Charles H. Gilmore III v. Jane Ellen Gilmore

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 08/31/2012 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 2110638 Charles H. Gilmore I I I v. Jane E l l e n Gilmore Appeal from Houston C i r c u i t (DR-09-215.01) Court THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . Jane E l l e n G i l m o r e ("the m o t h e r " ) a n d C h a r l e s H. G i l m o r e III ("the f a t h e r " ) were d i v o r c e d b y an A p r i l 2009 j u d g m e n t o f the trial custody court. The d i v o r c e judgment awarded t h e f a t h e r o f t h e c h i l d born o f t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e and awarded 2110638 the mother v i s i t a t i o n at times upon w h i c h the p a r t i e s could agree. On J a n u a r y 10, 2012, a modification of the mother f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t s e e k i n g custody of the child, alleging, i n part, t h a t the f a t h e r had r e s t r i c t e d her v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the The child. day a f t e r t h e m o t h e r f i l e d h e r c o m p l a i n t , t h e t r i a l scheduled a hearing f o r February the mother filed a motion e n t e r a pendente l i t e the A few d a y s order awarding child, who was The physical father then 2, the p a r t i e s responded pendente lite a s k i n g t h a t the t r i a l hearing. counterclaim traditional The at which The custody of 10 years custody of old, during the hearing. to the custody mother's motion by opposing for joint t h a t motion and c o u r t take testimony at the February father requesting later filed an answer the mother be awarded that and/or m i n i m a l v i s i t a t i o n trial court The m o t h e r r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e almost 2012, later, trial c o u r t c o n s i d e r her request f o r pendente l i t e scheduled February 2012, 2012. r e q u e s t i n g t h a t the t h e c h i l d on a l t e r n a t i n g weeks. trial 2, court court conducted and a "the schedule." t h e F e b r u a r y 2, 2012, hearing, i t r e c e i v e d t e s t i m o n y and d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e . 2 2, On 2110638 M a r c h 5, 2012, the trial court entered a "final modification j u d g m e n t " o r d e r i n g , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e p a r t i e s s h a r e joint legal and physical custody of the child and that the p a r t i e s e a c h have p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d on a l t e r n a t i n g weeks. The f a t h e r f i l e d a motion i n the clarify whether the March 5, judgment o r a p e n d e n t e l i t e by entering an order 2012, order. stating trial court judgment The that trial the seeking was a court a final motion, timely and judgment. The the court trial matter had been judgment f a t h e r f i l e d a t i m e l y postjudgment denied that motion. The father appealed. We father's conclude t h a t the argument t h a t d i s p o s i t i v e issue the trial court on erred appeal i s i n entering f i n a l judgment on t h e m e r i t s a f t e r m e r e l y c o n d u c t i n g a on t h e m o t h e r ' s m o t i o n f o r p e n d e n t e l i t e has final responded a d j u d i c a t e d on i t s m e r i t s and t h a t t h e M a r c h 5, 2012, was to custody. This stated: "'"Pendente l i t e o r d e r s are g e n e r a l l y e n t e r e d o n l y d u r i n g the pendency of the l i t i g a t i o n and a r e u s u a l l y r e p l a c e d by a f i n a l o r d e r or judgment t h a t i s e n t e r e d a t t h e end o f t h e l i t i g a t i o n . Sims v. S i m s , 515 So. 2d 1 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1987) . In 3 the a hearing court 2110638 custody s i t u a t i o n s , a pendente l i t e order clearly envisions continuing custody pending a l a t e r f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h a t c u s t o d y d i s p u t e , whereas ' c u s t o d y a w a r d s ' a r e f i n a l and a r e g e n e r a l l y i n t e n d e d t o r e m a i n i n e f f e c t u n t i l one o f t h e p a r t i e s succeeds i n a p e t i t i o n r e q u e s t i n g the c o u r t to modify i t s custody award. Sims, supra Amberson v. L o n g , 998 ( q u o t i n g S.S. 1998), v. quoting So. 2d 1078, T.R.A, 716 i n t u r n Ex (Ala. 1994)). In this trial court violated 1079 ( A l a . C i v . App. So. 2d 719, parte J.P., case, the 720 641 (Ala. Civ. So. App. 2d 276, 278 contends father h i s due-process 2008) that the rights by entering a f i n a l judgment on t h e m e r i t s a f t e r m e r e l y c o n d u c t i n g a h e a r i n g on t h e m o t h e r ' s m o t i o n indicated that f o r pendente l i t e i t intended to enter custody at which i t only a pendente lite order. "[A] parent is entitled t o due i n v o l v i n g the custody of a c h i l d . " 570, 571 ( A l a . C i v . App. this 2011) . process in proceedings S t r a i n v. M a l o y , court explained: I n S t r a i n v. M a l o y , " ' I n d e a l i n g w i t h s u c h a d e l i c a t e and d i f f i c u l t q u e s t i o n - - t h e w e l f a r e of a minor child--due process of law in legal proceedings should be observed. These settled courses of procedure, as e s t a b l i s h e d by o u r l a w , i n c l u d e due n