Nancy W. Blount v. William B. Blount

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 07/19/2013 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2013 2111194 Nancy W. Blount v. W i l l i a m B. Blount Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t Court (DR-97-28.04 and DR-97-28.05) THOMAS, J u d g e . Nancy W. B l o u n t ("the f o r m e r w i f e " ) a n d W i l l i a m B. B l o u n t ("the f o r m e r husband") were d i v o r c e d b y t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t Court i n 1998. Among o t h e r things not pertinent to this a p p e a l , t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d was o r d e r e d t o p a y p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y 2111194 in the monthly modified amount o f $ 4 , 0 0 0 . several The at a l l t i m e s remained o b l i g a t e d t o pay a l i m o n y i n the monthly amount It I n May the former was husband of $ 4 , 0 0 0 . t i m e s ; however, d i v o r c e judgment 2010, that i s undisputed t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d was the former husband incarcerated. began paying partial a l i m o n y payment o f $ 2 , 0 0 0 p e r month i n June 2010. January 26, 2011, the former wife filed a petition c i r c u i t c o u r t s e e k i n g an o r d e r o f c o n t e m p t b e c a u s e husband had " f a i l e d the former or r e f u s e d " t o pay a l i m o n y . h u s b a n d was i n arrears ($2,000 p e r month f o r 8 m o n t h s ) . husband f i l e d a On i n the the former At that time i n t h e amount o f $ 1 6 , 0 0 0 On June 27, 2011, t h e f o r m e r an answer t o t h e f o r m e r w i f e ' s p e t i t i o n and a c o u n t e r p e t i t i o n f o r a m o d i f i c a t i o n , s e e k i n g the t e r m i n a t i o n of his alimony o b l i g a t i o n because, pay alimony i n any amount. A he a l l e g e d , he was c o n t e m p t h e a r i n g was November 28, 2011; t h e j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d on A p r i l The circuit unable to c o u r t found the held 25, on 2012. former husband i n contempt for his failure t o p a y $4,000 p e r month i n a l i m o n y ; h o w e v e r , it suspended the former husband's alimony obligation r e t r o a c t i v e t o J u l y 2011, w h i c h was t h e month a f t e r t h e f o r m e r husband f i l e d his counterpetition 2 for a modification of h i s 2111194 alimony o b l i g a t i o n . However, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e j u d g m e n t , 1 the amount o f $4,000 p e r month i n a l i m o n y w o u l d c o n t i n u e t o a c c r u e and t h e f u l l was amount w o u l d become due when t h e f o r m e r released from prison and employed. The husband circuit court f o u n d t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d h a d p a i d t h e f o r m e r w i f e $10,000 from 2011 ($2,000 months) and t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had stipulated husband an a r r e a r a g e o f $ 3 6 , 0 0 0 , was July was 2011 to November o b l i g a t e d t o pay per month for 5 that the former "$2,000 p e r month f o r e a c h month f r o m June November 2011" ($2,000 p e r month f o r 18 m o n t h s ) . court calculated total award On alter, May interest 2010 through The circuit i n t h e amount o f $2,920.12 of $38,920.12. former for a 2 3, which 2012, the husband amend, o r v a c a t e t h e c i r c u i t other t h i n g s not p e r t i n e n t t o t h i s a l l e g e d t h a t he had filed a motion to c o u r t ' s judgment. Among appeal, the former husband c o n t i n u e d t o pay the former w i f e $2,000 If a trial c o u r t m o d i f i e s o r t e r m i n a t e s an a l i m o n y o b l i g a t i o n , i t has t h e d i s c r e t i o n t o m o d i f y o r t o t e r m i n a t e t h a t o b l i g a t i o n r e t r o a c t i v e t o a date not e a r l i e r than the date the p a r t y f i l e d a p e t i t i o n to modify. See H i n d s v. H i n d s , 887 So. 2d 267, 273 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) . 1 The c i r c u i t c o u r t c a l c u l a t e d the i n t e r e s t " a t a r a t e of 1 2 % p e r annum t h r o u g h A u g u s t 2011 and a t a r a t e o f 7.5% p e r annum b e g i n n i n g S e p t e m b e r 1, 2011." 