Barbara Dill Kyle v. Richard Ingram Kyle

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 5/17/2013 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 2110184 Barbara D i l l Kyle v. R i c h a r d Ingram Kyle Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court (DR-09-1260) DONALDSON, J u d g e . Barbara D i l l Kyle the ("the w i f e " ) a p p e a l s Jefferson Circuit Court Ingram Kyle estate. ("the The w i f e from a judgment o f t h a t d i v o r c e d h e r from Richard husband") i n s o f a r as i t d i v i d e d t h e m a r i t a l a l s o appeals from orders entered byt h e 2110184 trial c o u r t f i n d i n g her i n contempt of c o u r t . d i v o r c e judgment. We v a c a t e the contempt We a f f i r m the orders. Facts The husband and the wife were c h i l d r e n were b o r n o f t h e m a r r i a g e , age of majority proceedings. August 14, marriage. a other the The h u s b a n d f i l e d 2009, citing an in 1980. Two one o f whom r e a c h e d t h e pendency of a complaint the divorce for a divorce irretrievable breakdown on of the On September 17, 2009, t h e w i f e f i l e d an answer and counterclaim husband during married moved things, mortgage for a divorce. f o r pendente that payment the and r e s i d e n c e e a c h month. On lite wife September relief, 22, 2009, requesting, be required utilities relating t o pay to the among half the the marital I n the motion, the husband c l a i m e d that he was d r a w i n g u n e m p l o y m e n t - c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s . On December 8, 2009, t h e h u s b a n d and t h e w i f e entered pursuant t o which the p a r t i e s would continue marital residence household b i l l s , together. The i n c l u d i n g those wife into agreement to r e s i d e at the agreed relating an to pay a l l to credit cards, utilities, and t h e m o r t g a g e . The husband agreed t o pay t h e wife per his unemployment-compensation $150 income. week out of The w r i t t e n a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s was p r e s e n t e d 2 to 2110184 the it trial c o u r t , w h i c h a d o p t e d t h e a g r e e m e n t and i n t o a pendente On January temporary trial lite 28, 2010, restraining court o r d e r on December 10, enter the husband order i n which an order 2009. filed he incorporated a motion for a requested that restraining the wife the from l i q u i d a t i n g o r o t h e r w i s e d i s p o s i n g o f any f u n d s t h e w i f e had i n h e r i t e d and r e q u i r i n g t h e w i f e t o p r o v i d e an a c c o u n t i n g o f the inherited funds. F e b r u a r y 24, 2010, After a hearing, the t r i a l court, granted the motion, o r d e r i n g both on parties to refrain f r o m l i q u i d a t i n g a s s e t s and r e q u i r i n g t h e p a r t i e s to expend funds pendente lite On May only i n compliance o r d e r o f December 10, 11, 2011, the w i f e with the trial 2009. filed an e m e r g e n c y m o t i o n f o r p e n d e n t e l i t e r e l i e f i n w h i c h she c o n t e n d e d t h a t h e r status had changed husband's d e b t s . was substantial $4,000 because expenses and She she contended a t one of that her point, court's could no financial l o n g e r pay t h a t her i n h e r i t a n c e , obligation out of her i n h e r i t a n c e . h i s response $180,000 at her to She to the w i f e ' s motion disposal which had d w i n d l e d t o a p p r o x i m a t e l y pay certain at 3 the marital contended i n the motion t h a t she e a r n e d an income o f $200 p e r week. The h u s b a n d in the that outset the w i f e of the argued had had divorce 2110184 proceedings, temporary and t h a t t h e w i f e had v i o l a t e d t h e F e b r u a r y restraining spending her order entered i n h e r i t a n c e . I n a May by 2011, she start the had had $180,000 June 1, 2011, pay the T h e r e i s no as further claimed funds at indication c o u r t r u l e d on t h e w i f e ' s the in motion. the husband f i l e d a motion f o r contempt c o n t e n d e d t h a t t h e w i f e had mortgage She in inheritance divorce proceedings. r e c o r d t h a t the t r i a l w h i c h he by the