Tabitha Jayne Orban v. Aaron Lawrence Orban

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/16/12 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 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 2110530 T a b i t h a Jayne Orban v. Aaron Lawrence Orban Appeal from Coffee C i r c u i t Court (DR-10-900003) BRYAN, J u d g e . T a b i t h a J a y n e Orban ("the of t h e Coffee C i r c u i t Court wife") appeals ("the h e r f r o m A a r o n L a w r e n c e Orban cause f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s . trial ("the from a judgment court") that divorced husband"). We remand t h e 2110530 The record reveals the f o l l o w i n g p e r t i n e n t husband j o i n e d the m i l i t a r y facts. The i n 1992, and t h e h u s b a n d a n d t h e w i f e were m a r r i e d i n L a s V e g a s , N e v a d a , i n 1996. i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e p a r t i e s moved f r o m A l a s k a The record to Enterprise i n 2007 when t h e h u s b a n d was s t a t i o n e d a t F o r t R u c k e r f o r f l i g h t school. The parties purchased a house i n Enterprise in a p p r o x i m a t e l y J u l y 2008, and t h e y p u t t h e house on t h e m a r k e t for s a l e i n J u l y o r A u g u s t 2009. h u s b a n d was began transferred to Fort renting a room On S e p t e m b e r 1, 2009, t h e C a m p b e l l , K e n t u c k y , and from h i s cousin who lived Campbell, i n C l a r k s v i l l e , Tennessee, a t t h a t time. near The he Fort record i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e w i f e and t h e p a r t i e s ' two c h i l d r e n r e m a i n e d i n E n t e r p r i s e u n t i l F e b r u a r y 6, 2010. obtained the wife a m o v i n g t r u c k and moved h e r s e l f and t h e c h i l d r e n t o Mary E s t h e r , divorce months At that time, Florida. i n the t r i a l a f t e r he The court husband filed a complaint for a on M a r c h 17, 2010, more t h a n s i x had been transferred to Fort C a m p b e l l and a l m o s t s i x weeks a f t e r t h e w i f e and t h e c h i l d r e n h a d moved t o Florida. the wife I n h i s complaint, were "bona fide t h e h u s b a n d a l l e g e d t h a t he resident Alabama." 2 citizens of the State and of 2110530 In July complaint court 2010, t h e w i f e personal subject-matter their a motion to dismiss the f i l e d b y t h e h u s b a n d b e c a u s e , she a l l e g e d , t h e t r i a l lacked alleged, filed jurisdiction over her and j u r i s d i c t i o n over the d i v o r c e a c t i o n . among other things, children resided that neither i n Enterprise. lacked The w i f e the p a r t i e s nor The h u s b a n d filed a r e s p o n s e t o t h e m o t i o n , c o n c e d i n g o n l y t h a t venue was i m p r o p e r in Coffee County, a n d he transfer the divorce subsequently a c t i o n t o Dale County. the p a r t i e s appeared b e f o r e the t r i a l the w i f e ' s motion t o d i s m i s s . t r a n s c r i p t of that proceeding, e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d the t r i a l filed motion to On May 5, 2 0 1 1 , court f o r a hearing on The r e c o r d does n o t c o n t a i n a a n d t h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n at that proceeding. court entered a an o r d e r to jurisdiction On t h e same that date, that stated that the p a r t i e s had submitted of the t r i a l court, had a g r e e d t h a t t h e venue was p r o p e r i n t h e t r i a l that they c o u r t , and t h a t they had withdrawn t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e motions addressed t o those i s s u e s . husband's complaint h u s b a n d were Alabama." The w i f e "bona subsequently f i l e d wherein fide she a d m i t t e d resident an answer t o t h e that citizens The w i f e a l s o f i l e d a c o u n t e r c l a i m 3 she a n d t h e of the State of f o r a d i v o r c e on 2110530 June 6, 2 0 1 1 . The trial court December 2 0 1 1 . was still conducted proceeding i n The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a t t h a t t i m e , residing i n Clarksville, two y e a r s o f f l i g h t s c h o o l h a d n o t been on "TDY" t h a t he h a d no p l a n s It an o r e t e n u s 1 where he he h a d moved a f t e r a t Fort Rucker. He s t a t e d t h a t he s i n c e he j o i n e d t h e Army i n 2 0 0 7 2 and t o keep t h e p a r t i e s ' house i n E n t e r p r i s e . was u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e w i f e a n d t h e c h i l d r e n h a d moved t o F l o r i d a a p p r o x i m a t e l y s i x weeks b e f o r e divorce c o m p l a i n t i n M a r c h 2010. The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had o b t a i n e d employment she t h e husband f i l e d t h e a r e n t a l home i n F l o r i d a , t