Gregory D. McCaw v. Angela C. Shoemaker

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 08/03/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2012 2110487 Gregory D. McCaw v. Angela C. Shoemaker Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court (DR-08-900026.01) THOMAS, Judge. Gregory D. McCaw ("the f a t h e r " ) ("the mother") were m a r r i e d April 2, 2 0 0 8 . Madison C. S h o e m a k e r o n J u n e 1, 1 9 9 1 , a n d d i v o r c e d o n The p a r t i e s (sometimes and Angela have collectively t w o c h i l d r e n , Meagan a n d referred to as"the 2110487 children"). t h a t was The p a r t i e s entered incorporated into a settlement i n t o t h e i r d i v o r c e judgment wherein agreed to "shared custody" of the children. The t o pay monthly c h i l d - s u p p o r t payments i n the until the c h i l d r e n reached the self-supporting. Section age 3.6 for the college agreement a l s o i n c l u d e d proposed changes to the divorce, In Dallas, to the residence of the four blocks in "Objection objection 2011. The to the R e l o c a t i o n had failed to judgment regarding attempted to alienate the $930.66 became agreement father and comply or After the resided in intent graduated he from styled for Rule N i s i " ("the that certain r e l o c a t i o n and that children him. 2 changes father asserted The with who a petition Petition is Court." f a t h e r of her filed each apart. a f t e r Meagan to r e l o c a t i o n p e t i t i o n " ) . mother agreed or of the m o t h e r m a r r i e d a man Georgia, they child[ren] children. mother n o t i f i e d the school divorce the instructions regarding Georgia. Dallas, married, for f u r t h e r order resided to amount o f settlement of the The father f i n a n c i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n of O c t o b e r 2010, relocate high the parents 19, the education s p e c i f i c a l l y hereby reserved The of of s t a t e s t h a t " [ t ] h e i s s u e of the party agreement from terms of the mother He the had requested 2110487 that the court responded to hold the counterclaimed educational strike hearing among litem a hearing on appointed court's order a guardian mother, the ad March is 2011. evaluations. an to A the On May objection child s u p p o r t he d e c r e a s e d ; he c l a i m e d time the divorce i s obligated appoint court t r a n s c r i p t of the on a p p e a l ; The however, circuit children to relocation and required to undergo He so t h a t t h e amount should t h a t h i s income had d e c r e a s e d s i n c e entered filed petition. t o pay the mother judgment had been the court 10, 2011, t h e f a t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t a m a t e r i a l change had o c c u r r e d of mother circuit f o r the c h i l d r e n and The court The included. litem father, the 28, a motion to 1 the c i r c u i t children. and postminority filed counterclaim. i n the record psychological amendment father mother petition things, The that f o r the The relocation and a motion requesting ad contempt. other response i s not included circuit the for, in to s u p p o r t f o r Meagan. guardian conducted mother objection the mother's then f i l e d a the and t h a t , be the because The p a r t i e s f i l e d a p a r t i a l consent agreement i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t on A u g u s t 30, 2 0 1 1 , s e e d i s c u s s i o n i n f r a , i n which the father v o l u n t a r i l y withdrew the objection to relocation petition. The p a r t i e s a g r e e d t o " s t r i k e " the mother's response and c o u n t e r c l a i m from t h e r e c o r d . 1 3 2110487 Meagan was e n t e r i n g support f o r only child-support Admin. that her father begin reached an e v a l u a t i o n before 2011. a temporary and because t h e August the mother's t h eJune The c i r c u i t motion f o r June 13, they guardian ad litem. circuit court their a court binding hearing. I n t h e memo a g r e e m e n t , theparties and t h e children's order, on t h e p a r t i e s u n t i l court." making t h eAugust 24, regarding 4 2011, t h e p a r t i e s agreed that t h e guardian a n d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s w o u l d amend c e r t a i n p a r t s o f the d i v o r c e judgment The t h e memo mother would r e l o c a t e , t h a t t h e mother would p a y t h e l i t e m fees, set a T h e memo a g r e e m e n t w a s " f i l e d i n open temporary agreement ad The 2011. was h e l d , attorneys, I ti s stamped issued school s t y l e d a s a "Memo A g r e e m e n t ( " t h e memo a g r e e m e n t " ) . by t h e p a r t i e s , because Madison's motion. that order 24, 2011, h e a r i n g . 