not of the On in had court f i l i n g with l e s s t h a n $2,500 o f t h e i n h e r i t a n c e l e f t . that trial o f h e r m o t i o n , t h e w i f e c l a i m e d t h a t she court i n support 24, the 2010 r e q u i r e d by the willfully failed to December 2009 p e n d e n t e l i t e o r d e r . He c l a i m e d t h a t t h e w i f e had n o t p a i d t h e m o r t g a g e since April continued The 2011, 11, 2011, to accrue trial and that, as a result, the mortgage i n t e r e s t and p e n a l t i e s . court t r i e d t h e d i v o r c e a c t i o n on A u g u s t 10, and h e l d a h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n f o r c o n t e m p t on A u g u s t 2011. order 1 On finding A u g u s t 11, the wife 2011, to be the in trial court contempt of rendered court an for The r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t a new t r i a l j u d g e was assigned t h e c a s e e a r l y i n 2011 due t o t h e r e t i r e m e n t o f t h e p r e v i o u s t r i a l j u d g e who had e n t e r e d t h e December 2009 p e n d e n t e l i t e o r d e r and t h e t e m p o r a r y r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r . 1 4 2110184 v i o l a t i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s p r e v i o u s o r d e r s . The c o u r t h e l d as follows: "1. That the Defendant, B a r b a r a D i l l K y l e i s c i t e d f o r C I V I L CONTEMPT, due t o h e r i n t e n t i o n a l and w i l l f u l v i o l a t i o n of twelve ( 1 2 ) v i o l a t i o n s [ s i c ] of the C o u r t ' s Former Order therefor, cites the Defendant one ( 1 ) day f o r each occasion and d i r e c t [ s ] t h e S h e r i f f o f J e f f e r s o n County, Alabama [to] i n c a r c e r a t e the Defendant i n the County J a i l f o r a p e r i o d o f F i v e (5) d a y s . However, t h e C o u r t s u s p e n d s t h e r e m a i n i n g Seven (7) d a y s o f t h e s a i d sentence. "2. That t h e Defendant, B a r b a r a D i l l K y l e , i s ordered and directed to appear before the u n d e r s i g n e d f o r REVIEW on t h e 1 5 t h day o f A u g u s t , 2011 a t 8:45 a.m., i n C o u r t r o o m 230, Domestic R e l a t i o n s C o u r t s B u i l d i n g , 2124 7 t h Avenue N o r t h , Birmingham, Alabama. "3. T h a t t h e S h e r i f f ' s D e p a r t m e n t o f t h i s c o u r t , i s d i r e c t e d t o f o r t h w i t h d e l i v e r a copy o f t h i s Order t o t h e S h e r i f f o f J e f f e r s o n County, Alabama f o r t h e s e r v i c e on t h e p l a i n t i f f [ s i c ] . "4. The C o u r t r e t a i n s j u r i s d i c t i o n o f proceeding f o r further appropriate orders." (Capitalization taken into in original) c u s t o d y and incarceration. order began was serving entered contends t h a t she was the term of five-day i n the State Judicial I n f o r m a t i o n S y s t e m on A u g u s t 12, 2011. The w i f e f i l e d a motion to The The w i f e this r e c o n s i d e r the contempt o r d e r , a r g u i n g t h a t the o r d e r deficient because i t did violations t h e w i f e was not sufficiently a l l e g e d t o have 5 delineate c o m m i t t e d . By was the order 2110184 dated August 12, 2011, motion to reconsider the trial court denied the wife's s t a t i n g as f o l l o w s : " 1 . T h a t c o u n s e l f o r t h e P a r t i e s were p r e s e n t t h e h e a r i n g on A u g u s t 11,2011. at "2. T h a t [ t h e w i f e ' s ] a t t o r n e y w r o t e e a c h and e v e r y v i o l a t i o n on t h e C o u r t ' s b o a r d , and yet, DEMANDS t h a t t h i s C o u r t d i s r e g a r d s [ s i c ] them. "3. As s u c h , due t o t h e o v e r w h e l m i n g amount o f evidence presented i n the case, Defendant's Motion t o R e c o n s i d e r i n c a r c e r a t i o n i s due t o be DENIED." (Capitalization in original.) habeas corpus d u r i n g the A u g u s t 15, trial the 2011, sheriff the of The w i f e d i d not f i l e a w r i t of pendency of her Jefferson court entered County to incarceration. an order release the On directing wife and o r d e r i n g t h a t the s h e r i f f send a c o s t b i l l t o the w i f e f o r her incarceration. which she The