Kim Deloris Harris v. Vernon Lamont Harris

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 , 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 , 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 2120164 Kim Deloris Harris v. Vernon Lamont H a r r i s Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (DR-12-677) Court PITTMAN, J u d g e . Kim Deloris divorce complaint On A p r i l other things, Harris appeals from the dismissal a g a i n s t V e r n o n Lamont H a r r i s . 24, 2012, K i m f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t that she and Vernon her We r e v e r s e . alleging, h a d been of among married on 2120164 September 28, 1996; t h a t t h e y had l i v e d together as h u s b a n d and w i f e u n t i l t h e i r s e p a r a t i o n on November 23, 2010; a n d t h a t one c h i l d , whose d a t e o f b i r t h was F e b r u a r y born of the marriage. 7, 2012. 17, 2000, h a d b e e n V e r n o n was s e r v e d w i t h p r o c e s s on May On June 14, 2012, a f t e r V e r n o n h a d f a i l e d t o answer or o t h e r w i s e defend the complaint, the t r i a l court entered a d e f a u l t judgment a g a i n s t Vernon. On J u l y 20, 2012, an a t t o r n e y e n t e r e d an a p p e a r a n c e on b e h a l f o f V e r n o n , moved t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t , and sought a d e c l a r a t o r y r u l i n g t h a t Vernon's p u r p o r t e d to K i m on September alleged, Kim and s u b m i t t e d had m a r r i e d Cowans h a d f i l e d April Cowans 28, 1996, was null and v o i d . documentary evidence Michael Cowans a complaint 14, 1998; a n d t h a t a f i n a l a divorce f r o m K i m on judgment d i v o r c i n g Kim and h a d been e n t e r e d on M a r c h 8, 1999. September 28, 1996, b e c a u s e M i c h a e l Cowans on t h a t d a t e . an a n s w e r , d e n y i n g that 1991; t h a t Therefore, s a i d , he a n d K i m c o u l d n o t have e n t e r e d i n t o a v a l i d on Vernon indicating, on O c t o b e r 3 0 , seeking marriage K i m was still Vernon marriage married On J u l y 23, 2012, V e r n o n to filed the m a t e r i a l a l l e g a t i o n s of the complaint. 2 2120164 Two d a y s l a t e r , K i m f i l e d an amended c o m p l a i n t , the allegation that she and Vernon had been striking married S e p t e m b e r 28, 1996, a n d s u b s t i t u t i n g t h e a l l e g a t i o n t h a t had been m a r r i e d , 1999. on they " b y way o f common-law m a r r i a g e , " on May 7, On J u l y 26, 2012, t h e t r i a l c o u r t s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t judgment. On J u l y 27, 2012, V e r n o n f i l e d an amended a n s w e r , a c k n o w l e d g i n g t h a t he a n d K i m h a d b e e n p a r t i e s t o a c e r e m o n i a l m a r r i a g e on S e p t e m b e r 28, 1996; s u b m i t t i n g for the wedding program t h e ceremony on September 28, 1996; a n d i n s i s t i n g t h a t t h e purported m a r r i a g e was v o i d b e c a u s e K i m was n o t y e t d i v o r c e d f r o m Cowans on September 28, 1996. Following argument, 2012, Vernon at which the parties presented the t r i a l court, on A u g u s t 23, the d e c l a r a t o r y relief he Kim's c o m p l a i n t . motion, arguing "1. law hearing b u t no e v i d e n c e , granted dismissed a Kim f i l e d a timely sought postjudgment that The [ j u d g m e n t ] i s c o n t r a r y i n t h i s cause; t o the e v i d e n c e and "2. The c o u r t granted [Vernon's] motion f o r a declaratory judgment, d e c l a r i n g t h a t [ K i m ] and [ V e r n o n ] never entered into a legal marital r e l a t i o n s h i p , without r e q u i r i n g [Vernon] t o prove his a l l e g a t i o n that a l e g a l marital r e l a t i o n s h i p never e x i s t e d . No h e a r i n g was p e r m i t t e d f o r e v i d e n c e t o be h e a r d as t o w h e t h e r t h e r e e x i s t e d a 3 and 2120164 legal marital relationship between [ V e r n o n ] . No t r i a l d a t e was e v e r s e t . [ K i m ] and " 3 . T h i s c a s e was d i s m i s s e d w i t h o u t r e s o l v i n g c u s t o d y and c h i l d s u p p o r t i s s u e s . child " 4 . The c o u r t d e n i e d [ K i m ' s ] amendment