Elizabeth J. Henderson v. Christopher J. Henderson

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 03/22/2013 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 , 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 , Alabama 36104-3741 ((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 2110557 E l i z a b e t h J . Henderson v. Christopher J . Henderson Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t (DR-10-676) Court THOMAS, J u d g e . E l i z a b e t h J . Henderson the Madison C i r c u i t Henderson property, ("the w i f e " ) a p p e a l s a judgment o f Court d i v o r c i n g h e r from C h r i s t o p h e r J . ("the h u s b a n d " ) , dividing the p a r t i e s ' marital a n d o r d e r i n g t h e w i f e t o p a y t h e h u s b a n d $23,265 as 2110557 her portion incurred of the pro during specifically, the rata share of the m a r i t a l pendency of the expenses divorce the wife a s s e r t s t h a t the t r i a l action; court erred to r e v e r s a l by n o t h o l d i n g a h e a r i n g on h e r p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . We reverse the d e n i a l of the w i f e ' s postjudgment motion o p e r a t i o n o f l a w and remand t h e c a u s e f o r t h e t r i a l conduct a hearing On May trial court to on t h a t m o t i o n . 24, 2010, court by seeking the husband filed a divorce. On a complaint May 26, 2010, with the the trial c o u r t e n t e r e d a s t a n d i n g pendente l i t e order t h a t r e q u i r e d the p a r t i e s to continue paying before t h e i r m o n t h l y e x p e n s e s as t h e y the d i v o r c e complaint had b e e n f i l e d o r b a s e d on a p r o r a t a share of the p a r t i e s ' incomes. filed a pro divorce. On se appearance on August 2010, 5, alleging answer to the 24, 2010, an June the wife's On June 8, 2010, t h e w i f e husband's attorney behalf the husband filed t h a t the w i f e had f a i l e d 2010, pendente counterclaimed lite order. complaint filed a of action. a petition On for contempt t o pay h e r p o r t i o n of t h e i n the t r i a l That same f o r a d i v o r c e ; i n her v e r i f i e d 2 for a notice i n the d i v o r c e p a r t i e s ' m o n t h l y e x p e n s e s as o r d e r e d 26, had court's day the May wife counterclaim, 2110557 t h e w i f e a l l e g e d t h a t she was e m p l o y e d o n l y p a r t t i m e a n d t h a t she d i d n o t have t h e r e s o u r c e s to contribute e x p e n s e s as w e l l as h e r own l i v i n g requested a hearing to the m a r i t a l expenses. The w i f e on t h e h u s b a n d ' s c o n t e m p t petition. On September 20, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l also court conducted a t r i a l i n w h i c h i t h e a r d o r e tenus e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g t h e d i v o r c e and the contempt p e t i t i o n . married on J u l y 5, 2006. h a d been h a v i n g residence. He t e s t i f i e d that the wife a n d he m a r i t a l i s s u e s a n d t h a t , on May 16, 2010, t h e p a r t i e s had separated when t h e w i f e moved o u t o f t h e m a r i t a l The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d note from t h e w i f e going The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s o u t o f town t h a t he h a d woken up t o a on May 15, 2010, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t that day. He t e s t i f i e d that she was a coworker, S a n d r a H a n k i n s , h a d t e l e p h o n e d h i m on May 15, 2010, t o t e l l him that Memphis she h a d s e e n t h e w i f e i n May festival. 1 He holding further r e c e i v i n g Hankins's telephone c a l l a man's h a n d a t t h e stated that after he h a d p a c k e d some o f t h e Hankins also t e s t i f i e d at t r i a l . Her s h o r t testimony i n d i c a t e d t h a t she h a d c l e a r l y s e e n t h e w i f e h o l d i n g a man's h a n d a t t h e Memphis i n May f e s t i v a l on May 15, 2010. She f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d made e y e c o n t a c t w i t h t h e w i f e and t h a t a f t e r t h e y h a d made e y e c o n t a c t t h e w i f e " d u c k e d " i n t o a restaurant out of Hankins's l i n e of s i g h t while s t i l l h o l d i n g t h e man's hand. 1 3 2110557 wife's belongings and moved them t o w a r d t h e f r o n t d o o r o f marital residence. t o l d him t h a t she The had t h e Memphis i n May harassing her t h a t H o l d e n was said that having he on husband t e s t i f i e d been h