f e " ) have a p p e a r e d 2110322 before this c o u r t . See M o n t g o m e r y v . M o n t g o m e r y , 37 So. (Ala. Civ. Montgomery, II"). The seeking App. 79 2009) 3d So. husband various ("Montgomery ( A l a . C i v . App. 660 filed forms deny the petition of r e l i e f R u s s e l l C i r c u i t Court We this ("the t r i a l by a and 2011) Ex 168 parte ("Montgomery f o r a w r i t o f mandamus an order court") entered by on D e c e m b e r 2, the 2011. petition. Procedural The from I"), 3d husband judgment and the wife of the History were trial divorced court that on May 11, 1999, incorporated an a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s i n c a s e no. DR-99-138. Montgomery I , 37 of So. 3d judgment, court, at which states: Husband's shall prior to retirement entered Paragraph has been "The include and the Wife retirement award In 169. nine focus is excluding any hereby his increases following the of time the each he case the divorce before awarded Social that parties' 35% of Security. husband begins this the Said get draw to may his benefits." Montgomery I, the husband appealed from a judgment i n c a s e no. DR-99-138 t h a t i s s u e d a Q u a l i f i e d D o m e s t i c Relations Order ("QDRO") a t t h e r e q u e s t 2 of the w i f e , who was 2110322 seeking to implement incorporated determined into that jurisdiction the filing required for or to enter that parties' court under the wife enforce the a n o . DR-99-138 separate we d i s m i s s e d 99-138. regarding judgment through action, to vacate Montgomery I , 37 S o . 3 d a t 1 7 2 . with t h e QDROs e n t e r e d I , the wife theissues presented alleging instructions i n c a s e n o . DR- by t h e wife's that the divorce filing "[b]ecause finding the t r i a l a cross-appeal of a petition t h e h u s b a n d was i n c o n t e m p t judgment. judgment filed i n case no. DR-99-138.01, w h i c h pay h e r a p o r t i o n o f h i s r e t i r e m e n t court's p a y an t o implement a QDRO." the husband's appeal i n Montgomery initiated nisi presented, I d . a t 173. Also was court "because f e e , and give proper n o t i c e o f h e r requests the divorce thet r i a l We subject-matter the circumstances file agreement judgment. d i d n o t have 79 S o . 3 d a t 6 6 3 ; S e e a l s o M o n t g o m e r y Therefore, in of divorce a QDRO i n c a s e QDRO, filing nine a QDRO t o t h e h u s b a n d b e c a u s e s h e was s e e k i n g II, to the the t r i a l of a appropriate paragraph for a for failing to b e n e f i t s as p r o v i d e d I d . a t 171. rule We r e v e r s e d for the t r i a l t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was n o t i n c o n t e m p t court heard 3 no e v i d e n c e regarding the 2110322 allegations setforth and because there the trial i n thewife's [wa]s court's instructions hearing II, no e v i d e n c e finding c o n t e m p t . " I d . a t 174. October certificate 11, court petition 79 S o . 3 d a t 664 ( c i t i n g On that Therefore, to the t r i a l on t h e w i f e ' s petition for a rule i n the record t h e husband t o support was we " r e m a n d e d t h e t o conduct for a rule an nisi." nisi not i n cause with evidentiary Montgomery M o n t g o m e r y I , 37 S o . 3 d a t 1 7 4 ) . 2010, after this court issued a o f judgment i n Montgomery I, the w i f e , i n case no. D R - 9 9 - 1 3 8 . 0 1 -- i . e . , t h e c o n t e m p t a c t i o n -- f i l e d a motion t o implement a QDRO. In her motion, " [ t ] h e w i f e a l l e g e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was r e t i r e d a n d drawing b e n e f i t s b u t t h a t she had n o t been r e c e i v i n g the p o r t i o n o f t h e husband's r e t i r e m e n t benefits t h a t she had been awarded p u r s u a n t t o p a r a g r a p h nine of t h e agreement i n c o r p o r a t e d into the parties' divorce judgment (hereinafter referred t o as 'paragraph nine o f t h e d i v o r c e judgment') The w i f e r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r a QDRO s o that her portion o f t h e husband's retirement b e n e f i t s w o u l d be p a i d d i r e c t l y t o h e r . The w i f e attached a proposed QDRO a s a n e x h i b i t t o h e r motion. "On O c t o b e r 1 4 , 2 0 1 0 , t h e h u s b a n d f i l e d a m o t i o n to dismiss t h e wife's motion f o r implementation o f a QDRO. T h e h u s b a n d a l l e g e d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o a l t e r o r amend t h e QDRO t h a t was p r e v i o u s l y e n t e r e d ... b e c a u s e t h i s court h a d c o n c l u d e d [ , i n M o n t g o m e r y I , ] t h a t t h a t QDRO was void; that the wife's motion for implementation of 4 2110322 a QDRO was a n a t t e m p t t o amend a p r i o r QDRO; a n d t h a t t h e w i f e must f i l e a p e t i t i o n to modify the parties' divorce judgment, pay the appropriate filing fees, and serve t h e husband with the petition." Montgomery I I , 79 S o . 