Beverly Wilmore and Charles Wilmore v. Kendall Wilmore

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Rel: 08/19/2011 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 , 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 , Alabama 36104-3741 ((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, 2011 2100101 B e v e r l y Wilmore and Charles Wilmore v. K e n d a l l Wilmore Appeal from Etowah C i r c u i t (CV-06-1406) Court PITTMAN, J u d g e . Beverly appeal Wilmore and Charles Wilmore ("the W i l m o r e s " ) f r o m a j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d a g a i n s t them i n a d e c l a r a t o r y - judgment a c t i o n t h a t a l s o determined C h a r l e s Wilmore t o be i n contempt o f c o u r t . 2100101 Bradley Wilmore ("the former husband") and Kendall W i l m o r e ("the f o r m e r w i f e " ) were d i v o r c e d i n September 2005 b y a judgment of t h e Etowah C i r c u i t C o u r t . According provisions the former awarded i n that divorce a l l right, residence; title, interest the former w i f e a c t i o n seeking a judicial amount n e c e s s a r y t o pay in was by a m o r t g a g e on t h e m a r i t a l I n December 2006, proper and i n a d d i t i o n , the former w i f e note secured judgment judgment, wife filed a the marital the a declaratory- determination o f f the note separate was to satisfy filed as t o t h e secured w h i c h was the Wilmores, t h e former husband's p a r e n t s . former wife residence. m o r t g a g e on t h e f o r m e r m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e , the to certain by t h e held by I n O c t o b e r 2007, action seeking an a d j u d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d was i n c o n t e m p t o f c o u r t for having the divorce parallel when the purpose r e f u s e d t o p a y any c h i l d s u p p o r t j u d g m e n t h a d been e n t e r e d . t o the declaratory-judgment trial of court scheduling F o l l o w i n g numerous ore consolidated a hearing continuances, tenus proceeding 2 action until the on since That l i t i g a t i o n two May ran 2009, cases f o r the a l l pending claims. the t r i a l on November 9, or alimony 2009. c o u r t c o n d u c t e d an Present at that 2100101 h e a r i n g were t h e f o r m e r w i f e , t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s f a t h e r , and counsel f o r the p a r t i e s ; the former husband d i d not On December 7, 2009, t h e t r i a l court entered appear. a judgment d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d was i n contempt of c o u r t . In the a d d i t i o n , the trial court ordered former f a t h e r t o p r o d u c e c e r t a i n documents r e l a t i n g t o a trust and owed on specific the scheduled documents r e g a r d i n g former a final marital trial 2010. with court residence; trial family-farm outstanding the trial Following additional rescheduled the final c o u r t ; the hearing for July 2, compliance" a copy of an attempted to convey the former m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e t o the former husband and Indiana the q u i t c l a i m deed former wife by jointly; the action a Attached day, court filed motion to d i s m i s s . next debt continuances, On J u n e 30, t h e W i l m o r e s f i l e d a " n o t i c e o f the husband's h e a r i n g i n the declaratory-judgment t o be h e l d i n A p r i l 2010. the the 1 Wilmores t o t h a t m o t i o n was which that the deed " [ t ] h e r e s o l u t i o n of a l l indebtedness Wilmores specifically due and noted owing that grantors t h i s c o u r t a f f i r m e d the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment w i t h o u t an opinion. See W i l m o r e v. W i l m o r e (No. 2090374, May 20, 2 0 1 1 ) , So. 3d ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) (table). 3 2100101 from grantee[s] ... having Circuit [Court] ... and therein, a l l grantors' been resolved embodied interests in t h e W i l m o r e s ' m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s and on J u l y 2, At outset the trial issued subject court conducted a f i n a l of t h a t h e a r i n g , attended, the attempted to withdraw. ... denied hearing f o r m e r w i f e was of the at which n e i t h e r of Wilmores' Although o r d e r e d t o a t t e n d , he was outset [Indiana] judgment to The the 2010. the Wilmores the i n and p r o p e r t y are hereby wholly r e l e a s e d . " by counsel the unsuccessfully f o r m e r h u s b a n d had been a l s o absent from the p r o c e e d i n g ; the only p a r t y to a t t e n d the h e a r i n g . hearing, the the trial judge noted on the At the the record t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s f a t h e r had been o r d e r e d t o a p p e a r a t trial and to produce c e r t a i n court in r e s o l v i n g the declaratory-judgment financial financial action. The documents t o a i d issues judge presented also r e c o r d t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s f a t h e r had the requested the m e r i t s . previous the s t a t e d on the f a i l e d to provide on t r i a l judge then r e c i t e d the f o l l o w i n g f a c t s : t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s f a