Reba Yarbrough v. D. Max Yarbrough

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/20/2013 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 2120146 Reba Yarbrough v. D. Max Yarbrough Appeal from Calhoun C i r c u i t Court (DR-10-1067) MOORE, J u d g e . Reba Y a r b r o u g h ("the w i f e " ) appeals from a judgment o f t h e C a l h o u n C i r c u i t C o u r t d i v o r c i n g h e r f r o m D. Max Y a r b r o u g h ("the husband") a n d d i v i d i n g t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y p u r s u a n t t o 2120146 a prenuptial dismiss the agreement entered into by the p a r t i e s . We appeal. On December 13, 2010, t h e w i f e filed a complaint for a divorce, asserting that she a n d t h e h u s b a n d h a d m a r r i e d December 6, that no 1996, children h a d been born on of the m a r r i a g e , t h a t t h e husband had committed a c t s o f a d u l t e r y , and that the marriage was irretrievably requested that the t r i a l divide the attorney's The divorce, marital The court grant her a divorce, property, and award her wife equitably alimony and fees. husband filed an answer a s s e r t i n g , among o t h e r 1996, t h e p a r t i e s h a d e n t e r e d that broken. and a counterclaim for a t h i n g s , t h a t , on December 2, i n t o a p r e n u p t i a l agreement and i t governed the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the p a r t i e s ' property. The h u s b a n d r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e t r i a l court grant the p a r t i e s a d i v o r c e b a s e d on t h e 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 and i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f temperament, ratify and c o n f i r m the p r e n u p t i a l agreement and d i r e c t t h e p a r t i e s t o a b i d e by t h a t a g r e e m e n t , a n d award t h e h u s b a n d a t t o r n e y ' s the p r e n u p t i a l agreement. fees pursuant t o The h u s b a n d a t t a c h e d a g r e e m e n t as an e x h i b i t t o h i s p l e a d i n g . 2 the p r e n u p t i a l 2120146 On June 15, 2012, t h e t r i a l court entered a judgment o f divorce. I n t h a t j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o u n d , among o t h e r things, that enforceable, the that, prenuptial pursuant agreement the p a r t i e s had agreed t h a t not their estates, rights their marriage of t h e i r separate separate checking and d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e , t h e h u s b a n d h a d owned and o p e r a t e d a b u s i n e s s Yarbrough Pools Based on those and C o n s t r u c t i o n " findings, husband f u l l r i g h t , t i t l e , in and t o t h e b u s i n e s s , investments, would to dispose a c c o u n t s d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e , and t h a t , b e f o r e as "Max and the p a r t i e s had m a i n t a i n e d that legal valid t o the terms of the p r e n u p t i a l agreement, alter was and the trial ("the business"). court awarded ownership, possession, of the the and c o n t r o l i n c l u d i n g t h e name, a s s e t s , receivables known business accounts, and the i n v e n t o r y , v e h i c l e s , s u p p l i e s , and e q u i p m e n t o f t h e b u s i n e s s . It a w a r d e d t h e w i f e a 2007 Honda P i l o t and t h e h u s b a n d a 2009 Suzuki motorcycle, s i l v e r Nissan savings a 2007 Winnebago trucks. motorhome, and r e d and E a c h p a r t y was a w a r d e d any c h e c k i n g and a c c o u n t s , s t o c k s , bonds, c e r t i f i c a t e s of d e p o s i t s , or 401K a c c o u n t s t h a t e x i s t e d i n h i s o r h e r i n d i v i d u a l name, and t h e h u s b a n d was a w a r d e d any s u c h a c c o u n t s i n t h e name o f t h e 3 2120146 business. Both parties were awarded items p r o p e r t y and h o u s e h o l d f u r n i s h i n g s pursuant to t h e judgment. prepare two Additionally, lists of property identifying, with certain owned a s s e t s and t o a l l o w r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e items was the wife personal to l i s t s attached was i n s t r u c t e d t o from exceptions, of a third exhibit the p a r t i e s ' t h e husband t o choose he e l e c t e d t o be a w a r d e d . jointly the l i s t s Each p a r t y d i r e c t e d t o p a y a n d t o be f u l l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r any d e b t s i n h i s o r h e r name, a n d