Shonika McCreless v. Steven Valentin

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/30/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 , A l a b a m a 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 2110363 Shonika McCreless v. Steven V a l e n t i n Appeal from Morgan C i r c u i t Court (DR-05-540.04) THOMAS, J u d g e . Shonika McCreless and Steven V a l e n t i n were m a r r i e d on J u l y 5, 1997; t h e r e i s one c h i l d o f t h e m a r r i a g e . The Morgan C i r c u i t C o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t d i v o r c i n g t h e p a r t i e s on J u l y 28, 2005 ("the d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t " ) . According t o the parties' 2110363 appellate briefs, regarding child the p a r t i e s ' the d i v i s i o n custody judgment. of the m a r i t a l assets and s u p p o r t The 1 divorce award o f s p o u s a l w r i t t e n settlement was incorporated agreement and d e b t s into the divorce judgment d i d not i n c l u d e a support to either specific party. V a l e n t i n was r e q u i r e d t o p a y M c C r e l e s s ' s student t h e amount o f $300 p e r month. The $300-a-month a w a r d was list w i t h i n a seven item and loan i n student-loan i n a paragraph with the f o l l o w i n g h e a d e r : " [ V a l e n t i n ] s h a l l be s o l e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r and [McCreless] debts." shall be held harmless on the fol1owing M c C r e l e s s was r e q u i r e d t o p a y any amount o v e r $ 3 0 0 - a - month on h e r s t u d e n t header: "[McCreless] [Valentin] shall be loan i n a paragraph with shall held be solely harmless The p a r t i e s d i d n o t a p p e a l the f o l l o w i n g responsible on t h e f o l 1 o w i n g the divorce f o r and debts." judgment. The d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t was m o d i f i e d t h r e e t i m e s b e f o r e September that the 27, 2011, i s the subject circuit court modification") 1 and modification of t h i s modified included ("the appeal. modification") On September 22, the divorce the 2011 judgment statement the that ("the 2006, 2006 Valentin's T h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t i s i n c l u d e d i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l . 2 2110363 " [ c ] o u r t o r d e r e d s p o u s a l s u p p o r t i n t h e sum o f $300 p e r month is not modified." The divorce judgment had r e f e r r e d j u d g m e n t amount o f $300 p e r month t w i c e . to p a y $300 until April p e r month 2008 award; n e i t h e r toward as w e l l a w a r d was V a l e n t i n was o r d e r e d McCreless's automobile as t h e $300-a-month judgment. t h e 2006 m o d i f i c a t i o n . McCreless remarried 2009 ("the 2009 m o d i f i c a t i o n " ) , the circuit i n F e b r u a r y 2007. on F e b r u a r y 17, a n d i n t h e 2009 specifically noted to a modification settlement appeal modified alimony." modification. for a modification At 2009 third time i s not r e l e v a n t some p o i n t Valentin's a w a r d was n o t b e c a u s e t h e a w a r d was a and n o t p e r i o d i c the modification that o b l i g a t i o n t o p a y t h e $300-a-month s t u d e n t - l o a n subject student-loan The p a r t i e s d i d n o t a p p e a l j u d g m e n t was a g a i n m o d i f i e d court lease r e f e r r e d t o a s an a w a r d o f s p o u s a l support i n the divorce The d i v o r c e to a The on May The p a r t i e s divorce 17, to the issues i n 2011 M c C r e l e s s f i l e d d i d not judgment 2010, but was that on a p p e a l . a fourth petition for modification. the McCreless's p e t i t i o n f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n i s not i n c l u d e d i n r e c o r d on a p p e a l . 