David Call v. Danielle Call
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 06/28/2013 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2110497 David Call v. Danielle Call Appeal from Tuscaloosa C i r c u i t (DR-10-900062) Court PITTMAN, J u d g e . David divorcing part, Call ("the husband") him and D a n i e l l e C a l l reverse appeals from a judgment ("the w i f e " ) . We a f f i r m i n i n p a r t , a n d remand. 2110497 The p a r t i e s , who i n 1994 are both i n t h e i r e a r l y f o r t i e s , and have f o u r c h i l d r e n ("the i n 2000, 2003, 2005, and 2007. The c h i l d r e n " ) , who St. Vincent's $265,000 p e r retail Hospital, year. store u n t i l The and w i f e was the b i r t h were b o r n husband i s a p h y s i c i a n i s b o a r d c e r t i f i e d as a h o s p i t a l i s t . at married 1 He his and i s p r e s e n t l y employed base compensation is e m p l o y e d as t h e manager o f a of the parties' first child 2 0 0 0 ; s i n c e 2000, by m u t u a l a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s , she in has been a stay-at-home mother. In A p r i l 2010, the p a r t i e s separated, and the husband s u e d t h e w i f e f o r a d i v o r c e , s e e k i n g an e q u i t a b l e d i v i s i o n the parties' counterclaim, the property. seeking children, division wife, the of child the The pendente lite wife order appointed filed a Upon and and of equitable motion ad seeking custody, answer an the a guardian motion regarding an p h y s i c a l custody alimony, p a r t i e s ' property. wife filed a divorce, primary support, t r i a l court children. The of of the litem for the the entry visitation, of a child The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t a h o s p i t a l i s t i s a p h y s i c i a n who s p e c i a l i z e s i n t r e a t i n g h o s p i t a l i z e d p a t i e n t s o f o t h e r p h y s i c i a n s i n o r d e r t o m i n i m i z e t h e number o f h o s p i t a l v i s i t s t h o s e o t h e r p h y s i c i a n s must make. 1 2 2110497 s u p p o r t , p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s ' h o u s e , and a l i m o n y . m o t i o n was as a h e a r d i n A u g u s t 2010 hospitalist Hospital") and was at DCH when t h e h u s b a n d was Northport Hospital That employed ("Northport m o o n l i g h t i n g as a h o s p i t a l i s t for another h e a l t h - c a r e e n t i t y . At the h e a r i n g , the p a r t i e s informed trial c o u r t t h a t t h e y had terms of the pendente agreement on constituted the reached lite record, their agreement. entered a w r i t t e n order an a g r e e m e n t r e g a r d i n g t h e order, and recited confirmed The ("the the trial the terms that court pendente l i t e of those the terms subsequently order") based on t h a t a g r e e m e n t . The p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e p e n d e n t e l i t e o r d e r t h a t are p e r t i n e n t to this appeal (1) awarded the wife primary 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 r e n ; (2) o r d e r e d t h e p a r t i e s to allow the individuals, girlfriend shall or an children one to o f whom was be in the t h e n , and ("the g i r l f r i e n d " ) ; and presence i s now, amount, in the (3) s t a t e d : "The a c c o u n t as f a m i l y s u p p o r t , as was marriage." The parties' joint [husband] Hospital, checking the normal custom d u r i n g the husband t e s t i f i e d a t the t r i a l t h a t , when t h e p e n d e n t e l i t e o r d e r was 3 three the husband's c o n t i n u e t o d e p o s i t h i s check from N o r t h p o r t equivalent of not of t h i s action e n t e r e d , t h e n e t amount 2110497 of h i s paycheck from N o r t h p o r t H o s p i t a l was approximately $5,200 and t h a t he r e c e i v e d s u c h a p a y c h e c k e v e r y Thereafter, alleging the wife filed several t h a t the husband had v i o l a t e d pendente l i t e order t h a t an a r r e a r a g e a hearing contempt weeks. petitions the p r o v i s i o n of the r e q u i r i n g him t o pay f a m i l y support and h a d a c c u m u l a t e d . The h u s b a n d f i l e d w r i t t e n responses to those p e t i t i o n s . In January held two regarding, among 2011, t h e t r i a l other things, the court wife's c o n t e m p t p e t i t i o n s . The t r i a l c o u r t o r d e r e d t h e h u s b a n d t o p a y t h e w i f e $15,000 t o s a t i s f y t h e f a m i l y - s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e h a d a c c u m u l a t e d up u n t i l $15,000. Thereafter, then, that and t h e h u s b a n d p a i d t h e w i f e the wife filed s e v e r a l more contempt p e t i t i o n s a l l e g i n g t h a t the husband had v i o l a t e d the p r o v i s i o n of t h e pendente l i t e o r d e r r e q u i r i n g him t o pay f a m i l y and