o l d i n g festival the one t h a t the w i f e The said, not initially men had husband f u r t h e r o f t h e w i f e ' s c o w o r k e r s and had had Spencer Holden's hand b e c a u s e , she street. the thought been testified a friend. that at the wife an a f f a i r w i t h H o l d e n b e c a u s e , he s a i d , he had He was thought t h e two had o n l y s t u d i e d t o g e t h e r f o r t h e n u r s e p r a c t i t i o n e r ' s exam. However, t h e h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a t t h e t i m e o f trial, he believed that w i t h H o l d e n due joint the t o t h e May wife 15, 2010, cellular-telephone b i l l , and H o l d e n had numerous questioned w i f e had the calls. wife He an i n c i d e n t and t h e t h a t she an had that had owned automobile, He the marital affair had residence w h i c h t h e w i f e was also t e s t i f i e d parties' an when and t h a t t h e w i f e had and had w i t h Holden, the affair. a marriage, 1995 d r i v i n g at the time of 4 wife he The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t , b e f o r e t h e p a r t i e s ' he affair t e x t messages p e r month testified about h a v i n g always denied been h a v i n g which i n d i c a t e d t h a t the e x c h a n g e d o v e r 300 telephone had the removed a B o w f l e x Acura trial. brand 2110557 e x e r c i s e m a c h i n e , a c o m p u t e r d e s k , and from the m a r i t a l residence. a w a r d him the the Bowflex asked that m a r i t a l residence, machine, television. He He the a 32-inch the 1995 and trial Acura desk, computer further testified the television automobile, the that although court 32-inch the w i f e p a i d the p a r t i e s ' R a i n s o f t home-water-treatment b i l l for four months a f t e r she had moved o u t o f t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e , had been the w i f e had only c o n t r i b u t i o n to made s i n c e May 2010. He the had that m a r i t a l expenses testified t h a t the the monthly m a r i t a l e x p e n s e s t o t a l e d $ 2 , 5 8 5 , and an e x h i b i t i t e m i z i n g e a c h m a r i t a l e x p e n s e was the entered i n t o evidence. f o l l o w i n g e x p e n s e s : mortgage, b i l l , D i r e c t TV b i l l , Redstone loan, utility Rainsoft b i l l , medical advances, car insurance, bills, and The exhibit listed bills, telephone Household F i n a n c i a l loan, credit student card bills, cash l o a n s ; the e x h i b i t a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e w i f e s h o u l d be h e l d r e s p o n s i b l e f o r 50% those expenses, testified included wife. wife that only He t o go which the his testified back to equaled "Student Loans" student-loan t h a t he had school $1,292.50. t o be 5 category payment and w o r k e d two The he not jobs had that of husband listed of the to allow the a nurse p r a c t i t i o n e r . The 2110557 husband f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t the w i f e had worked o n l y part t i m e as a r e g i s t e r e d n u r s e d u r i n g t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e and a t the time the p a r t i e s The wife separated. testified that the parties had been having m a r i t a l problems f o r a long p e r i o d but t h a t the problems i n t e n s i f i e d a b o u t a month b e f o r e t h e May 16, 2010, had separation. She o p i n e d t h a t t h e m a r i t a l p r o b l e m s were due t o t h e h u s b a n d ' s jealousy wife issues further husband and s e x u a l testified that she had the p a r t i e s . the would " t h r o w " her out of the m a r i t a l residence for the s e p a r a t i o n l i k e the m a r i t a l residence t h a t she h a d n o t h a d an a f f a i r was been worried The that s e v e r a l months b e f o r e felt i s s u e s between and t h a t h e r home. she h a d She never testified w i t h H o l d e n , t h a t she h a d n o t h e l d h i s h a n d a t t h e Memphis i n May f e s t i v a l , and t h a t she h a d not Memphis made festival. and s t u d y eye contact with Hankins at the The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t H o l d e n was o n l y h e r partner, t h e Memphis i n May that she was festival in friend unaware t h a t he w o u l d be on May May at 15, 2010, and t h a t she h a d r a n d o m l y bumped i n t o h i m i n a r e s t a u r a n t a t t h e Memphis i n May festival, although she admitted 6 that she and Holden had 2110557 e x c h a n g e d s e v e r a l t e x t messages r e g a