James Kevin Taylor v. Michelle Taylor

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/30/12 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 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, 2012-2013 2110420 James Kevin Taylor v. Michelle Taylor Appeal from Lauderdale C i r c u i t (DR-09-847) Court BRYAN, J u d g e . James K e v i n T a y l o r of the Lauderdale ("the f a t h e r " ) a p p e a l s Circuit Court d i v o r c e d him from M i c h e l l e T a y l o r ("the t r i a l from a judgment court") that ("the m o t h e r " ) i n s o f a r a s i t awarded him s e p a r a t e v i s i t a t i o n s c h e d u l e s f o r t h e p a r t i e s ' two 2110420 children and ordered him to pay one-half of the expenses r e l a t e d t o t h e c h i l d r e n ' s e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s and h a l f the tuition Procedural The cost of p r i v a t e - s c h o o l History mother filed a complaint f o r the older one- on December 18, 2009, a l l e g i n g i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f temperament and adultery as g r o u n d s f o r t h e d i v o r c e . for a divorce child. The m o t h e r r e q u e s t e d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , c u s t o d y o f t h e p a r t i e s ' two c h i l d r e n -- June born 1999 ("the daughter"). On son") the a December 30, p r e l i m i n a r y order "coordinate and girl 2009, t h e trial payment o f manner t h e y d i d when t h e y were mother's The ore father 2009 court ("the entered a father to the that both p a r t i e s amounts and cohabitating subsequently as filed an trial court that contribute in the husband and answer to the complaint. record indicates that the conducted t e n u s p r o c e e d i n g o v e r s i x d a y s f r o m O c t o b e r 2010 A u g u s t 2011. judgment born i n f i x e d m o n t h l y e x p e n s e s " and t o t h e payment o f m o n t h l y e x p e n s e s i n t h e The July t h a t r e q u i r e d t h e m o t h e r and s t a t e d that "[t]he Court intends wife." in a boy On November 15, divorcing the 2011, the t r i a l parties on 2 through court entered the an ground a of 2110420 incompatibility joint legal of temperament. custody of the The children, parties and were the mother awarded p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y of the c h i l d r e n . was The v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the son. t h e son was period. father The a w a r d e d 6 d a y s and 6 n i g h t s o f mother's c u s t o d i a l p e r i o d w i t h t h e r e m a i n i n g 8 d a y s and 8 n i g h t s o f e v e r y 14-day The f a t h e r was awarded v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the as s e t f o r t h i n t h e " S t a n d a r d V i s i t a t i o n Circuit Court of Lauderdale County." Based 1 d a y s and 2 n i g h t s o f v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e d a u g h t e r , 4-hour judgment and midweek the visit standard every other visitation daughter G u i d e l i n e s adopted s c h e d u l e , i n t h e same 14-day p e r i o d , t h e f a t h e r was one was a w a r d e d v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e son b a s e d on a 14-day r o t a t i n g s c h e d u l e w h e r e i n t h e f a t h e r was the awarded week. 2 schedule on by that awarded 2 as w e l l The as divorce specifically L a u d e r d a l e C o u n t y has d i f f e r e n t " s t a n d a r d " v i s i t a t i o n s c h e d u l e s f o r c h i l d r e n u n d e r t h r e e y e a r s o f age and f o r c h i l d r e n o v e r t h r e e y e a r s o f age. The d a u g h t e r was two y e a r s o l d when t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d , b u t w h i l e t h i s c a s e was p e n d i n g on a p p e a l , t h e d a u g h t e r t u r n e d t h r e e y e a r s o l d . Thus, we w i l l c o n s i d e r t h e f a t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n s c h e d u l e w i t h t h e d a u g h t e r b a s e d on t h e s t a n d a r d v i s i t a t i o n s c h e d u l e f o r c h i l d r e n o v e r t h e age o f t h r e e . 1 The f a t h e r was a w a r d e d v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e d a u g h t e r e v e r y o t h e r weekend and v i s i t a t i o n f r o m 4:00 p.m. u n t i l 8:00 p.m. e v e r y o t h e r Tuesday. 2 3 2110420 d e f i n e d a d d i t i o n a l v i s i t a t i o n t i m e s f o r t h e f a t h e r on and during The the summer. trial $1,049 a court month Additionally, "equally in the split ordered the child mother any support and and father the t h a t t h e m o t h e r had $514 son, i t ordered f o r the [son] for a l l expenses instrument. the pay " the for The mother children. were ordered to extracurricular trial father to the father The to court trial "equally reimburse court split also the there." The trial court the found [son] further mother ordered tuition a t S h o a l s C h r i s t i a n S c h o o l as l o n g as t h e enrolled the s p e n t $1,027.95 f o r a b a n d i n s t r u m e n t f o r and m o t h e r and to father a c t i v i t i e s of the minor c h i l d r e n the holidays for the the remains found that, "pursuant to i t s p r e l i m i n a r y order t h a t the p a r t i e s c o n t r i b u t e to the payment o f m o n t h l y e x p e n s e s i n t h e manner they did when living as husband [father] i s ordered to reimburse the i n the On motion sum o f $3,400 December pursuant requested, 9, to amount and and wife, in ... the the [mother] t u i t i o n e x p e n s e s " 2011, Rule among o t h e r the 59, father Ala. things not 4 filed a Civ. P. The father pertinent to this appeal, R. postjudgment 2110420 t h a t the t r i a l court amend t h e d i v o r c e judgment t o award him a d d i t i o n a l v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e d a u g h t e r so t h a t h i s v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e d a u g h t e r w o u l d be c o n d u c t e d a t t h e same t i m e t h a t had v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the son. he The f a t h e r a r g u e d t h a t he w a n t e d to maximize h i s o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o