13, 2011, h e a r i n g an agreement Pendente L i t e " 24, of his 32, A l a .R. J u d . requesting had expired on t h e m o t h e r ' s Before signed a motion t o pay c h i l d hert o relocate t o Dallas, Georgia, lease opposed hearing He r e q u e s t e d was s e t f o r A u g u s t filed would allow would he was o b l i g a t e d o b l i g a t i o n pursuant t o Rule mother housing year Madison. A hearing The college, other the custody o f Madison 2110487 resulting from the reached concerning mother's relocation. agreement was the father's child-support o b l i g a t i o n . The m o t h e r moved t o D a l l a s , G e o r g i a . obligated t o meet, by No Thereafter, stipulation t h e p a r t i e s were i n t h e memo a g r e e m e n t , the h a l f w a y p o i n t between t h e i r r e s i d e n c e s t o exchange at custody of Madison. After 2011. The sitting entered one continuance, trial specially was parties had agreement") reached as to trial presided for on S e p t e m b e r a the 28, over by circuit 2011. an was an on a The j u d g m e n t 29, judge judgment was stated that ("the except August appointed judge; agreement a l l issues held partial "the amount the consent of child s u p p o r t d u e , w h e t h e r a d e v i a t i o n f r o m R u l e 32 i s r e q u i r e d , whether [ p o s t m i n o r i t y be allowed." monthly $712.70. The circuit child-support 2 Regarding judgment i n c l u d e s educational] court payments the support ordered f o r [Meagan] the f o r Madison children's father and will to i n t h e amount insurance a f i n d i n g at paragraph five pay of coverage, the a n d an o r d e r at I n an a p p a r e n t t y p o g r a p h i c a l e r r o r , t h e j u d g m e n t awards $712.30 i n c h i l d s u p p o r t i n a n o t h e r p r o v i s i o n . As e x p l a i n e d i n f r a , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t c o r r e c t e d t h e amount o f t h e f a t h e r ' s child-support obligation in response to the mother's postjudgment motion. 2 5 2110487 p a r a g r a p h c. stipulated both I n paragraph five that children medical t h e mother and be expenses. i tfound that the p a r t i e s had would carry responsible Paragraph health insurance f o r f o r 100% of a l l uncovered c. o f t h e j u d g m e n t elaborates: "[The m o t h e r ] s h a l l i m m e d i a t e l y p l a c e b o t h t h e m i n o r c h i l d r e n ... u n d e r t h e i n s u r a n c e c o v e r a g e , a n d be responsible for uncovered medical expenses, prescriptions, and co-pays, and she shall be responsible to maintain a l l insurance coverage a v a i l a b l e u n t i l such time as t h e c h i l d r e n r e a c h t h e age o f 2 5 , f i n i s h p o s t - h i g h s c h o o l e d u c a t i o n , while maintaining f u l l time student s t a t u s and a grade p o i n t average of C a t t h e i r chosen i n s t i t u t i o n o f higher learning." Regarding circuit postminority court's educational judgment expenses f o r Meagan, t h e reads: "[The f a t h e r ] s h a l l p a y t h e a m o u n t o f Two H u n d r e d Fifty a n d 00/100 D o l l a r s ($250.00) directly to M e a g a n ... e a c h a n d e v e r y m o n t h b e g i n n i n g O c t o b e r 1, 2011[,] f o r her e x c l u s i v e use i n paying f o r post secondary e d u c a t i o n , f o r so l o n g she i s a f u l l time student i n an a c c r e d i t e d four year College or U n i v e r s i t y , p r e d i c a t e d upon h e r c o m m u n i c a t i o n t h a t t h e money i s g o i n g f o r t u i t i o n , b o o k s , o r a s s o c i a t e d c o s t s , and p r e d i c a t e d upon h e r p r o v i d i n g [ p r o o f ] o f her full time s t a t u s , t h a t she i s m a i n t a i n i n g a grade p o i n t average o f C o r b e t t e r , and she i s actively participating i n classes a t a l l times, e x c e p t n o r m a l summer b r e a k s . T h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o communicate h e r s t a t u s i s upon Meagan, a n d s h a l l be communicated d i r e c t l y t o h e r f a t h e r . I f she does n o t communicate, h i s o b l i g a t i o n i s suspended u n t i l such time as she meets t h e above r e q u i r e m e n t s . This r e q u i r e m e n t c a n be met b y a u t o m a t i c d e p o s i t , c h e c k , or o t h e r funds as a r e r e a s o n a b l e , a n d c a n be p a i d 6 2110487 directly father] The circuit On the to the school agree." court denied September father f i l e d trial. presented evidence He 14, at had the a l l other 2011, a Rule contended requested the A l a . R. that to Meagan ... before 59, August "come i f both C i v . P., necessary 29, [the relief. j u d g m e n t was motion evidence 2011, hearing