Joseph M. Bridges v. Renee Lynn Bridges

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 03/18/2011 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 2090977 Joseph M. Bridges v. Renee Lynn Bridges Appeal from Lee C i r c u i t Court (DR-04-25.01) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . J o s e p h M. B r i d g e s ("the husband") a p p e a l s from a judgment f i n d i n g h i m i n contempt f o r h i s f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h c e r t a i n p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e 2005 j u d g m e n t d i v o r c i n g h i m f r o m Renee L y n n Bridges ("the w i f e " ) . I n a d d i t i o n t o f i n d i n g t h e husband i n 2090977 contempt, divorce The judgment the t r i a l court provisions of the 2005 judgment. record indicates the f o l l o w i n g . ("the 2005 j u d g m e n t " ) i n c o r p o r a t e d p a r t i e s had reached t h a t The modified provisions a p p e a l r e a d as The that divorce an a g r e e m e n t t h e s e t t l e d a l l the issues o f t h e judgment 2005 i n the case. are relevant to follows: "9. L I F E INSURANCE: The Husband s h a l l m a i n t a i n t h r o u g h h i s e m p l o y e r a l i f e i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y i n an amount n o t l e s s t h a n $500,000 w i t h t h e W i f e named as t h e b e n e f i c i a r y t h e r e o n f o r so l o n g as Husband i s o b l i g a t e d t o p a y p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y t o t h e W i f e as s e t out h e r e i n . The Husband s h a l l p a y a l l premiums on s a i d p o l i c y and s h a l l n o t c a n c e l or allow said insurance to lapse. The Husband s h a l l n o t m o r t g a g e , p l e d g e , o r encumber s a i d i n s u r a n c e . The Husband s h a l l f u r n i s h proof of s a i d insurance t o the Wife e a c h y e a r on t h e a n n i v e r s a r y o f t h i s C o n s e n t D e c r e e . " "11. FREQUENT F L I E R MILES/DISCOUNT POINTS: Husband s h a l l t r a n s f e r t o t h e W i f e 5 0 % o f h i s e x i s t i n g frequent f l y e r / d i s c o u n t mileage points with the a i r l i n e s ; and 50% o f h i s h o t e l discount points/bonus points. I n t h e f u t u r e , Husband s h a l l convey to Wife 25% of a l l new frequent f l y e r / d i s c o u n t m i l e a g e p o i n t s and h o t e l d i s c o u n t p o i n t s / b o n u s p o i n t s e a r n e d o r a c c r u e d by Husband during the p r i o r year. Commencing M a r c h 1, 2006, and c o n t i n u i n g on M a r c h 1 s t e a c h y e a r t h e r e a f t e r , Husband s h a l l p r o v i d e t o t h e W i f e a p h o t o c o p y o f e a c h and e v e r y a c c o u n t e v i d e n c i n g h i s a c c u m u l a t e d f r e q u e n t f l y e r / d i s c o u n t m i l e a g e p o i n t s and h i s h o t e l d i s c o u n t p o i n t s / b o n u s p o i n t s . Husband s h a l l e x e c u t e 2 this 2090977 w h a t e v e r documents a r e n e c e s s a r y o r r e q u i r e d to a l l o w W i f e t o use h e r 2 5 % o f e a c h y e a r ' s a c c u m u l a t e d points. II "18. ALIMONY: .... As additional periodic a l i m o n y , t h e Husband s h a l l pay t h e sum o f 25% o f t h e g r o s s sum o f b o n u s e s and c o m m i s s i o n s r e c e i v e d by Husband u n d e r h i s e m p l o y e r ' s N e p t u n e T e c h n o l o g y Group, Inc.'s 'Management Incentive Plan' (as defined by Husband's e m p l o y e r for a l l covered management and s t a f f ) ; however, the same shall e x c l u d e Husband's s a l a r y , s t o c k , s t o c k o p t i o n s or any o t h e r f o r m o f n o n - c a s h c o m p e n s a t i o n r e c e i v e d by Husband f r o m N e p t u n e T e c h n o l o g y G r o u p , I n c . " I n June 2008, t h e w i f e alleging, among o t h e r abide the by and judgment. The for a rule t h i n g s , t h a t t h e h u s b a n d had periodic-alimony nisi failed to provisions of the 2005 h u s b a n d d e n i e d most o f t h e w i f e ' s a l l e g a t i o n s ; however, he monthly periodic acknowledged that alimony, f i n a n c i a l l y u n a b l e t o pay he a petition life-insurance, frequent-flier-mileage/hotel- discount, that filed he owed contending it. said indicated that The he the wife that he $3,000 had in been h u s b a n d s u b m i t t e d documents had complied with the life- i n s u r a n c e and f r e q u e n t - f l i e r - m i l e a g e / h o t e l - d i s c o u n t p r o v i s i o n s of the job 2005 j u d g m e n t . with He also asserted Neptune Technology Group, a f t e r the p a r t i e s d i v o r c e d and Inc. t h a t he left ("Neptune") that, therefore, 3 had he was his shortly under 2090977 no o b l i g a t i o n t o p a y t h e w i f e might receive. After court held a hearing a 25% s h a r e o f any b o n u s e s a number of continuances, a t t h e t r i a l ; h o w e v e r , he was worked trial on t h e m a t t e r on November 10, 2009. husband l i v e d out o f the country, The the e v i d e n c e was f o r Neptune. At the The and he w a i v e d h i s p r e s e n c e represented undisputed he that trial, by counsel. t h e h u s b a n d no the wife longer refuted the h u s b a n d ' s a s s e r t i o n t h a t , b e c a u s e he was no l o n g e r e m