Dianne Loftin Brooke v. Herbert Wilson Bellisle, Jr.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/24/2011 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, 2010-2011 2090670 Dianne L o f t i n Brooke v. Herbert Wilson B e l l i s l e , J r . Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t Court (DR-97-797.01) MOORE, J u d g e . Dianne L o f t i n Brooke ("the f o r m e r wife") j u d g m e n t o f t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t establishing appeals ("the t r i a l the current child-support arrearage from a court") of Herbert 2090670 Wilson Bellisle, former w i f e ' s The J r . ("the former husband"). former w i f e judgment o r d e r e d the and t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d were d i v o r c e d c o u r t on A p r i l 26, 1974. t h e former husband t o pay t h e amount o f $200 p e r month. e n t e r e d an o r d e r c o n c l u d i n g arrears dismiss appeal. a judgment of the t r i a l in We On May That child 7, 1975, divorce support i n the t r i a l court t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d was on h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n and by $1,350 reducing his m o n t h l y c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n t o $100 p e r m o n t h ; t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d was f u r t h e r ordered t o pay $50 p e r month t o w a r d h i s arrearage. On J u l y 1, 1997, t h e f o r m e r w i f e f i l e d a p e t i t i o n t o show c a u s e , a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d was on h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t p a y m e n t s . court entered an order On A u g u s t stating that $20,060 i n a r r e a r s 20, 1997, there the had b e e n an a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s t h a t t h e r e w o u l d be no child support paid, but p r o h i b i t e d by law child-support obligations. credit former i t noted to the parties' child from o r a l l y lived vacating The husband with that trial court 2 former h u s b a n d and were husband's allowed during oral further parties the former for a period the the trial a $400 which entered the a 2090670 j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e f o r m e r w i f e i n t h e amount o f $19,960 for unpaid c h i l d support. husband full. An o r d e r withhold until court ordered t o p a y $100 p e r month u n t i l t h e a r r e a r a g e $100 entered employer p e r month f r o m t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s S e p t e m b e r 8, alter, was p a i d i n i n s t r u c t i n g the former husband's t h e $19,960 j u d g m e n t was On the former o f c o n t i n u i n g income w i t h h o l d i n g was on A u g u s t 20, 1997, to The t r i a l 1997, paid i n f u l l . the former w i f e amend, o r v a c a t e t h e income trial filed court's a motion order, asserting t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t had f a i l e d t o c a l c u l a t e 12% i n t e r e s t the arrearage never and satisfy t h a t t h e p a y m e n t s o f $100 the arrearage amount p e r month plus to into would interest; she requested t h a t t h e 1 2 % i n t e r e s t be c a l c u l a t e d and a d d e d t o t h e arrearage amount and t h a t t h e amount o f t h e m o n t h l y be increased granted. order On or, i n the October 29, alternative, 1997, f i n d i n g the former husband $42,256.33, ordered including interest. the former husband t o pay arrearage. 3 the that trial a new court payments trial be entered an i n a r r e a r s i n t h e amount o f The trial court further $350 p e r month t o w a r d that 2090670 On November 3, 1997, t h e p a r t i e s f i l e d amend the t r i a l court's judgment, a j o i n t motion t o asserting that they had r e a c h e d an a g r e e m e n t t o a l l o w t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d t o p a y $200 per month t o w a r d t h e a r r e a r a g e and $50 p e r month t o w a r d t h e i n t e r e s t t h e r e o n f o r one y e a r , a f t e r w h i c h t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d would b e g i n p a y i n g $200 p e r month t o w a r d t h e a r r e a r a g e and $150 p e r month t o w a r d t h e i n t e r e s t t h e r e o n . The t r i a l court e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t g r a n t i n g t h a t j o i n t m o t i o n on November 4, 1997. The trial court accordance w i t h t h a t On September entered a 30, 2009, the the income-withholding order. former the t r i a l court entered a b a l a n c e o f the former husband's $8,749.63 in husband filed a seeking the t e r m i n a t i o n The former w i f e o b j e c t i o n t o t h e former husband's p e t i t i o n . 