3 d a t On M a r c h addressed 16, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l the wife's retirement 664. receipt court entered of a portion benefits." Id. at a QDRO "that o f t h e husband's 665. "On M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 1 , t h e h u s b a n d f i l e d a m o t i o n to v a c a t e t h e March 16, 2011, o r d e r and a m o t i o n f o r a h e a r i n g on t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r a QDRO. T h e h u s b a n d a l l e g e d t h a t ... t h e w i f e ' s r e q u e s t f o r a QDRO t h r o u g h h e r p e t i t i o n f o r a r u l e n i s i d i d notproperly invoke thej u r i s d i c t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t a n d d i d n o t p r o p e r l y p u t t h e h u s b a n d on notice of a proposed ' m o d i f i c a t i o n . ' The h u s b a n d f u r t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t he h a d b e e n d e n i e d due p r o c e s s of l a w by t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o conduct a h e a r i n g on h i s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s . " Id. The for trial relief, mandamus. things "that vacated not court denied a l l t h e husband's pending and t h e husband In h i s p e t i t i o n , not pertinent t h e QDRO because properly filed t h e husband to the issues entered on M a r c h (1) t h e w i f e ' s invoke a petition f o ra w r i t o f argued, presented requests among i n this other case, 16, 2 0 1 1 , [was] due t o be m o t i o n t o i m p l e m e n t a QDRO d i d the subject-matter 5 jurisdiction ofthe 2110322 trial court, violated arguments [ a n d ] ( 2 )because Id. at 668. h i s due-process We addressed rights were t h e husband's as f o l l o w s : "[T]he husband contends t h a t t h e w i f e , by merely f i l i n g a m o t i o n t o i m p l e m e n t a QDRO i n h e r c o n t e m p t action, failed to invoke the subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t t o e n t e r a QDRO. A c c o r d i n g t o t h e h u s b a n d , t h e w i f e was r e q u i r e d t o f i l e a s e p a r a t e m o d i f i c a t i o n a c t i o n , o r a n amendment t o h e r r u l e n i s i p e t i t i o n , i n o r d e r t o o b t a i n a QDRO that modified paragraph nine of the p a r t i e s ' divorce j u d g m e n t . T h e h u s b a n d ' s a r g u m e n t i s b a s e d on t h e p r e m i s e t h a t t h e e n t r y o f a QDRO w o u l d n e c e s s a r i l y result i n a modification of the divorce judgment. H o w e v e r , a s we s t a t e d i n M o n t g o m e r y [ I ] , ... ' t h e entry o f a QDRO, i n a n d o f i t s e l f , i s not a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f a p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n . ' 37 S o . 3 d a t 173 n . 7. So l o n g a s t h e t r i a l c o u r t d o e s nothing more t h a n ' i m p l e m e n t t h e d i v i s i o n o f p r o p e r t y a s s t a t e d i n t h e p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e judgment,' i d . , then the entry o f a QDRO w i l l n o t be c o n s i d e r e d a modification of theproperty-division provisions i n the p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e judgment. "Accordingly, we conclude that the wife's r e q u e s t f o r t h e e n t r y o f a QDRO was n o t , i n a n d o f itself, a request t o modify the divorce judgment. See M o n t g o m e r y [ I ] .... We f u r t h e r c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e wife's motion f o r implementation o f a QDRO was cognizable as a r e q u e s t forrelief i n a pending c o n t e m p t a c t i o n . I n M o n t g o m e r y [ I ] , we h e l d t h a t t h e wife was r e q u i r e d to f i l e a separate action to o b t a i n a QDRO b e c a u s e s h e was s e e k i n g a m e t h o d o f enforcing or implementing paragraph nine of the d i v o r c e judgment. A p e t i t i o n f o r a r u l e n i s i seeking to h o l d a p a r t y i n contempt f o r f a i l u r e t o abide by the p r o v i s i o n s o f an e x i s t i n g d i v o r c e judgment i s a method o f e n f o r c i n g c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e e x i s t i n g d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t . See g e n e r a l l y D e c k e r v . D e c k e r , 6 2110322 984 S o . 