that an arrearage had accumulated. w r i t t e n responses to those p e t i t i o n s . The husband support filed I n S e p t e m b e r 2011, t h e t r i a l c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g r e g a r d i n g those contempt p e t i t i o n s . The o r d e r e n t e r e d a f t e r t h a t h e a r i n g r e c i t e d t h a t an a g r e e m e n t h a d been r e a c h e d by t h e p a r t i e s r e g a r d i n g t h e c o n t e m p t i s s u e s , t h a t t h e a g r e e m e n t h a d been r e a d i n t o t h e r e c o r d , and t h a t t h e 4 2110497 agreement parties' h a d been confirmed by t h e p a r t i e s . Based agreement, t h e o r d e r p r o v i d e d , i n p e r t i n e n t on t h e part: " 1 . The [ h u s b a n d ] a c k n o w l e d g e s t h a t he i s i n contempt o f t h e C o u r t ' s p r i o r o r d e r r e q u i r i n g him t o pay f a m i l y s u p p o r t t o t h e [ w i f e ] . "2. The [husband] s h a l l p a y t o t h e [ w i f e ] t h e sum o f Ten T h o u s a n d D o l l a r s ( $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 ) p r i o r t o l e a v i n g c o u r t on S e p t e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 1 1 , s a i d payment t o be made i n t h e f o r m o f a p o s t - d a t e d c h e c k , d a t e d F r i d a y , September 23, 2 0 1 1 . S a i d f u n d s ($10,000.00) s h a l l be 'good' a n d a c c e s s i b l e b y t h e [ w i f e ] on F r i d a y , September 23, 2 0 1 1 . S a i d $10,000.00 payment r e p r e s e n t s a p a y m e n t / c r e d i t t o w a r d t h e [husband's] c u r r e n t support a r r e a r a g e w h i c h t h e [wife] has a l l e g e d i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y S i x t y - S i x Thousand D o l l a r s ( $ 6 6 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 ) . However, t h e e x a c t amount o f s a i d a r r e a r a g e s h a l l be d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e C o u r t a t f i n a l hearing. "3. B e g i n n i n g F r i d a y , O c t o b e r 7, 2 0 1 1 , a n d e v e r y o t h e r F r i d a y t h e r e a f t e r , t h e [husband] s h a l l p a y d i r e c t l y t o t h e [ w i f e t h e ] sum o f S i x T h o u s a n d N i n e Hundred Twenty-Three Dollars a n d Seven Cents ( $ 6 , 9 2 3 . 0 7 ) . S a i d p a y m e n t s s h a l l be made i n 'good f u n d s ' , i . e . , a c c e s s i b l e t o t h e [ w i f e ] on e a c h s a i d every other Friday. "4. The a f o r e m e n t i o n e d b i - w e e k l y payments t o t h e [wife] represent a m o n t h l y s u p p o r t payment o f F i f t e e n Thousand D o l l a r s ($15,000.00), e f f e c t i v e September 23, 2 0 1 1 , b r o k e n down as f o l l o w s : E l e v e n Thousand One H u n d r e d Ninety-Seven Dollars and F o r t y - T w o C e n t s ($11,197.42) c u r r e n t s u p p o r t , a n d Three Thousand Eight Hundred Two D o l l a r s a n d Fifty-Eight Cents ($3,802.58) towards the [husband's] a r r e a r a g e . "5. I n t h e e v e n t t h a t a n y payment r e q u i r e d h e r e i n i s l a t e , i s n o t made, i s n o t made i n f u l l , 5 2110497 a n d / o r i s n o t made i n good f u n d s , t h e [ w i f e ] s h a l l e x e c u t e an A f f i d a v i t s t a t i n g s u c h w h i c h s h a l l be f i l e d w i t h the Court. A w r i t f o r the [husband's] arrest shall immediately be issued, and the [husband] s h a l l be i n c a r c e r a t e d u n t i l a s u b s e q u e n t h e a r i n g t o d e t e r m i n e any a d d i t i o n a l s a n c t i o n s . The [husband] and h i s a t t o r n e y a c k n o w l e d g e d i n c o u r t t h a t a c o n t e m p t d o e s e x i s t and t h a t h i s f a i l u r e t o pay as o r d e r e d f r o m t h e h e a r i n g d a t e u n t i l f i n a l h e a r i n g would r e s u l t i n a w r i t b e i n g i s s u e d f o r the [husband's] a r r e s t . "6. The [ w i f e ] has n o t w a i v e d any c l a i m s a g a i n s t the [husband] for contempt for said support n o n - p a y m e n t ; t h e same ... w i l l be h e a r d a t f i n a l hearing." The January action 2012. court entered a temporary was tried A f t e r the an o r d e r agreement family support. ore first tenus two reciting during days of three trial, days the t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had regarding the husband's trial reached payment B a s e d on t h a t a g r e e m e n t , t h e o r d e r "2. By a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s , b e g i n n i n g with t h e f i r s t b i - w e e k l y payment [of f a m i l y support] f o l l o w i n g t h e e n t r y o f t h i s O r d e r , w h i c h s h o u l d be t h e J a n u a r y 13, 2012 payment, t h e [husband] s h a l l pay t h e [ w i f e ] t h e sum o f $5,168.04 on a b i - w e e k l y b a s i s ($11,197.42 p e r month) f o r t h e c u r r e n t f a m i l y s u p p o r t payment. The payment o f $3,802.58 p e r month on t h e a l l e g e d a r r e a r a g e i s h e r e b y s u s p e n d e d p e n d i n g the F i n a l Hearing. 