p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 1 5 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., w i t h o u t s t a t i n g a v a l i d g r o u n d f o r i t s d e n i a l as r e q u i r e d b y A l a b a m a l a w . Ex p a r t e L i b e r t y N a t ' l L i f e I n s . Co., 858 So. 2d 950 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . [ K i m ] f i l e d h e r amendment l e s s t h a n a week a f t e r [Vernon's] first appearance i n the p r e s e n t c a s e . [ V e r n o n ] gave h i s i m p l i e d c o n s e n t t o t h e amendment when he n o t o n l y f a i l e d t o o b j e c t t o t h e amendment, b u t f i l e d an amended answer t o t h e amended c o m p l a i n t on J u l y 27, 2012." Vernon f i l e d motion, a response i n o p p o s i t i o n t o Kim's postjudgment a s s e r t i n g t h a t , o n l y a f t e r he h a d s u b m i t t e d p r o o f o f K i m ' s p r i o r , u n d i s s o l v e d m a r r i a g e t o Cowans, d i d K i m amend h e r c o m p l a i n t t o a l l e g e t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had been m a r r i e d by t h e common l a w on May 7, 1999, i n s t e a d o f b y a c e r e m o n i a l marriage on September 28, 1996. V e r n o n a r g u e d t h a t , i f Kim's amendment had b e e n a l l o w e d , he w o u l d have b e e n p r e j u d i c e d b y h a v i n g t o d e f e n d a g a i n s t a new l e g a l t h e o r y , b a s e d on a d i f f e r e n t s e t o f facts, from t h o s e a l l e g e d i n Kim's c o m p l a i n t . In support of t h a t a r g u m e n t , he c i t e d B r a c y v. S i p p i a l E l e c t r i c Co., 379 So. 2d 582 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) . The t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d t h e p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on O c t o b e r 16, 2012, w i t h o u t m e n t i o n i n g t h e amended c o m p l a i n t . 4 Kim f i l e d 2120164 a t i m e l y n o t i c e of appeal on November 20, 2012, t h e t r i a l c o u r t had e r r e d i n i m p l i c i t l y d e n y i n g in issuing the d i s m i s s i n g her declaratory ruling s o u g h t by arguing that t h e amendment, Vernon, and in complaint. R u l e 1 5 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., provides, i n pertinent part: " U n l e s s a c o u r t has o r d e r e d o t h e r w i s e , a p a r t y may amend a p l e a d i n g w i t h o u t l e a v e o f c o u r t , b u t s u b j e c t to d i s a l l o w a n c e on t h e c o u r t ' s own motion or a m o t i o n t o s t r i k e o f an a d v e r s e p a r t y , a t any t i m e more t h a n forty-two (42) d a y s b e f o r e t h e first s e t t i n g o f t h e c a s e f o r t r i a l , and s u c h amendment s h a l l be f r e e l y a l l o w e d when j u s t i c e so r e q u i r e s . " Kim filed h e r amended c o m p l a i n t b e f o r e t h e c a s e had e v e r set f o r t r i a l . V e r n o n d i d n o t move t o s t r i k e t h e amendment as contemplated responding i n Rule to the substance that situation, a requested for 15(a), a trial he filed an amended answer o f K i m ' s amended c o m p l a i n t . c o u r t has "In no d i s c r e t i o n ; i t can amendment o n l y i f t h e r e t h e d e n i a l , s u c h as p a r t e GRE but been exists a 'valid deny ground' ' a c t u a l p r e j u d i c e o r undue d e l a y . ' I n s . G r o u p , 822 So. 2d [388,] 390 [(Ala. 2001)]. Ex In o t h e r w o r d s , t h e b u r d e n i s on t h e t r i a l court to state a v a l i d ground amendment." f o r i t s d e n i a l of a requested L i b e r t y N a t ' l L i f e I n s . Co., 858 5 So. 2d 950, 953 Ex parte ( A l a . 2003) . 2120164 The trial c o u r t s t a t e d no g r o u n d f o r i t s i m p l i c i t denial of t h e amendment. V e r n o n , h o w e v e r , a s s e r t e d t h a t i f t h e amendment h a d b e e n allowed, he w o u l d have b e e n p r e j u d i c e d b y h a v i n g t o defend a g a i n s t a new l e g a l t h e o r y , b a s e d on a d i f f e r e n t s e t o f f a c t s , from those p l e a d e d i n the complaint. "Under [ R u l e 1 5 ( a ) ] i t [ i s ] e n t i r e l y i r r e l e v a n t t h a t a p r o p o s e d amendment c h a n g e s ... t h e t h e o r y o f t h e case .... I n t e r n a t i o n a l L a d i e s ' Garment W o r k e r s ' U n i o n v. D o n n e l l y Garment Co., 121 F.2d 561 ( 8 t h C i r . 