h a t i n F l o r i d a i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r she a r r i v e d , a n d t h a t had e n r o l l e d the o l d e r c h i l d i n school i nFlorida. i s no i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e w i f e back she h a d s o u g h t to Enterprise. The trial court intended entered a There t o move judgment d i v o r c i n g t h e p a r t i e s on December 16, 2012, t h a t d i v i d e d t h e parties' property and a d d r e s s e d child-custody and support A l t h o u g h "TDY" was n o t d e f i n e d b y t h e h u s b a n d i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l , i n m i l i t a r y p a r l a n c e i t t y p i c a l l y r e f e r s t o "temporary duty." 1 The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e h u s b a n d i n i t i a l l y served i n a d i f f e r e n t b r a n c h o f t h e m i l i t a r y b e f o r e he j o i n e d t h e Army i n 2007. 2 4 2110530 issues. A f t e r the t r i a l motion, the wife f i l e d court denied a timely B a s e d on o u r r e v i e w the wife's postjudgment appeal. of the e n t i r e record on a p p e a l , we are unable t o conclude w i t h c e r t a i n t y t h a t the t r i a l court had subject-matter the parties' court's jurisdiction agreement to divorce t o submit the p a r t i e s , themselves despite to the trial jurisdiction. " I f one p a r t y i s a r e s i d e n t o f A l a b a m a , t h e n an Alabama c o u r t has j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e m a r i t a l r e s . S a c h s v. S a c h s , 278 A l a . 464, 179 So. 2d 46 ( 1 9 6 5 ) . I f b o t h p a r t i e s a r e n o n r e s i d e n t s , an A l a b a m a c o u r t has no j u r i s d i c t i o n . W i n s t o n v. W i n s t o n , 279 A l a . 534, 188 So. 2d 264 ( 1 9 6 6 ) . F u r t h e r , nonresident p a r t i e s c a n n o t s t i p u l a t e t h a t an A l a b a m a c o u r t may assume j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e c a s e . W i n s t o n , s u p r a . " B u t l e r v. B u t l e r , 641 So. 2d 272, 273 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) . For subject-matter purposes of jurisdiction in a divorce a c t i o n , r e s i d e n c y means d o m i c i l e . L i v e r m o r e v. L i v e r m o r e , So. 2d 437, 441-42 case, State ( A l a . C i v . App. 2001) . In the 822 present i t i s n o t c l e a r t h a t e i t h e r p a r t y was d o m i c i l e d i n t h e o f Alabama complaint at the time that t h e husband filed f o r a d i v o r c e on M a r c h 17, 2010. "Alabama d e c i s i o n s h o l d t h a t d o m i c i l e r e q u i r e s two e l e m e n t s : (1) one's p h y s i c a l p r e s e n c e i n t h e c h o s e n p l a c e o f r e s i d e n c e , a n d (2) an a c c o m p a n y i n g i n t e n t to r e m a i n t h e r e , e i t h e r p e r m a n e n t l y o r f o r an i n d e f i n i t e l e n g t h o f t i m e . [Rabren v. Mudd, 285 A l a . 5 a 2110530 531, 535, 234 So. 2d 549, 553 ( 1 9 7 0 ) ] ; B a s i o u n y v. B a s i o u n y , 445 So. 2d 916, 919 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1984) . I t has b e e n s a i d t h a t ' d o m i c i l e ' i s t h a t p l a c e t o w h i c h , w h e n e v e r one i s a b s e n t , he o r she has an i n t e n t t o r e t u r n . S t a t e ex r e l . R a b r e n v. B a x t e r , 46 A l a . App. 134, 138, 239 So. 2d 206, 209 ( C i v . App. 1 9 7 0 ) . When a p a r t y p h y s i c a l l y resides i n one l o c a t i o n , ' " [ t ] h e i n t e n t i o n to r e t u r n [to another l o c a t i o n ] i s u s u a l l y of c o n t r o l l i n g importance i n the determination of the whole question [of d o m i c i l e ] . " ' Andrews v. A n d r e w s , 697 So. 2d 54, 56 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1997) ( q u o t i n g J a c o b s v. R y a l s , 401 So. 2d 776, 778 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) ) . " F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e b u r d e n i s on t h e p a r t y who l i v e s a t a p a r t i c u l a r p l a c e t o p r o v e t h a t he o r she does n o t i n t e n d t o r e m a i n t h e r e f o r an i n d e f i n i t e l e n g t h o f t i m e , o r t h a t he o r she has a p r e s e n t intention t o r e t u r n t o some p r e v i o u s place of r e s i d e n c e . I n t h i s r e g a r d , o u r Supreme C o u r t has s t a t e d that '"[t]he f a c t that a person l i v e s at a p a r t i c u l a r place creates a prima f a c i e presumption t h a t s u c h p l a c e i s h i s d o m i c i l e . " ' A n d r e w s , 697 So. 2d a t 56 ( q u o t i n g N o r a v. N o r a , 494 So. 2d 16, 18 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) ) ; see a l s o 25 Am. J u r . 