6 of provided, in pertinent part: " in 2110497 "4. T h i s T e m p o r a r y A g r e e d O r d e r s h a l l n o t be c o n s i d e r e d a m o d i f i c a t i o n of the c u r r e n t support payment n o r s h a l l t h i s O r d e r c o n s t i t u t e a w a i v e r o f any o f t h e a l l e g e d a r r e a r s . "The a c t u a l a r r e a r a g e r e m a i n s d i s p u t e d and s h a l l be d e t e r m i n e d and c a l c u l a t e d by t h e C o u r t as p a r t o f i t s r u l i n g at the c o n c l u s i o n of the case." Upon t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e t r i a l , a final judgment i n February judgment p e r t i n e n t t o t h i s physical custody of the the t r i a l 2012. appeal children; The court entered provisions awarded the found that of wife the the primary parties' g r o s s income e x c e e d e d t h e u p p e r m o s t l e v e l o f t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t s c h e d u l e a p p e n d e d t o R u l e 32, A l a . R. A d m i n . P. s c h e d u l e " ) ; o r d e r e d t h e h u s b a n d t o pay child ("the R u l e support 32 i n the amount o f $5,000 p e r m o n t h ; a w a r d e d t h e w i f e a l i m o n y i n g r o s s i n t h e amount o f $35,000, t o be p a i d i n i n s t a l l m e n t s o f $5,000 per year for 7 years; ordered the husband t o pay periodic a l i m o n y i n t h e amount o f $3,000 p e r m o n t h ; a w a r d e d t h e h u s b a n d the parties' 2010 Mercedes automobile, one-half of his r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t , a d e b t r e c e i v a b l e , and t h e o t h e r p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n ; o r d e r e d t h e h u s b a n d t o pay a d e b t he owed f o r s t u d e n t Revenue Service husband owed a for loans and unpaid a debt income he taxes; family-support arrearage 7 owed t h e in Internal found that the the amount of 2110497 $49,390.08 and $3,571.76; ordered arrearage and accrued interest the accrued thereon in husband to pay the interest at the the rate amount family-support of $1,000 month; f o u n d t h e h u s b a n d i n c o n t e m p t f o r w i l l f u l l y pay family s u p p o r t f o r 4 months; s e n t e n c e d days i n j a i l failing per to the husband t o 5 f o r e a c h o f t h e 4 months he had w i l l f u l l y t o pay t h e f a m i l y s u p p o r t ; s u s p e n d e d of failed h i s sentence pending h i s c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e j u d g m e n t ; and o r d e r e d t h e p a r t i e s n o t t o a l l o w t h e c h i l d r e n t o be On t h e e i g h t h day husband f i l e d a notice i n the presence after of the the e n t r y of the judgment, o f a p p e a l . On t h e 2 9 t h day e n t r y of the judgment, the w i f e f i l e d a motion s u s p e n s i o n of the husband's j a i l had failed to comply with girlfriend. the sentence, provisions after the to revoke the alleging of the the that he judgment r e q u i r i n g h i m t o pay c h i l d s u p p o r t , p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y , and the f a m i l y - s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e . On t h e 3 0 t h day a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f the judgment, the w i f e f i l e d a R u l e 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. motion to a l t e r , requested filing relief Civ. P., amend, o r v a c a t e t h e j u d g m e n t i n w h i c h she that The i s not of the w i f e ' s Rule pertinent 59(e) motion to this caused appeal. the n o t i c e o f a p p e a l t o be h e l d i n a b e y a n c e u n t i l t h e 8 husband's disposition 2110497 of that motion. wife's motions See R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 5 ) , were p e n d i n g , A l a . R. the husband App. P. W h i l e filed the a motion to s t a y the judgment p e n d i n g the r e s o l u t i o n of h i s a p p e a l , which the trial court denied. W i t h i n 90 days a f t e r t h e f i l i n g motion, the t r i a l of the w i f e ' s Rule court h e l d a h e a r i n g r e g a r d i n g the motion t o revoke the s u s p e n s i o n of the husband's j a i l for contempt after of the w i f e ' s of the husband's 90 R u l e 59(e) m o t i o n , t h e c o u r t e n t e r e d two w r i t t e n o r d e r s . The suspension wife's sentence and h e r R u l e 59(e) m o t i o n . A l s o w i t h i n the f i l i n g 59(e) jail first sentence days trial order revoked the and ordered him i n c a r c e r a t e d f o r 20 d a y s . The s e c o n d o r d e r g r a n t e d t h e w i f e ' s Rule 59(e) disposition motion i n part of the w i f e ' s and denied i t i n part. Rule 59(e) n o t i c e o f a p p e a l became e f f