Stuart C. Dubose v. Allison T. Dubose
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 3/22/2013 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 , 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 2120007 S t u a r t C. Dubose v. A l l i s o n T. Dubose Appeal from C l a r k e C i r c u i t Court (DR-08-30) PER CURIAM. S t u a r t C. Dubose divorcing ("the husband") a p p e a l s him from A l l i s o n T. Dubose from a judgment ("the w i f e " ) . Among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e judgment a l s o d i v i d e d t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y and ordered t h e husband t o pay c h i l d support. The 2120007 j u d g m e n t i n t h i s c a s e c o m p r i s e s t h r e e d o c u m e n t s : an A u g u s t 4 , 2009, order 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 m a r i t a l property; determining In t h i s a March 5, 2010, and an A u g u s t 1 7 , 2 0 1 2 , o r d e r the husband's c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n . appeal, order 1 t h e h u s b a n d c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e A u g u s t 4, 2009, o r d e r d i v o r c i n g t h e p a r t i e s v i o l a t e d A l a b a m a l a w b e c a u s e i t was b a s e d o n l y on t h e s t i p u l a t i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s , any p r o o f o f t h e g r o u n d s f o r t h e d i v o r c e e v e r b e i n g or c o n s i d e r e d " by the t r i a l says, court. "without presented S p e c i f i c a l l y , the husband t h e A u g u s t 4, 2009, o r d e r v i o l a t e d § 3 0 - 2 - 3 , A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h " f o r b i d [ s ] d i v o r c e b y c o n s e n t . " Penny A. D a v i s Robert E a r l Alimony & C h i l d M c C u r l e y , J r . , Alabama C u s t o d y H o r n b o o k § 9-8 a t 116 Divorce, & ( 4 t h ed. 2005). The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h e f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n r e l e v a n t to a d i s p o s i t i o n of t h i s f i l e d a complaint the wife alleged issue. On M a r c h 25, 2008, t h e w i f e for a divorce. As g r o u n d s f o r t h e d i v o r c e , incompatibility of temperament that was On J a n u a r y 28, 2011, t h i s c o u r t d i s m i s s e d t h e h u s b a n d ' s a p p e a l f r o m t h e M a r c h 5, 2010, o r d e r on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e r e was a " l a c k o f c o n c l u s i v e n e s s and c e r t a i n t y i n t h e o r d e r as t o t h e i s s u e o f c h i l d s u p p o r t , [ a n d t h e r e f o r e ] t h e o r d e r was n o t a f i n a l j u d g m e n t and t h i s c o u r t [ d i d ] n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e h u s b a n d ' s a p p e a l . " Dubose v. Dubose, 72 So. 3d 1210, 1212 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) . 1 2 2120007 i r r e m e d i a b l e and i r r e c o n c i l a b l e . had She a l s o a l l e g e d t h a t b e e n an i r r e t r i e v a b l e b r e a k d o w n o f t h e m a r r i a g e . the pendency o f t h e a c t i o n , t h e t r i a l possession wife of the m a r i t a l residence, custody against was also awarded from C l a r k e themselves County, from t h i s was a p p o i n t e d marital estate. a n d an a t t o r n e y f e e . restraining order judge temporary a n d a number o f c i r c u i t matter. to preside a l s o was a p p o i n t e d of the c h i l d r e n , The h u s b a n d i s a f o r m e r c i r c u i t t h e husband. a During c o u r t awarded t h e w i f e pendente l i t e a l i m o n y and c h i l d s u p p o r t , The there A Perry over this judges recused County d i s t r i c t case. A s p e c i a l master t o i n v e n t o r y and v a l u e t h e p r o p e r t y Discovery c o u r t n o t e d i n an o r d e r judge i nthe was p r o p o u n d e d , b u t , as t h e t r i a l dated J u l y 9, 2009, d i s c o v e r y issues " p l a g u e d t h i s c a s e f r o m t h e g e t go a n d c o n t i n u e t o t h i s date." I n t h e J u l y 9, 2009, o r d e r , w h i c h t h e t r i a l was e n t e r e d court a telephone and t h e p a r t i e s ' among o t h e r to after conference attorneys, court between the t r i a l court t h i n g s , t h a t t h e w i f e and t h e husband the stated trial ordered, "stipulate the divorce l e a v i n g a l l other r e l a t i v e matters f o r t r i a l . " One week l a t e r , order on J u l y 16, 2009, t h e t r i a l stating: 3 court entered an 2120007 "The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t f o r c l a r i t y o f t h e r e c o r d i n t h e c a s e and b a s e d upon t h e s t i p u l a t i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s to being divorced through