p l o y e d by N e p t u n e , he was u n d e r no o b l i g a t i o n t o p a y h e r any p o r t i o n o f b o n u s e s he m i g h t r e c e i v e employer. The wife agreement that was i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e 2005 j u d g m e n t , t h e p a r t i e s i n t e n d e d that testified that, she w o u l d f r o m any o t h e r i n entering receive 25% into o f any the bonuses paid to the r e g a r d l e s s o f who h i s e m p l o y e r was a t t h e t i m e . presented any e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g husband, Neither party t h e amount o f money, i f any, the husband had r e c e i v e d i n t h e form o f bonuses s i n c e l e a v i n g his employment w i t h The with wife proof Neptune. testified that he h a d that when t h e h u s b a n d provided her life insurance, the information she r e c e i v e d from him d i d not i n d i c a t e the b e n e f i c i a r y . testified that, since J u l y 2008, 4 She she h a d n o t r e c e i v e d also proof 2090977 t h a t the husband had m a i n t a i n e d her as t h e The 2007, any and, discount policy also testified frequent-flier she s a i d , points. that the points into husband he h a d n e v e r p r o v i d e d She asserted that p o i n t s he h a d a c c u m u l a t e d a f t e r 2007. indicating that he had had her account the her w i t h husband p r o v i d e d h e r w i t h any d o c u m e n t a t i o n as t o t h e document naming beneficiary. wife deposited a life-insurance not since hotelhad not frequent-flier The h u s b a n d p r o v i d e d a transferred frequent-flier p o i n t s t o t h e w i f e ' s a c c o u n t i n F e b r u a r y 2008. However, t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e h u s b a n d h a d provided the wife with frequent-flier points accumulated a f t e r After finding, the any p o i n t s o r p r o o f or February trial, the hotel-discount o f t h e number o f points he had 2008. trial court entered a judgment among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was i n c o n t e m p t f o r f a i l i n g t o p r o v i d e p r o o f o f an i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y naming t h e w i f e as t h e b e n e f i c i a r y , for failing to provide proof to the w i f e o f t h e t o t a l amount o f f r e q u e n t - f l i e r and h o t e l - d i s c o u n t p o i n t s e a r n e d , and f o r f a i l i n g t o p r o v i d e t o t h e w i f e p r o o f o f 5 2090977 any b o n u s e s he h a d b e e n p a i d f o r t h e t h r e e y e a r s p r e c e d i n g e n t r y of the The the judgment. trial court ordered the husband to p r o v i d e the wife w i t h p r o o f t h a t he had a $500,000 l i f e - i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y n a m i n g t h e w i f e as a b e n e f i c i a r y and the policy words annually. "through his The to continue trial employer" court i n the to provide proof f u r t h e r ordered first sentence the of the l i f e - i n s u r a n c e p r o v i s i o n o f t h e 2005 j u d g m e n t - - p a r a g r a p h be s t r i c k e n . 25% of the received the The trial gross sum court also ordered of any bonuses from h i s employer d u r i n g entry of the judgment. the As to or 9--to the husband to commissions three the years of he pay had preceding periodic-alimony p r o v i s i o n o f t h e 2005 j u d g m e n t p a r a g r a p h 1 8 - - t h e t r i a l court ordered the language "under h i s employer's Neptune Technology Group, Inc.'s 'Management Incentive Husband's e m p l o y e r f o r a l l c o v e r e d defined by management and s t a f f ) " and "from Neptune T e c h n o l o g y Group, I n c . , " h u s b a n d a l s o was ordered to provide Plan' t o be (as stricken. t h e w i f e w i t h 25% of The the f r e q u e n t - f l i e r and h o t e l - d i s c o u n t p o i n t s he had e a r n e d i n t h e three years preceding the e n t r y of the judgment. appeals. 6 The husband 2090977 The husband argues d i s c r e t i o n by f i n d i n g h i m that the trial court abused i n contempt f o r h i s a l l e g e d its failure t o c o m p l y w i t h r e q u i r e m e n t s t h a t were n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e 2005 judgment. is well This court's standard of review i n contempt cases settled. "The i s s u e w h e t h e r t o h o l d a p a r t y i n c o n t e m p t i s s o l e l y 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 a t r i a l c o u r t ' s c o n t e m p t d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d on a p p e a l a b s e n t a s h o w i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t a c t e d o u t s i d e i t s d i s c r e t i o n or t h a t i t s j u d g m e n t i s n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e . Brown v. Brown, 960 So. 2d 712, 716 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006) ( a f f i r m i n g a t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n not to h o l d a p a r e n t i n c o n t e m p t f o r f a i l u r e t o pay c h i l d s u p p o r t when t h e p a r e n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had d e d u c t e d f r o m h i s m o n t h l y c h i l d - s u p p o r t payment t h e amount he had e x p e n d e d t o buy c l o t h e s f