2 3 2111194 per month i n alimony contempt hearing due and to the the entry lapse of time of suspended h i s alimony o b l i g a t i o n . partial 2011 the between judgment the that had The f o r m e r h u s b a n d h a d made a l i m o n y payments i n t h e amount o f $22,000 f r o m t h r o u g h May pursuant to 2012 the ($2,000 p e r month f o r 11 months) judgment suspended. The requesting that $38,920.12 award, $16,920.12 ($38,920.12 - On May former husband the c i r c u i t thus 4, 2012, entered in sought April an July that, 2012, amended were judgment, c o u r t s u b t r a c t $22,000 f r o m r e d u c i n g the former w i f e ' s award the to $22,000). the former w i f e f i l e d a motion to a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s judgment. She requested t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t vacate i t s order suspending the husband's a l i m o n y o b l i g a t i o n . Furthermore, former a c c o r d i n g to the former w i f e , i f the c i r c u i t c o u r t v a c a t e d i t s o r d e r , then the f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s a r r e a r a g e and t h e i n t e r e s t on t h a t a r r e a r a g e w o u l d i n c r e a s e and t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d w o u l d owe $52,997.04. motions, After a h e a r i n g on an amended j u d g m e n t was the parties' t h e amount o f postjudgment e n t e r e d on A u g u s t 1, 2012. The c i r c u i t c o u r t , among o t h e r t h i n g s , s u b t r a c t e d $22,000 f r o m 4 2111194 its judgment awarding the former wife $38,920.12, thus r e d u c i n g t h e f o r m e r w i f e ' s a w a r d t o $16,920.12. The former w i f e f i l e d a t i m e l y n o t i c e of appeal s e e k i n g t h i s c o u r t ' s r e v i e w o f two i s s u e s : whether, by applying the f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s p a r t i a l payments o f $2,000 t o t h e $38,920.12 a r r e a r a g e r a t h e r t h a n t h e f u l l amount due, the former husband received the a "double credit" 3 and whether circuit e r r e d by s u s p e n d i n g t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s a l i m o n y The paid following alimony 2010, facts i n the are undisputed. amount o f and he p a i d p a r t i a l The court obligation. former husband $4,000 p e r month t h r o u g h May a l i m o n y p a y m e n t s i n t h e amount o f $2,000 p e r month f r o m J u n e 2010 t h r o u g h May 2012. However, the c i r c u i t c o u r t suspended the former husband's o b l i g a t i o n t o p a y any amount o f a l i m o n y as o f J u l y 2011. Due to the five- month l a p s e o f t i m e b e t w e e n t h e c o n t e m p t h e a r i n g and t h e e n t r y of the judgment, the former husband made $2,000 partial The former w i f e d i d not r a i s e the "double-credit" argument i n h e r p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , n o r d i d she c i t e r e l e v a n t a u t h o r i t y i n h e r b r i e f on a p p e a l . However, as t h e f o r m e r w i f e c l a i m s i n h e r b r i e f , h e r f i r s t i s s u e i s " e s s e n t i a l l y a math p r o b l e m " ; we a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t r e l e v a n t a u t h o r i t y may not exist. 3 5 2111194 a l i m o n y payments f r o m J u n e 2010 t h r o u g h May 2012 i n t h e amount o f $48,000 total ($2,000 p e r month f o r 24 m o n t h s ) . I n i t s amended j u d g m e n t , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t began w i t h t h e parties' stipulated interest due subtracted arrearage ($36,000 $22,000 -- + figure o f $36,000, $2,920.12 the = amount the of $38,920.12), partial payments t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d h a d made f r o m J u l y May 2012 ($2,000 p e r month f o r 11 m o n t h s ) . the former husband $16,920.12 that, owed the The alimony November 2011 payments against he paid t h e $38,920.12 through arrearage between c r e d i t f o r the July arrearage, s o , she c o n t e n d s , b e c a u s e t h e c i r c u i t credited court the former husband f o r the p a r t i a l 2011 the had alimony arrearage. The c i r c u i t We and circuit This already payments he p a i d b e t w e e n J u l y 2011 and November 2011 i n d e t e r m i n i n g $38,920.12 of former w i f e contends c o u r t awarded a " d o u b l e c r e d i t " t o the f o r m e r husband. is and alimony 2011 an by a w a r d i n g t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d a $10,000 partial the I t determined that former wife ($38,920.12 - $ 2 2 , 0 0 0 ) . added the disagree. court's calculation of the arrearage t h e f o r m e r w i f e began w i t h a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the t o t a l due t o h e r f r o m J u n e 2010 t h o u g h November 2011. 