2 Valentin "property answered t h e p e t i t i o n and 2 3 filed 2110363 a cross-claim other her 1, 2 0 1 1 , i n w h i c h he a l l e g e d , among t h i n g s , t h a t M c C r e l e s s h a d b o r r o w e d a d d i t i o n a l money on student-loan entered. no on J u l y account a f t e r the divorce judgment had been A t r i a l was s e t f o r A u g u s t 28, 2 0 1 1 . t e s t i m o n y was t a k e n ; the parties offered On t h a t date, s t i p u l a t i o n s of f a c t a n d d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t on t h e two issues upon w h i c h t h e y h a d n o t r e a c h e d an a g r e e m e n t amount o f m o n t h l y c h i l d s u p p o r t owed b y V a l e n t i n a n d w h e t h e r V a l e n t i n r e m a i n e d o b l i g a t e d t o p a y t h e $300-a-month loan the student- award. The 2011 modification, among other things, modified V a l e n t i n ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n because i t determined t h a t M c C r e l e s s was " c a p a b l e o f e a r n i n g $3,333 p e r month," a l t h o u g h she h a d a s s e r t e d t h a t she e a r n e d o n l y $774 p e r month. found that Valentin's student-loan McCreless court had remarried stated "reclassified" property award settlement the t o pay the "automatically i n February that the obligation 2009 $300-a-month 2007; $300-a-month terminated" therefore, modification student-loan when the t r i a l that award was " o f no f o r c e a n d e f f e c t . " 4 I t also had as a 2110363 On O c t o b e r 26, 2011, McCreless filed a motion to alter, amend, o r v a c a t e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t , a s s e r t i n g t h a t the circuit court $300-a-month alimony. "The divorce called exact to be an i n i t s determination award words declares settlement. erred student-loan The Order had was i n her award of alimony set out i n the instead of a t h i s matter." settlement She student-loan and would request a r g u e d t h a t V a l e n t i n had 2009 m o d i f i c a t i o n t h a t had original property award was not appealed determined t h a t the a property a hearing settlement and property settlement. f u r t h e r contended t h a t the the failed d i v o r c e and on her the remarriage. c o u r t had calculation requested an of student e r r e d by Valentin's amendment o f loan arrearage between Finally, imputing she the entire 5 of a circuit t h a t , she says, t o make some o f the time of the contended t h a t the income t o h e r child-support the requirements owed t o h e r b e c a u s e o f h i s f a i l u r e payments circuit to c a l c u l a t e the the that a w a r d meets t h e She on $300-a-month $300-a-month s t u d e n t - l o a n Valentin were: [ M c C r e l e s s ] a v e r s t h i s payment s h o u l d c o r r e c t l y be a property c o u r t had the periodic postjudgment motion obligation periodic an that and in its obligation. judgment "either She upon 2110363 t h i s motion motion was or a f t e r s e t t i n g t h i s matter f o r a h e a r i n g . " d e n i e d w i t h o u t a h e a r i n g on O c t o b e r McCreless 2011. its timely appealed On a p p e a l she c o n t e n d s refusal to grant to t h i s 28, c o u r t on 2011. December 7, t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d i n a hearing on her postjudgment motion r e g a r d i n g t h e c a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t a w a r d and t e r m i n a t i o n of V a l e n t i n ' s o b l i g a t i o n t o pay student-loan Her the $300-a-month award. "At the o u t s e t , we note that the usual presumptions of c o r r e c t n e s s a p p l i e d t o the trial court's findings i n ore tenus cases are not a p p l i c a b l e h e r e . H a c k e r v. C a r l i s l e , 388 So. 2d 947, 950 ( A l a . 1980) . We r e v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d i n t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e us w i t h o u t any p r e s u m p t i o n of c o r r e c t n e s s , due t o t h e t r i a l j u d g e ' s h a v i n g t a k e n no o r a l t e s t i m o n y . I n g r a m v. P o l l o c k , 557 So. 2d 1199 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ; Bownes v. W i n s t o n C o u n t y , 481 So. 2d 362, 364 ( A l a . 1985) ('[w]here t h e e v i d e n c e i s s t i p u l a t e d , and no t e s t i m o n y i s p r e s e n t e d o r a l l y b e f o r e the t r i a l court, t h i s Court w i l l review w i t h o u t any p r e s u m p t i o n i n f a v o r of the trial court's findings and s i t i n judgment on the e v i d e n c e ' ) ; Ex p a r t e B r i t i s h S t e e l C o r p . , 42 6 So. 2d 409, 414 ( A l a . 