t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e l e g a l counsel, s a i d counsel f o r both p a r t i e s s h a l l f i l e a s t i p u l a t i o n to divorce w i t h i n fourteen (14) days o f t h i s o r d e r . " On in J u l y 18, 2009, t h e w i f e f i l e d a s t i p u l a t i o n t o d i v o r c e which she stated that she did "hereby completely and t o t a l l y s t i p u l a t e t o t h e c o u r t g r a n t i n g a d i v o r c e i n t h e above action. July I 16, grounds am filing this 2009, c o u r t for husband's a order." divorce. attorney t h a t he had had statement pursuant The stipulation Likewise, filed a a telephone to on stipulation court's d i d not July to the 24, state 2009, divorce, stating c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h the husband t h a t t h e h u s b a n d had a g r e e d t o a s t i p u l a t i o n t o d i v o r c e . stipulation reserving s t a t e d t h a t " t h e C o u r t may jurisdiction issues." Like the s t i p u l a t i o n d i d not On August 4, to try wife's the enter a divorce property stipulation, and the 2 and The while support husband's s t a t e grounds f o r a d i v o r c e . 2009, d i v o r c i n g the p a r t i e s . that "[t]his the the trial court I n the order, c a u s e , c o m i n g on t o be entered the t r i a l 4 order court stated h e a r d upon t h e 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 was i n the f e d e r a l p r i s o n system at the time. 2 an pleadings incarcerated 2120007 and the s t i p u l a t i o n c a u s e was s u b m i t t e d went on to of [the wife] f o r f i n a l judgment." divorce the parties i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f temperament. the trial court and [the husband], this The t r i a l c o u r t t h e n on the ground The o r d e r a l s o p r o v i d e d was r e t a i n i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n of that as t o a l l o t h e r m a t t e r s a t i s s u e and t h a t i t i n t e n d e d "to a l l o w e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l , i f t h i s m a t t e r i s n o t decided by d e f a u l t p r i o r t o then, as t o c h i l d custody, c h i l d s u p p o r t , permanent alimony, a t t o r n e y s f e e s , a n d o t h e r m a t t e r s as s t a t e d i n t h e [ w i f e ' s ] c o m p l a i n t and t h e a s s e t s o f t h e p a r t i e s . This court s h a l l n o t h e a r e v i d e n c e as t o t h e g r o u n d s f o r d i v o r c e as t h i s i s b e i n g d e c r e e d h e r e i n e x c e p t as t h a t e v i d e n c e w h i c h may be r e l e v a n t t o a n y r e m a i n i n g issues." As m e n t i o n e d , t h e h u s b a n d r e l i e s on § 30-2-3 as t h e b a s i s for h i s assertion that enter a divorce That s t a t u t e the t r i a l could not p r o p e r l y on t h e p a r t i e s ' judgment o n l y court stipulations. provides: "No j u d g m e n t c a n be e n t e r e d on t h e c o n f e s s i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s , o r e i t h e r o f them, o r i f i t a p p e a r t h a t a d u l t e r y was c o m m i t t e d b y e i t h e r , w i t h t h e c o n s e n t of t h e o t h e r , f o r the purpose of o b t a i n i n g a divorce, o r where b o t h p a r t i e s have committed a d u l t e r y , o r where t h e r e has b e e n a c o n d o n a t i o n o f a d u l t e r y by t h e admission o f t h e o f f e n d i n g p a r t y t o c o n j u g a l embraces a f t e r knowledge o f t h e commission of t h e crime, o r when t h e h u s b a n d knew o f o r connived a t the a d u l t e r y of the w i f e . " 5 2120007 The p r o h i b i t i o n of l e g i s l a t u r e ' s enactment new s t a t u t o r y g r o u n d s existing grounds. divorces survived o f " n o - f a u l t " d i v o r c e s i n 1971, the when f o r g r a n t i n g a d i v o r c e were a d d e d t o t h e See " n o - f a u l t " grounds consensual § 3 0 - 2 - 1 , A l a . Code 1975. authorized a c i r c u i t The new, court " t o d i v o r c e p e r s o n s f r o m t h e bonds o f matrimony, upon a c o m p l a i n t f i l e d b y one o f t h e p a r t i e s : II " ( 7 ) Upon a p p l i c a t i o n o f e i t h e r t h e h u s b a n d o r w i f e , when t h e c o u r t i s s a t i s f i e d from a l l the t e s t i m o n y i n the case t h a t t h e r e e x i s t s such a c o m p l e t e i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f temperament t h a t t h e p a r t i e s can no l o n g e r l i v e t o g e t h e r [ ; o r ] II "(9) Upon a p p l i c a t i o n o f e i t h e r p a r t y , when t h e court finds there has been an irretrievable b r e a k d o w n o f t h e m a r r i a g e and t h a t f u r t h e r a t t e m p t s a t r e c o n c i l i a t i o n a r e i m p r a c t i c a l o r f u t i l e and n o t i n the b e s t i n t e r e s t s of the p a r t i e s or f a m i l y . " § 30-2-1(a)(7) In and ( 9 ) . Phillips So. 2d 71, 77 v. Phillips, 49 A l a . App. 514, 520-21, 274 ( C i v . 