t h e r had the in documents o r t o a p p e a r i n c o u r t f o r t h e t r i a l The the hearing, t h a t he had 4 l i e d to the court b e e n w a r n e d by the during court 2100101 t h a t h i s f a i l u r e t o produce the requested in a t i m e l y manner w o u l d f i n a n c i a l documents s u b j e c t him t o contempt sanctions, and t h a t i n t h e m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s he had a t t e m p t e d t o d i v e s t himself of residence a purported parties' in the former marital t h a t h a d a l r e a d y been a w a r d e d t o t h e f o r m e r w i f e i n t h e 2005 d i v o r c e The interest trial counsel judgment. court proceeded to hear arguments as t o t h e p r o p e r d i s p o s i t i o n from of the case i n t h e a b s e n c e o f t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d and t h e W i l m o r e s . was a d d u c e d the Testimony f r o m t h e f o r m e r w i f e as w e l l . A t t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f that proceeding, the t r i a l court determined that the Wilmores had a t t e m p t e d t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e former marital residence, in w h i c h h a d been a w a r d e d t o t h e f o r m e r t h e 2005 d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t . determined admitted provided that to the having former husband's prepared the requested Specifically, the t r i a l f a t h e r had fraudulent wife court previously had not f i n a n c i a l documents t o t h e c o u r t , and had f a i l e d t o a t t e n d t h e f i n a l h e a r i n g on t h o s e a c t i o n s , t h e t r i a l documents, on t h e m e r i t s . Based court determined t h a t the former h u s b a n d ' s f a t h e r was i n c o n t e m p t o f c o u r t and s e n t e n c e d h i m t o be i n c a r c e r a t e d f o r 105 days; i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , 5 the trial 2100101 court ordered the f o r m e r husband's f a t h e r , i n o r d e r h i m s e l f o f contempt, requested purge t o appear b e f o r e the t r i a l c o u r t w i t h the financial examination to documents regarding those and to submit documents. upon t h e q u i t c l a i m d e e d t h a t was attached a full addition, In to based t o the Wilmores' motion to d i s m i s s , the t r i a l court i n s t r u c t e d the county c l e r k "to execute a c l e r k ' s deed g r a n t i n g title and interest" rights, to the that the f o r m e r h u s b a n d w o u l d r e m a i n i n c o n t e m p t o f c o u r t u n t i l he was former wife. able i n the former s o l e ownership, Moreover, the t r i a l m a r i t a l residence court reiterated t o p u r g e h i m s e l f o f t h a t c o n t e m p t by b e g i n n i n g p o r t i o n o f h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t and a l i m o n y t o pay arrearage. The W i l m o r e s a p p e a l e d , a s s e r t i n g t h a t t h e f o r m e r w i f e failed to join the declaratory-judgment former trial court as a party action despite h i s being, an i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t y . the husband erred the former wife, h u s b a n d ' s f a t h e r was in had the i n t h e i r view, I n a d d i t i o n , the Wilmores a s s e r t t h a t in failing to grant their motion d i s m i s s , i n v e s t i n g sole t i t l e i n the former m a r i t a l in a and in determining i n contempt o f c o u r t . 6 that to residence the former 2100101 The Wilmores are correct that, under Alabama law, the d u t y t o j o i n n e c e s s a r y p a r t i e s i s o r d i n a r i l y p l a c e d upon t h e plaintiff 773 i n an a c t i o n . ( A l a . 1990); 1091474, May see also 20, 2011] S t a t e , 643 So. 2d 982 that See Ex p a r t e I z u n d u , 568 So. 2d Walden v. So. 3d ES Capital, 771, LLC, [Ms. ( A l a . 2 0 1 1 ) , and Hodge v. ( A l a . C i v . App. declaratory-judgment actions 1993). are I t i s axiomatic only binding on the p a r t i e s t o t h e a c t i o n . See B.W.T. v. Haynes & Haynes, P.C., So. 3d 815, prescribed party 821 ( A l a . C i v . App. f o r m u l a t o be i s indispensable, LLC, 57 So. 3d 695, 700 2009). applied A l t h o u g h t h e r e i s no i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether s e e , e.g., 20 M e l t o n v. H a r b o r a Prince, ( A l a . 2 0 1 0 ) , we do n o t a g r e e w i t h t h e W i l m o r e s t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d was an i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t y t o the d e c l a r a t o r y - j u d g m e n t a c t i o n . The amount former she owed wife the sought an Wilmores adjudication on the debt m o r t g a g e on t h e f o r m e r m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e . of secured during the of the debt owed t o t h e W i l m o r e s the marriage, that former husband's i n f o r m a t i o n was presence 7 was not total by Although the c o u r t sought t e s t i m o n y from the former husband portion the had the trial r e g a r d i n g what been retired not produced, necessary for and the 2100101 r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e p e r t i n e n t i s s u e : what amount was owed t o t h e Wilmores a t the time of the divorce. In fact, d i v o r c