1 9 8 2 ) ; H a c k e r v. C a r l i s l e , supra ('This c a s e was t r i e d w i t h o u t a j u r y on s t i p u l a t i o n s and b r i e f s o f t h e p a r t i e s and p r i m a r i l y d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e . No t e s t i m o n y o f any w i t n e s s was a d m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e on any m a t e r i a l m a t t e r . I n s u c h a s i t u a t i o n , t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s i t s i n j u d g m e n t on t h e e v i d e n c e ' ) (emphasis o r i g i n a l ) ; see a l s o P e r d u e v. R o b e r t s , 294 A l a . 194, 314 So. 2d 280 (1975); M c C u l l o c h v. R o b e r t s , 292 A l a . 451, 454, 296 So. 2d 163 (1974) ('[t]his i s i n e f f e c t the n e g a t i v e e x p r e s s i o n of the ore tenus r u l e ' ) ; Sheehan v. 6 the 2110363 L i b e r t y M u t u a l F i r e I n s . Co., 288 A l a . 137, 258 So. 2d 719 ( 1 9 7 2 ) ; Kennedy v . S t a t e D e p t . o f P e n s i o n s & S e c u r i t y , 277 A l a . 5, 166 So. 2d 736 ( 1 9 6 4 ) ; Adams v. L o g a n , 260 A l a . 346, 70 So. 2d 786 (1954); Redwine v . J a c k s o n , 254 A l a . 564, 569, 49 So. 2d 115 ( 1 9 5 0 ) ; 5 Am J u r 2d A p p e a l a n d E r r o r , § 825 a t 267 ( 1 9 6 2 ) . Thus, we must r e v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h i s case w i t h o u t any p r e s u m p t i o n i n f a v o r o f t h e t r i a l court's ruling." Phillips v. K n i g h t , 559 So. 2d 564, 567 ( A l a . 1990) . M c C r e l e s s f i l e d 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 i n w h i c h she made a s p e c i f i c $300-a-month request f o r a h e a r i n g on t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r t h e student-loan award was p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t and a g e n e r a l r e q u e s t or a f o r a h e a r i n g on a l l i s s u e s r a i s e d i n her postjudgment motion, which i n c l u d e d her contentions that the c i r c u i t court had e r r e d by imputing income t o h e r a n d i n c a l c u l a t i n g t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t award. a r g u e s t h a t R u l e 5 9 ( g ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., court to hold heard before a hearing to allow required the c i r c u i t h e r an o p p o r t u n i t y t o be i t c o u l d r u l e on h e r p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . "Rule 59(g) p r o v i d e s t h a t p o s t t r i a l motions 'remain p e n d i n g u n t i l r u l e d upon b y t h e c o u r t ( s u b j e c t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f R u l e 5 9 . 1 ) , b u t s h a l l n o t be r u l e d upon u n t i l t h e p a r t i e s have h a d o p p o r t u n i t y t o be h e a r d t h e r e o n . ' The f a i l u r e t o h o l d a h e a r i n g on a p o s t t r i a l motion i s not always r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r , h o w e v e r . Our supreme c o u r t h a s s t a t e d : " ' " [ I ] f a p a r t y r e q u e s t s a h e a r i n g on i t s m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l , t h e c o u r t must 7 She 2110363 g r a n t t h e r e q u e s t . " Ex p a r t e E v a n s , 875 So. 2d 297, 299-300 ( A l a . 2003) ( c i t i n g R u l e 5 9 ( g ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., and W a l l s v. Bank o f P r a t t v i l l e , 554 So. 2d 381, 382 ( A l a . 1989)). Although i t i s e r r o r f o r the t r i a l c o u r t not t o g r a n t such a h e a r i n g , t h i s e r r o r i s not n e c e s s a r i l y r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . " T h i s C o u r t has e s t a b l i s h e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t the d e n i a l of a postjudgment motion w i t h o u t a h e a r i n g t h e r e o n i s h a r m l e s s e r r o r , where (1) t h e r e i s ... no p r o b a b l e m e r i t i n t h e g r o u n d s a s s e r t e d i n t h e m o t i o n , o r (2) t h e appellate court resolves the issues p r e s e n t e d t h e r e i n , as a m a t t e r of law, a d v e r s e l y t o t h e movant, by a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e same o b j e c t i v e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w as t h a t a p p l i e d i n the t r i a l c o u r t . " H i s t o r i c B l a k e l y A u t h . v. W i l l i a m s , 675 So. 2d 350, 352 ( A l a . 