w i f e f i l e d a m o t i o n on A u g u s t 22, 2011, asked the court to clarify i t s contempt o r d e r in to p r o v i d e s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e v i o l a t i o n s she had supposedly committed. The the trial that court addressed clarification The trial regarding court r e c o r d does n o t motion or provided i t s f i n d i n g of entered O c t o b e r 12, 2011. among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t the a final indicate that 6 further contempt. judgment of d i v o r c e In i t s judgment, the t r i a l w i f e was any t o be court on ordered, responsible for 2110184 payment o f a l l e x i s t i n g d e b t s i n c u r r e d j o i n t l y by t h e p a r t i e s d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e ; t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was t o be a w a r d e d to the r e a l estate title i n t h e p a r t i e s ' names and a l l i n s u r a n c e p r o c e e d s ; and t h a t t h e w i f e was t o p a y t h e h u s b a n d $18,000 i n attorney fees. The c o u r t f u r t h e r o r d e r e d t h e w i f e t o " c a t c h ¬ up" on t h e m o r t g a g e payments w i t h i n 45 d a y s f r o m t h e d a t e o f the judgment. On O c t o b e r 24, 2011, t h e h u s b a n d f i l e d a m o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend, or vacate pursuant requesting that the t r i a l The Rule f o r new trial, a l l e g e d that the t r i a l husband's property 59, A l a . R. Civ. P., c o u r t c l a r i f y the d i v o r c e judgment. wife f i l e d a motion to a l t e r , alternative the to amend, o r v a c a t e , on O c t o b e r 26, 2011, i n w h i c h she c o u r t had f a i l e d adulterous or i n the affair i n the d i v o r c e judgment and to take i n t o account that the division of d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y favored t h e h u s b a n d and, t h u s , was i n e q u i t a b l e . On November 1, 2011, the husband filed an emergency m o t i o n f o r c o n t e m p t i n w h i c h he c o n t e n d e d t h a t t h e w i f e failed t o make t h e m o n t h l y m o r t g a g e payments residence had on t h e m a r i t a l and t h a t t h e h o u s e w o u l d be s o l d a t f o r e c l o s u r e on November 4, 2011, u n l e s s payment was made. The t r i a l c o u r t s e t t h e p a r t i e s ' p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n s and t h e emergency m o t i o n f o r 7 2110184 c o n t e m p t f o r a h e a r i n g on November 3, 2 0 1 1 . The o r d e r the h e a r i n g commanded t h e husband and t h e w i f e setting t o appear t o show c a u s e why t h e m o t i o n f o r c o n t e m p t s h o u l d n o t be g r a n t e d and why t h e y should n o t be a d j u d g e d i n c o n t e m p t . The o r d e r f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t t h e "FAILURE TO APPEAR MAY RESULT I N THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF ARREST." The w i f e d i d n o t a p p e a r a t t h e h e a r i n g on November 3. T h a t same d a y , t h e t r i a l c o u r t entered an o r d e r c i t i n g t h e w i f e f o r c i v i l c o n t e m p t a n d d i r e c t i n g t h a t she be incarcerated. The trial court's order stated follows: "1. That t h e Defendant, B a r b a r a D i l l K y l e , i s c i t e d f o r C I V I L CONTEMPT, a n d t h e S h e r i f f o f any County o f t h e S t a t e o f Alabama, i s hereby o r d e r e d and d i r e c t e d t o i n c a r c e r a t e s a i d D e f e n d a n t , a n d [ s h e ] may n o t be r e l e a s e d on b o n d . "2. That t h e S h e r i f f o f J e f f e r s o n County, Alabama, i s Ordered t o i n f o r m t h i s Court o f t h e Defendant's attachment. Further, the Sheriff of J e f f e r s o n County, Alabama i s o r d e r e d t o e n t e r t h i s Decree O r d e r i n g Attachment i n t o t h e N a t i o n a l Crime Information Computer, or any other database a v a i l a b l e nationwide f o r the p o t e n t i a l a r r e s t of those w i t h attachments o r warrants f o r t h e i r a r r e s t . "3. Upon r e c e i p t o f t h i s D e c r e e , t h e S h e r i f f o f J e f f e r s o n County, Alabama i s o r d e r e d t o n o t i f y t h e S h e r i f f ' s Department i n S t a t e o f C a l i f o r n i a o f t h i s Decree O r d e r i n g Attachment, and i n f o r m s a i d s h e r i f f t h a t t h i s D e c r e e h a d b e e n e n t e r e d on t h e N a t i o n a l Crime I n f o r m a t i o n Center. 