o t i c e , 4 83 So. 3d supra, 2110638 a h e a r i n g o r o p p o r t u n i t y t o be h e a r d b e f o r e a c o u r t of competent j u r i s d i c t i o n . ' " D a n f o r d [v. D u p r e e ] , 272 A l a . [517,] 520, 132 2d [734,] 735-36 [ ( 1 9 6 1 ) ] . As t h i s court further explained: So. has " ' [ P ] r o c e d u r a l due p r o c e s s c o n t e m p l a t e s t h e b a s i c requirements of a f a i r proceeding i n c l u d i n g an i m p a r t i a l h e a r i n g b e f o r e a l e g a l l y c o n s t i t u t e d c o u r t ; an o p p o r t u n i t y to present evidence and arguments; i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g the c l a i m s of the opposing party; a reasonable opportunity to c o n t r o v e r t the o p p o s i t i o n ' s claims; and representation by counsel if i t is desired.' "Crews v. H o u s t o n C n t y . Dep't o f P e n s i o n s & Sec., 358 So. 2d 451, 455 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1978) (emphasis added)." 83 So. The App. 3d a t 571. f a t h e r c i t e s M.G. v. J.T., 90 So. 3d 762 (Ala. Civ. 2012), i n which, i n a dependency a c t i o n , the mother n o t s e r v e d w i t h p r o c e s s and a copy of the dependency and opportunity was not afforded dependency p e t i t i o n . an to In t h a t case, t h i s j u d g m e n t was v o i d b e c a u s e i t was entered inconsistent 766. with M.G. due process. 5 v. be was petition heard on the court held that the i n a manner t h a t was J.T., 90 So. 3d at 2110638 In t h i s case, claims of the t h e p a r t i e s c l e a r l y had other scheduled the asserted. the h e a r i n g to occur trial for hearing complaint trial was was The filed. court transcript the at the and, f o r the the day after T h a t o r d e r gave no intended t h a t h e a r i n g was the time that The that hearing the February the modification indication that would be a the final c o u r t r e p o r t e r ' s n o t a t i o n s on February 2, 2012, hearing 2, indicate the that a h e a r i n g on t h e m o t h e r ' s m o t i o n f o r p e n d e n t e custody. The the court month a f t e r order that scheduled entered h e a r i n g on t h e m e r i t s . lite filed, one trial c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s j u d g m e n t , t h e a c t i o n had b e e n p e n d i n g o n l y two months. 2012, However, t h e l e s s than c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n a c t i o n was appropriate notice r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t the t r i a l hearing pendente l i t e m e r e l y be custody. court intended that mother's motion for S p e c i f i c a l l y , at the c l o s e of the ore a hearing on the tenus h e a r i n g , the t r i a l c o u r t r e p e a t e d l y s t a t e d t h a t i t would enter a permanent pendente order lite or example, the t r i a l order judgment and after that a i t would later enter hearing. court stated: " I can t e l l you what I am g o i n g t o do, I am g o i n g t o do i t p e n d e n t e l i t e . And I am g o i n g t o do i t 6 a For 2110638 p e r m a n e n t a t t h e h e a r i n g , i f you have g o t anymore t o present. B u t I am g o i n g t o g i v e you j o i n t p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y . You a r e g o i n g t o go b a c k t o t h i s shared r e l a t i o n s h i p you had b e f o r e . " The trial court then stated that i t would enter an order awarding the p a r t i e s a l t e r n a t i n g weekly p h y s i c a l custody that the parties could confer about h e a r i n g as t o " p e r m a n e n t " c u s t o d y . hearing, discuss that the trial also the pending l i t i g a t i o n the p a r t i e s and F e b r u a r y 2, 2012, for court pendente the lite a future At the c o n c l u s i o n of advised the w i t h the trial h e a r i n g was scheduling and court the p a r t i e s not child. It is recognized to clear that the a h e a r i n g on t h e m o t h e r ' s m o t i o n custody and that, at the time of that h e a r i n g , t h e t r i a l c o u r t had i n t e n d e d t o e n t e r a p e n d e n t e order. However, t h e r u l i n g as a f i n a l This issue case i n M.G. trial j u d g m e n t on t h e does n o t v. court entered J.T., v o i d f o r want o f due process; so as l a c k of to indication consider the process the at judgment t h e p a r t i e s t o t h i s a c t i o n were i n the r e c o r d t h a t the t r i a l parties' due render served w i t h n o t i c e of the c l a i m s i n v o l v e d . no 2012, merits. i n v o l v e the supra, i t s M a r c h 5, lite claims seeking d e t e r m i n a t i o n a t t h e F e b r u a r y 2, 2012, 7 However, t h e r e court intended a hearing. final was to custody Accordingly, 2110638 we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d t o r e v e r s a l i n e n t e r i n g a judgment on t h e m e r i t s opportunity reverse to f u l l y the t r i a l without litigate court's a f f o r d i n g the p a r t i e s t h e a c t i o n on t h e m e r i t s . We j u d g m e n t a n d remand t h e c a u s e f o r further proceedings consistent with t h i s opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Pittman, an B r y a n , Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . 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.