1995) ( c i t i n g G r e e n e v. Thompson, 554 So. 2d 376 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ) . ' " C h i s m v. J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y , (Ala. 2006)." Cunningham v. 2009). We Edwards, agree with 25 So. 954 3d McCreless So. 475, 2d 477 that p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n w i t h o u t a h e a r i n g was 1058, (Ala. Civ. the determine McCreless's whether there exists arguments or whether t h i s issues adversely to McCreless McCreless would j u s t i f y The court of of can her we merit to resolve the law. introduced into evidence [ i m p u t a t i o n o f i n c o m e ] as t h o u g h [ M c C r e l e s s ] 8 App. question Therefore, probable as a m a t t e r argues t h a t "nothing denial error. becomes w h e t h e r t h e e r r o r i s r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . must 1086 was 2110363 i n t e n t i o n a l l y underemployed." the following McCreless's The c i r c u i t c o u r t had b e f o r e i t conflicting documentary s i g n e d income a f f i d a v i t evidence: i n which she (1) claimed to e a r n a m o n t h l y g r o s s income o f $774, (2) M a d i s o n C i t y S c h o o l s ' p e r s o n n e l - f i l e d o c u m e n t s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t M c C r e l e s s was a p a r t time special-education teacher $23,813 in employee 2007 earning M c C r e l e s s ' s 2010 $36,988, an $24,765.50 annual in salary of an 2008 annual and $50,023 salary a full-time i n 2009, $38,656, and Board, with a combined annual income and of (5) M c C r e l e s s ' s p a y r o l l r e c o r d s f o r t h e p e r i o d o f M a r c h 1, 2011, t h r o u g h May had e a r n e d (3) s t a t e t a x r e t u r n t h a t shows h e r as M a d i s o n C i t y B o a r d , H u n t s v i l l e C i t y S c h o o l s , County of f e d e r a l t a x r e t u r n , w h i c h l i s t s h e r income as (4) M c C r e l e s s ' s 2010 3 employers Madison and earning a monthly 31, 2011, i n d i c a t i n g that McCreless g r o s s income v a r y i n g b e t w e e n $1,620 and $740 i n t h a t p e r i o d . "Under R u l e 3 2 ( B ) ( 5 ) , A l a . R. must impute income to a parent Jud. Admin., a t r i a l and calculate his court or her M c C r e l e s s ' s 2010 s t a t e and f e d e r a l t a x r e t u r n s a l s o listed two r e n t a l p r o p e r t i e s owned b y M c C r e l e s s . She c o l l e c t e d an a n n u a l r e n t a l income o f $19,800. She c l a i m e d a $16,361 l o s s on t h a t s u p p l e m e n t a l i n c o m e a f t e r s u b t r a c t i n g m o r t g a g e p a y m e n t s , d e p r e c i a t i o n , e x p e n s e s , and o t h e r l o s s e s . 3 9 2110363 child-support obligation b a s e d upon t h a t p a r e n t ' s income i f 'the c o u r t f i n d s that [the] p a r e n t potential is voluntarily u n e m p l o y e d o r u n d e r e m p l o y e d . ' " M i t c h e l l v. M i t c h e l l , 2d 1267, 1269 ( A l a . C i v . App. Jud. Admin., s t a t e s , 1998). Rule 723 So. 32(B)(5), Ala. R. in pertinent part: " I n 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 u n e m p l o y e d o r u n d e r e m p l o y e d , t h e c o u r t s h o u l d d e t e r m i n e t h e employment p o t e n t i a l and p r o b a b l e e a r n i n g l e v e l o f t h a t p a r e n t , b a s e d on t h a t parent's recent work history, education, and o c c u p a t i o n a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , and on t h e p r e v a i l i n g job o p p o r t u n i t i e s and earning levels in the community." In Winfrey 1992), we v. Winfrey, 602 So. 2d 904, 905 (Ala. Civ. App. explained: "The key w o r d h e r e i s ' v o l u n t a r i l y . ' The t r i a l c o u r t must i n i t i a l l y d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e s p o u s e i s ' v o l u n t a r i l y ' unemployed or underemployed b e f o r e i t may i m p u t e income t o t h a t s p o u s e . The d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s t o be made f r o m t h e f a c t s p r e s e n t e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e j u d i c i a l 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 . D o y l e v. D o y l e , 579 So. 2d 651 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1991)." The 2011 m o d i f i c a t i o n i n c l u d e d the f o l l o w i n g "The c o u r t has c a r e f u l l y r e v i e w e d t h e s u b m i t t e d a t t r i a l and o r d e r s as f o l l o w s : evidence "1. The c o u r t f i n d s [ M c C r e l e s s ' s ] gross m o n t h l y income t o be $ 3 , 3 3 3 . 