have c u s t o d y o f t h e son and t h e d a u g h t e r a t t h e same t i m e and t o l i m i t t h e amount o f t i m e and expense i n c u r r e d also to transport requested that the c h i l d r e n . the requirement e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r - a c t i v i t y expenses be vacated in light of the t h a t he pay The father one-half of and p r i v a t e - s c h o o l fact that he was tuition paying the recommended amount o f c h i l d s u p p o r t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 32, A l a . R. Jud. Admin. supported by The the f a t h e r a r g u e d t h a t t h o s e awards were n o t evidence and that the trial court had no a u t h o r i t y t o make t h o s e awards i n a d d i t i o n t o r e q u i r i n g h i m t o pay the f u l l support motion amount o f c h i l d guidelines. on The December 21, s u p p o r t recommend by t h e trial 2011, and court the denied father the filed child- father's a timely n o t i c e of appeal. Issues On a p p e a l , t h e f a t h e r r a i s e s two i s s u e s f o r t h i s review: (1) whether his visitation 5 time with the court's children 2110420 should have been scheduled so that he exercised visitation w i t h t h e d a u g h t e r d u r i n g t i m e s t h a t he had v i s i t a t i o n w i t h son and (2) w h e t h e r t h e trial court e r r e d by ordering him the to pay o n e - h a l f o f e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r - a c t i v i t y e x p e n s e s and p r i v a t e school tuition R u l e 32 in addition child-support to child support pursuant to the guidelines. Facts The in p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d i n June 1993, August 2009. Florence, but, During the marriage, had marriage, admitted but forgave the father three to extramarital the having father admitted to mother four first two lived together for learned of the affairs. The several few weeks b e f o r e the the the The affairs, that years time, after pregnant w i t h the 6 and the had the the mother affair in daughter. about the born. the mother although f a t h e r began h i s l a s t d a u g h t e r was in parties father affairs. at lived f a t h e r moved during u n d i s p u t e d t h a t the mother found out a parties undisputed that that three affairs F e b r u a r y 2009 when t h e m o t h e r was only affairs extramarital f o r the only I t was testified parties I t was the they separated a f t e r the p a r t i e s s e p a r a t e d , the i n w i t h h i s p a r e n t s i n Cherokee. father and The affair father 2110420 a l l e g e d t h a t he h a d e n d e d t h e a f f a i r before t h e d a u g h t e r was b o r n a n d t h a t he h a d n o t resumed t h e a f f a i r a f t e r t h e d a u g h t e r was b o r n d e s p i t e few weeks the fact that the p a r t i e s separated within a a f t e r the daughter's birth. The woman t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d h a d an a f f a i r w i t h t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e a f f a i r i n F e b r u a r y 2009 a n d l a s t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y one y e a r . testified that the father had ended d a u g h t e r was b o r n i n J u l y 2009. that She l a t e r before The f a t h e r ' s m o t h e r s h e was u n d e r t h e i m p r e s s i o n seeing the a f f a i r that began the testified t h e f a t h e r was still t h e woman he h a d h a d an a f f a i r w i t h a f t e r he s e p a r a t e d f r o m t h e m o t h e r b e c a u s e t h e f a t h e r o c c a s i o n a l l y went t o t h e woman's h o u s e a n d b e c a u s e t h e f a t h e r h a d t a k e n h e r t o v i s i t the woman a r o u n d C h r i s t m a s . court had could Suffice i t t o say, the t r i a l have d i s b e l i e v 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 he n o t resumed h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e woman he h a d h a d an affair with After agreed a f t e r t h e d a u g h t e r ' s b i r t h i n J u l y 2009. t h e p a r t i e s s e p a r a t e d i n A u g u s t 2009, t h e p a r t i e s to a visitation schedule that allowed have c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n a p p r o x i m a t e l y the father to 50% o f t h e time. I t was u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e s o n e n j o y e d t h e v i s i t a t i o n that the parties utilized during 7 t h e pendency schedule of the 2110420 proceedings below and t h a t t h e son had c o n t i n u e d to excel i n s c h o o l and i n s p o r t s d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t i t took t h e f a t h e r 35 t o 45 m i n u t e s t o g e t t o t h e c h i l d ' s s c h o o l i n F l o r e n c e his parents' the home i n C h e r o k e e . visitation schedule t h a t she r e q u e s t e d The m o t h e r a g r e e d t o c o n t i n u e as i t e x i s t e d w i t h the son, except t h a t t h e s o n be r e t u r n e d t o h e r on Sunday e v e n i n g s b y 5:30 so t h a t he c o u l d a t t e n d c h u r c h The record indicates that same v i s i t a t i o n with with her. the father i n i t i a l l y the daughter a s he h a d w i t h had the the e x c e p t t h a t he d i d n o t keep t h e d a u g h t e r o v e r n i g h t . custody the each after the father returned that to her Thereafter, f a t h e r e x e r c i s e d v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e d a u g h t e r on one d a y weekend followed with "standard" no overnight visitation t h e age o f t h r e e i n L a u d e r d a l e last hearing two the daughter a f t e r 10:00 p.m. on two n i g h t s i n a row. son, When t h e d a u g h t e r was one y e a r o l d , t h e m o t h e r r e f u s e d t o c o n t i n u e arrangement from years visit; that arrangement guidelines f o ra child County. under As o f t h e d a t e o f t h e i n A u g u s t 2 0 1 1 , when t h e d a u g h t e r was j u s t over o l d , t h e f a t h e r h a d k e p t t h e d a u g h t e r o v e r n i g h t on o n l y one o c c a s i o n tenus hearing, when t h e m o t h e r was s i c k . the father requested 8 During the ore t h e same c u