since light and the had and trial" entered, for a not new been that new about the m o d i f i c a t i o n of h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n regarding Madison and the d e t e r m i n a t i o n responsibilities of h i s postminority-educational-support r e g a r d i n g Meagan. father f i l e d a motion to a l t e r , 28, 2011, judgment; he 3 On October amend, o r v a c a t e attached his signed 24, the 2011, the September affidavit and "To s u f f i c e as n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e , t h e evidence m u s t h a v e b e e n i n e x i s t e n c e on t h e d a t e o f t h e t r i a l . " R e e n e r s v . R e e n e r s , 611 So. 2 d 1 1 0 9 , 1111 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) ( c i t i n g Pacifico v. Jackson, 562 So. 2d 174, 177 (Ala. 1990)). R e g a r d l e s s , t h e f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l was f i l e d on S e p t e m b e r 14, 2 0 1 1 ; t h a t m o t i o n q u i c k e n e d on S e p t e m b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 1 , t h e d a t e t h e j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d . The c i r c u i t c o u r t d i d n o t e n t e r an o r d e r g r a n t i n g o r d e n y i n g t h e f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n w i t h i n t h e 9 0 - d a y p e r i o d s e t f o r t h i n R u l e 5 9 . 1 , A l a . R. C i v . P., a n d t h e m o t i o n was, t h e r e f o r e , d e e m e d d e n i e d b y o p e r a t i o n o f l a w on D e c e m b e r 2 7 , 2 0 1 1 . See M i l l e r v . M i l l e r , 10 So. 3d 5 7 0 , 573 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008). 3 7 2110487 certain financial statements. father contended that the I n h i s postjudgment motion 4 circuit court i n c o r p o r a t i n g the terms of the p a r t i a l its judgment, by not i n c l u d i n g the had erred by consent agreement language the required not into i n the Alabama P a r e n t - C h i l d R e l a t i o n s h i p P r o t e c t i o n A c t , c o d i f i e d a t Ala. in Code 1975, § 30-3-160 e t seq., by not d e v i a t i n g t h e amount o f h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t downward obligation in light a l l e g e d " e x t r a o r d i n a r y costs" of t r a v e l to e x e r c i s e of h i s visitation w i t h M a d i s o n , by o r d e r i n g him t o pay a m o n t h l y payment o f $250 in postminority educational s u p p o r t t o Meagan i n l i g h t of h i s i n a b i l i t y t o p a y t h e o r d e r e d s u p p o r t , b y n o t i n c l u d i n g an ceiling" f o r Meagan t o c o m p l e t e h e r c o l l e g e e d u c a t i o n , rendering vague communications and ambiguous orders regarding "age and by Meagan's w i t h him and h i s a b i l i t y t o a c c e s s h e r college records. On amend, O c t o b e r 25, or vacate postjudgment court had 2011, the motion, erred by the mother September the not mother a motion to 2011, judgment. contended incorporating the that alter, In her the circuit parties' partial T h e f a t h e r amended h i s m o t i o n on N o v e m b e r 25, 2 0 1 1 , a n d m o t h e r o b j e c t e d t o t h a t a m e n d m e n t on D e c e m b e r 1, 2 0 1 1 . 4 the 28, filed 8 2110487 consent agreement i n i t s e n t i r e t y , judgment contained two different supra note 2), and that accurately reflect the consent The the ability postminority The the circuit court parties' entered the transcript orders on of In that a court's amounts in the payment stating motions partial insurance. of be the 2012; not in Information circuit those arguments heard at such a hearing System, i f i t occurred, However, did $250 of that would notation Judicial not Meagan. orders No (see judgment d i d children's health monthly entered 10, court's stipulation support to hearing, January outstanding pay State circuit f a t h e r ' s a s s e r t i o n t h a t he hearing. appeal. on the postjudgment 2011, in to educational D e c e m b e r 5, record circuit agreement r e g a r d i n g the child-support parties' mother a l s o r e f u t e d the have on the that orders is and appears court a no in the entered two resolved a l l issues. those incorporated orders, the confirmed that obligation was eliminate the the partial the court, consent agreement amount $712.70, award circuit of of and the denied a in father's the monthly 9 among o t h e r its entirety, child-support father's payment things, of request to $250 in 2110487 postminority circuit educational court modified w h i c h Meagan must her schooling this court The that review the because error, of the of pro circuit court's award The father's judgment failed a to pay postminority We educational fee