r d i n g festival The t h e Memphis i n May t h a t morning. wife requested that the t r i a l court award h e r t h e 1995 A c u r a a u t o m o b i l e , t h e B o w f l e x machine, t h e computer desk, her nursing filing textbooks, cabinet. the 32-inch responsible student-loan and a small She f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t she was n o t s e e k i n g an a w a r d o f t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e be television, f o r the debts and t h a t she would l i k e t o i n h e r name, i n c l u d i n g her d e b t i n t h e amount o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y $85,000, so l o n g as t h e h u s b a n d was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e d e b t s i n h i s name. The wife testified t h a t she h a d b e e n w o r k i n g p a r t r e g i s t e r e d nurse and s t u d y i n g the t o be a n u r s e p r a c t i t i o n e r a t time o f the p a r t i e s ' s e p a r a t i o n . had p a i d t h e p a r t i e s ' R a i n s o f t b i l l the p a r t i e s ' s e p a r a t i o n other t i m e as a She t e s t i f i e d t h a t she f o r f o u r months f o l l o w i n g a n d t h a t s h e h a d n o t c o n t r i b u t e d any funds toward t h e m a r i t a l expenses, although she s t a t e d t h a t she was aware o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s May 26, 2010, p e n d e n t e lite order. ability The t o pay contribute wife testified her separate t o t h e husband's that living expenses she had l a c k e d t h e expenses as a t the time well as of the s e p a r a t i o n b e c a u s e , she s a i d , a t t h e t i m e she was o n l y w o r k i n g 7 2110557 part time. She further testified loan i n the amount o f $8,000 a g a i n s t account i n order to provide the The separation. that wife her f o r h e r own testified 2012. She testified job the w i f e , festival with the wife, t h a t " [ t h e w i f e ] was He testified friendship he had d i d not and h a n d a t t h e Memphis i n May 2010 not travel t h a t he to h i s pastor. messages and He telephone the few also h e l p i n g her that the she had calls s a i d , he had income i s $3,800. not an affair S p e c i f i c a l l y , he stated t h e r e a t t h e same time." the occasions between wife was when t h e he had the just a wife 8 had r e f e r r e d her numerous them were due to to text his acute-care-nurse-practitioner a l r e a d y p a s s e d t h e exam and study. May wife's stated that h e l p i n g p r e p a r e the w i f e f o r the exam b e c a u s e , he and passed h e l d the m e n t i o n e d h e r m a r i t a l p r o b l e m s t o him, talk had t o t h e Memphis i n had festival. t h e r e , and I was t h a t , on a retirement been h a v i n g that his r e l a t i o n s h i p with and out a nurse p r a c t i t i o n e r i n February that t h a t he taken 401(k) she t h a t her monthly net Holden t e s t i f i e d with as had l i v i n g expenses a f t e r that n u r s e p r a c t i t i o n e r ' s exam i n O c t o b e r started a full-time she was 2110557 On November 15, 2011, the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment d i v o r c i n g the p a r t i e s , d i v i d i n g the p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y , and o r d e r i n g the w i f e t o pay rata share of the pendency of wife filed the divorce t h e h u s b a n d $23,265 as h e r expenses marital pro during the 2011, the action. On a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n and her postjudgment motion. The on F e b r u a r y 28, 2012. November 30, requested a hearing on w i f e ' s postjudgment motion d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w p u r s u a n t P., incurred The t o R u l e 59.1, A l a . R. wife t i m e l y appealed was Civ. to this court. The trial i s s u e s on c o u r t committed r e v e r s i b l e hearing trial wife r a i s e s three regarding her (3) w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l determinative discussion Waldrop, that this in failing postjudgment motion, p a r t i e s ' marital property. be e r r o r by (1) w h e t h e r (2) of 924 the So. of other 2d 719, We whether the court erred i n dividing f i n d the w i f e ' s f i r s t appeal, i s s u e s . See 723 and, thus, we F a v o r i t e Mkt. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) the to hold c o u r t e r r e d i n i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the pendente o r d e r , and to appeal: a the lite the argument pretermit Store v. (stating court would p r e t e r m i t d i s c u s s i o n of f u r t h e r i s s u e s l i g h t of d i s p o s i t i v e nature of another 9 issue). 