s t o d i a l time 2110420 with the daughter that t e s t i f i e d t h a t she c a r i n g f o r the he had he d i d not had with know i f t h e daughter overnight returned the the and daughter d a u g h t e r ' s d i a p e r on s i d e w a y s . to son. f a t h e r was t h a t , on her to care t h e m o t h e r was f o r the The record the daughter. Medical Center. approximately and The made $5, 868 for the the had his that encouraged h i s the f a t h e r i s e m p l o y e d as sleep disorder i n d i c a t e d t h a t the approximately state and federal life benevolent f u n d , among o t h e r insurance, center, that retirement, health and the Regional father $4,100 a f t e r taxes, things. and the earned his net deductions and dental donations I n F e b r u a r y 2011, to a the t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s m o n t h l y e x p e n s e s t o t a l e d $4,040 a month, w h i c h i n c l u d e d , child s k i l l s and father admitted a month i n g r o s s pay insurance, father with neuro-EEG l a b a t Cullman record i n c o m e e a c h month was were The t h a t she i n d i c a t e s t h a t the center, occasion, children. d i r e c t o r of r e s p i r a t o r y care, c-pap c a r e one of Numerous w i t n e s s e s a p p e a r e d on a good m o t h e r and relationship with mother capable custody b e h a l f of the f a t h e r to a t t e s t to h i s p a r e n t i n g ability The support; $150 among o t h e r things: a month f o r h i s and 9 $1,100 a month i n the son's cellular 2110420 telephone; month $120 a month f o r m a r i t a l c r e d i t - c a r d d e b t ; $700 a f o r gasoline; $110 a month f o r automobile and boat i n s u r a n c e ; $200 a month t o h i s m o t h e r f o r h i s v e h i c l e , when he could; son; $900 a month f o r f o o d f o r h i m s e l f , h i s mother, and t h e $75 a month f o r l u n c h e s a n d s n a c k s f o r t h e s o n ; $100 a month f o r dental incurred after work; $100 a month the p a r t i e s for credit-card debt s e p a r a t e d ; a n d $75 a month f o r g i f t s f o r the c h i l d r e n . The f a t h e r i n c l u d e d sums t h a t he p a i d his bills mother for utility and lawn maintenance, b u t he a d m i t t e d t h a t , l i k e t h e payment t o h i s m o t h e r f o r h i s v e h i c l e , he d i d n o t a l w a y s p a y h i s m o t h e r t h o s e sums. his He s t a t e d m o t h e r does n o t a s k h i m f o r money a n d t h a t t h r e a t o f h e r making that t h e r e was no h i m move o u t o f h e r home. At t h e time o f the h e a r i n g i n August 2011, t h e f a t h e r ' s m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she a n d t h e f a t h e r h a d a new arrangement p u r s u a n t t o w h i c h t h e f a t h e r p a i d h e r $800 a month a n d t h a t , f r o m t h a t money, $300 went t o r e p a y h e r f o r t h e p u r c h a s e o f his to v e h i c l e a n d i t s r e p a i r s a n d t h a t t h e r e m a i n i n g $500 went the father's groceries. living expenses, such as u t i l i t y bills and She s t a t e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d i n i t i a l l y p a i d h e r w h a t e v e r he c o u l d b u t t h a t t h e new a r r a n g e m e n t 10 was $800 e v e r y 2110420 month and she p a i d a l l t h e b i l l s . She s t a t e d t h a t the s t i l l b o u g h t some g r o c e r i e s f o r t h e h o u s e h o l d and father t h a t he had made a o n e - t i m e payment o f $700 t o p u r c h a s e a y e a r ' s w o r t h o f n a t u r a l gas father f o r h e r home. paid for the However, i t was natural gas u n c l e a r whether before he began the the new f i n a n c i a l arrangement w i t h h i s mother. The mother approximately her net According worked at a and $42,000 a y e a r , income to the equaled doctor's the support, tuition. $2,750 month. approximately a month f o r c h i l d c a r e i n c l u d e d i n the c a l c u l a t i o n of The m o t h e r s t a t e d t h a t she had been p a y i n g s i n c e the p a r t i e s separated and o c c a s i o n a l l y b e e n more t h a n one month l a t e p a y i n g on t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e , the d i v o r c e The a that for child as w e l l as $455 a month f o r t h e s o n ' s p r i v a t e - s c h o o l household b i l l s in earning indicates expenses t o t a l e d $4,100 a month, w h i c h i n c l u d e d $315 t h e d a u g h t e r , w h i c h was record approximately mother, her office record w h i c h she was a l l the t h a t she had the mortgage made r e s p o n s i b l e for judgment. i n d i c a t e s t h a t the son had attended the p r i v a t e s c h o o l from k i n d e r g a r t e n through h i s s i x t h - g r a d e When t h e p a r t i e s f i r s t separated, 11 the same year. c o s t of attendance was 2110420 approximately the time of the f i n a l increased that $433 a month f o r 11 months o u t o f t h e y e a r . hearing, the cost t o $455 a month f o r 11 m o n t h s . the mother attendance testified had since that paid the the t u i t i o n parties' contribute I t was cost he w a n t e d t h e s o n t o c o n t i n u e to h i s tuition. had undisputed f o r the separation. same p r i v a t e s c h o o l , b u t he c l a i m e d to of attendance At The son's father to attend the t h a t he c o u l d n o t a f f o r d The m o t h e r s t a t e d that she p l a n n e d t o s e n d t h e s o n t o t h e same p r i v a t e s c h o o l w h e t h e r t h e father contributed toward the costs t h a t t h e son l o v e d h i s s c h o o l , his It undisputed that childhood, that he h a d p l a y e d and that he extracurricular activities mother testified like involved i n extracurricular at the school. was athlete, She t h a t h i s c l a s s m a t e s were f a m i l y , a n d t h a t he was v e r y activities or not. submitted the son numerous had was sports an exceptional throughout h i s participated in s u c h as Cub S c o u t s a n d b a n d . documentation indicating that she other The had p u r c h a s e d a trombone f o r t h e c h i l d and t h a t t h e b a l a n c e o f t h e cost of purchasing $1,027.95. The