e judgment s p e c i f i c a l l y t e r m i n a t e d interest i n t h e former property t o t h e former remaining debt secured Thus, we c o n c l u d e t h a t criterion marital wife t h e former husband's residence, subject t h e 2005 awarding t o repayment by t h e m o r t g a g e on t h a t the of the property. t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d does n o t meet t h e o f an i n d i s p e n s a b l e party; that i s , he i s n o t a p a r t y whose i n t e r e s t i n t h e c o n t r o v e r s y i s "'of such a nature that made a final [judgment] cannot be without a f f e c t i n g that i n t e r e s t or leaving the controversy condition that inconsistent i t s final with equity determination and good may either i n such a be conscience.'" wholly J.R. M c C l e n n e y & Son, I n c . v . R e i m e r , 435 So. 2d 50, 52 ( A l a . 1983) (quoting 1 Champ L y o n s , P r o c e d u r e a t 389 ( 1 9 7 3 ) ) . Alabama P r a c t i c e , Rules The t r i a l court's of C i v i l judgment i s n o t e r r o n e o u s on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d was n o t a p a r t y to the action. The W i l m o r e s a l s o i n s i s t t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t failed t o grant judgment action their that motion was to dismiss filed 8 erroneously the declaratory- one d a y b e f o r e the final 2100101 hearing. that The motion Wilmores that p o s i t t h a t , because t h e y had relinquished a l l interest former m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e , the t r i a l over the matter a t t h a t time. position former i s two-fold. wife sought they asserted i n court lost jurisdiction The p r o b l e m w i t h t h e First, i n the Wilmores' although i t i s true that a j u d g m e n t d e c l a r i n g t h e amount o f the debt owed on t h e n o t e h e l d by t h e W i l m o r e s , t h e W i l m o r e s ' m o t i o n t o dismiss contained quitclaim deed residence to the a photocopy purporting former always over was judgments, (Ala. C i v . App. Civ. former a trial with the former former marital wife. residence, Because marital That court of which had the former m a r i t a l c o u r t r e t a i n s t h e power t o enforce see P a t t e r s o n v. P a t t e r s o n , 703 So. 2d 372, 1 9 9 7 ) , and H a l l v. H a l l , App. 1986); declaratory-judgment comply the Indiana a w a r d e d t o t h e f o r m e r w i f e i n t h e 2005 d i v o r c e judgment; because (Ala. unrecorded d i d not d i v e s t the t r i a l been l o c a t e d i n Alabama. residence its the an convey h u s b a n d and document, i n and o f i t s e l f , jurisdiction to of the terms and because a c t i o n was the initiated of the d i v o r c e 9 485 So. 2d 747, former to enable j u d g m e n t , we 372 749 wife's her to conclude 2100101 that the t r i a l merits court could p r o p e r l y proceed to t r i a l the court had of the case. Moreover, at the previous i n s t r u c t e d the Wilmores within a specified sanctions. The requested remained by Wilmores' the that hearing, to provide time Wilmores pending therefore, The on trial or had certain the never court; at the time the t r i a l face the t r i a l financial penalty supplied thus, the of the h e a r i n g . court d i d not of the records contempt documents contempt We issue conclude, e r r i n denying the motion to d i s m i s s . Wilmores next a s s e r t t h a t the t r i a l court erred i n reforming the t i t l e t o the former m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e t o r e f l e c t the former w i f e ' s s o l e ownership of t h a t p r o p e r t y w i t h o u t outstanding ignore liens. t h e terms 2 any They a r g u e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d n o t of the s a l e s document by w h i c h the former w i f e and t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d h a d a g r e e d t o p u r c h a s e t h e f o r m e r m a r i t a l residence with a note, secured by a m o r t g a g e , h e l d by We n o t e t h a t i n t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i v e s t e d the former husband of a l l i n t e r e s t i n the former m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e and o r d e r e d t h e w i f e t o p a y t h e o u t s t a n d i n g d e b t on t h e n o t e h e l d by t h e W i l m o r e s . Thus, 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 c o u l d p r o p e r l y have d i s r e g a r d e d t h e W i l m o r e s ' and t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s a t t e m p t t o r e a l l o c a t e t h e i r i n t e r e s t s i n the former m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e . 2 10 2100101 the Wilmores. all interest complete C l e a r l y , i f the Wilmores d i v e s t e d themselves of i n the former m a r i t a l residence, satisfaction associated standing with to that of the outstanding property, challenge any regarding that property. acknowledging then action the taken indebtedness Wilmores by the have trial no court A p a r t y l a c k s standing to invoke the power o f t h e c o u r t i n t h e a b s e n c e o f "a c o n c r e t e stake i n the outcome Contractors, of the court's I n c . v. C e n t e n n i a l d e c i s i o n . " Brown Mech. I n s . Co., 431 see a l s o G u y t o n v. Hunt, 61 So. 2010). Having presented the So. 2d 932, 3d 1085, trial t h a t appears to r e s o l v e both the 937 1091 ( A l a . 