2009, order judgment. p e t i t i o n , s u p p o r t e d by h i s a f f i d a v i t , of withholding judgment filed an On December 17, finding child-support that the a r r e a r a g e was and o r d e r i n g t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d t o c o n t i n u e p a y i n g $350 p e r month u n t i l t h a t amount was p a i d i n f u l l ; t h e trial c o u r t o r d e r e d t h a t t h e i n c o m e - w i t h h o l d i n g o r d e r be r e i s s u e d t o the to former husband's employer. alter, The f o r m e r w i f e f i l e d a m o t i o n amend, o r v a c a t e t h e j u d g m e n t on December 22, 2009. 4 2090670 The former husband filed a response to the former wife's m o t i o n on December 30, 2009, an a d d i t i o n a l r e s p o n s e on J a n u a r y 22, 2010, and a brief i n opposition m o t i o n on F e b r u a r y 3, 2010. to the former On F e b r u a r y 18, 2010, c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r d e n y i n g t h e f o r m e r w i f e ' s wife's the trial postjudgment motion. On M a r c h 3, 2010, the former husband filed a motion f o r the i m m e d i a t e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e i n c o m e - w i t h h o l d i n g o r d e r and the g a r n i s h m e n t o f h i s wages, a s s e r t i n g t h a t he had d e p o s i t e d the sum o f $8,060 w i t h t h e c l e r k o f t h e c o u r t , s a t i s f y i n g a r r e a r a g e judgment. the On M a r c h 8, 2010, t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r t e r m i n a t i n g the garnishment and i n c o m e - w i t h h o l d i n g o r d e r b a s e d on t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s payment o f t h e o u t s t a n d i n g judgment. On April 16, appeal to t h i s the trial 2010, court. the former wife filed a notice On a p p e a l , t h e f o r m e r w i f e a r g u e s c o u r t e r r e d i n t h e December 17, of that 2009, j u d g m e n t i n d e t e r m i n i n g the b a l a n c e of the former husband's c h i l d - s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e t o be Although court's $8,749.63. neither jurisdiction, party has raised "jurisdictional 5 the issue matters are of this of such 2090670 s i g n i f i c a n c e t h a t an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t may t a k e n o t i c e o f them ex mero m o t u K e n n e d y So. Civ. App. 2007). a jurisdictional (Ala. Civ. provides, App. "The v. M e r r i m a n , 963 2d 86, 88 ( A l a . t i m e l y f i l i n g of a n o t i c e of appeal i s act." R.J.G. v. S.S.W., 42 So. 2009). i n pertinent Rule 4(a)(1), Ala. 3d 747, R. App. 751 P., part: " E x c e p t as o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d h e r e i n , i n a l l c a s e s i n w h i c h an a p p e a l i s p e r m i t t e d by l a w as o f r i g h t t o t h e supreme c o u r t o r t o a c o u r t o f a p p e a l s , t h e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l r e q u i r e d by R u l e 3 [ , A l a . R. App. P.,] s h a l l be f i l e d w i t h t h e c l e r k o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t w i t h i n 42 d a y s (6 w e e k s ) o f t h e d a t e o f t h e e n t r y o f t h e judgment o r o r d e r a p p e a l e d from " The time such f o r an as a p p e a l may the present postjudgment motion. Civ. App. motion, 2010). the postjudgment 3d a t In case, be extended, i n which D e a l v. D e a l , 55 So. has 42 days i n cases, a party filed " I f a party files party however, 3d 270, a timely from the a timely 272 (Ala. postjudgment denial motion t o a p p e a l a f i n a l judgment." of D e a l , 55 the So. 272. the postjudgment present case, the former motion from the t r i a l wife filed a timely c o u r t ' s December 17, 2009, judgment, which d e t e r m i n e d the b a l a n c e of the former husband's child-support arrearage. T h a t m o t i o n was 6 d e n i e d on February 2090670 18, 2010. motion was December thus, for The r e l i e f r e q u e s t e d i n t h e f a t h e r ' s M a r c h 3, 2010, not d i r e c t e d not a postjudgment motion t a k i n g an a p p e a l . wife's appeal, filed within 42 days b e f o r e A p r i l 1, 2010. of appeal former of the filed. court's that tolled trial; the time Thus, t h e i n o r d e r t o be t i m e l y , must have b e e n from February 18, 2010, i . e . , on or The f o r m e r w i f e d i d n o t f i l e h e r n o t i c e trial court's judgment Thus, t h e f o r m e r establishing the 16, 2010, o u t s i d e t h e w i f e ' s a p p e a l was untimely "An a p p e a l s h a l l be d i s m i s s e d i f t h e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l not appellate Deal, the t r i a l See D e a l , 55 So. 3d a t 272. husband's a r r e a r a g e u n t i l A p r i l 42-day p e r i o d . was amending 17, 2009, j u d g m e n t and d i d n o t r e q u e s t a new i t was former toward timely court." filed to Rule 55 So. 3d a t 273. wife's invoke the jurisdiction 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. App. We, P. of the See a l s o t h e r e f o r e , dismiss the former appeal. APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, concur. 7 Bryan, and Thomas, 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.