G. Scott Frazier v. Patricia Ann Curry

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/18/2013 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 2110860 G. S c o t t F r a z i e r v. P a t r i c i a Ann Curry Appeal from Tuscaloosa C i r c u i t Court (DR-08-902) THOMAS, J u d g e . G. S c o t t the Frazier Tuscaloosa ("the husband") a p p e a l s Circuit Court g a r n i s h e d from h i s bank a c c o u n t . condemning a judgment o f funds that were We r e v e r s e t h e d e n i a l o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n b y o p e r a t i o n o f l a w a n d remand 2110860 the cause f o r the t r i a l court t o conduct a hearing on that motion. The h u s b a n d and P a t r i c i a Ann C u r r y before this 2101221, 2012) . court court previously. A u g u s t 17, See 2012] So. ("the w i f e " ) have been Frazier 3d v. Curry, [Ms. ( A l a . C i v . App. On A p r i l 15, 2011, i n c a s e number DR-08-902, t h e t r i a l entered a judgment t h a t , among o t h e r things, legally s e p a r a t e d t h e p a r t i e s , d i v i d e d t h e p a r t i e s ' r e a l and p e r s o n a l property, awarded the wife sole physical custody of the p a r t i e s ' minor c h i l d , o r d e r e d t h e husband t o pay monthly c h i l d support, ordered the husband t o pay p e r i o d i c alimony, and a w a r d e d t h e w i f e an a t t o r n e y f e e i n t h e amount o f $10,000. I d . at . The h u s b a n d a p p e a l e d trial c o u r t h a d e r r e d by a w a r d i n g t h e w i f e retirement accounts, establishing In Frazier, a p o r t i o n of h i s a w a r d i n g t h e w i f e an a t t o r n e y f e e , and i n the husband's this to t h i s court, arguing that the court c h i l d - s u p p o r t award. I d . a t reversed the t r i a l court's . judgment i n s o f a r as i t h a d a w a r d e d t h e w i f e a p o r t i o n o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s retirement accounts we remanded and h a d a w a r d e d h e r an a t t o r n e y f e e , and the cause t o the t r i a l court to reconsider p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n and t h e a t t o r n e y - f e e a w a r d . I d . a t 2 the . 2110860 In again the present DR-08-902. court's appeal, the However, condemnation of the funds underlying appeal to case from lies satisfy number i s the a portion trial of the a t t o r n e y - f e e award t h a t h a d b e e n a w a r d e d p u r s u a n t t o t h e A p r i l 15, 2011, judgment, which this court subsequently reversed. The p r o c e d u r a l p o s t u r e o f t h e c u r r e n t a p p e a l i s as On August garnishment 3, to 2011, collect the the a motion t o quash argued that satisfied, the that filed attorney-fee g a r n i s h e e b e i n g C a p s t o n e Bank. filed wife process award attorney-fee the award the husband In t h a t motion, had garnishment previously to he been proceed a l l o w the w i f e to r e c e i v e a double recovery of the fee of with On A u g u s t 9, 2011, t h e the garnishment. allowing a follows. would attorney- award, and t h a t t h e w i f e h a d " f i l e d t h e g a r n i s h m e n t i n b a d faith, and to Additionally, trial court harass and i n the motion, not condemn or embarrass the husband release the conducted a h e a r i n g regarding the motion. Capstone Bank answered indicated that i t was the the process holding account. 3 $9,152.72 [husband]." requested that funds until i t had On A u g u s t 11, of garnishment from the the 2011, and husband's 2110860 On January 9, 2012, the w i f e f i l e d a m o t i o n s t y l e d as " m o t i o n t o o r d e r money i n t o c o u r t , " i n w h i c h she order r e q u i r i n g C a p s t o n e Bank holding pursuant Tuscaloosa office"). funds. to Circuit of Court T h a t same day On F e b r u a r y pay process the to Clerk's the w i f e 23, 2012, funds garnishment Office filed i t ("the the the clerk's a motion to Additionally, f u n d s i t was condemn order holding on F e b r u a r y 23, into 2012, the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r c o n d e m n i n g t h e $9,152.72 t h a t being held office to satisfy 2012, the the clerk's office and distribute the funds a p o r t i o n of the trial court's to ordering attorney-fee the husband f i l e d funds. the by the award. a motion to a l t e r , February 23, 2012, conducting had an been condemned without evidentiary hearing, the attorney to On 3, March vacate condemning husband argued the t h a t the was clerk's amend, o r order In h i s postjudgment motion, the funds wife's an was into t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an d i r e c t i n g C a p s t o n e B a n k t o pay the c l e r k ' s o f f i c e . a l l the requested a trial the that court's garnishment was u n l a w f u l , and t h a t he had p r e v i o u s l y s a t i s f i e d h i s o b l i g a t i o n to pay the arguments. wife's The attorney fees, among husband a l s o r e q u e s t e d 4 numerous a hearing other regarding 2110860 his postjudgment motion. The trial court d i d not conduct a h e a r i n g on t h e h u s b a n d ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , and t h e m o t i o n was 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 t o R u l e 59.1, A l a . R. Civ. P. The h u s b a n d t i m e l y appealed. The h u s b a n d a r g u e s t h r e e i s s u e s on a p p e a l : 1) w h e t h e r t h e trial c o u r t v i o l a t e d h i s d u e - p r o c e s s r i g h t s by c o n d e m n i n g t h e f u n d s w i t h o u t c o n d u c t i n g a h e a r i n g ; 2) w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l erred in failing to conduct m o t i o n ; and 3) w h e t h e r the husband's appeal, and, issues. See 723 thus, second we his postjudgment doctrine requires c o u r t ' s F e b r u a r y 23, 2012, o r d e r . argument pretermit F a v o r i t e Mkt. ( A l a . C i v . App. on the law-of-the-case a r e v e r s a l of the t r i a l find a hearing court determinative discussion S t o r e v. W a l d r o p , 2005) (stating that of 924 this of the So. the other 2d court We 719, 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 i n l i g h t of d i s p o s i t i v e nature On of another appeal, issue). the husband erred to reversal i n f a i l i n g his postjudgment husband requested contends that the trial to conduct a h e a r i n g motion. The a hearing on record regarding indicates h i s postjudgment court that the motion and t h a t the t r i a l court f a i l e d to conduct a h e a r i n g r e g a r d i n g the 5 2110860 postjudgment motion, and, thus, the motion was denied by 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 (subject t o the p r o v i s i o n s of Rule 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 , this 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 . " T h i s C o u r t has e s t a b l i s h e d , however, t h a t the d e n i a l of a postjudgment motion without 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 presented t h e r e i n , as a m a t t e r o f l a w , 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 that a p p l i e d i n the t r i a l court." H i s t o r i c T - ) i - , n , ^ i , , -A,,4-1-, T - i ; , B l a k e l y A u t h . v. W .i7 l;l ii- 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 C o u n t y , (Ala. 2006). Cunningham v. E d w a r d s , 25 2009). We agree w i t h 954 So. 2d 1058, So. 3d 475, 477 the husband t h a t 6 1086 ( A l a . C i v . App. the f a i l u r e of the 2110860 trial court to hold a hearing error. The issue then on h i s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n becomes whether such was error is reversible. E r r o r " i s r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r only i f i t 'probably injuriously affected Kitchens substantial v. Maye, 623 So. 2d 1082, R u l e 45, A l a . R. C i v . P., So. rights 2d 376, 380-81 1088 of parties.'" ( A l a . 1993) and c i t i n g Greene ( A l a . 1989), the and (quoting v. Thompson, Walls v. 554 Bank of P r a t t v i l l e , 554 So. 2d 381, 382 (Ala. 1989)). " I f the f a i l u r e to '"injuriously affect[] [the] failure, while conduct a hearing substantial rights d i d not of the parties,"' that e r r o r , was h a r m l e s s . " DWOC, LLC v. TRX A l l i a n c e , 3d 1233, 1236 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2012) I n c . , 99 So. ( q u o t i n g K i t c h e n s , 623 So. 2d a t 1 0 8 8 ) . As n o t e d i n h i s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , t h e h u s b a n d t h a t he h a d p r e v i o u s l y s a t i s f i e d that condemning double the funds would recovery, among the a t t o r n e y - f e e a l l o w the wife numerous other in Frazier, remanded the this court cause reversed f o r the award. the a t t o r n e y - f e e trial court to and a targeted Moreover, award and reconsider the a t t o r n e y - f e e award b a s e d on t h e f a c t t h a t t h e t r i a l 7 award to receive arguments toward the i m p r o p r i e t y of the a t t o r n e y - f e e asserted court had 2110860 erred in dividing division of conclude that arguments, to the the m a r i t a l property husband's there exists to i t s improper accounts. probable merit Thus, to the husband's adversely as a m a t t e r o f l a w . C h i s m v. J e f f e r s o n C n t y . , 954 So. 2d 1058, 1086 ( A l a . 2006). 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 this case, the t r i a l court erred i n f a i l i n g h e a r i n g r e g a r d i n g the husband's any error in failing error. Thus, postjudgment we reverse the operation denial comply with Frazier. Civ. (Ala. App. See we postjudgment note that the motion. trial t h e remand i n s t r u c t i o n s court given C i v . App. by the husband's Accordingly, remand the on t h e i s s u e s See Isbell has a this 3d 204, ( q u o t i n g Brown v. Brown, 20 So. 2009)). that harmless ( A l a . C i v . App. G i a r d i n a v. G i a r d i n a , 39 So. 2009) of not o f l a w , and we R o g e r s A u t o S a l e s , 72 So. 3d 1258, 1262 Additionally, to conduct a was court to conduct a h e a r i n g i n the husband's presented p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n and to conduct a h e a r i n g m o t i o n by cause t o the t r i a l raised we c o u r t cannot r e s o l v e the i s s u e and t h i s the husband retirement due 2011) . duty to court i n 208 ( A l a . 3d 139, 141 court must r e c o n s i d e r t h e a t t o r n e y - f e e award on remand i n F r a z i e r , and, 8 the t r i a l v. 2110860 thus, c o n d e m n a t i o n o f any f u n d s w o u l d be p r e m a t u r e u n t i l trial court attorney-fee reconsiders award the property i n compliance with distribution our instructions Frazier. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n 9 and Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . the and in

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.