8 as 2110184 "4. T h a t t h e c l e r k o f t h i s c o u r t i s d i r e c t e d t o f o r t h w i t h d e l i v e r a copy o f t h i s Order t o t h e S h e r i f f o f J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y , A l a b a m a f o r s e r v i c e on the Defendant." (Capitalization trial i n O r i g i n a l . ) A t t h e end o f t h e o r d e r , court provided a p h y s i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n of the wife. On November 4, 2 0 1 1 , i n r e s p o n s e t o t h e s e c o n d order, the wife filed a motion to reconsider incarceration or, i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , that she motion, f i n d i n g o f contempt been wrongfully incarceration also challenged the order f o r a new the t r i a l contempt trial. court's of In first i n A u g u s t 2011 a n d c o n t e n d e d t h a t she h a d sentenced for civil term of imprisonment. November the to a contempt, period of five w h i c h c a r r i e s no days' definite As t o t h e s e c o n d f i n d i n g o f c o n t e m p t 3, 2 0 1 1 , t h e w i f e contended that on she h a d n o t b e e n p r o v i d e d adequate n o t i c e o f t h e contempt p r o c e e d i n g s p u r s u a n t to Rule 70A(c)(2), contended trial she that A l a . R. C i v . P. I n t h e m o t i o n , she h a d b e e n in California the wife on t h e d a t e t h e c o u r t i s s u e d t h e o r d e r s e t t i n g t h e h e a r i n g and t h a t t h e had been hearing. order On denying unable to return November 7, the wife's notice of appeal to t h i s t o Alabama 2011, t h e t r i a l motion. court. 9 The wife i n time court filed f o r the entered a an timely 2110184 We note i n i t i a l l y appeal. 2011. The The wife The court filed wife's attorney prematurely i n M a r c h 2012, During original attorney App. December appeal on the the pendency 2 died. of the February of death stating The unavailable to a v a i l a b i l i t y of the In P., 2012. before appeal, 2013, the pursuant t h a t t h e h u s b a n d had suggestion of w h e t h e r an e s t a t e had b e e n opened. death On this November the prepare this clerk's wife's wife's to Rule 9, trial f i l e d a brief with a suggestion attorney f i l e d R. n o t i c e of b u t t h e c o u r t r e p o r t e r was record. Ala. her of wife's counsel undertook e f f o r t s to obtain a transcript, it. the unique p r o c e d u r a l h i s t o r y new 43(a), p a s s e d away i n did February not indicate 21, 2013, the w i f e f i l e d w i t h t h i s c o u r t a motion to submit the appeal for c o n s i d e r a t i o n b a s e d upon t h e t r i a l c o u r t c l e r k ' s the brief submitted by the wife. 3 This court r e c o r d and granted on the R u l e 43 p r o v i d e s : "When t h e d e a t h o f a p a r t y has b e e n suggested, the p r o c e e d i n g s h a l l not abate, but s h a l l continue o r be d i s p o s e d o f as t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t may direct." 2 T h e w i f e ' s b r i e f on a p p e a l i n c l u d e s d o c u m e n t a t i o n t h a t i s n o t i n t h e r e c o r d c e r t i f i e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t c l e r k . We recognize the difficulty the wife's original attorney e x p e r i e n c e d i n t h i s c a s e due t o t h e u n a v a i l a b i l i t y o f t h e t r i a l t r a n s c r i p t and t h e d e l a y t h i s c a u s e d i n o b t a i n i n g a record. Nonetheless, we cannot c o n s i d e r the additional documentation. 