Mary E. (Robbins) Finn v. Mary Katelyn Robbins

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/20/2011 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 Reporter of Decisions, 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 2100094 Mary E. (Robbins) F i n n v. Mary K a t e l y n Robbins Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (DR-09-629) Court THOMAS, J u d g e . AFFIRMED. NO OPINION. See R u l e 5 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) Ala. a n d ( a ) ( 2 ) ( E ) , A l a . R. A p p . P . ; R u l e 4 5 , R. A p p . P.; E x p a r t e Clark, 23 S o . 3 d 1 1 0 7 , 1 1 1 6 (Ala. 2 0 0 9 ) ; B u s h v . A l a b a m a Farm B u r e a u M u t . C a s . I n s . C o . , 576 So. 2d 1 7 5 , 177 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ; State Farm Mut. Auto. I n s . Co. v . 2100094 Motley, 90 9 So. 2d So. 80 6, 2d 821-22 Langley, 495 1061, Farthing, [Ms. 2 0 9 0 2 0 8 , N o v e m b e r ( A l a . 2005); 1065 ( A l a . 1986); 5, 2 0 1 0 ] (Ala. C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) ; and Amie v. Conrey, (Ala. C i v . App. Johnson v. Flomer v. S o . 3d , 801 S o . 2 d 8 4 1 , 846 2001). Pittman and Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . Bryan, J . , concurs specially, joins. 2 which Thompson, P.J., 2100094 BRYAN, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g specially. I agree t h a t the judgment o f the J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court i s due t o be award affirmed. the appellee, appeal i n the Mary amount o f f e e s t h a t she who I w r i t e s p e c i a l l y only to s t a t e t h a t I would requested Katelyn Robbins, $6,700 -- the on a p p e a l . to bring mother's an action undisputed against obligation portion of Mary Katelyn's despite the facts t h a t she those expenses, correspondence informing her that required this Mary to enforce The mother r e f u s e d to pay had wish obligation, Mary of educational not did portion the to her court has who Moreover, ability terminate that and an found is a to without college student, to to represent her the f o r e g o i n g $6,700 i n a t t o r n e y ' s Thompson, P . J . , fees had attorney filed merit, appeal. concurs. 3 had an which incur the interests r e a s o n s , I would award Mary on to her she mother be a d d i t i o n a l c o s t o f h i r i n g an a t t o r n e y For the her expenses and Katelyn was her pay she Katelyn. Mary K a t e l y n , on a p p e a l . a (Finn), to t h a t she from on attorney's o f t h e amount o f c o l l e g e - r e l a t e d e x p e n s e s t h a t i n c u r r e d by appeal mother admitted postminority-educational-support received her postminority that fees In t h i s a c t i o n , Mary K a t e l y n , p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l expenses. been amount o f i s t h e d a u g h t e r o f t h e a p p e l l a n t , M a r y E. R o b b i n s forced pay full attorney's Katelyn

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.