that instrument mother also a f t e r h e r down payment was presented 12 evidence indicating 2110420 t h a t , i n t h e y e a r 2010, for she had p a i d e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r t h e s o n i n t h e amount o f $434 f o r t h i n g s l i k e expenses registration f e e s f o r s p o r t s teams, s p o r t i n g e q u i p m e n t , c u b - s c o u t camp, a n d sports camp. involvement son's The father i n t h e son's athletic abilities, repeatedly testified extracurricular about activities y e t he c l a i m e d t h a t his and t h e he c o u l d n o t a f f o r d t o a s s i s t t h e mother i n f i n a n c i n g t h e c o s t o f t h e son's extracurricular activities. Standard o f Review "When o r e t e n u s evidence i s presented, a p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s e x i s t s as t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s on i s s u e s o f f a c t ; i t s j u d g m e n t based on t h e s e findings of fact will n o t be d i s t u r b e d unless i t i s c l e a r l y erroneous, without supporting evidence, manifestly unjust, or against the g r e a t weight of t h e evidence. J & M B a i l Bonding Co. v . Hayes, 748 So. 2 d 198 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) ; G a s t o n v . Ames, 514 So. 2 d 877 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . When t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n a n o n j u r y case e n t e r s a judgment w i t h o u t making s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ' w i l l assume t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e made t h o s e findings necessary t o support t h e judgment.' T r a n s a m e r i c a C o m m e r c i a l F i n . C o r p . v . AmSouth Bank, 608 So. 2 d 375, 378 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . M o r e o v e r , ' [ u ] n d e r the o r e tenus r u l e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment and a l l i m p l i c i t f i n d i n g s necessary t o support i t carry a p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s . ' T r a n s a m e r i c a , 608 So. 2d a t 378. However, when t h e t r i a l c o u r t i m p r o p e r l y applies the law t o f a c t s , no p r e s u m p t i o n of c o r r e c t n e s s e x i s t s as t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t . A l l s t a t e I n s . Co. v . S k e l t o n , 675 So. 2 d 377 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ; M a r v i n ' s , I n c . v . R o b e r t s o n , 608 So. 2 d 391 (Ala. 1 9 9 2 ) ; G a s t o n , 514 So. 2d a t 878; S m i t h v . 13 2110420 S t y l e A d v e r t i s i n g , I n c . , 470 So. 2d 1194 1 9 8 5 ) ; League v. M c D o n a l d , 355 So. 2d 695 1978)." C i t y o f P r a t t v i l l e v. P o s t , App. 831 So. 2d 622, (Ala. (Ala. 627-28 ( A l a . C i v . 2002). Discussion On appeal, the father f i r s t argues t h a t the e r r e d by f a s h i o n i n g h i s v i s i t a t i o n s u c h a manner t h a t h i s v i s i t a t i o n coincide with his v i s i t a t i o n the trial visitation court exceeded schedules for the court award w i t h the c h i l d r e n i n w i t h t h e d a u g h t e r does w i t h the its trial son. discretion He contends in c h i l d r e n because that setting there i s not w i t h the i n the best t h e son and son and t h a t such a l a c k of the is c o o r d i n a t i o n b e t w e e n h i s v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e d a u g h t e r and visitation not no his coordination i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d r e n because i t keeps the daughter separated for long periods. argues t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e r r o n e o u s l y limited his w i t h t h e d a u g h t e r d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t t h e r e was i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he was same manner t h a t he was unable to care able to care He visitation no evidence f o r the daughter i n the f o r the son. "The t r i a l court i s i n the best p o s i t i o n to determine the c r e d i b i l i t y of the w i t n e s s e s , to a s s i g n w e i g h t t o t h e i r t e s t i m o n y , and t o a s s e s s what is i n the best i n t e r e s t of the child. 'The 14 also 2110420 d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f p r o p e r v i s i t a t i o n ... i s w i t h i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n of the trial court, and that c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n s h o u l d n o t be r e v e r s e d by an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t a b s e n t a s h o w i n g o f an a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n . ' Ex p a r t e B l a n d , 796 So. 2d [340,] 343 [ ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ] . 'The p r i m a r y c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n s e t t i n g v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s i s the b e s t i n t e r e s t of the c h i l d . E a c h c h i l d v i s i t a t i o n c a s e must be d e c i d e d on i t s own f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s . ' D u B o i s v. D u B o i s , 714 So. 2d 308, 309 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998) (citation omitted)." Williams v. Williams, 905 So. 2d 820, 830 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004). Our r e v i e w of the terms of the final judgment i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e f a t h e r has weekend v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e d a u g h t e r e v e r y t i m e t h a t he has difference daughter a weekend v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e s o n . i n the i s that visitation the father schedules has an f o r the additional The son only and the 4 d a y s and n i g h t s w i t h t h e son i n e a c h 14-day p e r i o d ; d u r i n g t h e f i r s t day period, the f a t h e r has v i s i t a t i o n with m o r n i n g t h r o u g h Wednesday m o r n i n g , and, day period, the father has the son on during the second visitation Wednesday e v e n i n g t h r o u g h F r i d a y s e v e n - d