2 d 1 2 1 6 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) ; a n d C o m m i t t e e C o m m e n t s t o R u l e 7 0 A , A l a . R. C i v . P. ( n o t i n g t h a t petitions f o r contempt are routinely used i n domestic-relations actions to enforce compliance w i t h an e x i s t i n g j u d g m e n t ) . S i m i l a r l y , t h e e n t r y o f a QDRO i s a m e t h o d o f e n f o r c i n g o r i m p l e m e n t i n g t h e terms of an existing divorce judgment. See M o n t g o m e r y [ I ] , 37 S o . 3 d a t 172 ('We c o n c l u d e t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t h a s t h e i n h e r e n t p o w e r t o i s s u e a QDRO s u b s e q u e n t t o t h e e n t r y o f a d i v o r c e judgment i n an e f f o r t t o implement o r e n f o r c e t h e judgment o r t o r e n d e r t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t e f f e c t i v e . ' ) . T h u s , we cannot c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t have subject-matter jurisdiction to rule on a m o t i o n requesting the entry o f a QDRO t o i m p l e m e n t a p r o v i s i o n o f t h e d i v o r c e judgment as p a r t o f an e x i s t i n g contempt a c t i o n . "The husband next argues t h a t t h e March 2011 QDRO i s v o i d b e c a u s e he was d e n i e d d u e p r o c e s s o f law because t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d h i s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s w i t h o u t c o n d u c t i n g a h e a r i n g on h i s m o t i o n . ... [ H o w e v e r ] , b e c a u s e t h e h u s b a n d d i d n o t r e q u e s t an o r a l h e a r i n g o n h i s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e w i f e ' s motion f o r implementation o f a QDRO, we c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e husband's d u e - p r o c e s s r i g h t s were v i o l a t e d when t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d h i s m o t i o n t o dismiss without first conducting a h e a r i n g . See B l a n t o n v . B l a n t o n , 463 So. 2 d 1 5 8 , 161 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 4 ) ( c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was n o t d e n i e d d u e p r o c e s s when t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d h i s motion t o dismiss without a hearing because t h e husband d i d n o t r e q u e s t an o r a l h e a r i n g ) . "However, t h e husband further argues that b e c a u s e he e n t e r e d only a limited appearance t o challenge t h et r i a l court's j u r i s d i c t i o n t o consider the w i f e ' s motion f o r implementation o f a QDRO, a n d because t h et r i a l court denied h i s motion t o dismiss the w i f e ' s motion f o r implementation o f a QDRO a t t h e same t i m e t h a t i t g r a n t e d t h e w i f e ' s m o t i o n f o r implementation o f a QDRO, h i s p r o c e d u r a l d u e - p r o c e s s 7 2110322 r i g h t s w e r e v i o l a t e d b e c a u s e h e was n o t a f f o r d e d a n opportunity t o respond t o the wife's motion f o r implementation o f a QDRO o r t o b e h e a r d on a c h a l l e n g e t o t h e w i f e ' s p r o p o s e d QDRO b e f o r e i t was e n t e r e d . T h e h u s b a n d c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e QDRO e n t e r e d on March 16, 2 0 1 1 , i m p e r m i s s i b l y modified the p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e judgment and d e p r i v e d h i m o f h i s p r o p e r t y w i t h o u t due p r o c e s s o f l a w . See g e n e r a l l y U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n , Amend. X I V , § 1 ('No s t a t e s h a l l ... d e p r i v e a n y p e r s o n o f l i f e , l i b e r t y , or p r o p e r t y , w i t h o u t due p r o c e s s o f l a w . ' ) ; a n d N e a l v . N e a l , 856 S o . 