t h e h u s b a n d was d i r e c t e d t o be responsible trial f o r any d e b t s i n t h e name o f h i s b u s i n e s s . court attorney's The required fees and d e n i e d wife reconsider each filed party t o pay a l l other a motion order, specifically assets acquired during the marriage. letter briefs The trial requested with court that granted the wife's h i s o r h e r own the t r i a l court to d i s p u t i n g t h e award o f Both addressing t h e Winnebago p r o c e e d s be s p l i t denied the court The requests. requesting i t s fully the wife's motion motorhome parties be motion. insofar sold filed as i t and t h e e q u a l l y between t h e p a r t i e s ; i t o t h e r w i s e the wife's motion. On O c t o b e r 24, 2012, t h e h u s b a n d f i l e d a motion f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n 4 regarding asserted errors i n 2120146 the w i f e ' s p r o p e r t y the judgment. numerous lists created Specifically, items were omitted from the the from third husband the exhibit indicated lists, that one to that item a p p e a r e d on b o t h l i s t s , and t h a t s e v e r a l i t e m s s h o u l d n o t have a p p e a r e d on t h e l i s t s b e c a u s e t h e y were t o o l s o f h i s business or parties' because he had owned the items before the marriage. The 2012. wife filed an appeal Before we reach the to t h i s merits court of the on November wife's h o w e v e r , we must f i r s t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e a p p e a l final 13, appeal, i s from a judgment. " ' I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d law t h a t " j u r i s d i c t i o n a l m a t t e r s a r e o f s u c h m a g n i t u d e t h a t we t a k e n o t i c e o f them a t any t i m e and do so e v e n ex mero m o t u . P a c e v. U t i l i t i e s Bd. o f F o l e y , 752 So. 2d 510, 511 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1999) ( q u o t i n g S i n g l e t o n v. Graham, 716 So. 2d 224, 225 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 8 ) ) . We a l s o n o t e t h a t an u n t i m e l y f i l e d n o t i c e o f a p p e a l r e s u l t s i n a l a c k o f a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n , w h i c h c a n n o t be w a i v e d . L u k e r v. C a r r e l l , 25 So. 3d 1148, 1151 ( A l a . Civ. App. 2006). A d d i t i o n a l l y , '[t]he question whether a judgment i s f i n a l i s a jurisdictional question, and the reviewing court, on a d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t i s n o t f i n a l , has a d u t y t o d i s m i s s t h e c a s e . ' H u b b a r d v. H u b b a r d , 935 So. 2d 1191, 1192 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 6 ) . " P a r k e r v. Parker, 946 So. 2d 480, 5 485 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006). 2120146 " T h i s c o u r t has c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d t h a t t r i a l - c o u r t instructing the parties to prepare lists in e f f e c t u a t e a p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n are n o n f i n a l u n t i l of the p r o p e r t y a c t u a l l y o c c u r s . " 72 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2d 502, So. 505 2d 346, reveals 347 clarification court's See ( A l a . C i v . App. that remaining 2009). the regarding a the 888 So. 729 The filed wife's a r e c o r d on motion proposed appeal requesting lists of p r o p e r t y t o be d i v i d e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e judgment. resulting order That i n the motion, for which r e c o r d , makes c l e a r there the trial is is a nonfinal judgment. Thus, the p r e s e n t d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y by t h e t r i a l c o u r t before the w i f e ' s appeal i s due S i m s , 38 t o be So. must be appeal final judgment i s f i n a l . " "There as some its from no t h a t the p a r t i e s had n o t y e t c o m p l i e d w i t h t h e d i v i s i o n o f p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y o r d e r e d i n the judgment of d i v o r c e . 71, G r u b b s v. G r u b b s , 1998). had to division Sims v. S i m s , 38 So. 3d 2 0 0 4 ) , and husband order a l s o M c G i l l v. M c G i l l , ( A l a . C i v . App. orders 3d a t 72. Therefore, dismissed. APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman, concur. 6 Thomas, and D o n a l d s o n , J J . ,

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.