a y p e r i o d , t h e f a t h e r has evening. A l t h o u g h we the he has 7- Monday son During the v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the each Tuesday e v e n i n g f o r f o u r hours w h i l e w i t h the son. with 4 7on first daughter visitation agree w i t h the f a t h e r t h a t t h e r e i s 15 2110420 no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he i s i n c a p a b l e o f c a r i n g f o r t h e d a u g h t e r d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d s t h a t he h a s c u s t o d y o f t h e s o n , we note t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n was r e q u i r e d t o be b a s e d upon t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e d a u g h t e r . W i l l i a m s , s u p r a . trial court concluded could have considered t h a t the extended the daughter's visitation schedule The age a n d that served the b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e 1 2 - y e a r - o l d son would n o t s e r v e t h e best i n t e r e s t s of the 2-year-old Furthermore, argument t h a t t h i s custody" and we are not situation the other parent nights; children w i l l hour time convinced 3 by the father's i s a k i n t o an a w a r d o f "split where one p a r e n t i s a w a r d e d c u s t o d y o f one i s awarded c u s t o d y E a c h week, t h e c h i l d r e n w i l l two daughter. however, see each period even of the other child child. be a p a r t f o r o n l y two d a y s and during those times apart, o t h e r e v e r y o t h e r week f o r one i n the evening. For t h i s court the four- t o do anything other than a f f i r m the r e g u l a r v i s i t a t i o n schedule s e t f o r t h by t h e t r i a l c o u r t w o u l d be t o s u b s t i t u t e o u r j u d g m e n t T h a t i s n o t t o s a y , however, t h a t t h e f a t h e r c o u l d n o t request a m o d i f i c a t i o n of h i s v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the daughter i n t h e n e a r f u t u r e when t h e d a u g h t e r i s o l d e r a n d h a s h a d t h e c h a n c e t o a d j u s t t o l i f e i n two d i f f e r e n t homes. 3 16 2110420 f o r t h a t of the t r i a l See S t o n e v. c o u r t , w h i c h we S t o n e , 26 So. 3d are not p e r m i t t e d t o 1232, 1235-36 do. (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) ("This c o u r t i s n o t p e r m i t t e d t o r e w e i g h t h e e v i d e n c e appeal and court."); App. s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment and 2008) (Ala. for K.D.H. v. T.L.H., 3 So. (quoting C i v . App. Alonzo 1993)) v. that of 3d 894, Alonzo, 628 ("'Our s t a n d a r d the 899 So. trial (Ala. Civ. 2d 749, 750 i s not of review what we m i g h t have done had we b e e n t h e t r i a l j u d g e , b u t w h e t h e r f i n d f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e was to c o n s t i t u t e an abuse o f h i s However, r e g a r d i n g the daughter and the the son, that allowed discretion.'"). father's holiday v i s i t a t i o n we the we so i n e r r o r as must conclude that the c o u r t e x c e e d e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n by f a i l i n g t o c r a f t a schedule on father to have with trial visitation simultaneous v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e d a u g h t e r and t h e son d u r i n g t h e h o l i d a y s . F o r e x a m p l e , on E a s t e r has p.m., visitation but, with whether Sunday, i n odd the daughter i t i s an even years from 8:00 year or f a t h e r has v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e son f r o m 3:00 Similar examples of u n c o o r d i n a t e d o n l y , the a.m. an visitation g i v e n d u r i n g o t h e r h o l i d a y s s u c h as L a b o r Day, 17 until odd p.m. father year, t o 8:00 times could Memorial 6:00 the p.m. be Day, 2110420 and Thanksgiving. Because t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e i n t h e record t h a t would s u p p o r t a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t the b e s t i n t e r e s t s of children would be served visitation schedules, i n s o f a r as i t awarded the children, trial and court we to we the uncoordinated trial court's judgment cause w i t h w i t h the i n s t r u c t i o n s to schedule that allows requiring the father him to argues pay extracurricular-activity private-school the the father during his periods tuition that the one-half e x p e n s e s and trial of court the of See Caswell 3d , So. 2d 332, v. Caswell, one-half of i n a d d i t i o n to p a y i n g the [Ms. ( A l a . C i v . App. 337 tuition 2110004, J u l y 27, 2012) ( A l a . C i v . App. and the full amount 2012] So. Deas, 2009). a l s o A.B. v. J.B., 40 So. I t i s well settled that 18 747 (holding that p r i v a t e - p a r t o f b a s i c c h i l d s u p p o r t c o n t e m p l a t e d by t h e R u l e 32 C i v . App. son's e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r - a c t i v i t y expenses are s u p p o r t g u i d e l i n e s ) . See by guidelines. ( c i t i n g Deas v. 1999)) erred children's o f c h i l d s u p p o r t recommended by t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t (Ala. the visitation. Next, school holiday father holiday v i s i t a t i o n with a visitation c h i l d r e n t o be t o g e t h e r holiday the reverse remand t h e craft by the not child- 3d 723, "matters 733 of 2110420 child support are within the sound d i s c r e t i o n of the trial c o u r t and w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d a b s e n t e v i d e n c e o f an abuse o f discretion palpably (Ala. or evidence wrong." C i v . App. In J.B., support supra, that S p e n c e r v. the judgment Spencer, 812 is So. plainly 2d 1284, of his wherein argument, this court the father reversed a cites A.B. judgment parent, 3d a t 733. I n t h a t c a s e , we " R u l e 3 2 ( A ) , A l a . R. "'[t]here shall be a rebuttable presumption, in any judicial or administrative proceeding for the establishment or m o d i f i c a t i o n of child s u p p o r t , t h a t t h e amount o f t h e a w a r d t h a t would r e s u l t from the a p p l i