2 d 7 6 6 , 782 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) (quoting F r a h n v . G r e y l i n g R e a l i z a t i o n C o r p . , 239 A l a . 5 8 0 , 5 8 3 , 195 S o . 7 5 8 , 7 6 1 ( 1 9 4 0 ) ) ( ' " [ D ] u e p r o c e s s o f law means notice, a hearing according to that n o t i c e , and a judgment e n t e r e d i n accordance w i t h such n o t i c e and h e a r i n g . " ' (emphasis o m i t t e d ) ) . "According to the materials provided to this c o u r t , a f t e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d t h e QDRO o n March 16, 2 0 1 1 , t h e husband f i l e d s e v e r a l m o t i o n s , with supporting briefs, r e q u e s t i n g a h e a r i n g and challenging the substance o f t h e QDRO entered, a l l e g i n g that i t had modified paragraph nine of the d i v o r c e judgment by e x p a n d i n g t h e w i f e ' s award o f h i s r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s . T h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o n d u c t e d a h e a r i n g on a n y o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s s u b s t a n t i v e c h a l l e n g e s t o t h e QDRO. "Accordingly, we agree that t h e husband's d u e - p r o c e s s r i g h t s w e r e v i o l a t e d b e c a u s e h e was n o t a f f o r d e d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o answer a n d be h e a r d on the w i f e ' s request f o r implementation o f a QDRO. A judgment o r order t h a t i s e n t e r e d i n v i o l a t i o n o f p r i n c i p l e s o f p r o c e d u r a l due p r o c e s s i s v o i d . See Ex parte Third Generation, I n c . , 8 5 5 S o . 2 d 4 8 9 , 492 (Ala. 2003) ( d i s c u s s i n g N e a l , s u p r a , a n d c o n c l u d i n g t h a t a judgment i s v o i d i f i t v i o l a t e s p r i n c i p l e s o f procedural d u e p r o c e s s ) . We t h e r e f o r e g r a n t t h e husband's p e t i t i o n i n p a r t , i s s u e t h e w r i t , and o r d e r t h e R u s s e l l C i r c u i t C o u r t t o v a c a t e t h e QDRO e n t e r e d on M a r c h 16, 2 0 1 1 . " 8 2110322 Id. a t 668-70 After II, (emphasis our c e r t i f i c a t e the wife filed QDRO a n d a r e q u e s t petition motion October motion f o r an o r d e r nisi. 2010 (which issued for setting a final sought that II). The w i f e into and she requested petition as t h i s Montgomery In I . See Montgomery response objection motion t o dismiss. to implement jurisdiction on h e r had i n s t r u c t e d i n motion, QDRO to enter to dismiss. motion t h e husband d i d not a QDRO requested t o implement invoke that vacating modifies 25, 2011, t h e March i n May 2 0 0 5 a n d F e b r u a r y 9 the t r i a l a hearing On O c t o b e r a filed an motion and QDROs e n t e r e d a hearing The h u s b a n d a r g u e d t h a t t h e w i f e ' s a an o r d e r h e r renewed and a The h u s b a n d entered for writ QDRO judgment. motion on I , 37 S o . 3 d a t 1 7 4 . to the wife's to the wife's court on h e r incorporated her for implementation nisi on h e r a hearing l e d t o the husband's p e t i t i o n motion rule hearing of a she had f i l e d motion f o r implementation, fora i n Montgomery implementation o f a QDRO i n Montgomery 1 1 , 2010, omitted). The w i f e f o r implementation mandamus footnotes o f judgment a renewed for a rule O c t o b e r 11, of added; the on h i s divorce objection thet r i a l 2 0 1 1 QDRO, 2008 court's (which court as w e l l were as part 2110322 of the court proceedings scheduled in Montgomery a hearing on I, the supra), wife's and the petition for trial a rule nisi. The trial November husband 30, court 2011. testified During that divorce Service Program total nine ("AAFES") -- benefits of benefits the husband retired, the husband maintained his AAFES husband increases benefits and paragraph that nine may get that that as he of 35% that that the was were acquired reference in allowed husband the to any might wife and they the any nine of the husband's Force for Management as 2007. during the 1 However, the second to date 35% of parties' sentence increases he the of entitled after Exchange considering I t was u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d ' s EMP be