e c t i v e . T h e r e a f t e r , the husband this court court to issue a writ filed t o o r d e r the husband's as a m o t i o n the husband's Id. an e m e r g e n c y m o t i o n release f r o m t h e supreme c o u r t . The husband's motion the o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g c o u r t d e n i e d . The h u s b a n d t h e n f i l e d relief motion, Upon from j a i l , asking the trial which this a m o t i o n s e e k i n g t h e same supreme c o u r t t r e a t e d t h e f o r a s t a y of e x e c u t i o n of the 9 2110497 j u d g m e n t o f c o n t e m p t and o f t h e o r d e r r e v o k i n g t h e s u s p e n s i o n of t h e husband's j a i l sentence The h u s b a n d f i r s t a r g u e s and g r a n t e d t h a t s t a y . that the t r i a l court improperly e x e r c i s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n awarding the w i f e alimony i n gross i n t h e amount o f $35,000 b e c a u s e , he s a y s , t h a t a w a r d v i o l a t e s the principle payable that an award of alimony i n gross be o u t o f t h e p r e s e n t e s t a t e o f t h e p a y i n g s p o u s e as i t e x i s t s a t the time of the d i v o r c e . S p e c i f i c a l l y , argues must that the d i v o r c e judgment made h i m the husband responsible for p a y i n g t h e d e b t he owes f o r s t u d e n t l o a n s and t h e d e b t he owes t h e I n t e r n a l Revenue S e r v i c e f o r u n p a i d income t a x e s and t h a t the aggregate the amount o f t h o s e d e b t s p r o p e r t y he was awarded i n t h e judgment. I n Ex p a r t e D i c k s o n , t h e supreme f a r exceeds the value of 29 So. 3d 159, 162-63 ( A l a . 2009), court s t a t e d : " I n [Ex p a r t e ] H a g e r , [293 A l a . 47, 299 So. 2d 743 (1974),] t h i s C o u r t d e f i n e d a l i m o n y i n g r o s s and p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y as f o l l o w s : "'"Alimony i n g r o s s " i s the p r e s e n t v a l u e of the w i f e ' s i n c h o a t e m a r i t a l r i g h t s dower, homestead, quarantine, and d i s t r i b u t i v e share. I t i s payable out of t h e h u s b a n d ' s p r e s e n t e s t a t e as i t e x i s t s a t t h e t i m e o f d i v o r c e . B o r t o n v. B o r t o n , [230 A l a . 630, 162 So. 529 (1935).] On t h e other hand, "periodic alimony" i s an 10 2110497 allowance f o r the f u t u r e support of the w i f e p a y a b l e from the c u r r e n t e a r n i n g s of the husband.' "293 A l a . a t 55, 299 So. 2d a t 750 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . The Hager C o u r t a l s o s t a t e d t h a t t h e a w a r d a t i s s u e 'was i n t e n d e d t o be, as d e n o m i n a t e d , " a l i m o n y i n g r o s s , " a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t award, c o m p e n s a t i n g the w i f e o n l y f o r the l o s s of her r i g h t s i n the h u s b a n d ' s e s t a t e . ' 293 A l a . a t 55, 299 So. 2d a t 751 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . See a l s o D a n i e l v. D a n i e l , 841 So. 2d 1246, 1250 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) (alimony i n g r o s s i s a f o r m o f p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t and must be payable out of the present e s t a t e of the payor a t the time of the d i v o r c e ) . " (Footnote In omitted.) the p r e s e n t case, the husband t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l that he owed a p p r o x i m a t e l y $80,000 t o $90,000 on h i s s t u d e n t l o a n s , and t h a t t e s t i m o n y was t e s t i f i e d at t r i a l approximately undisputed. In a d d i t i o n , the husband t h a t he owed t h e I n t e r n a l Revenue $150,000 t o $160,000 f o r unpaid Service income taxes, and t h a t t e s t i m o n y was a l s o u n d i s p u t e d . On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e evidence the i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e 2010 M e r c e d e s a u t o m o b i l e husband approximately in $60,000, r e t i r e m e n t account approximately the judgment that the had a share maximum of the awarded value of husband's awarded him i n t h e judgment had a v a l u e o f $12,500, and that the value of the debt r e c e i v a b l e awarded t h e husband i n t h e judgment had a v a l u e o f 11 2110497 approximately $30,000. evidence regarding property awarded evidence in record the value the the The of the other husband record does i n the indicates not contain items of judgment. that l i a b i l i t i e s f o r debts, which t o t a l e d approximately personal Thus, the any the husband's $230,000 t o $250,000, f a r e x c e e d e d t h e t o t a l v a l u e o f t h e p r o p e r t y a w a r d e d him in the Accordingly, judgment, we which conclude was that approximately the trial court $102,500. improperly e x e r