0 0 [ , ] which r e p r e s e n t s an a v e r a g e o f t h e y e a r l y i n c o m e s e a r n e d by [McCreless] f o r two previous years. Notwithstanding [McCreless's] a s s e r t i o n t h a t she i s o n l y e a r n i n g $774.00 10 finding: 2110363 p e r month, she i s c a p a b l e of earning $3,333.00 given her education and employment h i s t o r y . " Our de conflicting novo review evidence income t o M c C r e l e s s . of that the record cannot on support appeal an As a t h r e s h o l d m a t t e r , reveals imputation of t h e r e c o r d does n o t i n c l u d e e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t M c C r e l e s s was v o l u n t a r i l y underemployed. conflicting Furthermore, evidence although regarding employment potential, qualifications, or the her is some earning level t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e as t o her probable b a s e d on h e r r e c e n t work h i s t o r y , her there education, prevailing e a r n i n g l e v e l s i n h e r community. job her occupational o p p o r t u n i t i e s and See W i n f r e y , 602 So. 2d a t 905. We d e t e r m i n e hearing on that the c i r c u i t McCreless's court's f a i l u r e to grant a postjudgment motion regarding the i m p u t a t i o n o f i n c o m e t o h e r due t o v o l u n t a r y u n d e r e m p l o y m e n t was not harmless 1082, a 1089 motion error. See K i t c h e n s v. Maye, (Ala. 1993)(holding that a t r i a l for a new trial, thus denying 623 the movant " s p a r s e " and " d e v o i d " o f 11 2d court's d e n i a l of o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e , was n o t h a r m l e s s t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l was So. the e r r o r when necessary 2110363 evidence). There i s p r o b a b l e merit to McCreless's argument, and t h i s c o u r t c a n n o t r e s o l v e t h e i s s u e a d v e r s e l y t o as a m a t t e r circuit we of law; t h e r e f o r e , we r e v e r s e the judgment of McCreless the cause for a hearing on the i s v o l u n t a r i l y u n d e r e m p l o y e d and, o f income t h a t s h o u l d be McCreless imputed to a l s o d i s p u t e s the amount o f h e r w o r k - r e l a t e d explanation." affidavit We issue circuit court's She computation claims that c h i l d - c a r e e x p e n s e s were note t h a t McCreless's CS-41 t h e m o n t h l y amount o f Again, "slashed income $48. in court's c h i l d - c a r e expenses i n However, t h e circuit court i t c o n t r a d i c t o r y documentary evidence that McCreless care the i n d i c a t e d t h a t she p a i d a m o n t h l y amount o f $48 CS-42 f o r m a l s o r e f l e c t s w o r k - r e l a t e d child whether i f s o , t h e amount w o r k - r e l a t e d c h i l d - c a r e e x p e n s e s and t h a t t h e c i r c u i t before and McCreless. of her w o r k - r e l a t e d c h i l d - c a r e expenses. had the c o u r t i n s o f a r as i t i m p u t e s income t o M c C r e l e s s , remand without McCreless also indicating had p a i d an a v e r a g e m o n t h l y amount o f $260 f o r i n 2009 and due to the $180 in 2010. conflicting documentary evidence, determine that there i s probable merit to McCreless's t h a t the c i r c u i t court i n c o r r e c t l y 12 computed h e r we argument work-related 2110363 c h i l d - c a r e e x p e n s e s , and adversely circuit to McCreless court's related c o u r t cannot r e s o l v e the a matter to grant regarding c h i l d - c a r e expenses Kitchens, hearing as failure postjudgment motion this 623 on So. the 2d at i s s u e of was law. Therefore, hearing on calculation not We the McCreless's of her work- harmless error. See remand t h e cause m o n t h l y amount o f c h i l d - c a r e e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d by F i n a l l y , McCreless a the 1089. the of issue for a work-related McCreless. argues t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d i n i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e $300-a-month s t u d e n t - l o a n a w a r d was p e r i o d i c alimony. the We conclude, as a matter of law, that $300-a-month s t u d e n t - l o a n a w a r d i n