2110557 On a p p e a l , t h e w i f e a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t reversible error in postjudgment motion. trial court's failing to conduct Specifically, e r r o r was a committed hearing on her the w i f e contends t h a t the r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r because, she says, t h e r e was p r o b a b l e m e r i t t o h e r p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , and, argues, the regarding trial substantial failure to postjudgment the court's motion "injuriously rights So. 2d 297, 300 of the p a r t i e s . " ( A l a . 2003). See hold the Ex p a r t e she hearing affected Evans, The w i f e a s s e r t s f o u r 875 arguments i n s u p p o r t of her c o n t e n t i o n s t h a t her postjudgment motion had probable merit hearing rights. and t h a t t h e t r i a l on t h e p o s t j u d g m e n t Those arguments court's motion are as failure injuriously follows: (1) to hold a a f f e c t e d her the evidence p r e s e n t e d was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o show what w o u l d c o n s t i t u t e a p r o rata division award required student was not of the m a r i t a l expenses; the wife loan although t o pay (2) t h e t r i a l the husband's the husband conceded a t t r i a l that that a m a r i t a l expense; (3) a portion the trial i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e w i f e owed t h e h u s b a n d pendente l i t e expenses although court's judgment 18 months o f u n p a i d the case had been p e n d i n g f o r o n l y 16 months a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l ; 10 of court's and (4) t h e t r i a l court 2110557 failed to consider the R a i n s o f t p a y m e n t s made by d u r i n g the pendency of the d i v o r c e a c t i o n . argument what regarding would the i n s u f f i c i e n c y constitute a pro e x p e n s e s t o be d e t e r m i n a t i v e In t h i s case, rata the wife We f i n d t h e w i f e ' s of the evidence division as t o of the m a r i t a l of the appeal. the record i n d i c a t e s that the wife f i l e d a t i m e l y postjudgment motion r a i s i n g her i n s u f f i c i e n c y - o f - t h e e v i d e n c e arguments and t h a t t h e w i f e requested her postjudgment motion. further indicates that the trial court postjudgment failed motion, The r e c o r d t o conduct and, thus, a hearing the motion a hearing regarding was denied o p e r a t i o n o f law p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59.1. " R u l e 5 9 ( g ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] p r o v i d e s that p o s t t r i a l m o t i o n s ' r e m a i n p e n d i n g u n t i l r u l e d upon by t h e c o u r t ( s u b j e c t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f R u l e 5 9 . 1 ) , b u t s h a l l n o t be r u l e d upon u n t i l t h e p a r t i e s have h a d o p p o r t u n i t y t o be h e a r d t h e r e o n . ' The f a i l u r e t o h o l d a h e a r i n g on a p o s t t r i a l m o t i o n i s n o t a l w a y s r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r , h o w e v e r . Our supreme c o u r t has s t a t e d : " ' " [ I ] f a p a r t y r e q u e s t s a h e a r i n g on i t s m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l , t h e c o u r t must g r a n t t h e r e q u e s t . " Ex p a r t e E v a n s , 875 So. 2d 297, 299-300 ( A l a . 2003) ( c i t i n g R u l e 5 9 ( g ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., a n d W a l l s v. Bank o f P r a t t v i l l e , 554 So. 2d 381, 382 ( A l a . 1989)). Although i t i s e r r o r f o r the t r i a l c o u r t not t o grant such a h e a r i n g , t h i s e r r o r i s not n e c e s s a r i l y r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . 11 on the by 2110557 " T h i s C o u r t has e s t a b l i s h e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t the d e n i a l of a postjudgment motion w i t h o u t a h e a r i n g t h e r e o n i s h a r m l e s s e r r o r , where (1) t h e r e i s ... no p r o b a b l e m e r i t i n t h e g r o u n d s a s s e r t e d i n t h e m o t i o n , o r (2) t h e appellate court resolves the issues p r e s e n t e d t h e r e i n , as a m a t t e r o f law, a d v e r s e l y t o t h e movant, by a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e same o b j e c t i v e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w as t h a t a p p l i e d i n the t r i a l c o u r t . " H i s t o r i c B l a k e l y A u t h . v. W i l l i a m s , 675 So. 2d 350, 352 ( A l a . 