6 owed t o amount T h a t amount 2111194 was $72,000 ($4,000 p e r month f o r 18 months). The former h u s b a n d h a d p a i d $36,000 d u r i n g t h o s e months ($2,000 p e r month for 18 m o n t h s ) . Thus, t h e amount o f u n p a i d a l i m o n y owed b y t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d i n November 2011 was May However, b y 2012, t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d h a d p a i d an a d d i t i o n a l $22,000 i n a l i m o n y t h a t he was 11 $36,000. months) judgment alimony not r e q u i r e d t o pay because had the circuit retroactively obligation as of court's suspended July ($2,000 p e r month f o r April the 2011. 25, former The husband's circuit p r o p e r l y s u b t r a c t e d $22,000 f r o m t h e f o r m e r w i f e ' s award. 2012, court $38,920.12 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 f o r m e r h u s b a n d d i d n o t receive a "double credit." Next, the former w i f e argues t h a t the c i r c u i t court erred by s u s p e n d i n g t h e former husband's o b l i g a t i o n t o pay a l i m o n y . The former conflicting t o pay wife concedes that evidence regarding alimony while he the the circuit court former husband's i s i n p r i s o n , b u t she resolved ability contends that t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g o f c o n t e m p t and i t s s u s p e n s i o n o f the former husband's "inconsistent." We do obligation not judgment r e a d s , i n p e r t i n e n t agree. part: 7 to The pay alimony circuit is court's 2111194 " T h i s c o u r t i s f a c e d w i t h a f o r m e r H u s b a n d who i s u n a b l e t o p a y h i s m o n t h l y a l i m o n y payment due t o h i s b e i n g i n c a r c e r a t e d and h a v i n g no income and a f o r m e r W i f e who i s w o r k i n g and e a r n i n g an income, b u t who i s e n t i t l e d t o m o n t h l y a l i m o n y p u r s u a n t t o the F i n a l Decree of D i v o r c e d e n t e r e d i n t h i s matter. " "The former Husband i s a g r a d u a t e of the U n i v e r s i t y Of A l a b a m a S c h o o l Of Law and was a l i c e n s e d a t t o r n e y i n the S t a t e of Alabama p r i o r t o h i s i n c a r c e r a t i o n . The former Husband certainly s h o u l d have b e e n aware o f t h e f a c t t h a t o n l y a c o u r t o f c o m p e t e n t j u r i s d i c t i o n , s u c h as t h i s one, may m o d i f y an a w a r d o f a l i m o n y . The former Husband f a i l e d to b r i n g t h i s matter to t h i s Court p r i o r to d e c i d i n g t o p a y o n l y o n e - h a l f (^) o f h i s C o u r t O r d e r e d a l i m o n y t o t h e f o r m e r W i f e . ... B a s e d upon t h e above f a c t s t h e f o r m e r W i f e i s a l s o a w a r d e d A t t o r n e y ' s Fees i n t h e amount o f T h r e e T h o u s a n d Two Hundred D o l l a r s ($3,200.00). "The f o r m e r Husband's m o n t h l y a l i m o n y payments s h a l l be s u s p e n d e d [ ; ] h o w e v e r , t h e y s h a l l c o n t i n u e t o a c c r u e a t a r a t e o f $4,000.00 p e r month and t h e f o r m e r Husband s h a l l be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e payment o f same i n amount t o be d e t e r m i n e d once t h e f o r m e r Husband i s r e l e a s e d f r o m p r i s o n and has found f u l l - t i m e employment." The circuit court held the former husband i n contempt, a w a r d e d t h e f o r m e r w i f e a t t o r n e y f e e s , and r e q u i r e d t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d t o r e m a i n o b l i g a t e d f o r t h e e n t i r e amount o f a l i m o n y due