t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t was p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t t h a t was t h e p a s s a g e o f 30 a not s u b j e c t t o m o d i f i c a t i o n a f t e r days. "A c o u r t c a n n o t m o d i f y a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t , e x c e p t to c o r r e c t c l e r i c a l e r r o r s , a f t e r a l a p s e of t h i r t y days from the r e n d i t i o n and e n t r y of a final judgment approving such settlement. A divorce judgment d i v i d i n g p r o p e r t y between the p a r t i e s i s n o t s u b j e c t t o b e i n g m o d i f i e d as t o s u c h p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n on a c c o u n t o f c h a n g e d c o n d i t i o n s . R u s s e l l v. R u s s e l l , 386 So. 2d 758 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 0 ) . " Culverhouse App. v. 1980). corrected an Culverhouse, Valentin 389 argues e r r o r because, he 13 So. that says, 2d 937, the 938 2006 i t only (Ala. Civ. modification clarified or 2110363 interpreted student-loan convinced. month the unspecified award The divorce student-loan apportioned i n the nature divorce judgment of the $300-a-month judgment. clearly We lists award w i t h i n a seven-item t o V a l e n t i n as p a r t o f a p r o p e r t y the list are not $300-aof debts settlement. "The s p e c i f i c d e s i g n a t i o n o f an a l i m o n y a w a r d as b e i n g i n gross i s not necessary; the l a c k of such a l a b e l w i l l not defeat a p r o v i s i o n which i n substance p r o v i d e s f o r an a w a r d o f a l i m o n y i n g r o s s as p a r t o f a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t . In o t h e r words, the substance of t h e award t a k e s p r e c e d e n c e over t h e form o r l a b e l . H a r t s f i e l d v. H a r t s f i e l d , 384 So. 2d 1097 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 0 ) . F o r a l i m o n y t o be i n g r o s s i t must s a t i s f y two r e q u i r e m e n t s , (1) t h e t i m e o f payment and t h e amount must be c e r t a i n , (2) t h e r i g h t t o a l i m o n y must be v e s t e d . Ex p a r t e H a g e r , 293 A l a . 47, 299 So. 2d 743 ( 1 9 7 4 ) . I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , c l e a r l y t h e t i m e and amount o f payment a r e c e r t a i n and i t i s a p p a r e n t t o t h i s c o u r t t h a t t h e a w a r d i s n o t m o d i f i a b l e and h e n c e ' v e s t e d . ' I t i s t h e r e f o r e c l e a r t o t h i s c o u r t t h a t t h e a w a r d q u a l i f i e s as alimony i n gross." Kenchel v. K e n c h e l , We c o n c l u d e i n substance, 440 So. 2d 567, 569 t h a t t h e $300-a-month s t u d e n t - l o a n a w a r d was, a p r o p e r t y a w a r d and t h a t t h e t i m e and amount o f t h e payment were c e r t a i n . I t i s a l s o apparent to t h i s t h a t t h e $300-a-month student-loan and t h u s was vested. Therefore, the court circuit ( A l a . C i v . App. 1983) . insofar as 14 court award was n o t m o d i f i a b l e , we reverse i t declares the judgment of that Valentin's 2110363 obligation periodic alimony McCreless In to t o p a y t h e $300-a-month and t h a t student-loan award i t automatically terminated was when remarried. c o n c l u s i o n , we d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e c i r c u i t r e v e r s a l by failing postjudgment motion. to hold a hearing court erred on McCreless's We r e v e r s e t h e 2011 m o d i f i c a t i o n i n s o f a r as i t t e r m i n a t e d V a l e n t i n ' s o b l i g a t i o n t o p a y t h e $300-a-month student-loan award. We determination that McCreless reverse the circuit was v o l u n t a r i l y underemployed, and we remand t h e c a u s e f o r a h e a r i n g t o d e t e r m i n e McCreless i s v o l u n t a r i l y u n d e r e m p l o y e d and, o f income t o i m p u t e t o M c C r e l e s s court's (1) w h e t h e r i f s o , t h e amount a n d (2) t h e amount o f work- r e l a t e d c h i l d - c a r e expenses i n c u r r e d by McCreless. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , Bryan, and Pittman J . , concurs a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . i n the r e s u l t , without 15 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.