o r t h e c h i l d r e n ) . " Poh v. Poh, (Ala. [Ms. 2090151, November 19, C i v . App. 2010] So. 3d , 2010). " R u l e 70A, A l a . R. C i v . P., has g o v e r n e d c o n t e m p t p r o c e e d i n g s i n c i v i l a c t i o n s s i n c e J u l y 11, 1994. Rule 70A(a)(2)(D) defines ' c i v i l c o n t e m p t ' as a 'willful, continuing failure or r e f u s a l of any person to comply w i t h a court's lawful writ, s u b p o e n a , p r o c e s s , o r d e r , r u l e , o r command t h a t by its nature is still capable of being complied with.'" Stamm v. Stamm, 922 hold a party So. 2d 920, 924 ( A l a . C i v . App. i n contempt under e i t h e r Rule ( c r i m i n a l contempt) or To 70A(a)(2)(C)(ii) ( D ) ( c i v i l c o n t e m p t ) , A l a . R. 7 2004) . Civ. P., 2090977 the t r i a l c o u r t must f i n d t h a t t h e p a r t y w i l l f u l l y r e f u s e d t o comply w i t h a c o u r t o r d e r . f a i l e d or T.L.D. v. C.G., 849 So. 2d 200, 205 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) . S p e c i f i c a l l y , 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 2005 j u d g m e n t did n o t r e q u i r e him t o m a i n t a i n a l i f e - i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y naming the wife as h i s b e n e f i c i a r y u n l e s s insurance. h i s employer o f f e r e d the The h u s b a n d a l s o c o n t e n d s t h a t , p u r s u a n t t o t h e 2005 j u d g m e n t , he was n o t r e q u i r e d t o p a y t h e w i f e a 2 5 % s h a r e o f a n y bonus he r e c e i v e d f r o m any e n t i t y o t h e r In analyzing whether the trial court than Neptune. abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n f i n d i n g t h e husband i n contempt i n t h i s case, look f i r s t t o t h e l a n g u a g e i n c l u d e d i n t h e 2005 j u d g m e n t . " I n R.G. v. G.G., 771 So. 2d 490 2000), t h i s c o u r t s t a t e d : ( A l a . C i v . App. "'"[A] settlement agreement which i s i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o a d i v o r c e decree i s i n t h e n a t u r e o f a c o n t r a c t . " S m i t h v. S m i t h , 568 So. 2d 838, 839 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 0 ) . A d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t s h o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d o r c o n s t r u e d as o t h e r w r i t t e n i n s t r u m e n t s a r e interpreted or construed. S a r t i n v. S a r t i n , 678 So. 2d 1181 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996). "The words o f t h e a g r e e m e n t a r e t o be g i v e n t h e i r o r d i n a r y m e a n i n g , a n d t h e i n t e n t i o n s o f t h e p a r t i e s a r e t o be d e r i v e d f r o m them." I d . a t 1183. W h e t h e r an a g r e e m e n t i s ambiguous i s a q u e s t i o n o f l a w f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Wimpee v. Wimpee, 641 So. 2d 287 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1994) . An 8 we 2090977 a g r e e m e n t t h a t by i t s t e r m s i s p l a i n and f r e e f r o m a m b i g u i t y must be e n f o r c e d as w r i t t e n . J o n e s v. J o n e s , 722 So. 2d 768 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 8 ) . An a m b i g u i t y e x i s t s i f t h e a g r e e m e n t i s s u s c e p t i b l e t o more t h a n one m e a n i n g . V a i n r i b v. Downey, 565 So. 2d 647 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 0 ) . However, i f o n l y one reasonable meaning clearly emerges, t h e n t h e a g r e e m e n t i s u n a m b i g u o u s . Id. Finally, i f a p r o v i s i o n of an a g r e e m e n t i s c e r t a i n and c l e a r , i t i s t h e duty of the t r i a l c o u r t t o determine i t s m e a n i n g , and t h e c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s a f f o r d e d a heavy presumption of c o r r e c t n e s s and w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d u n l e s s i t i s c l e a r l y erroneous. Id.' "771 So. 2d a t 494. See a l s o Ex p a r t e L i t t l e p a g e , 796 So. 2d 298, 301 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ; Van A l l e n v. Van A l l e n , 812 So. 2d 1276, 1277 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) ; and G r a n g e r v. G r a n g e r , 804 So. 2d 217, 219 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 001) . "Alabama a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s have s t a t e d t h a t a c o u r t w i l l not l o o k beyond the f o u r corners of a w r i t t e n instrument unless the instrument contains latent ambiguities. E.g., M a r t i n v. F i r s t N a t ' l Bank o f M o b i l e , 412 So. 2d 250, 253 ( A l a . 1982). '[A] l a t e n t a m b i g u i t y i s one t h a t " a p p e a r [ s ] o n l y as the r e s u l t of e x t r i n s i c or c o l l a t e r a l evidence showing t h a t a word, t h o u g h t t o have but one meaning, a c t u a l l y has two o r more m e a n i n g s . " ' [Meyer v . ] M e y e r , 952 So. 2d [384] a t 392 [ ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 6 ) ] ( c i t i n g 11 R i c h a r d A. L o r d , W i l l i s t o n on C o n t r a c t s § 33:40, a t 816 ( 4 t h ed. 2 0 0 3 ) ) . " Judge v. Moreover, J u d g e , 14 So. " [ i ] f the t h e n t h e y must be 3d 162, terms given of 165-66 a judgment are t h e i r u s u a l and 9 ( A l a . C i v . App. not 2009). ambiguous, o r d i n a r y meaning and 2090977 their 'legal literal effect must be declared in the light of meaning of the language used' i n the judgment." P e r s . Bd. v. A k e r s , 797 So. the State 2d 422, 424 ( A l a . 