c i s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n awarding the wife alimony in t h e amount o f $35,000 time o f t h e d i v o r c e was Dickson, supra. considered Dickson, with supra, respect because t h e husband's e s t a t e a t the insufficient t o pay t h a t award. Because an award a part of the d i v i s i o n t o be we must i n gross reverse to the e n t i r e of alimony the t r i a l division i n gross of property, court's See is see judgment of property. " b e c a u s e p r o p e r t y - d i v i s i o n and a l i m o n y Moreover, awards a r e considered t o be i n t e r r e l a t e d , we o f t e n r e v e r s e b o t h a s p e c t s o f t h e t r i a l court's j u d g m e n t so t h a t [the t r i a l c o u r t ] may consider e n t i r e a w a r d a g a i n upon remand." Redden v. Redden, 508, 513 reverse ( A l a . C i v . App. trial court's 44 So. 3d 2 0 0 9 ) . A c c o r d i n g l y , b e c a u s e we judgment w i t h 12 respect the must to the p r o p e r t y 2110497 division, respect we also reverse the t r i a l t o t h e award o f p e r i o d i c court's alimony judgment with so t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t c a n c o n s i d e r b o t h t h e d i v i s i o n o f p r o p e r t y a n d t h e award o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y a g a i n on remand. The h u s b a n d a l s o a r g u e s See Redden, that the t r i a l supra. court improperly e x e r c i s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n o r d e r i n g him t o pay c h i l d in t h e amount o f $5,000 p e r month. husband's gross monthly income I t i s undisputed that the of approximately e x c e e d s t h e u p p e r m o s t l i m i t o f t h e R u l e 32 s c h e d u l e . "'When t h e p a r t i e s ' c o m b i n e d income e x c e e d s the uppermost l i m i t o f t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t schedule, the determination of a child-support obligation i s within the trial court's discretion. Floyd v. Abercrombie, 816 So. 2d 1 0 5 1 , 1057 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) ; Dyas v. Dyas, 683 So. 2d 971 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 5 ) . "[A] t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n i s n o t u n b r i d l e d a n d ... t h e amount o f c h i l d s u p p o r t a w a r d e d must r e l a t e t o t h e r e a s o n a b l e and n e c e s s a r y needs o f t h e c h i l d r e n as w e l l a s t o t h e a b i l i t y o f the o b l i g o r t o pay f o r those n e e d s . " Dyas v . Dyas, 683 So. 2d a t 973. "'"When the combined a d j u s t e d g r o s s income e x c e e d s t h e uppermost limit of the c h i l d s u p p o r t s c h e d u l e , t h e amount o f child support awarded must rationally relate to the r e a s o n a b l e a n d n e c e s s a r y needs o f the c h i l d , t a k i n g i n t o account the l i f e s t y l e t o which t h e c h i l d 13 support $22,000 2110497 was a c c u s t o m e d a n d t h e s t a n d a r d of living the child enjoyed before t h e d i v o r c e , a n d must reasonably relate to the obligor's ability t o pay f o r those needs. [Anonymous v. Anonymous, 617 So. 2d 694, 697 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) ] . To a v o i d a finding of an abuse of discretion on a p p e a l , a trial c o u r t ' s judgment o f c h i l d s u p p o r t must s a t i s f y b o t h p r o n g s . " "'Dyas v. Dyas, 683 (footnote omitted).'" W r i g h t v. W r i g h t , So. 2d at 973-74 19 So. 3d 901, 906-07 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) ( q u o t i n g McGowin v. McGowin, 991 So. 2d 735, 741 App. (Ala. Civ. 2008)). Although the husband argues that t h e award of child s u p p o r t i n t h e amount o f $5,000 p e r month c o n s t i t u t e s an a w a r d of a " d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e " amount o f h i s income, he does n o t a r g u e t h a t he i s f i n a n c i a l l y u n a b l e t o p a y $5,000 p e r month i n c h i l d s u p p o r t . T h e r e f o r e , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e a w a r d o f c h i l d s u p p o r t i n t h e amount o f $5,000 a month r e a s o n a b l y r e l a t e s t o the husband's a b i l i t y With support regard t o p a y . See W r i g h t , to the i s s u e whether supra. the award o f i n t h e amount o f $5,000 i s r a t i o n a l l y reasonable and n e c e s s a r y r e l a t e d to the needs o f t h e c h i l d r e n , 14 child taking into 2110497 account the l i f e s t y l e to which and standard of the divorce, the t h e c h i l d r e n were l i v i n g the evidence before children the trial accustomed enjoyed before the court the included w i f e ' s t e s t i m o n y p r o v i d i n g an i t e m i z e d e s t i m a t e o f t h e l i v i n g expenses f o r h e r s e l f and t h e c h i l d r e n t h a t t o t a l e d $6,630 p e r month, an amount t h a t d i d n o t i n c l u d e s u c h t h i n g s as C h r i s t m a s presents f o r the c h i l d r e n ; b i r t h d a y p a r t i e s f o r the birthday gifts annual f o r the c h i l d r e n ' s vacations and trips friends; to children; field trips; visit the and children's grandparents i n Ohio, which the w i f e t e s t i f i e d the f a m i l y had taken d u r i n g the marriage. In 2002), Tompkins v. T o m p k i n s , 843 the parties' gross So. monthly 2d 759 income (Ala. Civ. App. exceeded the u p p e r m o s t l i m i t o f t h e R u l e 32 s c h e d u l e , and t h e j u d g m e n t o f the t r i a l c o u r t not o n l y ordered the n o n c u s t o d i a l parent pay s u p p o r t f o r one child month b u t also ordered child the to i n t h e amount o f $2,500 p e r noncustodial parent t o pay the c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t a s u b s t a n t i a l amount o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y e a c h month f o r 11 y e a r s . On a p p e a l t o t h i s 2 court, the n o n c u s t o d i a l Specifically, the judgment o r d e r e d the n o n c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t t o pay t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y i n t h e f o l l o w i n g amounts: "$5,000 p e r month f o r 24 c o n s e c u t i v e months f o l l o w i n g t h e d i v o r c e , $4,000 p e r month f o r e a c h o f t h e n e x t 2 15 2110497 parent argued, among o t h e r things, support i n the amount o f related r e a s o n a b l e and to the Rejecting $2,500 p e r t h a t argument, t h i s that the month was award of not n e c e s s a r y needs o f court child rationally the child. stated: "The r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l the p a r t i e s ' c h i l d was nine y e a r s o f age and participated in several extracurricular a c t i v i t i e s , i n c l u d i n g h o r s e b a c k r i d i n g , g y m n a s t i c s , and d a n c e l e s s o n s . She has e n j o y e d t h e use o f h e r p a r e n t s ' two v a c a t i o n homes i n F l o r i d a . The r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t the child has had the benefit of a somewhat p r i v i l e g e d l i f e s t y l e . The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she was considering e n r o l l i n g the child in private s c h o o l i f she and t h e c h i l d moved t o Montgomery. The wife provided an itemized estimate of living e x p e n s e s f o r h e r s e l f and t h e c h i l d t h a t t o t a l e d $11,570 p e r month. G i v e n t h e s t a n d a r d o f l i v i n g t h e c h i l d enjoyed before the d i v o r c e , the w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she n e e d e d $3,000 p e r month f o r t h e c h i l d ' s support. "Under t h e o r e t e n u s r u l e , t h e t r i a l court's j u d g m e n t i s p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t and t h i s c o u r t w i l l n o t r e v e r s e the judgment a b s e n t a showing t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s a r e p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y wrong o r t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n . See Somers v. McCoy, 777 So. 2d 141, 142 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2000) . W h i l e we might have made a d i f f e r e n t c h i l d - s u p p o r t award i n t h i s case, t h i s c o u r t 'may not s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r t h a t of the t r i a l c o u r t . ' I d . B a s e d upon a c a r e f u l r e v i e w o f the e n t i r e r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e , we c a n n o t s a y t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n when i t o r d e r e d 36 c o n s e c u t i v e months, $3,000 p e r month f o r e a c h o f t h e n e x t 36 c o n s e c u t i v e months, and $2,000 p e r month f o r e a c h o f t h e n e x t 36 c o n s e c u t i v e months." 843 So. 2d 761 n.2. 16 2110497 the husband support." to pay $2,500 per month in child 843 So. 2d a t 763-64. In Wright, supra, the p a r t i e s ' gross monthly income e x c e e d e d t h e u p p e r m o s t l e v e l o f t h e R u l e 32 s c h e d u l e , a n d t h e trial court not only ordered the n o n c u s t o d i a l parent the c u s t o d i a l parent c h i l d amount support t o pay f o r three c h i l d r e n i n the o f $3,000 p e r month b u t a l s o o r d e r e d him t o pay t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y i n t h e amount o f $2,000 p e r month. On appeal to this court, the noncustodial parent a r g u e d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e a w a r d o f c h i l d s u p p o r t i n t h e amount o f $3,000 p e r month was n o t r a t i o n a l l y the reasonable and n e c e s s a r y R e j e c t i n g t h a t argument, t h i s needs o f h i s t h r