d i s b u r s e d t h r o u g h a QDRO. 10 the maintained applicable get and wife December wife on The Executive eligible in wife contempt d e t e r m i n e d by was hearing of what p a r a g r a p h his was referred the and -- which the her 1 not issue the i n c l u d i n g his Army/Air ("EMP") b e n e f i t s marriage the awarded tenus hearing, t h e i r understanding benefits amount ore judgment awarded the w i f e . paragraph retirement an that regarding t e s t i f i e d regarding of the conducted that of the cost-of-living retired. benefits The could 2110322 husband further annuity on amount testified behalf of the conclusion of of that his current retirement the he had wife, benefits hearing, the elected he trial which a spousal reduced received. court the At the on the stated r e c o r d t h a t t h e w i f e ' s p e r c e n t a g e award o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s AAFES retirement benefits should retirement date, On finding 35% December not the date 2, the husband of the husband's 2008 t h r o u g h be 2011, calculated using the p a r t i e s f i l e d the trial i n contempt AAFES December 2011. court for failure retirement the for a divorce. entered an to pay benefits The t r i a l husband's order the from January court further held t h e r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s s h o u l d be " f i g u r e d a t 3 5 % o f t h e AAFES retirement support." The benefits trial court without held himself o f contempt by " s e e [ i n g ] to [the wife] pay additional spousal such arrearage deduction 10, 2012. The as w h e t h e r the w i f e ' s 35% of trial court reserved the husband's EMP due to [husband]," ruling purge and an voluntary by on o t h e r b e n e f i t s were award o f 35% o f t h e husband's 11 total spousal could [r]etirement, payments by t h e that [QDRO] i s i m p l e m e n t e d h i s AAFES into for the husband that a f o r reduced entered deduction that wife January matters, included i n retirement benefits. 2110322 On D e c e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 1 1 , t h e h u s b a n d f i l e d a writ the o f mandamus. husband's court's On J a n u a r y request husband writ the December asks o f mandamus contempt; this court to grant and t o order 2011, order 2, the t r i a l insofar of the t r i a l retirement, rather for a d i v o r c e , because his petition court: (1) t o v a c a t e i t found him i n insofar than a QDRO b a s e d t h e date the t r i a l as fora t h e D e c e m b e r 2, 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r , (2) t o v a c a t e his that court on t h e d a t e o f the parties d i d n o t have filed subject- j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n s i d e r the w i f e ' s motion t o implement QDRO; a n d (3) t o c o n d u c t motion of enforcement granted Requested i t r e q u i r e d him t o implement matter court D e c e m b e r 2, 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r . The a 3, 2 0 1 2 , t h i s f o r a stay Relief as a timely petition f o r to dismiss before a hearing another order on h i s o b j e c t i o n a n d concerning entered. Standard o f Review "'"Mandamus i s a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e m e d y and w i l l be g r a n t e d o n l y where t h e r e i s '(1) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t i n t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o t h e o r d e r s o u g h t ; (2) a n i m p e r a t i v e d u t y upon t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o p e r f o r m , a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; (3) t h e l a c k o f a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e r e m e d y ; a n d (4) p r o p e r l y invoked j u r i s d i c t i o n of the court.'"' 12 a QDRO i s 2110322 "'Ex p a r t e Ocwen F e d e r a l B a n k , F S B , 872 S o . 2 d 8 1 0 , 813 ( A l a . 2003) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e A l f a b , I n c . , 586 So. 2 d 8 8 9 , 8 9 1 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ) . Mandamus w i l l l i e t o d i r e c t a t r i a l c o u r t t o vacate a v o i d judgment o r o r d e r . Ex p a r t e C h a m b l e e , 899 So. 2 d 2 4 4 , 249 ( A l a . 2004).' Montgomery L.L.C., I I , 79 S o . 3 d a t 667 (quoting 904 S o . 