that the Nothing to for seeks judgment, be contending reversed a downward support (1) is deviation i n due to (3) b e c a u s e t h e her this his mother counterpetition for support. judgment postminority-educational-support she f a i l e d appeal, obligation examine the f a t h e r ' s t h i r d contends appealed educational expenses, and filing related to timely should postminority travel on court's child-support "extraordinary" that se (2) b e c a u s e i t d i d n o t a w a r d the says, father by 2012. proceeding circuit the 16, t h e method certain information to the father. on F e b r u a r y A d d i t i o n a l l y , the i t s judgment t o c l a r i f y communicate father, court's s u p p o r t t o Meagan. t o pay a f i l i n g argument f i r s t . regarding claim The the i s void mother's because, he fee f o r her counterpetition. i n the record supports the mother failed to pay a f i l i n g the father's bare fee. "'An a p p e l l a t e c o u r t d o e s n o t p r e s u m e e r r o r ; t h e a p p e l l a n t has the a f f i r m a t i v e 10 father assertion 2110487 d u t y o f s h o w i n g e r r o r . P e r k i n s v. P e r k i n s , 465 So. 2d 414 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1984). A p p e l l a t e review i s l i m i t e d to the r e c o r d and c a n n o t be a l t e r e d by statements in b r i e f s . B e c h t e l v. Crown C e n t r a l P e t r o l e u m C o r p . , 451 So. 2 d 793 (Ala. 1984). E r r o r a s s e r t e d on a p p e a l m u s t b e affirmatively d e m o n s t r a t e d by the r e c o r d . I f the r e c o r d does not d i s c l o s e the f a c t s upon w h i c h the a s s e r t e d e r r o r i s b a s e d , t h e e r r o r may not b e c o n s i d e r e d on a p p e a l . L i b e r t y L o a n C o r p . o f G a d s d e n v . W i l l i a m s , 406 So. 2d 988 (Ala. C i v . App. 1981).' " G r e e r v. G r e e r , App. 19 9 3 ) . " D u d l e y v. Dudley, Next, postminority we 85 624 So. examine educational So. 3d 2d 1043, the 1076, 1048 father's 1077 (Ala. Civ. ( A l a . C i v . App. argument 2011). regarding support. "Because 'the g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s c o n c e r n i n g child support [ a r e ] e q u a l l y a p p l i c a b l e t o a [ n ] [Ex p a r t e ] B a y l i s s [ , 550 So. 2 d 986 ( A l a . 1989),] motion f o r postminority college support,' t h i s court considers only whether the t r i a l court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t o award s u p p o r t and, i f i t awarded support, whether i t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n determining what amount o f s u p p o r t i s appropriate under the circumstances of the case. Berry v. B e r r y , 579 So. 2 d 654, 656 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1991); s e e a l s o W e l l s v . W e l l s , 648 So. 2 d 6 1 7 , 619 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994) ( q u o t i n g B e r r y , 579 S o . 2 d a t 656) . A s w i t h a l l j u d g m e n t s b a s e d on t h e t r i a l court's r e c e i p t of o r a l testimony, the f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s of the t r i a l c o u r t i n a judgment awarding or denying postminority educational support are presumed correct; moreover, in the absence of express f i n d i n g s by t h e t r i a l c o u r t , any f i n d i n g s t h a t a r e n e c e s s a r y t o the judgment are presumed t o have been 11 2110487 made, provided that the record evidence s u p p o r t s u c h f i n d i n g s . F i e l d i n g v. F i e l d i n g , 3d 468, 472 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009)." Allen v. Hill, 76 So. 3d 820, 822 ( A l a . C i v . App. would 24 So. 2011). "A t r i a l c o u r t may order a parent to provide p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l s u p p o r t when, as i n t h i s c a s e , a r e q u e s t f o r s u c h s u p p o r t i s made b e f o r e the c h i l d r e a c h e s t h e age o f m a j o r i t y . P e n n e y v . P e n n e y , 785 So. 2 d 3 7 6 , 378 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2000). "'The Supreme C o u r t o f A l a b a m a s e t out certain f a c t o r s f o r the trial court to consider when r u l i n g on a petition for p o s t m i n o r i t y [ e d u c a t i o n a l ] s u p p o r t . See Ex p a r t e B a y l i s s , 550 So. 2 d 986 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . Bayliss clearly s p e c i f i e s those factors that shall, and those that may, be c o n s i d e r e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t when i t i s deciding whether to order support for p o s t m i n o r i t y c o l l e g e e d u c a t i o n . I n an a w a r d of p o s t m i n o r i t