c a t i o n of these g u i d e l i n e s i s t h e c o r r e c t amount o f c h i l d s u p p o r t t o be a w a r d e d . A w r i t t e n f i n d i n g on the r e c o r d i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the a p p l i c a t i o n of the guidelines w o u l d be unjust or i n a p p r o p r i a t e s h a l l be s u f f i c i e n t t o r e b u t the presumption i f the f i n d i n g i s based upon: "'(i) A fair, written agreement between the parties e s t a b l i s h i n g a d i f f e r e n t amount and s t a t i n g t h e r e a s o n s t h e r e f o r ; or 19 one- child. held: Jud. Admin., p r o v i d e s v. that t o pay h a l f of the c o s t s of e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s f o r the So. 1286 2001). r e q u i r e d the former w i f e , the n o n c u s t o d i a l 40 or that 2110420 "'(ii) A determination by t h e c o u r t , b a s e d upon e v i d e n c e presented i n c o u r t and stating the reasons therefor, that application of the guidelines w o u l d be manifestly unjust or inequitable.' "Thus, although the amount of child support e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e g u i d e l i n e s c r e a t e s a p r e s u m p t i o n as t o t h e c o r r e c t amount o f c h i l d s u p p o r t t o be a w a r d e d , t h a t p r e s u m p t i o n i s r e b u t t a b l e , and, u n d e r certain circumstances, a trial court has the discretion to award c h i l d support outside the guidelines. "Additionally, Admin., p r o v i d e s : Rule 32(C)(4), Ala. R. Jud. "'In addition to the recommended c h i l d - s u p p o r t o r d e r , t h e c o u r t may make additional awards for extraordinary m e d i c a l , d e n t a l , and e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e n s e s i f ( i ) t h e p a r t i e s have i n w r i t i n g a g r e e d t o t h e s e awards o r ( i i ) t h e c o u r t , upon r e v i e w i n g the evidence, determines that t h e s e awards a r e i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e c h i l d r e n and s t a t e s i t s r e a s o n s f o r making these a d d i t i o n a l awards.' " I n t h i s c a s e , h o w e v e r , no e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d t o r e b u t t h e p r e s u m p t i o n c r e a t e d by t h e g u i d e l i n e s , and the t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n a l judgment f a i l e d t o i n d i c a t e that a p p l i c a t i o n of the guidelines would be m a n i f e s t l y u n j u s t o r i n e q u i t a b l e . The f i n a l j u d g m e n t a l s o f a i l e d to i n c l u d e the language necessary to s u p p o r t an a w a r d u n d e r R u l e 3 2 ( C ) ( 4 ) . Therefore, r e q u i r i n g t h e [ f o r m e r ] w i f e t o pay o n e - h a l f o f [ t h e c h i l d ] ' s e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r e x p e n s e s i s u n s u p p o r t e d by t h e r e c o r d and was e r r o r . " 40 So. 3d a t 733. 20 2110420 To the extent that the father is arguing that the a d d i t i o n a l c h i l d - s u p p o r t awards s h o u l d be r e v e r s e d b e c a u s e t h e trial by court f a i l e d to i n c l u d e the Rule 3 2 ( A ) ( i i ) the divorce the first it. A n d r e w s v. 1992) for the A l a . R. the time on father's Jud. and, t h e r e f o r e , we O i l Co., 612 appeal So. 2d argument 409, the consider 410 However, that additional the we will child- Our review presented to rebut g u i d e l i n e s and t h a t would a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e a d d i t i o n a l awards a r e i n t h e b e s t of the (Ala. arguments r a i s e d ...."). o f t h e r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t e v i d e n c e was by Admin., i n cannot s u p p o r t awards were n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e . presumption created required f a t h e r i s making t h a t argument f o r appeal, Merritt findings a p p e l l a t e c ] o u r t cannot consider first consider Rule 32(C)(4), judgment, the t i m e on ("[An and specific the support interest children. I t was t h a t the u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r and son the father remain e n r o l l e d at h i s p r i v a t e s c h o o l , desired that the son l o v e d t h e s c h o o l , t h a t he was v e r y i n v o l v e d i n the school, t h a t he had f o r seven years, that excelled in attended that school that school. Likewise, e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s , i t was 21 regarding and the he son's u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e son was 2110420 an e x c e l l e n t a t h l e t e and t h a t b o t h p a r t i e s had e n c o u r a g e d his p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n numerous e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s . However, a consideration support serves of whether the best an additional award i n t e r e s t of a c h i l d of child must a l s o take i n t o a c c o u n t e a c h p a r t y ' s a b i l i t y t o c o n t r i b u t e an a d d i t i o n a l amount of guidelines child support recommend. See 323 ( A l a . C i v . App. the c h i l d r e n to school tuition 1977) order in above T r a v i s v. the child-support T r a v i s , 345 So. 2d of amount child which support the or evidence private clearly i n d i c a t e s i s beyond the a b i l i t y of a p p e l l a n t t o p a y . " ) . court has held that a trial court "may not payments t h a t compel a p a r t y t o s a c r i f i c e leaving l i t t l e 590 So. The 2d 321, 321, ("It w i l l not serve the i n t e r e s t of payment an what order This support a l l of h i s income, o r none t o s u p p o r t h i m s e l f . " H a r r i s v. H a r r i s , 323 ( A l a . C i v . App. f a t h e r argues 1991). t h a t the mother d i d not demonstrate need f o r a d d i t i o n a l c h i l d support because the son's a tuition e x p e n s e and e x p e n s e s r e l a t e d t o h i s e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s were included evidence monthly i n her presented monthly indicates expenses, that the expenses w i t h the award of c h i l d 22 and, he mother argues, can meet support