2 d 1 2 3 0 , 1 2 3 2 ( A l a . Ex p a r t e Sealy, 2004)). Discussion First, court's we w i l l So. whether D e c e m b e r 2, 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r & Admin., (Ala. consider I n c . v. Palomar 1991) ( c i t i n g rendering i t lacked the p a r t i e s , I n s . Corp., In that Mgmt. 590 S o . 2 d 2 0 9 , 2 1 2 v. Winston jurisdiction of the t r i a l See I n s u r a n c e Indus., ("A j u d g m e n t i s v o i d o n l y or i fi tacted process."). i svoid. Satterfield 2 d 61 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ) any p a r t of the subject Inc., 553 i fthe court matter orof i n a manner i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h due regard, t h e husband argues that the w i f e ' s r e n e w e d m o t i o n t o i m p l e m e n t a QDRO f a i l e d t o i n v o k e t h e subject-matter jurisdiction of the t r i a l court proposed attached the wife's motion resulted QDRO to would have i n a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e p r o p e r t y - d i v i s i o n terms o f the p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e judgment, s p e c i f i c a l l y , the because t h e d i v o r c e judgment. paragraph nine of Thus, t h e husband argues, 13 a s he d i d i n 2110322 Montgomery I I , that modification petition amend h e r p e t i t i o n do either court with of those new f i l i n g things, Montgomery implement fees Because t h e husband of d i d not a QDRO. question argues that i n Montgomery I I , as s e t f o r t h this t o r u l e on t h e court I I . We has already agree. above, we h e l d that a QDRO was a c o g n i z a b l e request f o rrelief jurisdiction b e c a u s e we h e l d that court on t h e w i f e ' s motion t o implement only that renewed motion judgment i n Montgomery applies, a n d we jurisdiction after to consider See Ex p a r t e that a QDRO a n d b e c a u s e we issued Thus, to rule the wife a certificate the t r i a l the wife's S.T.S., judgment as had j u r i s d i c t i o n I I , the law-of-the-case conclude the entry a c t i o n . " 79 S o . 3 d a t 6 6 9 . thet r i a l i n a court had "subject- a provision of thedivorce contempt In a motion t o t o r u l e on a m o t i o n r e q u e s t i n g o f an e x i s t i n g QDRO. thewife jurisdiction a QDRO t o i m p l e m e n t part a contends, the t r i a l pending contempt a c t i o n and t h a t t h et r i a l matter file or to formally subject-matter In r e s p o n s e , t h e w i f e this to either motion t o implement renewed decided was r e q u i r e d for a rule nisi. was w i t h o u t wife's the wife motion court of doctrine still had t o implement a 8 0 6 So. 2 d 3 3 6 , 341 ( A l a . 2001 ) 14 2110322 (quoting Blumberg v . Touche (Ala. 1987)) ("According case, 'whatever i s once of t h e law oft h e e s t a b l i s h e d between t h e same p a r t i e s t o be t h e l a w o f t h a t c a s e , principles, w h i c h t h e d e c i s i o n was p r e d i c a t e d the & C o . , 514 S o . 2 d 9 2 2 , 924 to the doctrine i n t h e same c a s e c o n t i n u e s o r n o t c o r r e c t on g e n e r a l Ross so l o n g continue as t h e f a c t s on t o be t h e f a c t s o f case.'"). The h u s b a n d a l s o a r g u e s , a s he d i d i n M o n t g o m e r y what the wife i sreally asking divorce judgment. request f o r theentry request t o modify the divorce 3d a t 669. B u t , a s we stated o f a QDRO "[T]he entry o f a QDRO i s a m e t h o d with divorce essentially any c o n t e n t i o n In order certain Paragraph verbatim, nine as I I , 79 S o . of enforcing or divorce judgment." I d . by t h e husband i tf o l l o w s that that, the wife a "modification" of thedivorce f o r a QDRO facts made a p r o p o s e d QDRO d i d n o t u s e t h e t e r m s u s e d i n judgment seeking the "the wife's judgment." Montgomery We because the wife's already, of [ i ] sn o t , i n and o f i t s e l f , t h e terms o f an e x i s t i n g disagree I I , that for i sa modification implementing the whether t o be v a l i d , set forth i t must 15 U.S.C. judgment of the divorce judgment. clearly i n 26 does § was specify 414(p)(2). not include a l l 2110322 the specific f a c t s necessary U.S.C. § 4 1 4 ( p ) ( 2 ) . by the t r i a l of the divorce The process his court t o meet the requirements Thus, i t f o l l o w s t h a t will h a v e more d e t a i l judgment. a QDRO implemented than paragraph court failed o b j e c t i o n and motion t o d i s m i s s t o c o n d u c t a h e a r i n g on for lack of subject-matter See N e a l 2002) Frahn v. G r e y l i n g R e a l i z a t i o n Corp., 580, v. Neal, p r o c e d u r a l due jurisdiction. (quoting 856 S o . 