2000) (quoting 27, So. 2d 681, (1970)). W i s e v. Watson , 286 A l a . 22, 236 686 Here, the husband a s s e r t s t h a t the p l a i n language of 2005 judgment insurance does policy not obligate f o r the him b e n e f i t of to maintain the wife o b t a i n l i f e insurance through h i s employer. states that the and the issues, agreement into p a r t i e s had trial the r e a c h e d an court 2005 judgment i s i n the n a t u r e 9 o f t h e 2005 j u d g m e n t r e g a r d i n g husband to policy plain its with with "maintain the wife and to a l l merge[d]" the that 2005 construe The p r o v i s i o n i n p a r a g r a p h life insurance requires the through h i s employer" a l i f e - i n s u r a n c e as the o r d i n a r y m e a n i n g , as we husband cannot 2005 j u d g m e n t Therefore, named b e n e f i c i a r y . language of the phrase "maintain the i f he o f a c o n t r a c t , and we w i l l i t as we w o u l d any o t h e r document. life- a g r e e m e n t as "adopt[ed] judgment. The a the that, Giving the through h i s employer" a r e r e q u i r e d t o do, we must a g r e e under the 2005 judgment, he is not o b l i g a t e d t o o b t a i n a l i f e - i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y f o r the b e n e f i t of the w i f e i f the p o l i c y i s not o f f e r e d through h i s employer. 10 2090977 The next step i n our a n a l y s i s i s t o determine whether t h e husband complied with the terms of P a r a g r a p h 9, r e g a r d i n g p r o v i d i n g l i f e provides that insurance this t h e husband "shall t o t h e Wife each year [judgment]." the 2005 insurance furnish through to the wife, proof of on t h e a n n i v e r s a r y [life] date of The h u s b a n d a r g u e s t h a t t h e w i f e h a d t h e b u r d e n t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t he h a d l i f e i n s u r a n c e him judgment. an e m p l o y e r a f t e r he l e f t available to Neptune and t h a t t h e w i f e h a d f a i l e d t o meet t h a t b u r d e n . I n J.K.L.B. Farms, LLC v. P h i l l i p s , Civ. App. 2 0 0 7 ) , t h e P h i l l i p s e s nisi alleging the terms entered filed 975 So. 2d 1001 ( A l a . a petition t h a t J.K.L.B. Farms h a d f a i l e d of a July 8, 2003, judgment f o r a rule t o comply the t r i a l c o u r t had a g a i n s t J.K.L.B. Farms. "J.K.L.B. argued b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h a t i t has c o m p l i e d w i t h t h e J u l y 8, 2003, j u d g m e n t t o t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h i t h a s t h e a u t h o r i t y t o do s o . Thus, i t a s s e r t e d b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t i t s d e f e n s e t h a t i t was u n a b l e t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e J u l y 8, 2003, j u d g m e n t . Stamm v. Stamm, 922 So. 2d 920, 924 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004) (' [T]he i n a b i l i t y t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e trial court's judgment i s a v a l i d defense i n contempt p r o c e e d i n g s . ' ) . The t r i a l c o u r t , a f t e r h e a r i n g t h e arguments o f c o u n s e l , r e j e c t e d t h a t defense. The b u r d e n i s on t h e p a r t y a c c u s e d o f contempt t o demonstrate i t s i n a b i l i t y t o comply w i t h the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment; t h e burden s h i f t s o n l y a f t e r the accused p a r t y presents s u f f i c i e n t evidence 11 with 2090977 of l a c k o f a b i l i t y t o comply w i t h t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment. C a r r v . B r o y l e s , 652 So. 2d 299, 301-02 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 4 ) ; H i t s o n v. H i t s o n , 412 So. 2d 798, 800 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 2 ) . " J.K.L.B. Farms, 975 So. 2d a t 1008. See a l s o F a l k n e r v . S t a t e ex r e l . Falkner, 769 So. 2d 933, 935 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2000) ( q u o t i n g W a t t s v. W a t t s , 706 So. 2d 749, 751 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1997)) ("'The i n a b i l i t y defense t o contempt. t o pay c h i l d support or alimony i s a When t h e a c c u s e d p r e s e n t s evidence that he i s u n a b l e t o p a y t h e o r d e r e d amount, t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f i s on t h e c o m p l a i n a n t t o p r o v e b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t t h a t he can c o m p l y . ' " ) ; Summers v . Summers, 661 So. 2d 243 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 5 ) ; a n d Morgan v . Morgan, 582 So. 2d 1147, 1149 ( A l a . Civ. App. 1 9 9 1 ) . In husband this case, the evidence had not p r o v i d e d maintaining husband's was the wife with a life-insurance policy defense appears t o be undisputed proof that that he was f o r several years. that he the The had not