3 10 2110184 motion. this On F e b r u a r y 27, 2013, court of [ t h e h u s b a n d ] t h r o u g h o u t t h e a p p e a l " b u t t h a t she w o u l d n o t be to be "intend[ed] to represent the a b r i e f u n l e s s t h e c o u r t p e r m i t t e d an a d d i t i o n a l filed by the w i f e . ultimately filed The she notified estate filing that the husband's a t t o r n e y m a t t e r was without The trial court clerk's record the t r i a l submitted brief t r a n s c r i p t i n March f o r a d e c i s i o n on the was 2013. wife's brief only. On final appeal, the w i f e f i r s t judgment marital estate. of divorce her d i d not "belief" So. 2d 605 t h a t the the w i f e c i t e s ( A l a . C i v . App. trial court the marital estate. There is nothing the in the only 1993), to considered i n h e r i t a n c e she m i g h t r e c e i v e i n d e t e r m i n i n g of court's equitably distribute I n h e r b r i e f on a p p e a l , W i l b a n k s v. W i l b a n k s , 624 support contends t h a t the t r i a l future distribution the record, "As we have s t a t e d on many p r i o r o c c a s i o n s , '[a]n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t i s c o n f i n e d i n i t s review to the a p p e l l a t e r e c o r d , t h a t r e c o r d c a n n o t be " c h a n g e d , a l t e r e d , o r v a r i e d on a p p e a l by s t a t e m e n t s i n b r i e f s o f c o u n s e l , " and t h e c o u r t may n o t "assume e r r o r o r presume t h e e x i s t e n c e o f f a c t s as t o w h i c h t h e r e c o r d i s s i l e n t . " ' B e v e r l y v. B e v e r l y , 28 So. 3d 1, 4 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) ( q u o t i n g Q u i c k v. B u r t o n , 960 So. 2d 678, 680-81 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006))." Dreading 2011) . v. Dreading, 84 So. 3d 11 935, 937 (Ala. Civ. App. 2110184 however, t o s u p p o r t relied on or the wife's contention that the t r i a l even considered inheritance. Further, substantiate her inequitably the claim distributed Accordingly, we will the wife that cites the possible no trial the assets not wife's future authority court's to judgment of the m a r i t a l this consider court argument. estate. See Rule 28(a) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . R. App. P.; M u l l i n s v. S e l l e r s , 80 So. 3d 935, 945 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1222, 1224 2 0 1 1 ) ; and Asam v. D e v e r e a u x , 686 So. 2d ( A l a . C i v . App. propositions 1996) are not supporting ("Inapplicable a u t h o r i t y , and an c o u r t has no d u t y t o p e r f o r m a l i t i g a n t ' s As to the judgment judgment o f t r i a l of divorce, therefore, appellate research."). we affirm the court's August 2011 court. The w i f e and legal general also challenges November 2011 orders the t r i a l finding the wife t o be in civil c o n t e m p t . The s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w t h i s c o u r t f o l l o w s concerning a trial settled: court's f i n d i n g of c i v i l contempt i s w e l l "The i s s u e w h e t h e r t o h o l d a p a r t y i n c o n t e m p t i s s o l e l y w i t h i n the d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l court, and a t r i a l c o u r t ' s c o n t e m p t d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d on a p p e a l a b s e n t a s h o w i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l court acted outside i t s d i s c r e t i o n or that i t s j u d g m e n t i s n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e . Brown v. Brown, 960 So. 2d 712, 716 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006) 20-,, ( a f f i r m i n g a t r i a l court's d e c i s i o n not to h o l d a p a r e n t i n contempt f o r f a i l u r e t o pay c h i l d support 12 2110184 when t h e p a r e n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had d e d u c t e d f r o m h i s m o n t h l y c h i l d - s u p p o r t payment t h e amount he had e x p e n d e d t o buy c l o t h e s f o r t h e c h i l d r e n ) . " Poh v. Poh, Rule 64 So. 70A, 3d 49, A l a . R. 61 Civ. ( A l a . C i v . App. P., applies 2010) . "to a l l civil or c r i m i n a l contempt p r o c e e d i n g s a r i s i n g out of c i v i l actions." Rule "willful, 70A(a)(2)(D) continuing failure court's lawful defines civil writ, Paragraph as o r r e f u s a l o f any p e r s o n t o c o m p l y w i t h a subpoena, process, command t h a t by i t s n a t u r e i s s t i l l with." contempt order, rule, capable of b