e e related to children. court stated: "At t r i a l , t h e [ c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t ] o f f e r e d and t h e t r i a l c o u r t a d m i t t e d as t h e [ c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t ' s ] E x h i b i t 4 a document i t e m i z i n g h e r m o n t h l y e x p e n s e s t h a t [ t o t a l e d $ 4 , 3 3 5 ] . She t e s t i f i e d t h a t E x h i b i t 4 represented a c o m p i l a t i o n of her a c t u a l living e x p e n s e s f o r t h e two y e a r s since the p a r t i e s ' separation The [ c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t ] testified t h a t she was r e q u e s t i n g $2,500 p e r month i n c h i l d support. " "The [ n o n c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t ] i n t h i s c a s e d i d n o t t a k e i s s u e w i t h any o f t h e i t e m s on t h e [ c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t ' s ] l i s t o f expenses. Although only three 17 2110497 items on t h e l i s t specifically relate to the c h i l d r e n -- $200 f o r p r e s c h o o l t u i t i o n f o r the youngest child, $200 for the expense of extracurricular activities, a n d $30 f o r s c h o o l l u n c h e s -- t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d r e a s o n a b l y have concluded t h a t the [ c u s t o d i a l parent's] expenses r e f l e c t e d t h e a c t u a l c o s t o f h o u s i n g , f o o d , and o t h e r n e c e s s i t i e s f o r t h e [ c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t ] and t h e three children, with no extravagance. The [ n o n c u s t o d i a l parent] r e a d i l y acknowledged a t t r i a l t h a t t h e f a m i l y h a d e n j o y e d 'an u p p e r - m i d d l e - c l a s s lifestyle' during the parties' marriage. A c c o r d i n g l y , we c o n c l u d e that the c h i l d - s u p p o r t a w a r d does ' r e l a t e t o t h e r e a s o n a b l e a n d n e c e s s a r y needs o f t h e c h i l d [ r e n ] , t a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n t t h e l i f e s t y l e t o w h i c h t h e c h i l d [ r e n were] a c c u s t o m e d and t h e s t a n d a r d o f l i v i n g t h e c h i l d [ r e n ] e n j o y e d b e f o r e t h e d i v o r c e , ' as w e l l as t h e [ n o n c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t ' s ] a b i l i t y t o p a y f o r t h o s e n e e d s . Dyas v. Dyas, 683 So. 2d 971, 973 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 5 ) . " 19 So. 3d a t 907. In the present case, although o n l y s i x of the items the w i f e ' s l i s t o f h e r and t h e c h i l d r e n ' s living relate expenses clothes and shoes, lessons, $220 such movies, as youngest $140 to the c h i l d r e n f o r piano l e s s o n s , $120 f o r b a s e b a l l l e s s o n s , $300 and court for tennis f o r entertainment f o r preschool "the t r i a l $600 f o r could tuition f o r the have concluded t h a t the w i f e ' s expenses r e f l e c t e d the a c t u a l cost housing, $250 monthly reasonably of child solely estimated on f o o d , and o t h e r n e c e s s i t i e s f o r t h e w i f e and t h e [ f o u r ] c h i l d r e n , w i t h no e x t r a v a g a n c e . " I d . " A c c o r d i n g l y , we 18 2110497 conclude that the child-support award does 'relate to the r e a s o n a b l e and n e c e s s a r y needs o f t h e c h i l d [ r e n ] , t a k i n g into a c c o u n t t h e l i f e s t y l e t o w h i c h t h e c h i l d [ r e n were] a c c u s t o m e d and t h e s t a n d a r d o f l i v i n g t h e c h i l d [ r e n ] divorce.'" (quoting C i v . App. (Ala. Id. Dyas v. Dyas, enjoyed before the 683 So. 2d 971, 973 1995)). The h u s b a n d n e x t a r g u e s t h a t t h e f i n d i n g o f c o n t e m p t f o r his f a i l u r e t o p a y f a m i l y s u p p o r t as r e q u i r e d b y t h e p e n d e n t e lite order should be reversed because, he says, (1) the p e n d e n t e l i t e o r d e r was n o t r e a s o n a b l y s p e c i f i c r e g a r d i n g t h e amount o f t h e f a m i l y s u p p o r t t h e h u s b a n d was r e q u i r e d t o p a y , (2) t h e judgment f i n d i n g him i n contempt d i d n o t i n d i c a t e t h e c o n d u c t t h a t was c o n t e m p t u o u s w i t h s u f f i c i e n t s p e c i f i c i t y , and (3) to t h e w i f e f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h a t he h a d t h e f i n a n c i a l ability p a y t h e f a m i l y s u p p o r t he h a d f a i l e d t o p a y . However, t h e 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 n e v e r p r e s e n t e d any o f t h o s e arguments t o the t r i a l wife's finding court either contempt p e t i t i o n s him i n contempt before or i n h i s responses to the the e n t r y of the judgment i n h i s response to the wife's motion to revoke the suspension of h i s j a i l sentence a f t e r the entry of the d i v o r c e judgment. 