had the o p p o r t u n i t y t o o b t a i n l i f e i n s u r a n c e t h r o u g h an e m p l o y e r s i n c e l e a v i n g N e p t u n e a n d , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t he c o u l d n o t c o m p l y w i t h p a r a g r a p h 9. the burden The h o l d i n g i n J.K.L.B. Farms, h o w e v e r , squarely on t h e h u s b a n d as t h e p a r t y places accused of c o n t e m p t t o p r o v e h i s l a c k o f a b i l i t y t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e 2005 12 2090977 judgment. Our r e v i e w o f 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 presented no life e v i d e n c e on t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r he insurance through h i s c u r r e n t employer. could obtain Accordingly, we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e h u s b a n d f a i l e d t o meet h i s b u r d e n o f s h o w i n g his i n a b i l i t y t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e 2005 judgment as t o p a r a g r a p h 9. Thus, t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was in contempt the requirements of for failing p a r a g r a p h 9 i s due t o be t o comply w i t h affirmed. The h u s b a n d makes a s i m i l a r that the t r i a l argument f o r h i s contention c o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n by f i n d i n g h i m i n c o n t e m p t f o r f a i l i n g t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e 2005 judgment r e g a r d i n g s h a r i n g f r e q u e n t - f l i e r and h o t e l - d i s c o u n t p o i n t s with the wife. Specifically, he a r g u e s t h a t t h e w i f e h a d t h e " a f f i r m a t i v e b u r d e n " o f p r o v i n g t h a t he h a d , i n f a c t , a c c u m u l a t e d any p o i n t s a f t e r Paragraph 11 of the 2007. 2005 judgment provides that, " [ c ] o m m e n c i n g M a r c h 1, 2006, and c o n t i n u i n g on M a r c h 1 s t e a c h year thereafter, [ t h e ] Husband s h a l l provide to the Wife a p h o t o c o p y o f e a c h and e v e r y a c c o u n t e v i d e n c i n g h i s a c c u m u l a t e d frequent f l y e r / d i s c o u n t m i l e a g e p o i n t s and h i s h o t e l points/bonus points." The husband 13 also was discount ordered to 2090977 t r a n s f e r 25% o f h i s a n n u a l a c c u m u l a t i o n o f t h o s e p o i n t s t o the wife. time the regarding his The h u s b a n d had evidence was provided the w i f e w i t h frequent-flier and when he p r o v i d e d he had undisputed that the last information hotel-bonus points was i n February her w i t h documentation r e g a r d i n g the h u s b a n d ' s d e f e n s e as t o t h i s i s s u e i s t h a t he had e a r n e d any p o i n t s s i n c e t h a t t i m e and t h a t t h e w i f e had t o show o t h e r w i s e . As was the case w i t h the t h a t he had c o u l d not So. evidence 2d not e a r n e d any o t h e r p o i n t s and, therefore, that J.K.L.B. Farms, at husband to 1008. The that he had b u r d e n t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t he 2005 j u d g m e n t . requirements demonstrating 2005 j u d g m e n t . indicating was failed comply w i t h the failed not p o i n t s or h o t e l - d i s c o u n t p o i n t s ; thus, husband not life-insurance i s s u e , however, the husband b o r e the burden of 975 points a c c u m u l a t e d i n 2007. The he 2008, was earned he produce frequent-flier failed t o meet h i s u n a b l e t o comply w i t h Thus, t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n in contempt for of paragraph 11 failing regarding h o t e l - d i s c o u n t p o i n t s i s a l s o due 14 t o be to any comply that the the with the frequent-flier and affirmed. 2090977 The husband discretion comply says, contends t h a t the i n f i n d i n g t h a t he was with p a r a g r a p h 18 he was trial abused i t s i n contempt f o r f a i l i n g o f t h e 2005 not o b l i g a t e d t o provide b o n u s e s he may court judgment because, the wife proof have e a r n e d once he l e f t N e p t u n e to he o f any and was not r e q u i r e d t o p a y t h e w i f e a p o r t i o n o f any s u c h b o n u s e s . P a r a g r a p h 18 r e q u i r e s t h e h u s b a n d t o p a y t h e w i f e 25% o f any bonus " r e c e i v e d by Husband Technology Group, Inc.'s d e f i n e d by Husband's staff)." under h i s employer's Neptune 'Management Incentive Plan' (as e m p l o y e r f o r a l l c o v e r e d management and As was t h e c a s e w i t h t h e l i f e - i n s u r a n c e p r o v i s i o n o f t h e 2005 j u d g m e n t , t h e l a n g u a g e u s e d i n p a r a g r a p h 18 regarding t h e s o u r c e f r o m w h i c h t h e h u s b a n d must p a y t h e w i f e a d d i t i o n a l periodic alimony meaning of obligation that i s clear and language to provide unambiguous. requires the wife with that The literal the husband's information regarding b o n u s e s he r e c e i v e s i s l i m i t e d t o h i s employment w i t h N e p t u n e . F u r t h e r m o r e , b e c a u s e t h e l a n g u a g e i n p a r a g r a p h 18 regarding the to share with source of the bonuses the wife the husband i s required as p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y i s c l