y educational support f o r a c h i l d of d i v o r c e d parents, the t r i a l court "'shall consider a l l relevant factors that shall appear reasonable and necessary, i n c l u d i n g p r i m a r i l y the f i n a n c i a l resources of the parents and the child and the c h i l d ' s commitment t o , and a p t i t u d e f o r , the requested education.'" A.L. v . B.W. , 735 So. 2d 1237, 1239 (Ala. Civ. App. 1 9 9 9 ) ; T h o m p s o n v . T h o m p s o n , 689 So. 2d 8 8 5 , 887 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1997) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e B a y l i s s , 550 So. 2 d 9 8 6 , 987 (Ala. 1989)). The court suggested that trial c o u r t s a l s o should c o n s i d e r "the standard of l i v i n g t h a t the c h i l d would have e n j o y e d i f t h e m a r r i a g e had not been d i s s o l v e d and t h e f a m i l y u n i t had been p r e s e r v e d and t h e child's r e l a t i o n s h i p with his parents and responsiveness to parental advice and g u i d a n c e . " I d . a t 9 8 7 . The t r i a l c o u r t m u s t 12 2110487 a l s o determine i f the n o n c u s t o d i a l parent has " s u f f i c i e n t e s t a t e , e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y , or income t o p r o v i d e f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e without undue hardship." Thrasher v. Wilburn, 574 So. 2d 839, 841 (Ala. Civ. App. 1 9 9 0 ) . Undue h a r d s h i p d o e s n o t imply the absence of p e r s o n a l s a c r i f i c e , because many parents sacrifice to send their children to c o l l e g e . Id.' "Penney v. S m i t h v. In the Penney, Smith, 85 So. 3d brief, his the father miscalculated guidelines factors from the set out in 1989), i m p r o p e r l y to pay 428, 2d at 378-79." 432-33 ( A l a . C i v . App. contends standard Meagan of had budget, in support, improperly that determining the used circuit percentage c h i l d - s u p p o r t g u i d e l i n e s r a t h e r than Ex parte Bayliss, d e t e r m i n e d t h a t he a been dissolved, relationship 550 has So. 2d 986 sufficient the mother for the father's failed with failed r e g a r d i n g Meagan's e d u c a t i o n , date 2011). the to and to (Ala. consider i f the recognize father, communicate the resources l i v i n g t h a t Meagan w o u l d have e n j o y e d not lacked recognize father his that, a m o n t h l y p a y m e n t o f $250 t o Meagan, f a i l e d t o marriage end So. amount o f p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l court the 785 that failed to with the f a i l e d t o s p e c i f y an postminority-educational-support obligation. 13 2110487 The Civ. father App. cites 1991), pay. In v. P h i l p o t , f o r the proposition educational-support to Jones award cannot Jones, this 591 that exceed court postminority-educational-support trial 5 9 1 S o . 2 d 864 (Ala. a postminority- the parent's determined that the ordered by the c o u r t h a d c r e a t e d undue h a r d s h i p on t h e o b l i g o r parent. So. 2d 867. We obligation ability "recognize[d] t h a t t h e 'undue hardship' s t a n d a r d d e s c r i b e d i n T h r a s h e r [ v . W i l b u r n , 574 S o . 2 d 8 3 9 , 8 4 1 (Ala. C i v . App. 1990),] sacrifice' c o u r t i n Jones t o do s o . " Id. income was of h i s income," and obligations." any p e r s o n a l children concluded to college that the t r i a l room lower and has a m o n t h l y the other a l l [] was " p r e s e n t e d t o i n d i c a t e that f o r an i n c r e a s e i n h i s f i n a n c i a l I d . The o b l i g o r p a r e n t e a r n e d case, than expenses consumed " a l m o s t income o f $1,516 f o r a f a m i l y this We substantially evidence i s no a p p a r e n t In 'without had exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n because the o b l i g o r p a r e n t ' s income, h i smonthly there n o t mean a n d t h a t m o s t p a r e n t s who s e n d make s a c r i f i c e s parent's does the father a gross monthly of five. I d . a t 865. testified t h a t he i s u n m a r r i e d g r o s s income o f $5,417. judgment r e q u i r e s him t o pay monthly 14 The c i r c u i t court's c h i l d support f o r Madison 2110487 i n t h e amount o f $712.70 a n d m o n t h l y p o s t m i n o r i t y educational s u p p o r t t o Meagan i n t h e amount o f $250 f o r a t o t a l $962.70. The determine that, personal when $4,154.30. reliance although sacrifice burdened income father's Jones father i s misplaced. may experience We some t o s e n d Meagan t o c o l l e g e , he i s n o t u n d u l y his Unlike i s greater the on amount o f remaining gross monthly the obligor parent than the mother's income i n Jones, income, the