1973), t h i s c o u r t d i s c u s s e d the e f f e c t of " n o - f a u l t " d i v o r c e s on t h e p r o h i b i t i o n o f c o n s e n s u a l d i v o r c e s , writing: " [ T ] h e s t a t u t o r y g r o u n d o f i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y does n o t permit the court to d i s s o l v e a marriage merely b e c a u s e i t s t e r m i n a t i o n i s d e s i r e d by one o r b o t h 6 2120007 parties, or that, o f temperament i s solely because opposition to i t s c o n v e r s e l y , when i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y shown, a d i v o r c e may n o t be d e n i e d the defending spouse voices granting. "A c o n t r a r y h o l d i n g w o u l d make i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y d e p e n d e n t i n i t s a p p l i c a t i o n upon an a g r e e m e n t o r a s t i p u l a t i o n between t h e p a r t i e s , and t h u s f u r n i s h a v e h i c l e f o r a consensual d i v o r c e which the s t a t u t e did n o t i n t e n d t o s a n c t i o n a n d w h i c h w o u l d be c o n t r a r y t o T i t . 34, § 26, Code o f A l a b a m a 1940 [a p r e d e c e s s o r s t a t u t e t o § 3 0 - 2 - 3 ] . The c o n d i t i o n o r s t a t e o f a f f a i r s c o n s t i t u t i n g i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y must e x i s t as a f a c t a n d p r o o f t h e r e o f must be s u b m i t t e d by t h e p r o p o n e n t . " As on P r o f e s s o r s D a v i s and M c C u r l e y n o t e d i n t h e i r divorce, "[t]he incompatibility this does n o t s a n c t i o n w o u l d be c o n t r a r y forbidding Child statutory divorce Custody Phillips, § stipulation complete consensual divorce, 9-8 Alabama D i v o r c e , a t 116, c i t i n g of since statute Alimony & § 30-2-3 a n d 55 A l a . App. 112, 313 So. 2d 540 1975), t h e p l a i n t i f f incompatibility. a divorce supra. I n W r i g h t v. W r i g h t , (Civ. for t o t h e i n t e n t o f t h e Alabama by c o n s e n t . " Hornbook ground treatise sought a d i v o r c e The c a s e was s u b m i t t e d of facts, 55 A l a . t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t on i n c l u d i n g the s t i p u l a t i o n i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f temperament parties.'" on t h e g r o u n d o f t h a t "'a e x i s t s between t h e App. a t 113, 313 So. 2d a t 541. 7 The 2120007 judgment, which granted incompatibility, testimony on a s t a t e d " t h a t the the pleadings a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s and This divorce court reversed and on c a s e was the their the the ground submitted stipulation of attorneys." trial of without facts by Id. court's judgment, explaining: " T i t l e 34, S e c t i o n 26 o f t h e Code o f A l a b a m a (1940) [a p r e d e c e s s o r s t a t u t e t o § 30-2-3] p r o h i b i t s t h e s e c u r i n g o f a d i v o r c e upon t h e c o n f e s s i o n o f t h e parties. The e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f g r o u n d s f o r a d i v o r c e by t e s t i m o n y o r e v i d e n c e o t h e r t h a n by a g r e e m e n t i s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l t o t h e g r a n t i n g o f t h e d i v o r c e and c a n n o t be w a i v e d by t h e p a r t i e s . M e a r e s v. M e a r e s , 256 A l a . 596, 56 So. 2d 661 [ ( 1 9 5 2 ) ] ; J o h n s v. J o h n s , 49 A l a . App. 317, 271 So. 2d 514 [(Civ. 1 9 7 3 ) ] ; Helms v. Helms, 50 A l a . App. 453, 280 So. 2d 159 [ ( C i v . 1 9 7 3 ) ] . " W r i g h t , 55 A l a . App. This court reached J o h n s , 49 A l a . App. case, as i n t h e a t 114, 317, a 217 case at bar, 313 So. similar So. 2d a t 541-42. conclusion 2d 514 T h e r e was Johns (Civ. 1973). the e v i d e n t i a r y hearings t h e c o u r t were l i m i t e d t o m a t t e r s o f s u p p o r t of p r o p e r t y . in no t e s t i m o n y and t h e In t h a t before division r e g a r d i n g grounds f o r the d i v o r c e , because, a c c o r d i n g to the t r i a l c o u r t , t h a t i s s u e b e e n a g r e e d upon. v. had In r e v e r s i n g the judgment, t h i s c o u r t h e l d : 8 2120007 "Such procedure would be contrary to the requirements o f T i t l e 34 § 26 o f t h e Code [a p r e d e c e s s o r s t a t u t e t o § 30-2-3] e v e n i f a p p e l l a n t had n o t j o i n e d i s s u e on t h e a v e r m e n t s o f c r u e l t y i n the complaint. 