e a r and unambiguous, any c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e t r i a l c o u r t may h a v e g i v e n t o t h e w i f e ' s 15 2090977 t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g what she s a i d were t h e p a r t i e s ' i n t e n t i o n s in r e a c h i n g t h e a g r e e m e n t i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e 2005 j u d g m e n t was i m p r o p e r . The w i f e for Neptune. judgment, a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d no l o n g e r worked Under t h e p l a i n and o r d i n a r y m e a n i n g o f t h e 2005 the husband was not required t o pay the wife a p o r t i o n o f b o n u s e s o r c o m m i s s i o n s he may h a v e e a r n e d f r o m any other source. Thus, t h e h u s b a n d d i d n o t f a i l t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e 2005 j u d g m e n t b y n o t p r o v i d i n g t h e w i f e w i t h p r o o f o f any bonuses he Neptune or f o r not p a y i n g her a p o r t i o n of such bonuses, i f any. have Accordingly, finding 18 received the t r i a l the husband paragraph trial may after court i n contempt c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t i s due t o be h i s job with abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n for failing o f t h e 2005 j u d g m e n t , The h u s b a n d leaving t o comply with and t h a t p o r t i o n o f t h e reversed. contends t h a t the t r i a l court d i d not have t h e a u t h o r i t y t o s t r i k e any l a n g u a g e f r o m t h e 2005 j u d g m e n t , which had the e f f e c t says, the wife did of modifying not request t h e judgment, because, a modification in he her p l e a d i n g s , and t h e i s s u e o f m o d i f i c a t i o n was n o t t r i e d b y t h e consent of the p a r t i e s . 16 2090977 Rule 15(b), A l a . R. C i v . P., s t a t e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "When i s s u e s n o t r a i s e d b y t h e p l e a d i n g s a r e t r i e d by e x p r e s s o r i m p l i e d c o n s e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s , t h e y s h a l l be t r e a t e d i n a l l r e s p e c t s as i f t h e y h a d b e e n raised i n the pleadings. Such amendment o f t h e pleadings as may be n e c e s s a r y t o c a u s e them t o conform t o t h e e v i d e n c e and t o r a i s e t h e s e i s s u e s may be made upon m o t i o n o f a n y p a r t y a t a n y t i m e , e v e n a f t e r j u d g m e n t ; b u t f a i l u r e s o t o amend does not a f f e c t t h e r e s u l t o f t h e t r i a l o f t h e s e i s s u e s . I f e v i d e n c e i s o b j e c t e d t o a t t h e t r i a l on t h e g r o u n d t h a t i t i s n o t w i t h i n t h e i s s u e s made b y t h e p l e a d i n g s , t h e c o u r t may a l l o w t h e p l e a d i n g s t o be amended a n d s h a l l do so f r e e l y when t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e m e r i t s o f t h e a c t i o n w i l l be s u b s e r v e d thereby and t h e o b j e c t i n g p a r t y f a i l s t o s a t i s f y t h e c o u r t t h a t t h e admission o f such evidence would prejudice the party i n maintaining the party's a c t i o n o r d e f e n s e upon t h e m e r i t s . The c o u r t may grant a continuance t o enable the o b j e c t i n g party t o meet s u c h e v i d e n c e The C o u r t i s t o be l i b e r a l in granting permission t o amend when j u s t i c e s o requires." Determining whether an issue has been tried by t h e e x p r e s s o r i m p l i e d consent o f t h e p a r t i e s w i t h i n t h e meaning of R u l e 15(b) i s a m a t t e r t h a t l i e s w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f the (Ala. 13 trial court. H a t h c o c k v. H a t h c o c k , 685 So. 2d 736, 738 C i v . App. 1996) ( c i t i n g M c C o l l u m v. R e e v e s , 521 So. 2d ( A l a . 1987)). issue The t r i a l has been court's tried consent will as t o whether an reversed on a p p e a l a b s e n t an abuse o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n . I d . 17 by determination n o t be 2090977 " ' " ' [ I ] f R u l e 15 i s t o be o f any b e n e f i t t o the bench, bar, and t h e p u b l i c , t h e t r i a l j u d g e s must be g i v e n d i s c r e t i o n t o a l l o w o r r e f u s e amendments We state also that Rule 15 must be l i b e r a l l y c o n s t r u e d by t h e t r i a l judges. But, that liberality does not include a situation where t h e t r i a l on t h e issues w i l l be u n d u l y d e l a y e d or the opposing party unduly prejudiced.' "Tounzen v. S o u t h e r n U n i t e d F i r e I n s . Co., 701 So. 2d 1148, 1150 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) , q u o t i n g Hayes v. Payne , 523 So. 2d 333, 334 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n S t e a d v. B l u e C r o s s - B l u e S h i e l d o f A l a b a m a , 294 A l a . 3, 6, 310 So. 2d 469, 471 (1975)." Advantage Sales 118 ( A l a . C i v . App. Our had o f A l a b a m a , I n c . v. C l e m o n s , 979 by 2d 114, 2007). supreme c o u r t has been t r i e d So. r e c e n t l y a d d r e s s e d w h e t h e r an express of i m p l i e d consent: " ' " R u l e 15(b) i s not p e r m i s s i v e : i t p r o v i d e s t h a t i s s u e s t r i e d by e x p r e s s o r i m p l i e d c o n s e n t s h a l l be t r e a t e d as i f r a i s e d i n t h e p l e a d i n g s . " ' Ammons v. T e s k e r Mfg. C o r p . , 853 So. 2d 210, 216 ( A l a . 