e i n g complied ( e ) ( 2 ) o f R u l e 70A p r o v i d e s : "The c o u r t may o r d e r t h a t a p e r s o n who h a d b e e n f o u n d t o be i n c i v i l c o n t e m p t be c o m m i t t e d t o t h e custody of the s h e r i f f u n t i l t h a t person purges h i m s e l f o r h e r s e l f o f t h e c o n t e m p t by c o m p l y i n g w i t h the c o u r t ' s w r i t , subpoena, p r o c e s s , o r d e r , r u l e , or command." Concerning c i v i l contempt, this c o u r t has stated: "'"'The f a i l u r e t o p e r f o r m an a c t r e q u i r e d by t h e c o u r t f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f an o p p o s i n g p a r t y c o n s t i t u t e s c i v i l contempt.' Carter v. S t a t e ex r e l . B u l l o c k C o u n t y , 393 So. 2d 1368, 1370 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) . " J.K.L.B. Farms, LLC v. P h i l l i p s , 975 So. 2d 1001, 1012 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) . F u r t h e r m o r e , " ' [ t ] h e purpose of a c i v i l contempt p r o c e e d i n g i s to e f f e c t u a t e c o m p l i a n c e w i t h c o u r t o r d e r s and n o t t o p u n i s h t h e c o n t e m n o r . ' W a t t s v. W a t t s , 706 So. 2d 749, 751 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) . " H a l l v. H a l l , 892 So. 2d 958, 962 (Ala. C i v . App. 20 0 4 ) . ' 13 or 2110184 "Reed v. Dyas, 28 Hood v. Hood, 76 So. So. 3d 3d 824, 6, 8 ( A l a . C i v . App. 831-32 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009)." 2011). " ' C i v i l c o n t e m p t c a r r i e s no d e f i n i t e t e r m o f i m p r i s o n m e n t ; t h e p a r t y j a i l e d on a c o n t e m p t c h a r g e " ' " c a r r i e s t h e [key] o f h i s p r i s o n i n h i s own p o c k e t " [and] can end t h e s e n t e n c e and d i s c h a r g e h i m s e l f a t any moment by d o i n g what he had p r e v i o u s l y r e f u s e d t o do.'" J o h n s o n v. S t a t e , 675 So. 2d 512, 513 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1995) (quoting L i g h t s e y v. K e n s i n g t o n M o r t g a g e & F i n a n c e C o r p . , 294 A l a . 281, 285, 315 So. 2d 431, 435 (1975)) ( i n t u r n q u o t i n g e a r l i e r c a s e s , i n c l u d i n g I n r e N e v i t t , 117 F. 448, 461 (8th C i r . 1 9 0 2 ) ) . ' " G l a d d e n v. Gladden, 2005) ( q u o t i n g Civ. App. mortgage So. D a v e n p o r t v. 2d 362, Hood, 814 370-71 So. 2d (Ala. Civ. 268, 273 App. (Ala. 2000)). In the June 2011, 942 current citing as case, the w i f e ' s ordered pendente l i t e o r d e r . c i t e d the w i f e the 4 by h u s b a n d moved f o r c o n t e m p t i n f a i l u r e t o make payments on the trial The A u g u s t 2011 for c i v i l court's the December 2009 order of the t r i a l court contempt, yet i t imposed a sanction T h i s c o u r t has p r e v i o u s l y r e c o g n i z e d t h a t f i l i n g a m o t i o n for c o n t e m p t t o e n f o r c e an i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r o f a t r i a l c o u r t does n o t i n i t i a t e a new a c t i o n . Thus, no f i l i n g f e e i s r e q u i r e d when a m o t i o n f o r c o n t e m p t i s f i l e d b e f o r e t h e e n t r y o f a f i n a l j u d g m e n t o f d i v o r c e . See D e c k e r v. D e c k e r , 984 So. 2d 1216, 1220 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007)("[T]he f i l i n g of the c o n t e m p t m o t i o n w o u l d n o t be c o n s i d e r e d as h a v i n g i n i t i a t e d a separate proceeding."). 4 14 2110184 of multiple Jefferson County effectuate order. days of jail. compliance The wife i n c a r c e r a t i o n , without was That with not sanction the was trial committed bond, court's to the the designed not in to pendente custody lite of s h e r i f f i n an e f f o r t t o c o e r c e h e r i n t o m a k i n g p a y m e n t s on mortgage. been I n s t e a d , the ordered imposed to punish the the i n c a r c e r a t i o n a p p e a r s t o have the wife for her purported n o n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e p e n d e n t e l i t e o r d e r . Such a s a n c t i o n i s not Rule permitted 70A. under a f