2 d 7 6 6 , 782 ( A l a . 5 8 3 , 195 S o . 7 5 8 , 7 6 1 ( 1 9 4 0 ) ) means notice, a judgment e n t e r e d hearing according 239 A l a . ("'[D]ue process to that notice, oflaw and a i n accordance w i t h such n o t i c e and h e a r i n g . ' " (emphasis o m i t t e d ) ) . e r r e d by f a i l i n g nine 2 h u s b a n d a l s o a r g u e s t h a t he was d e n i e d because t h et r i a l o f 26 We c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t o conduct a formal that hearing thet r i a l court on t h e h u s b a n d ' s H o w e v e r , a s we h a v e w a r n e d i n M o n t g o m e r y I I , t h e t r i a l court i s not permitted t o modify the property-division p r o v i s i o n s o f a d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t m o r e t h a n 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h ef i n a l judgment except t o c o r r e c t c l e r i c a l e r r o r s . 79 S o . 3 d a t 669 n . 5 ( q u o t i n g J a r d i n e v . J a r d i n e , 918 S o . 2 d 127, 130-31 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n Ex p a r t e L i t t l e p a g e , 796 So. 2 d 298, 301 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n Hamilton v. Hamilton, 647 S o . 2 d 7 5 6 , 7 5 9 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 994)). T h u s , a n y QDRO t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r s may do " n o t h i n g more t h a n ' i m p l e m e n t t h e d i v i s i o n o f p r o p e r t y a s s t a t e d i n t h e p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t . ' " M o n t g o m e r y I I , 79 So. 3 d a t 6 6 8 - 6 9 ( q u o t i n g M o n t g o m e r y I , 37 S o . 3 d a t 1 7 3 n . 7). 2 16 2110322 objection and motion jurisdiction before implementation to dismiss f o rlack i t ordered o f a QDRO. of t h e husband As grounds subject-matter to i n i t i a t e the f o r h i s o b j e c t i o n and motion to dismiss f o r lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the h u s b a n d r a i s e d t h e same a r g u m e n t s court Montgomery trial II. court wife's Because this court had subject-matter motion that this 2d by t h e husband. a t 341 ( c i t i n g (Ala. Murphree C i v . App. 1992)) that the to consider the o f a QDRO, t h e t r i a l c o u l d n o t have d e t e r m i n e d o t h e r w i s e same a r g u m e n t s had determined jurisdiction f o rimplementation rejectedi n after being See Ex p a r t e v. Murphree, ("The i s s u e s presented the S.T.S., decided b y an a p p e l l a t e court i s not free t o r e c o n s i d e r those F u r t h e r m o r e , we do n o t a g r e e w i t h insofar denied conduct a hearing motion due p r o c e s s because t h e t r i a l on h i s s u b s t a n t i v e c h a l l e n g e s t o implement a QDRO b e f o r e the implementation his o b j e c t i o n and motion court, issues."). t h e husband's as i t c a n be i n t e r p r e t e d as a s s e r t i n g procedural 806 S o . 600 S o . 2 d 3 0 1 , 3 4 1 c o u r t become t h e l a w o f t h e c a s e on remand t o t h e t r i a l and t h e t r i a l court that argument he was court d i d not to the wife's h e was o r d e r e d to initiate o f a QDRO i n t h e D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 1 o r d e r . to dismiss, 17 t h e husband In essentially 2110322 argued that modified, November 2011 o r e tenus regarding was e n t i t l e d judgment. 