'The jurisdiction of a c o u r t of e q u i t y t o g r a n t a d i v o r c e a v i n c u l o m a t r i m o n i i does not e x i s t independent o f t h e s t a t u t e , and i t i s essential that j u r i s d i c t i o n a l facts affirmatively a p p e a r f r o m t h e r e c o r d . ' M e a r e s v. M e a r e s , 256 A l a . 596, 56 So. 2d 661 [ ( 1 9 5 2 ) ] . "The t r i a l c o u r t h a v i n g e x p r e s s l y p r o h i b i t e d t e s t i m o n y as t o t h e g r o u n d s f o r d i v o r c e a l l e g e d i n t h e c o m p l a i n t and h a v i n g r e n d e r e d a d e c r e e w i t h o u t t e s t i m o n y to such grounds, s a i d decree of d i v o r c e was w i t h o u t s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y and t h u s w i t h o u t t h e jurisdiction of the c o u r t . The d e c r e e must be reversed." Johns, 49 A l a . App. Helms v. (Civ. Helms, 50 1973) "The a t 320, 217 A l a . App. So. 453, 2d a t 515-16. 455, 280 So. See 2d 159, only & McCurley, 7-2 at requirement for obtaining a Alabama D i v o r c e , A l i m o n y 70. In t h i s case, r e c o r d t h a t , when t h e t r i a l order divorcing regarding 161 (same). divorce on ground of i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y i s proof of i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y . " § also the grounds parties, f o r the made to the i s no i t had divorce. indication heard 9 any Instead, stipulations. trial Davis & C h i l d Custody Hornbook in c o u r t e n t e r e d t h e A u g u s t 4, b a s e d s o l e l y on t h e p a r t i e s ' stipulations there the court the We in the 2009, evidence order note Wright, was t h a t the supra, 2120007 included a stipulation of fact that "'a complete i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f temperament e x i s t s b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s . ' " I d . , 55 A l a . App. a t 113, 313 So. 2d a t 541. Nonetheless, the s t i p u l a t i o n s were n o t a d e q u a t e t o overcome t h e p r o h i b i t i o n o f consensual parties' divorce found stipulations divorce the p a r t i e s ; in § 30-2-3. In t h i s s t a t e d only that the t r i a l they case, court the could i n c l u d e d no s t i p u l a t i o n o f f a c t as t o g r o u n d s f o r a d i v o r c e and, i n f a c t , c o n t r a r y t o a l l e g a t i o n s i n the wife's were complaint, incompatible breakdown o f t h e d i d not even s t a t e t h a t the p a r t i e s or t h a t there have no c h o i c e order parties were irretrievable and but to conclude not on any incompatible breakdown at 320, the j u r i s d i c t i o n 217 jurisdictional So. 2d at that irretrievable or t h e A u g u s t 4, based only evidence that requirements." that the there been an Accordingly, the had This J o h n s , 49 A l a . App. court "cannot Helms, 50 A l a . App. 10 parties' s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y and t h u s of the court." 516. on t h e 2009, indicating of the marriage. j u d g m e n t o f d i v o r c e "was w i t h o u t without an us and t h e a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d , d i v o r c i n g t h e p a r t i e s was stipulations been marriage. B a s e d on t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e we had supply 455, 280 2120007 So. 2d at 161. case--in to as under the which stipulate evidence Therefore, court the to trial divorce grounds reverse the order The husband and for the ordered was a not the of the trial also raises number are to any required to parties. other issues and p o s t m i n o r i t y support However, as o u r supreme and t h e d i v i s i o n o f m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y . of this with c o u r t d i v o r c i n g the a of parties presented divorce--we r e g a r d i n g the award of c h i l d s u p p o r t court explained, circumstances " t h i s Court having determined that there was no a u t h o r i t y i n t h e c o u r t t o g r a n t a d i v o r c e , t h e r e can be award of a l i m o n y nor a p r o p e r t y of the marriage. [(1964)]." also J o h n s , 4 9 A l a . App. support in this this the trial court trial court reasons set i s reversed, for further a t 32 0, 217 point, case d i s s o l u t i o n of the p a r t i e s ' For due to Mason v. Mason, 276 A l a . 265, f o l l o w s t h a t , at child settlement based 160 on 2d 881 2d a t 516. So. can dissolution It be the So. no award of "consensual" marriage. forth and there no above, this cause proceedings opinion. 11 the judgment of the i s remanded t o the consistent with this 2120007 REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d Thomas, Moore, a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , concur. Pittman, J . , recuses himself. 12
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.