i n d i n g Thus, we hold of that civil the contempt p u r s u a n t trial court to abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n imposing the f i v e - d a y sentence of i n c a r c e r a t i o n for civil contempt, because such a sanction is in direct c o n t r a v e n t i o n o f and o u t s i d e t h e s c o p e o f p u n i s h m e n t p e r m i t t e d by R u l e 70A. We, 2011 order. contempt Concerning therefore, vacate the h o l d t h a t the t r i a l to hear the contempt order the t r i a l of court's November court lacked subject-matter 4, August 2011, jurisdiction matter. "Before a d d r e s s i n g the m e r i t s of the i s s u e s r a i s e d on a p p e a l , we must f i r s t c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r t h i s c o u r t has j u r i s d i c t i o n '"[J]urisdictional m a t t e r s a r e o f s u c h m a g n i t u d e t h a t we t a k e n o t i c e o f them a t any t i m e and do so e v e n ex mero motu. "' S i n g l e t o n v. Graham, 716 So. 2d 224, 225 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998) ( q u o t i n g W a l l a c e v. Tee J a y s Mfg. Co., 15 we 2110184 689 So. 2d 210, 211 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n Nunn v. B a k e r , 518 So. 2d 7 1 1 , 712 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) ) . ' " ' [ 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 may n o t be waived; a court's lack of subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n may be r a i s e d a t a n y t i m e b y a n y p a r t y and may e v e n be r a i s e d b y a c o u r t ex mero motu.'"' M.B.L. v. G.G.L., 1 So. 3d 1048, 1050 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) ( q u o t i n g S.B.U. v . D.G.B., 913 So. 2d 452, 455 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n C . J . L . v. M.W.B., 868 So. 2d 4 5 1 , 453 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003))." Fox v. A r n o l d , [Ms. 2110483, A u g u s t 10, 2012] ( A l a . C i v . App. 2012) . So. 3d , I t i sw e l l s e t t l e d that the f i l i n g o f any c o n t e m p t m o t i o n r e l a t i n g t o t h e f a i l u r e t o a b i d e b y t h e terms o f a f i n a l d i v o r c e judgment r e q u i r e s t h e i n i t i a t i o n o f an i n d e p e n d e n t proceeding. "A m o t i o n o r p e t i t i o n s e e k i n g t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f s a n c t i o n s b a s e d on a f i n d i n g o f c o n t e m p t i n i t i a t e s an i n d e p e n d e n t p r o c e e d i n g t h a t r e q u i r e s t h e payment of a f i l i n g fee. O p i n i o n o f t h e C l e r k No. 25, 381 So. 2d 58 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) ; s e e a l s o W i l c o x e n v. W i l c o x e n , 907 So. 2d 447 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) . I n W i l c o x e n v. W i l c o x e n , s u p r a , t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t d i v o r c i n g t h e p a r t i e s . The h u s b a n d f i l e d a contempt p e t i t i o n d u r i n g t h e time t h e w i f e ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was p e n d i n g . The t r i a l court d e n i e d t h e w i f e ' s postjudgment motion and s c h e d u l e d a h e a r i n g on t h e h u s b a n d ' s c o n t e m p t p e t i t i o n ; t h e w i f e a p p e a l e d t h e d i v o r c e judgment. T h i s c o u r t n o t e d that t h e pendency o f t h e husband's contempt p e t i t i o n , a l o n g w i t h another contempt p e t i t i o n f i l e d a f t e r the entry of the postjudgment order, d i d not a f f e c t t h e f i n a l i t y o f t h e d i v o r c e judgment from which the wife appealed because t h e contempt petition i n i t i a t e d a '"separate and independent p r o c e e d i n g " f r o m t h e u n d e r l y i n g a c t i o n . ' W i l c o x e n v. 16 2110184 W i l c o x e n , 907 So. 2d a t 449 n. 1 ( q u o t i n g o f t h e C l e r k No. 25, 381 So. 2d a t 5 9 ) . Opinion "In t h i s case, the husband f i l e d h i s p e t i t i o n s e e k i n g t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f s a n c t i o n s b a s e d on t h e wife's a l l e g e d l y contemptuous conduct a f t e r the e n