1 9 4 1 ) ; T e c h n i c a l Tape C o r p . v. M i n n e s o t a M i n i n g & M a n u f a c t u r i n g Co., 200 F.2d 876 (2d C i r . 1 9 5 2 ) ; N a a m l o z e V e n n o o t s c h a p S u i k e r f a b r i e k 'Wono-Aseh' v. Chase N a t i o n a l Bank, 12 F.R.D. 261 (S.D.N.Y. 1 9 5 2 ) ; C o l s t a d v. L e v i n e , 243 M i n n . 279, 285, 67 N.W.2d 648, 653 ( 1 9 5 4 ) ; 6 C y c . F e d . P r o c . §§ 18.18, 18.19 (3d e d . 1 9 5 1 ) . " R u l e 15, A l a . R. C i v . P. (Committee Comments on 1973 A d o p t i o n ) (emphasis added). V e r n o n ' s argument t h a t t h e amendment was b a s e d on a new set of facts i . e . , t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had been m a r r i e d by t h e common l a w on May 7, 1999, i n s t e a d o f b y a c e r e m o n i a l on September 28, 1996 on Bracy Bracy, v. S i p p i a l the t r i a l complaint marriage i s s i m p l y i n c o r r e c t , and h i s r e l i a n c e Electric Co., s u p r a , i s misplaced. court granted S i p p i a l ' s motion t o add a f r a u d c l a i m . 6 In t o amend i t s Our supreme c o u r t rejected 2120164 Bracy's argument that, "because a l l discovery c o m p l e t e d a n d [he] t h e r e f o r e h a d no o p p o r t u n i t y the factual basis f o r the a l l e g a t i o n of fraud had been t o determine a n d h a d no o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e p a r e a d e f e n s e a g a i n s t t h e same," 379 So. 2d at 584, t h e amendment h a d p r e j u d i c e d h i s case. The court stated: " I t i s o b v i o u s f r o m t h e amendment t h a t S i p p i a l was g o i n g t o a t t e m p t t o p r o v e i t s f r a u d a l l e g a t i o n w i t h f a c t s p r e v i o u s l y p l e d and w i t h t h e terms o f t h e subcontract. The fraud count was merely an additional c a u s e o f a c t i o n . Where an amendment m e r e l y c h a n g e s t h e l e g a l t h e o r y o f a c a s e o r adds an a d d i t i o n a l t h e o r y , b u t t h e new o r a d d i t i o n a l t h e o r y i s b a s e d upon t h e same s e t o f f a c t s a n d t h o s e f a c t s have b e e n b r o u g h t t o t h e a t t e n t i o n o f t h e o t h e r p a r t y b y a p r e v i o u s p l e a d i n g , no p r e j u d i c e i s w o r k e d upon t h e o t h e r p a r t y . U n i t e d S t a t e s v. J o h n s o n , 288 F.2d 40 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 6 1 ) . " Id. Likewise, was going allegation i n the present to attempt with facts to case, prove previously i t was a p p a r e n t t h a t K i m her common-law-marriage pleaded, i . e . , that the p a r t i e s h a d l i v e d t o g e t h e r as h u s b a n d a n d w i f e f o l l o w i n g t h e i r entering a ceremonial continued to live m a r r i a g e on S e p t e m b e r 28, 1996, a n d h a d together as h u s b a n d a n d w i f e a f t e r May 7, 1999. May 7, 1999, was t h e 60th day a f t e r the entry M a r c h 8, 1999, j u d g m e n t d i v o r c i n g K i m a n d Cowans 7 of the the date 2120164 upon w h i c h See § the 30-2-10, j u d g m e n t has the impediment court except Ala. Code been e n t e r e d shall order each to to other, Kim's 1975 remarriage (providing granting until 60 that a divorce that neither party days was removed. "[w]hen in this shall again a f t e r the a state, marry, judgment is entered"). "'In Alabama, recognition of a common-law marriage r e q u i r e s proof of the f o l l o w i n g elements: (1) capacity; (2) p r e s e n t , mutual agreement to permanently e n t e r the marriage r e l a t i o n s h i p to the e x c l u s i o n o f a l l o t h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s ; and (3) p u b l i c r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p as a m a r r i a g e and public assumption of marital duties and c o h a b i t a t i o n . Whether the e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s of a common-law m a r r i a g e e x i s t i s a q u e s t i o n o f f a c t . W h e t h e r t h e p a r t i e s had t h e i n t e n t , o r t h e m u t u a l assent, to e n t e r the marriage r e l a t i o n s h i p i s a l s o a q u e s t i o n of f a c t . ' " Dyess v. Dyess, (quoting G r a y v. 2001) (citations Kim did S e p t e m b e r 28, ceremonial See had So. Bush, 3d 384, 835 So. 387 2d i n her 194 App. 2012) (Ala. Civ. App. omitted)). not 1996, have the when she Steele, capacity 522 to marry Vernon on and V e r n o n had b e e n p a r t i e s t o a So. 2d amended c o m p l a i n t , l i v e d together (Ala. Civ. 192, m a r r i a g e , b e c a u s e Kim was S t e e l e v. alleged 94 as a m a r r i e d s t i l l married 269, 270 ( A l a . 