1995) ( c i t i n g G r e e n e v. Thompson, 554 So. 2d 376 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ) . ' " C h i s m v. J e f f e r s o n (Ala. 2006)." Cunningham v. 2009). court The We for agree w i t h 25 So. 954 3d the w i f e to hold a hearing So. 475, R. new 2d 1058, 477 t h a t the 1086 (Ala. failure Civ. App. of the on h e r p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was i s s u e becomes w h e t h e r s u c h e r r o r was the w i f e ' s Ala. Edwards, County, trial error. reversible error. As a p p e l l a t e b r i e f c o r r e c t l y notes, "[u]nder Rule 45, App. P., the failure to grant a hearing t r i a l p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59(g) on a motion i s reversible error only i f i t '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 p a r t i e s . ' " Kitchens (footnote omitted) v. Maye, 623 (quoting Rule c i t i n g G r e e n e v. Thompson, 554 and W a l l s v. 1989)). "If Bank o f the So. So. Prattville, failure to 12 2d 1082, 45, Ala. 2d 376, 554 R. (Ala. Civ. P., 1993) and 380-81 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) , So. conduct 1088 the 2d a 381, hearing 382 did (Ala. not 2110557 '"injuriously affect[] [the] substantial p a r t i e s , " ' t h a t f a i l u r e , w h i l e e r r o r , was v. TRX Alliance, Inc., 99 So. 3d 1233, rights of harmless." 1236 the DWOC, LLC (Ala. Civ. App. 2012). As n o t e d a b o v e , 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 several was arguments a s s e r t i n g t h a t the due to be reversed because, trial the court's wife j u d g m e n t o r d e r i n g t h e w i f e t o pay $23,265 as h e r p o r t i o n of the pro during u n s u p p o r t e d by the "The trial the pendency the evidence. court's judgment [ w i f e ] s h a l l pay t h e m a r i t a l home b i l l s issue wife indicating amount o f determination in this evidence by t h e t r i a l the because action was appeal states: Pro Rata share of f i l e d i n the months." contends t h a t t h a t p o r t i o n of the husband the p r o v i s i o n of f r o m t h e t i m e t h e c a s e was u n s u p p o r t e d by the divorce [husband] h e r amount o f $1292.50 p e r month f o r 18 The the Specifically, to the the the r a t a share of the m a r i t a l of at judgment contended, p o r t i o n of the expenses contained there husband's the was judgment i s no income t o testimony support c o u r t of her pro r a t a share of a the m a r i t a l e x p e n s e s and t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t does n o t c r e d i t h e r f o r paying the R a i n s o f t b i l l d e s p i t e her u n d i s p u t e d 13 testimony that 2110557 she had paid separation. we the Rainsoft for A f t e r a c a r e f u l review four The record i s devoid t h e h u s b a n d ' s i n c o m e , and payment o f parties' the s e p a r a t i o n was trial court's o f any failure to hold after a hearing this wife's f o l l o w i n g the conclude on that the wife's i n j u r i o u s l y a f f e c t e d the wife's rights. case, the trial court erred i n f a i l i n g presented to conduct a h e a r i n g r e g a r d i n g 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 and t h a t error in f a i l i n g Thus, we by t o c o n d u c t a h e a r i n g was not harmless of law, and we remand t h e cause to error. the c o u r t t o c o n d u c t a h e a r i n g on t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d i n t h e p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . See The any r e v e r s e the d e n i a l of the w i f e ' s postjudgment motion operation 3d 1258, her regarding A c c o r d i n g l y , we d e t e r m i n e t h a t , u n d e r t h e f a c t s in to r e g a r d i n g the Thus, we the appeal, merit testimony f o r f o u r months undisputed. postjudgment motion probably substantial probable the testimony Rainsoft b i l l months o f t h e r e c o r d on a g r e e w i t h t h e w i f e t h a t t h e r e was arguments. the bill 1262 requests wife's I s b e l l v. R o g e r s A u t o S a l e s , 72 ( A l a . C i v . App. parties' trial So. 2011). f o r a t t o r n e y s ' f e e s on denied. 14 appeal are 2110557 REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n , Moore, a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , concur. 15

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.