19 "[An a p p e l l a t e court] cannot 2110497 consider arguments rather, [an raised appellate for court's] the first review time on appeal; is restricted to the e v i d e n c e and a r g u m e n t s c o n s i d e r e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . " Andrews v. Merritt Oil Therefore, we regarding the Co., 612 cannot So. 2d consider the f i n d i n g of contempt. Finally, the husband 409, 410 (Ala. husband's 1992) . arguments Id. argues that the trial court improperly e x e r c i s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n admitting i n t o evidence a written regarding licensed psychological the evaluation girlfriend, psychologist in which had response to ("the been a evaluation") performed court order by in g i r l f r i e n d ' s d i v o r c e a c t i o n . However, e v e n i f t h e a d m i s s i o n that evidence reversible was erroneous, error unless i t i t s admission would App. P. R u l e 45 of constitute probably injuriously R u l e 45, A l a . provides: "No j u d g m e n t may be r e v e r s e d o r s e t a s i d e ... i n any c i v i l ... c a s e on t h e g r o u n d o f ... t h e i m p r o p e r a d m i s s i o n o r r e j e c t i o n o f e v i d e n c e ... u n l e s s i n t h e o p i n i o n of the c o u r t t o which the appeal i s taken a f t e r an e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e e n t i r e c a u s e , i t s h o u l d appear t h a t the e r r o r complained of has probably i n j u r i o u s l y a f f e c t e d s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of the p a r t i e s . " 20 the not a f f e c t e d s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s o f t h e h u s b a n d . See R. a 2110497 The only manner in which the a d m i s s i o n o f t h e e v a l u a t i o n may husband contends that the have i n j u r i o u s l y a f f e c t e d h i s s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s i s by p o s s i b l y i n f l u e n c i n g t h e t r i a l to order the p a r t i e s not presence the of a r g u e d on to allow girlfriend. appeal t h a t the the However, court the husband erred in the has not i n ordering the p a r t i e s n o t t o a l l o w t h e c h i l d r e n t o be i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f the girlfriend. trial c h i l d r e n t o be court "When an a p p e l l a n t f a i l s t o a r g u e an i s s u e i n i t s b r i e f , t h a t i s s u e i s w a i v e d . " B o s h e l l v. K e i t h , 418 So. 92 the (Ala. 1982) . B e c a u s e whether the trial the husband has waived 2d 89, issue c o u r t e r r e d i n o r d e r i n g the p a r t i e s not a l l o w t h e c h i l d r e n t o be i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e g i r l f r i e n d to and b e c a u s e he has n o t a r g u e d t h a t t h e a d m i s s i o n o f t h e evaluation injuriously any manner, we affected his substantial c o n c l u d e t h a t any committed i n a d m i t t i n g e r r o r the rights trial t h e e v a l u a t i o n was in other c o u r t may have h a r m l e s s . See Rule 45. In with summary, we respect periodic to reverse the alimony, the division we judgment of of affirm 21 property the the and judgment trial the in court award a l l of other 2110497 respects, a n d we consistent with remand this t h e cause for further proceedings opinion. AFFIRMED I N PART; REVERSED I N PART; AND REMANDED. Thomas a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , Donaldson, J . , recuses himself. 22 with writing. 2110497 THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g I agree w i t h the Dickson, 29 So. I specially write intended that allowed to determining determination a p p l i c a t i o n of the to i n Ex parte case. note, evidence supplant of however, holding that I do i t s h o l d i n g i n t h a t case, our the the result. (Ala. 2009), to the f a c t s of t h i s 3d 159 that, i n reaching i n the the amount o f a right presented trial the to court i n gross parties be discretion spouse's alimony believe supreme the court's payor payor spouse's e s t a t e i s s u f f i c i e n t by not in estate. The and whether f o r a payment o f a alimony i n gross are matters 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. S h i r l e y v. S h i r l e y , 600 Grimsley and v. G r i m s l e y , Waid 1989). v. Waid, In t h i s So. 586 540 case, 2d 284, So. So. 2d 20, 2d 764, 286 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1992); 21 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1991); 765-66 I agree t h a t the (Ala. Civ. trial c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e h u s b a n d ' s c u r r e n t e s t a t e was pay the alimony-in-gross award. 23 court erred App. in s u f f i c i e n t to
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.