to the former wife former w i f e a f t e r argues that his release the 8 circuit from p r i s o n . court exceeded The its 2111194 discretion failing by t o pay finding the former husband a l l the ordered alimony in contempt t h a t was due for before J u l y 2011 b u t by s u s p e n d i n g t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s o b l i g a t i o n t o p a y a l i m o n y f r o m J u l y 2011 When e v i d e n c e until he i s r e l e a s e d f r o m i s presented to a t r i a l prison. c o u r t i n an ore tenus p r o c e e d i n g , the t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g r e g a r d i n g contempt is presumed c o r r e c t . V a r n e r v. V a r n e r , (Ala. C i v . App. 1994) (Ala. C i v . App. 1994)). or So. (citing 1989)). (citing So. 2d 273, 277 P i e r c e v. H e l k a , 634 So. 2d 1031 C i v i l contempt i s i n t e n d e d t o c o e r c e compel c o m p l i a n c e w i t h 2d a t 277 662 orders of the c o u r t . S t a t e v. Thomas, 550 Varner, So. 2d 1067 (Ala. Furthermore, " ' [ t ] h e o b l i g a t i o n t o pay periodic a l i m o n y may be m o d i f i e d when t h e r e has b e e n a m a t e r i a l change i n t h e f i n a n c i a l or e c o n o m i c needs o f t h e p a y e e s p o u s e and t h e a b i l i t y of the payor spouse t o respond t o t h o s e n e e d s . M c K e n z i e v. M c K e n z i e , 568 So. 2d 819 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1990) . The b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a m a t e r i a l change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s i s upon t h e m o v i n g p a r t y . McKenzie. A d e c i s i o n to modify p e r i o d i c alimony l i e s w i t h i n the d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t and w i l l n o t be s e t a s i d e on a p p e a l u n l e s s a p a l p a b l e abuse o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n i s shown.' "Maddox v. Maddox, 612 So. 2d 1222, 1223 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1992) . See a l s o T a y l o r v. T a y l o r , 640 So. 2d 9 662 2111194 971 So. ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 4 ) , and O y l e r v. O y l e r , 2d 650 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 4 ) . " H i n d s v. H i n d s , 887 So. 2d 267, 272 this ( A l a . C i v . App. 446 2003) . In c a s e , t h e f i n d i n g o f c o n t e m p t and t h e s u s p e n s i o n o f t h e former husband's alimony obligation are well within the d i s c r e t i o n of the c i r c u i t c o u r t , and we f i n d no abuse o f t h a t discretion. the i s consistent. Furthermore former husband u n i l a t e r a l l y before he sought Thus, t h e c i r c u i t t o have judgment The r e d u c e d h i s a l i m o n y payment w e l l h i s alimony obligation modified. c o u r t c o u l d have c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e former h u s b a n d ' s f a i l u r e t o pay h i s e n t i r e a l i m o n y o b l i g a t i o n b e f o r e July 2011 was terminate, or contemptuous but suspend his that h i s request to alimony obligation modify, was well supported. In a r e l a t e d a r g u m e n t , t h e f o r m e r w i f e c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t i m p r o p e r l y r e s t r i c t e d her a b i l i t y to c o l l e c t the a r r e a r a g e due by r e t r o a c t i v e l y s u s p e n d i n g t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s alimony o b l i g a t i o n . The former w i f e i s c o r r e c t t h a t a l i m o n y payments a r e f i n a l j u d g m e n t s any o t h e r judgment. and may be c o l l e c t e d See M o t l e y v. M o t l e y , 505 1228-29 ( A l a . C i v . App. 686 (Ala. Civ. 2d 320, 323 10 App. as So. 2d v. Anderson, 1 9 8 6 ) ; see a l s o A n d e r s o n So. accrued 1996)(an 1228, "[a]limony 2111194 arrearage i s a final j u d g m e n t as o f t h e d a t e due a n d i s n o t subject to modification," c i t i n g H a r r i s v . H a r r i s , 553 So. 2d 129, 130 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 9 ) ) . However, t h i s c o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t o n l y t h o s e a l i m o n y payments t h a t have m a t u r e d b e f o r e t h e