2002) ( q u o t i n g Hawk v. B a v a r i a n M o t o r Works, 342 So. 2d 355, 358 ( A l a . 1977) (emphasis added i n Ammons)). See a l s o R u l e 5 4 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. ('[E]very f i n a l judgment s h a l l g r a n t the r e l i e f t o w h i c h t h e p a r t y i n whose f a v o r i t i s r e n d e r e d i s entitled, e v e n i f t h e p a r t y has n o t demanded s u c h r e l i e f i n the p a r t y ' s p l e a d i n g s . ' ) . " ' I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d law i n Alabama t h a t i m p l i e d c o n s e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s can be f o u n d when an o p p o s i n g 18 issue 2090977 party fails to object to the introduction of evidence r a i s i n g the d i s p u t e d issue i n i t i a l l y . ' Hosea O. Weaver & Sons, I n c . v. Towner, 663 So. 2d 892, 896 ( A l a . 1995). ' I f a p a r t y o b j e c t s to the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f e v i d e n c e a t t h e t r i a l on t h e g r o u n d t h a t i t i s n o t w i t h i n t h e i s s u e s f r a m e d by the p l e a d i n g s , he must show t h a t he w o u l d be a c t u a l l y p r e j u d i c e d i n m a i n t a i n i n g h i s a c t i o n o r d e f e n s e on t h e m e r i t s by t h e a d m i s s i o n o f t h e e v i d e n c e . ' Hawk, 342 So. 2d a t 358 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . " ' " [ W ] h e t h e r p l e a d i n g s a r e deemed t o be amended i n order to conform to the evidence p r e s e n t e d i s a l s o a matter w i t h i n the d i s c r e t i o n of the trial c o u r t , " and a d e c i s i o n i n t h a t r e g a r d w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l a b s e n t an a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n . ' I n t e r n a t i o n a l Rehab. A s s o c s . , I n c . v. Adams, 613 So. 2d 1207, 1214 ( A l a . 1992) ( q u o t i n g M c C o l l u m v. R e e v e s , 521 So. 2d 13, 16-17 (Ala. 1987)). 'Failure t o so amend "does n o t a f f e c t t h e r e s u l t o f t h e t r i a l of these i s s u e s . " Therefore, any s u c h " v a r i a n c e " cannot a f f e c t the r e s u l t of t h i s appeal.' W h i t f i e l d v. Burttram, 471 So. 2d 401, 405 (Ala. 1985) (quoting Rule 15(b))." S c r u s h y v. , Tucker, 1081424, Jan. 28, 2011] So. 3d ( A l a . 2011). In t h i s case, the w i f e ' s t h a t the t r i a l t o comply w i t h did [Ms. not issue maintain a beneficiary, for a rule n i s i c o u r t h o l d the husband i n contempt f o r certain provisions seek a m o d i f i c a t i o n whether petition the husband life-insurance of the in policy failing 2005 j u d g m e n t ; of those p r o v i s i o n s . was asked contempt naming for the As to the failing to wife as the p a r t i e s argued over whether the husband 19 she a had 2090977 an o b l i g a t i o n to provide unemployment. insurance They d i d n o t l i t i g a t e p r o v i s i o n should During that be during periods of t h e i s s u e whether t h e modified. the wife's testimony at trial regarding the l a n g u a g e i n p a r a g r a p h 18 o f t h e 2005 j u d g m e n t t h a t a d d i t i o n a l periodic alimony would be p a i d out o f Neptune's incentive p l a n , t h e w i f e ' s a t t o r n e y a s k e d h e r w h e t h e r s h e was a s k i n g t h e trial c o u r t " t o d i s r e g a r d t h a t language and i n t e r p r e t [ i t ] t o mean t h a t [ t h e husband] s h o u l d r e c e i v e f r o m any e m p l o y e r . " as p a y any b o n u s e s t h a t he m i g h t The h u s b a n d ' s a t t o r n e y objected follows: " J u d g e , i f t h e y a r e a t t e m p t i n g t o amend t h e i r p l e a d i n g s by t h e evidence, I object to i t . I t ' s n e v e r been b r o u g h t t o o u r a t t e n t i o n b e f o r e . We h a v e b e e n h e r e o n l y on a c o n t e m p t on t h e f o u r i s s u e s s e t o u t , a n d i f t h e y a r e t r y i n g t o amend t h e i r p l e a d i n g s t h r o u g h t h e e v i d e n c e we w o u l d o b j e c t t o t h a t . " The trial court "That's a l e g a l language court overruled argument t h a t of the divorce, then went t h e husband's on to can [ s i c ] d i s r e g a r d and I o v e r r u l e say objection, that that." i t recognized saying, that--the The that trial the h u s b a n d ' s c o n t e n t i o n was t h a t t h e h u s b a n d ' s o b l i g a t i o n s u n d e r the 2005 j u d g m e n t were l i m i t e d 2005 j u d g m e n t . 