equals father's and, a l t h o u g h he c o n t e n d s t h a t h i s m o n t h l y e x p e n s e s consume a l l o f h i s i n c o m e , some evidence that there obligation was presented i s room for a 574 next points So. 2 d 839 that the c i r c u i t court to contribute child-support postminority noted increase indicating in his financial in child-support i n Thrasher determination ( A l a .C i v . App. guidelines for a out our reasoning i n Thrasher 1990). He v. asserts r e l i e d on t h e p e r c e n t a g e he i s r e q u i r e d educational that guidelines slight court to support h i s children. The f a t h e r Wilburn, to the c i r c u i t minor to support we to the the amount of i s required t o pay. He determine he stated child o f an amount payments are "that not for providing 15 according the child applicable support to the or contributing to 2110487 college expenses 841-42. (Ala. a f t e r the c h i l d reaches majority." However, i n E n t r e k i n v. E n t r e k i n , C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) , we clarified that Id. at 627 S o . 2 d 9 5 5 , 957 statement: "A p o s t - m i n o r i t y s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n s h o u l d b e b a s e d upon t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e c e s s a r i e s o f t h e c h i l d ' s c o l l e g e e x p e n s e s . T h r a s h e r , s u p r a . The f a c t t h a t t h e amount o f p o s t - m i n o r i t y s u p p o r t o r d e r e d h a p p e n s t o b e t h e same a m o u n t a s p r o v i d e d b y t h e g u i d e l i n e s does n o t a u t o m a t i c a l l y denote e r r o r by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Brown v. S h o r t , 588 S o . 2 d 468 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 19 9 1 ) . " Therefore, court we erred r e j e c t the father's assertion that t o r e v e r s a l by o r d e r i n g educational support making total his i n the support substantially equivalent amount him t o pay of obligations his further cites "position that have been Bayliss, Bayliss the Ex p a r t e he cannot circuit 550 So. 2d and his bare supporting argument for determining both at afford college that 987. primary Other children guidelines than the indicates that h i s postminority-support The asserting tuition" that should consideration. conclusion, 16 thus f o r both children. f a i l e d to consider h i s f i n a n c i a l resources in p e r month, B a y l i s s , supra, court's circuit postminority t o what t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t i n d i c a t e h e w o u l d owe a s c h i l d - s u p p o r t father $250 the the father the See citation to offers no circuit court as a p r i m a r y f a c t o r obligation. 2110487 "It i s well settled that '[t]his court will address o n l y those i s s u e s p r o p e r l y presented and f o r w h i c h s u p p o r t i n g a u t h o r i t y h a s b e e n c i t e d . ' Asam v . D e v e r e a u x , 686 S o . 2 d 1 2 2 2 , 1 2 2 4 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) . ' R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) [ , A l a . R. A p p . P.,] r e q u i r e s that arguments i n b r i e f s contain discussions of f a c t s and r e l e v a n t l e g a l a u t h o r i t i e s t h a t support t h e p a r t y ' s p o s i t i o n . I f t h e y do n o t , t h e a r g u m e n t s a r e w a i v e d . ' W h i t e S a n d s G r o u p , L . L . C . v . PRS I I , LLC, 998 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 2 , 1 0 5 8 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) ; s e e a l s o B i s h o p v . R o b i n s o n , 5 1 6 S o . 2 d 7 2 3 , 724 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1987) ( n o t i n g t h a t an a p p e l l a n t s h o u l d 'present h i s i s s u e s "with c l a r i t y and without ambiguity"' and 'fully express h i s p o s i t i o n on the enumerated issues' i n t h e argument section of h i s brief ( q u o t i n g Thoman E n g ' g , I n c . v . M c D o n a l d , 57 A l a . App. 2 8 7 , 2 9 0 , 328 S o . 2 d 2 9 3 , 294 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 9 7 6 ) ) ) . A c c o r d U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Z a n n i n o , 895 F . 2 d 1, 17 ( 1 s t C i r . 1 9 9 0 ) ( ' I t i s n o t e n o u g h m e r e l y t o m e n t i o n a p o s s i b l e argument i n t h e most skeletal way, l e a v i n g t h e c o u r t t o d o c o u n s e l ' s w o r k ... a n d p u t f l e s h on i t s b o n e s . ' ) . " Ex parte So. The court's L i b e r t y Mut. I n s . Co., 3d , ( A l a . C i v . App. conclusion that the " t r i a l standard of l i v i n g the marriage had n o t been the preserved circuit evidence circuit 2012). f a t h e r c i t e s B a y l i s s , 550 S o . 