2d D o m i c i l [ e ] § 56 (1996) ( p r o o f t h a t a p a r t y r e s i d e s e l s e w h e r e r e b u t s any p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o n t i n u e d d o m i c i l e and p l a c e s b u r d e n o f p r o o f upon t h e p a r t y d e n y i n g t h e charge)." Id. a t 442 At (emphasis added). the ore tenus hearing i n December 2011, the husband s t a t e d he had b e e n l i v i n g i n C l a r k s v i l l e s i n c e S e p t e m b e r 2009 and she the wife stated that s i n c e F e b r u a r y 2010. complaint for a had been l i v i n g Thus, a t t h e divorce in 6 time the March 2010, i n Mary Esther husband f i l e d prima a facie 2110530 presumptions existed that the T e n n e s s e e and t h a t t h e w i f e was the husband nor the wife husband presumption or her d o m i c i l e ] "Alabama domiciled domiciled in Florida. presented p r e s u m p t i o n s . See N o r a v. N o r a , 494 ("The was evidence So. to 2d 16, Neither rebut 18 in those (Ala. 1986) [ t h a t t h e p l a c e where a p e r s o n l i v e s i s h i s i s r e b u t t a b l e by courts have no f a c t s to the c o n t r a r y . " ) . jurisdiction over the marital s t a t u s o f p a r t i e s i f n e i t h e r i s d o m i c i l e d i n A l a b a m a , and jurisdiction c a n n o t be c o n f e r r e d on t h e c o u r t s , e v e n w i t h p a r t i e s ' c o n s e n t . " W i n s t o n v. W i n s t o n , 279 A l a . 534, So. 2d 264, We 3 267 (1966). 3 such the 537, 188 A f t e r a review of the e n t i r e t y of the n o t e t h a t A l a . Code 1975, § 6-7-20(a), provides: "Any person i n any branch or s e r v i c e of the government of the United States of America, i n c l u d i n g those i n the m i l i t a r y , a i r and naval s e r v i c e , and t h e h u s b a n d o r w i f e o f any s u c h p e r s o n , i f he o r she i s l i v i n g w i t h i n t h e b o r d e r s o f t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a , s h a l l be deemed t o be a r e s i d e n t of the State of Alabama for the purpose of commencing any c i v i l a c t i o n i n t h e c o u r t s o f t h i s state." (Emphasis added.) The r e c o r d r e v e a l e d w i t h o u t d i s p u t e t h a t n e i t h e r t h e h u s b a n d n o r t h e w i f e was l i v i n g w i t h i n t h e b o r d e r s o f t h e S t a t e of Alabama a t the time the husband i n i t i a t e d the d i v o r c e action. 7 2110530 record i n this matter, we are unable to conclude c e r t a i n t y t h a t the t r i a l court had subject-matter to divorce theparties. instructions receive evidence regarding at this court t o conduct a hearing and t o t h e d o m i c i l e o f each p a r t y as o f 4 Both p a r t i e s ' denied jurisdiction A c c o r d i n g l y , we remand t h e c a u s e w i t h to the t r i a l M a r c h 17, 2 0 1 0 . with 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 time. REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, concur. P . J . , and P i t t m a n , Thomas, a n d Moore, JJ., We n o t e t h a t i f t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s t h a t t h e w i f e was n o t d o m i c i l e d i n A l a b a m a a t t h e t i m e t h a t t h e h u s b a n d f i l e d h i s c o m p l a i n t f o r a d i v o r c e , t h e h u s b a n d must " a l l e g e [ ] ... a n d p r o v e [ ] " t h a t he was a "bona f i d e r e s i d e n t o f t h i s s t a t e f o r s i x months n e x t b e f o r e t h e f i l i n g o f t h e c o m p l a i n t § 30-2-5, A l a . Code 1975 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) ; a n d S k i e f f v. C o l e - S k i e f f , 884 So. 2d 880, 883-84 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) . 4 A f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g t h e e v i d e n c e r e c e i v e d on remand, t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d a l s o c o n s i d e r whether i t has s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r an i n i t i a l c u s t o d y a w a r d p u r s u a n t t o § 30-3B-201, A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h i s p a r t o f t h e U n i f o r m C h i l d C u s t o d y J u r i s d i c t i o n a n d E n f o r c e m e n t A c t , § 30-3B-101 e t s e q . , Ala. Code 1975, o r t o e n t e r an i n i t i a l c h i l d - s u p p o r t a w a r d p u r s u a n t t o § 30-3A-401, A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h i s p a r t o f t h e U n i f o r m I n t e r s t a t e F a m i l y S u p p o r t A c t , § 30-3A-101 e t s e q . , Ala. Code 1975. See, e . g . , Ex p a r t e P i e r c e , 50 So. 3d 447, 450-56 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) ( a p p l y i n g § 3 0 - 3 B - 2 0 1 ) , a n d F u l l e r v. F u l l e r , 93 So. 3d 961. 966-67 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2012) ( a p p l y i n g § 30-3A-401). 8

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.