t r y o f t h e f i n a l judgment o f d i v o r c e . A m o t i o n o r p e t i t i o n seeking the i m p o s i t i o n of sanctions based on a f i n d i n g o f c o n t e m p t i n i t i a t e s an i n d e p e n d e n t proceeding t h a t r e q u i r e s t h e payment o f a f i l i n g fee. O p i n i o n o f t h e C l e r k No. 25, s u p r a ; see a l s o W i l c o x e n v. W i l c o x e n , s u p r a . The payment o f a f i l i n g f e e i s a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a c t . F a r m e r v. F a r m e r , 842 So. 2d 679, 681 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) . The h u s b a n d d i d n o t p a y a f i l i n g f e e i n s u p p o r t o f h i s J u l y 1, 2004, motion. Therefore, the husband d i d not p r o p e r l y invoke the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the t r i a l court, and i t s September 22, 2004, c o n t e m p t o r d e r i s v o i d f o r want o f s u b j e c t - m a t t e r jurisdiction." Kaufman v. Kaufman, 2005)(footnote 3d 1056 2110943, 2013)(the purported to that v. 1073, 1082 ( A l a . C i v . App. See a l s o J o h n s o n v. H e t z e l , 100 So. circuit judgment court did dismissing a not 11, contempt 2013] So. petitions to i n i t i a t e a new 3d were Haynes, 97 So. [Ms. ( A l a . C i v . App. nullities because they contempt a c t i o n t h a t s h o u l d have a ".02" s u f f i x by t h e t r i a l required have prisoner's t h a t j u d g m e n t was v o i d ) ; H a l l v. H a l l , January w o u l d have Haynes 2d (the enter thus, been a s s i g n e d So. omitted). ( A l a . 2012) jurisdiction complaint; 934 t h e payment 3d 781 court's o f a new c l e r k and filing fee); ( A l a . C i v . App. 2012) ( i n a c t i o n i n i t i a t e d by f i l i n g o f p e t i t i o n f o r c r i m i n a l contempt, 17 2110184 the w i f e f a i l e d t o pay t h e a p p l i c a b l e docket f e e or t o f i l e verified trial statement of s u b s t a n t i a l hardship, rendering a the c o u r t ' s judgment o f contempt v o i d f o r l a c k o f s u b j e c t - matter j u r i s d i c t i o n ) ; Civ. and Vann v. Cook, 989 So. 2d 556 ( A l a . App. 2008) ( t h e p a r t i e s f a i l e d t o p a y r e q u i s i t e fees, and, thus, orders made by trial court docketing concerning m o d i f i c a t i o n o f d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t were v o i d ) . I n t h e c a s e a t b a r , t h e h u s b a n d ' s emergency m o t i o n f o r c o n t e m p t was f i l e d as a p a r t o f a t h e i n i t i a l c a s e number DR-09-1260. divorce action, The e m e r g e n c y m o t i o n , w h i c h was filed subsequent t o t h e e n t r y of t h e f i n a l d i v o r c e judgment, sought to hold the wife i n contempt of court for violating p r o v i s i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment o f d i v o r c e the the wife requirement payments divorce. within that 45 days of "catch-up" the entry of on the concerning the mortgage judgment B e c a u s e t h e e m e r g e n c y m o t i o n i n i t i a t e d a new o f a c t i o n f o r c o n t e m p t o f c o u r t , i t s h o u l d have been an ".01" suffix by the t r i a l s h o u l d have p a i d t h e f i l i n g Ala. court Code 1975. lacked emergency m o t i o n . c l e r k and of cause assigned the husband f e e r e q u i r e d by § 1 2 - 1 9 - 7 0 ( a ) ( 7 ) , B e c a u s e no subject-matter court the filing f e e was jurisdiction paid, to the consider trial the Thus, t h e November 2011 c o n t e m p t o r d e r i s 18 2110184 void. " ' [ B ] e c a u s e a v o i d j u d g m e n t w i l l n o t s u p p o r t an a p p e a l , we v a c a t e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t a n d d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l . ' " Johnson, 100 So. 3d at 1057 (citing Hunt Transition & Inaugural Fund, I n c . v. G r e n i e r , 782 So. 2d 270, 274 ( A l a . 2000)). AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART. Moore, J . , c o n c u r s . Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t w r i t i n g . P i t t m a n a n d Thomas, J J . , r e c u s e 19 themselves.

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.