2 d 9 8 6 , f o r o u r s u p r e m e the been [Ms. 2 1 1 0 2 1 0 , M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 2 ] that erred of the parents' court the c h i l d heard may would consider, have because i t failed current testimony that 17 The f a t h e r standards also, enjoyed i f d i s s o l v e d and t h e f a m i l y I d . a t 987. court court u n i t had contends t o weigh that a l l the of l i v i n g . The t h e mother and t h e f a t h e r 2110487 had lost their jobs and incomes t h a n t h e y had the father neither had a does not living reduced h i s require, the weighed the employment time of the expenses; a trial Id. evidence court would to have of the factual findings So. Next, the Bayliss, Civ. estranged. Meagan had not "At and 1998), The cut at for point, the that father We she home, had the had nor court and the a clearly father's summation presume t h a t the c o r r e c t ; m o r e o v e r , we of the circuit hold c i r c u i t court's of marriage circuit of but standard the a that findings. 822. his father o f f her the i t included are Stinson communicate w i t h this divorce; his enjoyed mother's father presents supra, App. 3d in consider Furthermore, h i s t o r i e s because A l l e n , 76 that lower note that B a y l i s s permits, we the evidence p r e s e n t e d supported the See and at First, evidence i n i t s f a c t u a l findings. court's positions equity child remained i n t a c t . new account, account. that taken enjoyed at the savings retirement had a two-paragraph argument v. Stinson, contention testified 729 that that, relationship with him or has listen to basically 18 So. he 2d and as of him and citing 864 (Ala. Meagan March that his advice. -- we don't are 2011, she He did said: have a 2110487 relationship a r i g h t now." l e g a l argument t h a t father's strained in and under support." at the child held will that not be An award "the of a but, of suffice to for factor be the Stinson, existence the b a s i s circumstances, 869. in generally i t is a therefore, other Id. we altogether, i t may, present r e l a t i o n s h i p t o Meagan i s l i k e Stinson, support f a t h e r ' s b r i e f does not with relationship consider might, his relationship regardless, Bayliss The court the deny for reducing greater r e s t s i n the sound d i s c r e t i o n of trial court, and not i t s j u d g m e n t as issue absent a id. the In t h i s Next, judgment failed of Rule any court the should to education showing case, circuit will that there father reversed required 28(a)(10), authority to i t s d i s c r e t i o n as with Ala. support R. the because, him i n the that App. P., the this says, that the In fails See that court's the Meagan's the issue. circuit father that to prove to judgment. a conclusion 19 he regarding divorce to i t s discretion. evidence tending contends communicate as i t exceeded i s no exceeded be disturb of educational support i s a matter that we to what amount postminority a mother college violation to circuit cite court 2110487 erred on merits of h i s The Civ. this App. we will not consider cites Penney v. Penney, So. 2d 785 2000), f o r h i s f i n a l argument r e g a r d i n g support s p e c i f y an e n d $250 Therefore, to the argument. father educational of basis. -- that the circuit date f o r h i s o b l i g a t i o n Meagan. In Penney we recited (Ala. postminority court to pay 376 failed to a m o n t h l y amount three reasonable limitations regarding postminority-educational-support awards. " F o l l o w i n g B a y l i s s , t h i s c o u r t has h e l d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t must s e t r e a s o n a b l e l i m i t a t i o n s on the parent's responsibility for postminority education s u p p o r t , b e c a u s e a f a i l u r e t o do s o may i m p o s e an u n d u e h a r d s h i p on t h e p a y i n g p a r e n t . See M a n r i n g v . M a n r i n g , 744 So. 2 d 9 1 9 , 922 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1999); H o c u t t v . H o c u t t , 591 So. 2d 881, 882 (Ala. Civ. App. 1 9 9 1 ) ; K e n t v . K e n t , 587 So. 2 d 4 0 9 , 412 (Ala. Civ. App. 1991). These limitations include (1) l i m i t i n g the support to a reasonable period, (2) requiring the c h i l d to maintain at least a 'C' average, and (3) requiring that the child be e n r o l l e d as a f u l l - t i m e s t u d e n t . M a n r i n g v. M a n r i n g , 744 So. 2 d 919, 922 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1999); U l l r i c h v . U l l r i c h , 736 So. 2d 639, 643 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999)(quoting B a h r i v . B a h r i , 678 So. 2 d 1 1 7 9 , 1181 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996))." 