filing v. o f a p e t i t i o n t o m o d i f y a r e immune f r o m c h a n g e . Taylor, 640 1994)(explaining So. that 2d 971, "payments 975 Taylor (Ala. Civ. of alimony ... App. constitute f i n a l j u d g m e n t s f r o m t h e d a t e t h a t t h e y become due, a n d t h o s e payments that mature before the f i l i n g immune f r o m c h a n g e " ) . That i s , a t r i a l modify, or terminate, suspend of a p e t i t i o n are c o u r t h a s t h e power t o an alimony obligation r e t r o a c t i v e t o t h e d a t e t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n was filed. See H i n d s , 887 So. 2d a t 273 ( d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t a t r i a l court, considering alimony petition obligation, terminate than a t o modify has that obligation the date or terminate "the d i s c r e t i o n retroactive t h e [spouse] filed a spouse's t o modify t o a date or to not e a r l i e r h i s [or her] p e t i t i o n to modify"). The court's former wife authority relies on c a s e l a w to prevent relating or r e s t r i c t j u d g m e n t f o r an a r r e a r a g e when t h e t r i a l 11 to a trial enforcement of a c o u r t h a s o r d e r e d an 2111194 arrearage to be Indeed, a t r i a l a spouse to paid installments. c o u r t may enforce a However, t h e c i r c u i t former w i f e in not r e s t r i c t judgment c o u r t has judgment i t awarded h e r . power to suspend retroactive Although to the the date he husband's filed alimony. of Id. attempted to r e s t r i c t $16,920.12 former supra. or i m p a i r the r i g h t the alimony-arrearage I n s t e a d , the c i r c u i t the circuit Motley, f o r past-due not from e n f o r c i n g the See court used i t s alimony payments his modification petition. c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n to suspend the former h u s b a n d ' s a l i m o n y payments d u r i n g h i s i n c a r c e r a t i o n i m p a c t t h e alimony a c t u a l l y due to the former w i f e , the circuit court's e x e r c i s e o f i t s power does n o t i m p a c t t h e f o r m e r w i f e ' s to enforce Therefore, the we alimony-arrearage reject the former judgment wife's in her argument judgment. favor. that c i r c u i t c o u r t i m p e r m i s s i b l y i n f r i n g e d on h e r r i g h t t o the alimony-arrearage right the enforce 4 T h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d has n o t f i l e d an a p p e a l , and we have r e s o l v e d t h i s appeal u s i n g the s t i p u l a t e d - a r r e a r a g e f i g u r e the p a r t i e s p r e s e n t e d t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t . An a g r e e m e n t r e a c h e d i n s e t t l e m e n t o f l i t i g a t i o n i s as b i n d i n g on t h e p a r t i e s as any o t h e r c o n t r a c t . M i l l e r v. M i l l e r , 10 So. 3d 570, 571 n.1 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . However, we have n o t o v e r l o o k e d t h e f a c t t h a t t h e s t i p u l a t e d - a r r e a r a g e f i g u r e o f $36,000, and t h e i n t e r e s t c a l c u l a t e d thereon, i s incorrect. The p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t o an a r r e a r a g e o f $36,000 ($2,000 p e r month f o r 18 4 12 2111194 AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n , Moore, and Donaldson, J J . , concur. months). The c i r c u i t c o u r t s u s p e n d e d t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s a l i m o n y o b l i g a t i o n f o r 5 o f t h e 18 months i n c l u d e d i n t h e p e r i o d upon w h i c h t h e s t i p u l a t i o n was c a l c u l a t e d . Thus, t h e a c t u a l a r r e a r a g e p e r i o d was 13 months. The a r r e a r a g e f o r t h e p e r i o d o f June 2010 t h r o u g h June 2011 was $26,000 ($2,000 p e r month f o r 13 m o n t h s ) . To have p r o p e r l y c a l c u l a t e d t h e a r r e a r a g e due, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t s h o u l d have r e c a l c u l a t e d t h e i n t e r e s t due on $26,000 and s u b t r a c t e d t h e p a r t i a l a l i m o n y payments o f $22,000 ($2,000 p e r month f o r 11 m o n t h s ) . 13

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.