20 t o the exact language of the 2090977 When t h e t r i a l husband court i n contempt, "through i t also h i s employer" insurance entered i t s judgment ordered i n the f i r s t provision--paragraph finding the stricken t h e words sentence of the l i f e - 9 o f t h e 2005 j u d g m e n t . It also ordered s t r i c k e n t h e l a n g u a g e i n p a r a g r a p h 18 t h a t read "under employer's his Neptune 'Management I n c e n t i v e P l a n ' for a l l c o v e r e d management Technology Group, Inc.'s (as d e f i n e d b y Husband's e m p l o y e r and s t a f f ) " and "from Neptune T e c h n o l o g y Group, I n c . " The h u s b a n d f i l e d a m o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e t h e contempt judgment on the ground that the t r i a l court had i m p r o p e r l y m o d i f i e d t h e judgment b y s t r i k i n g c e r t a i n language in of that t h e 2005 judgment. the The t r i a l hearing, language, judgment, the thereby court held a hearing husband the t r i a l However, t h e h u s b a n d modifying court argued that, had m o d i f i e d argued, the t r i a l t h e terms on t h e i s s u e . in striking t h e 2005 The w i f e ' s trial, a t t o r n e y acknowledged that, during asked judgment. t h e contempt he h a d n o t s o u g h t a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e 2005 I n s t e a d , he s a i d , the judgment. c o u r t h a d been o n l y t o i n t e r p r e t a n d e n f o r c e t h e t e r m s o f t h e 2005 At judgment. the w i f e had asked t h e c o u r t t o i n t e r p r e t 21 2090977 the i n t e n t of the p a r t i e s a t the time they entered consent agreement, judgment. trial not which was incorporated into their the 2005 into The w i f e a r g u e d t h a t , i n i t s c o n t e m p t j u d g m e n t , t h e c o u r t h a d m e r e l y i n t e r p r e t e d t h e 2005 j u d g m e n t and h a d actually modified We agree with that the judgment. husband that, in striking certain l a n g u a g e f r o m t h e 2005 j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t went b e y o n d merely i t modified i n t e r p r e t i n g the judgment to the obligations. his then 2005 extent judgment; that When t h e t r i a l i t changed the the husband's c o u r t removed t h e words " t h r o u g h employer" from the l i f e - i n s u r a n c e p r o v i s i o n , the p r o v i s i o n required policy" the husband to "maintain f o r the b e n e f i t of the w i f e , a life insurance broadening the f r o m w h i c h t h e h u s b a n d was o b l i g a t e d t o o b t a i n t h a t Likewise, when the t r i a l court removed source insurance. from the p e r i o d i c - alimony p r o v i s i o n the e x p l i c i t l y d e f i n e d p l a n from which the husband was husband t o pay t h e w i f e from t o pay whatever the wife, source the p r o v i s i o n obligated a s h a r e o f any b o n u s e s he rather than from only i n c e n t i v e p l a n , as s t a t e d i n t h e 2005 j u d g m e n t . certain language from p r o v i s i o n s 22 the received the Neptune By striking i n t h e 2005 j u d g m e n t , the 2090977 trial and c o u r t went b e y o n d m e r e l y i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e 2005 j u d g m e n t a c t u a l l y changed--i.e., modified--the husband. It contempt is for failing r e q u i r e d t o do Based parties the not by contempt judgment, party express to hold a party in he or she was not that the before issue or the provisions unfair j u d g m e n t t o be t r y the of of trial of we conclude modification consent court 2005 sought a m o d i f i c a t i o n enforced. us, implied the and did, the that, in judgment. the of in v. Cash, ("Because t h e child-support because the Ala. Civ. that R. the 739 So. father 2d modify Because neither 2005 j u d g m e n t , t h e trial (Ala. App. and trial to the court consent, trial had child-support order or arrearage."). Therefore, of no to a modification 1999) o b l i g a t i o n or a r e d u c t i o n of h i s a r r e a r a g e , d i d not request Civ. See his P., not 522 the of State did 521, 2005 fact, c o u r t d i d n o t have t h e a u t h o r i t y t o m o d i f y t h a t j u d g m e n t . State the something do record judgment certain to i n the on did fundamentally o b l i g a t i o n s of pursuant these Rule i s s u e s , we authority reduce to the to 15 ( b ) , conclude modify amount of the the t h o s e p o r t i o n s o f t h e 2009 c o n t e m p t 23 2090977 j u d g m e n t o r d e r i n g l a n g u a g e i n t h e 2005 j u d g m e n t t o be s t r i c k e n a r e due t o be For the reversed. reasons s t a t e d above, those portions of the judgment f i n d i n g t h e husband i n contempt f o r f a i l i n g t o comply with the l i f e - i n s u r a n c e and f r e q u e n t - f l i e r / h o t e l - d i s c o u n t p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e 2005 j u d g m e n t a r e a f f i r m e d . the judgment h o l d i n g provide the wife with That p o r t i o n o f t h e husband i n contempt f o r f a i l i n g information regarding b o n u s e s he to may have r e c e i v e d a f t e r l e a v i n g N e p t u n e and f o r f a i l i n g t o p a y t h e wife a p o r t i o n o f t h o s e b o n u s e s , i f any, i s r e v e r s e d . portions o f t h e judgment ordering that The c e r t a i n l a n g u a g e be s t r i c k e n f r o m t h e 2005 j u d g m e n t a r e a l s o r e v e r s e d . This cause i s remanded f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o e n t e r a j u d g m e n t c o n s i s t e n t with this opinion. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND Pittman, REMANDED. B r y a n , and Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t w r i t i n g . 24

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.