785 So. cause had 2d a t 379. We reversed i n Penney because, failed to impose a the judgment and among o t h e r things, reasonable time postminority-educational-support 20 award. remanded the trial limitation Id. at the court on the 382. 2110487 Accordingly, we agree w i t h the circuit court's failed to impose a obligation t o pay M e a g a n an We court turn j u d g m e n t i s due now should reasonable to the a general The of argument his "[e]xtraordinary visitation borne transportation costs the approximately point. of father. 70 Thus, miles we that he [bear]" cost of that alone Id. are parents that is are their the circuit father's in his Furthermore, Jud. Admin. child-support transportation by one father to in shared has by to this the travel exchange failed to "substantially transportation child-support for parent." required "[t]he existence 21 argument a g r e e d upon required end. "extraordinary" equally visitation-related a downward d e v i a t i o n warranted. the facts indicate that, t o meet a t conclude demonstrate the the Both of substantially case, and that alleged costs However, mother father's $250 w i l l f o r a d e v i a t i o n from the (Emphasis added.) the the which t o R u l e 3 2 ( A ) ( 1 ) ( b ) A l a . R. Rule 32(A)(1)(b) allows purposes i n s o f a r as i t father's only authority for his citation for to the at time father's case, reversed, m o n t h l y amount o f o b l i g a t i o n due t r a v e l expenses. guidelines t o be in this have awarded a downward d e v i a t i o n i n the child-support is father that, such obligation is o f one or more 2110487 of the reasons enumerated i n [Rule court to deviate r e a s o n s may be from considered the guidelines." are committed to the its decisions court absent circuit the the Rule on an 32(1). sound d i s c r e t i o n the matter abuse and to of the exchange but the reason or the Child-support will of the from determinations trial court, be disturbed by We not discretion. court's unwillingness Vestavia mother guidelines, require i n d e c i d i n g whether to deviate father's child-support from 32(1)] does not determine and that this the t o a l l o w a downward d e v i a t i o n i n o b l i g a t i o n due halfway custody point of to h i s 70-mile in trip Oxford meet is Madison to an abuse not the of discretion. The the father's mother's b e c a u s e she thus, the "two and father a attorney at says, half support. testimony. issues the to argument is that judgment postminority-educational-support withdrew her educational the final In the hours circuit of fact, the the the (see court testimony" However, the beginning list counterclaim father circuit trial issues 22 by that regarding claim is void s u p r a n o t e 1) and, erred on allowing postminority failed court by to object clarified asking remained the to the father's after the 2110487 stipulation father's to the attorney parties' partial consent agreement. The stated: " B a s e d on t h e a g r e e m e n t t h a t we h a v e e n t e r e d into, the pending i s s u e s are a r e c a l c u l a t i o n of child support pursuant to the g u i d e l i n e s , a determination regarding who shall be allowed to carry health i n s u r a n c e f o r t h e m i n o r c h i l d r e n , and p o s t m i n o r i t y support. Included i n the i s s u e of c h i l d support, Your Honor, i s the [ f a t h e r ] ' s r e q u e s t f o r a downward deviation, and we will e s t a b l i s h h i s cause for that." 4- 4- II (Emphasis added.) when an issue According not raised as P. the parties, i f r a i s e d i n the R. pleadings i m p l i e d consent treated the of or testimony support; of the In court In pleadings. case, the the issue concerning father of t h e r e f o r e , t h e i s s u e was p a r t i e s and conclusion, insofar limitation obligation, court this must as f o r the and we impose the we i t reverse failed remand the is did 15(b), object postminority to the to be Ala. the educational t r i e d by the e x p r e s s the by i s s u e must Rule not procedure, tried the See judgment i s not father's a r u l e s of c i v i l in express Civ. t o our consent void. judgment impose a of the circuit reasonable time postminority-educational-support cause. reasonable 23 Upon remand t h e time limitation circuit on its 2110487 postminority-educational-support affirmed award. The judgment i s i n a l l other respects. AFFIRMED I N PART; REVERSED I N PART; AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, Bryan, P.J., and P i t t m a n and Moore, J . , concurs i n the result, 24 J J . , concur. without 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.