35% determined transcript attached of t o based of judgment. the wife the of thedivorce husband's of the divorce judgment retirement of h i s retirement. indicates that benefits which t h e husband substantive challenges to the wife's that he was a b l e to present evidence that the wife's interpretation of paragraph judgment. Therefore, we husband's procedural-due-process cannot wife fora writ was a b l e t o QDRO a n d h i s argument nine t h e terms agree of the of the that the r i g h t s were v i o l a t e d , as t h e y w e r e i n M o n t g o m e r y I I when t h e t r i a l husband t h e " o p p o r t u n i t y with as o ft h e the proposed t o support j u d g m e n t was n o t i n a c c o r d a n c e awarded A review proceeding, make divorce At the o f what b e n e f i t s t h e on t h e l a n g u a g e t h e ore tenus clearly that and t h e husband t o h e r response t o t h ehusband's p e t i t i o n mandamus, divorce language court u l t i m a t e l y agreed w i t h the wife and on t h e d a t e of thedivorce interpretation that paragraph nine wife QDRO c o n t a i n e d hearing, their The t r i a l concluded the proposed r a t h e r than enforced, testified wife thewife's court d i dnot afford the t o a n s w e r a n d be h e a r d on t h e w i f e ' s 18 2110322 request Neal f o r i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f a QDRO." 79 S o . 3 d a t 6 7 0 . v. Neal, supra. Accordingly, presented by t h e husband, the court's trial The h u s b a n d discretion has cited petition D e c e m b e r 2, 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r a l s o argues that t h et r i a l by f i n d i n g him i n contempt. any p a r t o f was v o i d . court exceeded i t s However, t h e husband no a u t h o r i t y t h a t w o u l d s u p p o r t a c o n c l u s i o n that determination. i sthe appropriate that a method o f We u n d e r s t a n d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d d o e s n o t a g r e e w i t h t h e t e r m s o f t h e QDRO t h a t t h e t r i a l ordered him contempt. a writ to implement However, " ' [ i ] t o f mandamus, remedy, will appeal, and t h a t not issue (quoting 1990)). t o purge himself i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d i n Alabama when i s a there drastic court of that and e x t r a o r d i n a r y i s an a d e q u a t e remedy b y t h e w r i t c a n n o t be u s e d as a s u b s t i t u t e f o r appellate review.'" 2000) i n order which See on t h e a r g u m e n t s we c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t f o r a w r i t o f mandamus reviewing based 3 E x p a r t e W e a v e r , 7 8 1 S o . 2 d 9 4 4 , 949 ( A l a . Ex p a r t e Accordingly, whether t h e t r i a l Fowler, we w i l l 574 S o . 2 d 747 , not consider, 747 at this (Ala. time, court exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n by f i n d i n g t h e Any f u r t h e r s u b s t a n t i v e c h a l l e n g e s t o t h e terms o f t h e QDRO t h e h u s b a n d was o r d e r e d t o i m p l e m e n t may b e r a i s e d i n a t i m e l y p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n once t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r s a f i n a l judgment t h a t a d d r e s s e s each i s s u e p e n d i n g b e f o r e i t . 3 19 2110322 husband i n contempt. We court note that our conclusions has subject-matter motion t o implement today a QDRO a n d t h a t the t r i a l to consider jurisdiction -- t h a t the wife's the t r i a l v i o l a t e the husband's procedural-due-process equivalent trial to a holding court ordered question husband whether to substantively parties' court, the t r i a l such parte Weaver, improperly that i s reviewable 44 S o . 3 d 5 1 4 , 5 1 8 - 1 9 taken The ordered of a the QDRO t h e p r o p e r t y - d i v i s i o n terms not consider ( r e v i e w i n g an a p p e a l Ex court judgment has n o t y e t been a question Romer v . R o m e r , r i g h t s -- a r e n o t o f t h e QDRO t h a t t h e the implementation modified a n d we w i l l because t h e terms d i d not t h e husband t o implement were p r o p e r . initiate divorce that court that of the addressed by t h i s question at this by appeal. See, time e.g., ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2009) f r o m t h e e n t r y o f a QDRO). S e e a l s o supra. Conclusion B e c a u s e t h e h u s b a n d h a s n o t shown a c l e a r the relief because he s e e k s i n h i s p e t i t i o n t h e husband adequate remedy o t h e r f o ra writ has not demonstrated than t h eissuance 20 legal right to o f mandamus a n d that of a writ he l a c k s an o f mandamus, 2110322 we deny t h e husband's p e t i t i o n . proceedings issued by this The s t a y court on of the t r i a l January 3, court 2012, i s lifted. PETITION Thompson, concur. DENIED; STAY P . J . , and LIFTED. Pittman, 21 Thomas, and 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.