1988). however, t h a t c o u p l e a f t e r May 8 t o Cowans. the Kim parties 7, 1999, when 2120164 t h e i m p e d i m e n t t o h e r r e m a r r i a g e was removed, a n d , t h e r e f o r e , that they h a d been married by t h e common law. Those a l l e g a t i o n s were n o t b a s e d on a new s e t o f f a c t s , b u t , r a t h e r , on a new l e g a l t h e o r y b a s e d on t h e same s e t o f o p e r a t i v e f a c t s as a l l e g e d i n t h e o r i g i n a l complaint. " ' I t i s the w e l l - s e t t l e d rule that i f parties i n good f a i t h m a r r y when i n f a c t a l e g a l i m p e d i m e n t e x i s t s t o t h e i r marriage, and they c o n t i n u e t o c o h a b i t as man a n d w i f e a f t e r t h e r e m o v a l o f t h e impediment o f t h e i r l a w f u l u n i o n , t h e l a w presumes a common-law m a r r i a g e . ' [ H i l l v. L i n d s e y , 223 A l a . 550, 552, 137 So. 395, 397 ( 1 9 3 1 ) . ] To l i k e e f f e c t i s P r i n c e v. E d w a r d s , 175 A l a . 532, [537-38,] 57 So. 714, 715 [ ( 1 9 1 2 ) ] . "It i s established i n this j u r i s d i c t i o n that, 'Where p a r t i e s who a r e i n c o m p e t e n t t o m a r r y e n t e r an illicit relation, with a manifest d e s i r e and i n t e n t i o n t o l i v e i n a matrimonial union, rather than i n a s t a t e o f concubinage, and t h e o b s t a c l e t o their marriage i s subsequently removed, their c o n t i n u e d c o h a b i t a t i o n r a i s e s a p r e s u m p t i o n o f an a c t u a l marriage immediately a f t e r t h e removal o f t h e o b s t a c l e , and warrants a f i n d i n g t o t h a t e f f e c t . ' P r i n c e v. Edwards, s u p r a . " Smith v. S m i t h , (1945). 247 A l a . 213, 217, 23 So. 2d 605, 608-09 See a l s o K r u g v . K r u g , ( 1 9 7 4 ) ; a n d W a l k e r v. W a l k e r , 292 A l a . 498, 296 So. 2 d 715 218 A l a . 16, 117 So. 472 ( 1 9 2 8 ) . See g e n e r a l l y Hon. J o h n B. C r a w l e y , I s t h e Honeymoon Over f o r Common-Law M a r r i a g e : A C o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e C o n t i n u e d 9 Vitality 2120164 o f t h e Common-Law M a r r i a g e D o c t r i n e , 2 9 Cumb. L. Rev. 399, 40 6 & n.42 ( 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 ) . Kim c o r r e c t l y argued t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h a t i t s judgment was " c o n t r a r y t o t h e evidence and law" and t h a t Vernon have b e e n " r e q u i r [ e d ] ... t o p r o v e h i s a l l e g a t i o n t h a t a l e g a l m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p never e x i s t e d . " continued should cohabitation T h a t i s so b e c a u s e t h e o f K i m a n d V e r n o n a f t e r May 7, 1999, " r a i s e [ d ] a p r e s u m p t i o n o f [ t h e i r ] a c t u a l m a r r i a g e , " S m i t h v. Smith, supra, and Vernon, t h e p a r t y challenging the v a l i d i t y of t h e m a r r i a g e , had t h e burden t o prove i t s i n v a l i d i t y . B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g f a c t s a n d a u t h o r i t i e s , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n i m p l i c i t l y d e n y i n g t h e amendment to Kim's complaint, i n issuing Vernon, and i n d i s m i s s i n g the a declaratory Kim's c o m p l a i n t . J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court i s , therefore, cause i s remanded principles f o r proceedings ruling for The j u d g m e n t o f reversed, consistent and t h e with the s e t out herein. 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. 10

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.