pursuant the her to 2110420 the guidelines was e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t w o u l d have s u p p o r t e d a conclusion that expenses, Although pending i n a d d i t i o n to her the even mother could considering i t was monthly net the not award below, the mother had meet of undisputed that, while income. her There monthly child support. proceedings a l l the paid the son's were tuition e x p e n s e s and t h e v a s t m a j o r i t y o f h i s e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r - a c t i v i t y expenses without undisputed that assistance the mother m o n t h l y m o r t g a g e payment. t h a t the f a t h e r had pay. j u d g m e n t was Finally, tuition and frequently Furthermore, the o b l i g a t i o n during entered t h a t he i s no i t was behind record the concluded, in the light to send the father, of the evidence of court the indicates $51 the required to t o pay the without could have parties' joint the i n v o l v e d i n numerous e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s , t h a t the not be to p r i v a t e school the year before expenses trial on t o have mother s h o u l d son the also additional longer extracurricular-activity from son father, e v e n i f t h e m o t h e r i s somehow a b l e assistance decisions was the b e e n p a y i n g t h e m o t h e r an over h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t divorce from required to bear these a d d i t i o n a l expenses w i t h o u t the 23 the and e n t i r e burden of father's assistance i f 2110420 the f a t h e r has the a b i l i t y to c o n t r i b u t e to the additional expenses. Furthermore, the father has the t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d have sufficient a d d i t i o n a l c h i l d support. income to concluded support an that award of I n t h e d i v o r c e judgment, t h e t r i a l c o u r t o r d e r e d t h e f a t h e r t o pay o n e - h a l f of t h e " t u i t i o n f o r the [son] a t S h o a l s remains enrolled Christian there." The School as evidence long as t h e presented [son] indicated t h a t the cost of t u i t i o n to the f a t h e r would equal one-half of $455 a month f o r 11 months, o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y $2,500 a y e a r , o r approximately father was $208 a month f o r 12 months. ordered to pay one-half of In a d d i t i o n , the " a l l expenses f o r e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e ... c h i l d r e n , i n c l u d i n g , b u t not limited to sports, band, and scouts." The mother p r e s e n 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 she h a d p a i d a p p r o x i m a t e l y $434 i n t h e y e a r 2010, o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y to had $36 a month, related e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r - a c t i v i t y e x p e n s e s f o r t h e s o n and t h a t she purchased participate a trombone i n band. f o r the The total trombone u n d e r t h e " r e n t - t o - o w n " 24 child so purchase that price he could f o r the a g r e e m e n t e n t e r e d i n t o by t h e 2110420 m o t h e r was $1,027.95 a f t e r t h e m o t h e r p a i d The father was o r d e r e d t o pay one-half t r o m b o n e , o r $514, w h i c h i s e q u i v a l e n t month. Considering these extracurricular-activity $61 a month tuition addition we of the cost and together, the expenses would equal that t o t h e amount 5 the father's of c h i l d of the support father's approximately Considering the e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r - a c t i v i t y estimate 4 t o a p p r o x i m a t e l y $43 a ($18 a month + $43 a m o n t h ) . expense together, costs a down p a y m e n t . the expenses responsibility i n pursuant to the g u i d e l i n e s w o u l d be a p p r o x i m a t e l y $270 a month. The f a t h e r a r g u e s , as he d i d b e l o w , t h a t he c a n n o t a f f o r d t o p a y a n y a d d i t i o n a l sums f o r t h e s u p p o r t o f t h e c h i l d r e n . Based on t h e judgment apparent that the t r i a l was u n a b l e t o c o n t r i b u t e entered by the t r i a l court, i t is court d i dnot believe that the father t o t h e son's p r i v a t e - s c h o o l tuition The f a t h e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d have o r d e r e d h i m t o p a y o n e - h a l f o f $857.15, w h i c h was t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e f o r t h e trombone. Apparently, a " r e n t a l c h a r g e " was a d d e d t o t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e t o make t h e b a l a n c e due $1, 027.95. However, t h e f a t h e r d i d n o t make t h i s argument t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ; t h e r e f o r e we c a n n o t c o n s i d e r i t on a p p e a l . See Andrews v. M e r r i t t O i l , s u p r a . 4 We n o t e , h o w e v e r , t h a t , once t h e t r o m b o n e i s p a i d f a t h e r ' s c o s t w o u l d be s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e d u c e d . 5 the 25 for, 2110420 and t h e e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r - a c t i v i t y e x p e n s e s o f t h e c h i l d r e n . light of father's the testimony most r e c e n t court's concerning affair, we the ending find no e r r o r date In of the i n the trial d i s b e l i e f o f t h e f a t h e r ' s a s s e r t i o n t h a t he c o u l d n o t a f f o r d t o c o n t r i b u t e any a d d i t i o n a l c h i l d s u p p o r t . See Summers v. Summers, 58 So. 3d 184, 188 the p r o v i n c e of the t r i a l of witnesses, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) courts and i f t h e t r i a l to estimate ("Iti s the c r e d i b i l i t y court concludes that a witness was w i l l f u l l y u n t r u t h f u l , t h a t c o u r t may d i s r e g a r d any o r a l l of t h a t witnesses's testimony."). The f a t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t , b a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d at the ore tenus income and father's hearing, h i s expenses list the d i f f e r e n c e equals only $110 of monthly expenses a l l o t t e d between h i s n e t a month. 6 The $900 a month f o r f o o d a n d an a d d i t i o n a l $75 a month f o r l u n c h e s a n d s n a c k s f o r the son during the son's periods of visitation with the During the ore tenus hearing, the f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t h i s n e t i n c o m e t o t a l e d $4,100 a month a n d t h a t h i s e x p e n s e s t o t a l e d $4,040 a month, a d i f f e r e n c e o f o n l y $60 a month. However, we n o t e t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n i s o n l y $1,049 a month i n s t e a d o f t h e $1,100 amount t h a t he h a d i n c l u d e d i n t o h i s monthly budget; a c c o r d i n g l y , the d i f f e r e n c e between the father's income a n d h i s e x p e n s e s i s now a p p r o x i m a t e l y $110 a month. 6 26 2110420 father. Although the father indicated groceries f o r h i s mother i n r e t u r n that he purchased f o r her allowing s t a y i n h e r home, t h e f a t h e r ' s m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d him t o t h a t she u s e d $500 o f t h e $800 a month t h a t t h e f a t h e r gave h e r t o c o v e r h i s living expenses, such as groceries and household bills. However, t h e f a t h e r d i d n o t i n c l u d e an $800 m o n t h l y payment t o his mother i n h i s l i s t of monthly expenses. Thus, i t i s n o t c l e a r what t h e f a t h e r ' s a c t u a l m o n t h l y o b l i g a t i o n s a r e . I f we take the father's list of expenses, add an $800-a-month payment t o h i s m o t h e r f o r g r o c e r i e s , l i v i n g e x p e n s e s , h i s c a r payment, a n d h i s c a r r e p a i r s , a d d $270 a month f o r t u i t i o n a n d extracurricular-activity month c o s t his expenses, for additional mother's residence, and t a k e food, the cost o u t t h e $900-a- of u t i l i t y bills a n d h i s v e h i c l e payment a n d r e p a i r s , t h e n t h e f a t h e r i s l e f t w i t h $241 a month f o r a d d i t i o n a l or groceries f o r himself purchased with part at in addition o f t h e $500 he g i v e s note t h a t the f a t h e r i n c l u d e d i n h i s l i s t to the food groceries t o h i s mother. 7 We of monthly expenses A c c o r d i n g t o t h e f a t h e r ' s l i s t o f e x p e n s e s , he p a i d h i s m o t h e r o n l y $50 a month f o r u t i l i t y b i l l s ; t h u s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d have c o n c l u d e d t h a t a s i g n i f i c a n t amount o f t h e $500 t h a t he gave t o h i s m o t h e r went t o w a r d t h e p u r c h a s e o f groceries. 7 27 2110420 $75 a month household for gifts supplies, month f o r i n s u r a n c e t h e f a c t t h a t one for $100 the a month t o c o v e r two v e h i c l e and concluded additional The that child father son's a month c l o t h i n g , and v e h i c l e s and $110 a boat, Thus, t h e t r i a l 8 father had the a despite at court ability for to the could pay the support. also i n s o f a r as i t o r d e r e d the the for $50 t h e b o a t were i n o p e r a b l e time of the ore tenus h e a r i n g s . have children, trombone challenges the trial court's judgment him t o r e p a y t h e m o t h e r f o r a p o r t i o n o f and the son's tuition expense m o t h e r had p a i d d u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y o f t h e a c t i o n . that The the father b a s e s h i s a r g u m e n t on t h e f a c t t h a t he p a i d t h e m o t h e r $1,500 a month f r o m A u g u s t 2009 t h r o u g h A u g u s t 2010, i . e . , $451 his paid child-support o b l i g a t i o n , and $1,100 a month f r o m S e p t e m b e r 2010 divorce judgment, obligation. We p r e l i m i n a r y order in i.e., note, $51 that he through the above however, his that the r e q u i r e d t h e p a r t i e s t o "pay a c c o r d a n c e w i t h R u l e 32" and to continue the entry above mother of the child-support trial child court's support to "contribute to F o r p u r p o s e s o f c o m p a r i s o n , t h e m o t h e r a l l o t t e d o n l y $600 a month f o r g r o c e r i e s , d i a p e r s , and c l o t h i n g i n h e r l i s t o f m o n t h l y e x p e n s e s f o r h e r s e l f and t h e c h i l d r e n . 8 28 2110420 the payment o f monthly expenses in the amounts manner t h e y d i d when t h e y were c o h a b i t a t i n g wife." was It household undisputed expenses that that the father child-support o b l i g a t i o n i s $451 a 1 month for year. the support, but e x p e n s e s t h a t he was Regardless, our the trial n o t make t h e See could be general support are The and as Rule 32 and $51 could a d d i t i o n a l amounts f o r to the household reveals order. t h a t the father appeal. as a challenge to the retroactive allegations that unsupported by the the awards o f additional evidence, which f i n d no m e r i t we reverse the i t failed to c r a f t to t h i s trial a holiday court's judgment visitation schedule the for proceedings 29 consistent been argument. t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d r e n , and we further are child have that served cause have e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r - a c t i v i t y expenses a d d r e s s e d a b o v e . Thus, we insofar record to o n l y p a r t of h i s postjudgment motion construed Accordingly, his same a r g u m e n t b e l o w t h a t he makes on payment o f t u i t i o n the contribution r e q u i r e d t o pay by i t s p r e l i m i n a r y Andrews, s u p r a . that and court contributions r e v i e w of the did the a month f o r 1 y e a r , Thus, only only in husband as made a b o v e c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h o s e amounts were n o t child and with remand this 2110420 opinion. I n a l l o t h e r r e s p e c t s , t h e judgment i s a f f i r m e d . Appellant's request f o r an a t t o r n e y f e e on a p p e a l i s denied. AFFIRMED I N PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n a n d M o o r e , J J . , c o n c u r . Thomas, J . , r e c u s e s herself. 30 WITH

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.