1983); (Ala. Civ. court with App. documentation amount o f i n d e b t e d n e s s and the Wilmores' i n t e r e s t r e g a r d i n g the former m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e W i l m o r e s have c o n c l u s i v e l y d e m o n s t r a t e d that they have decision." Brown, Wilmores' appeal Finally, no "stake 431 So. in the 2d at outcome 937. i s therefore dismissed the Wilmores challenge of for failing f o r l a c k of the t o comply w i t h p r e v i o u s 11 court's That p o r t i o n of trial d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s f a t h e r was of c o u r t the the standing. court's i n contempt orders of that 2100101 court. Alabama law concerning contempt cases i s w e l l our standard of review in 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 court, 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 court acted outside i t s d i s c r e t i o n or that 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 b y 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) (affirming a t r i a l court's decision not t o hold a p a r e n t i n contempt 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 h a d 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 h a d expended 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, 64 So. 3d 49, 61 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) . Moreover, " R u l e 70A, A l a . R. C i v . P., h a s 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 1 1 , 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 o r r e f u s a l o f any person t o 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 b y its nature is still capable of being complied with.'" Stamm v . Stamm, 922 So. 2d 920, 924 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004) . hold a party To i n contempt under e i t h e r R u l e 7 0 A ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C ) ( i i ) ( c r i m i n a l c o n t e m p t ) o r (D) ( c i v i l contempt), the t r i a l court 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 f a i l e d o r r e f u s e d t o c o m p l y with a court order. Civ. T.L.D. v. C.G., 849 So. 2d 200, 205 ( A l a . App. 2 0 0 2 ) . 12 2100101 The t r i a l c o u r t i n t h i s c a s e s p e c i f i c a l l y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t the former suffer husband's contempt financial father sanctions documents w i t h had i f he been warned d i d not that file the t h e c o u r t by a s p e c i f i c he would necessary date. The r e c o r d i s c l e a r t h a t t h o s e documents were n o t f i l e d w i t h court. In i t s judgment, the t r i a l c o u r t n o t e d t h a t the former husband's father orders [ t h a t ] c o u r t , " o r d e r e d h i m t o be of "ha[d] actively and willfully ignored extension [of time that a incarceration to total file of trial court was i n contempt of c o u r t on the incarceration. 20 determined that merits, had o f 100 passed, days. warranting the an judgment In a d d i t i o n , former husband's f a t h e r c o u l d purge h i m s e l f father at the additional also and meriting the former husband's f o r r e f u s i n g t o appear However, court's requested documents]," weeks for a total period the hearing the the "incarcerated for a p e r i o d o f 5 d a y s f o r e a c h week t h a t l a p s e d a f t e r t h e noted the noted of t h a t 5 that final days' the contempt f i n d i n g "by p r o d u c i n g s a i d documents and a p p e a r i n g p e r s o n a l l y before [ t h e t r i a l c o u r t and] s u b j e c t i n g h i m s e l f t o e x a m i n a t i o n regarding s a i d documents." 13 2100101 The f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s f a t h e r r e l i e s on one d e c i s i o n , Lowe v. Lowe, 561 So. 2d 240 ( A l a . C i v . App. contention that f a i l i n g t o p r o v i d e t h e documents o n l y one i n s t a n c e of contempt, t h a t case i s m i s p l a c e d . of incarceration 1990), t o support h i s not s e v e r a l . constitutes His reliance on T h i s c o u r t r e v e r s e d a 30-day s e n t e n c e f o r c o n t e m p t i n Lowe b e c a u s e this court was unable t o determine which 6 s p e c i f i c o c c a s i o n s of d i s o b e d i e n c e were b e i n g p u n i s h e d by t h e maximum o f 5 d a y s ' Lowe, 561 So. 2d a t 706. specifically deadline In the i n s t a n t case, the t r i a l c o u r t determined that t o produce the incarceration. 20 weeks h a d financial elapsed since documents and the multiplied t h a t f i g u r e by 5, f o r a t o t a l c o n t e m p t s a n c t i o n o f 100 days o f incarceration. v. K r i s t a , basis could 780 The So. of the t r i a l be readily i n s t a n t c a s e i s more a k i n t o S h o n k w e i l e r 2d 703 ( A l a . C i v . App. c o u r t ' s o r d e r o f 30 determined c o n t a i n e d i n the judgment. from the 2000), wherein days' the incarceration findings of fact Because the t r i a l c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e former husband's f a t h e r had been i n contempt of c o u r t for 20 weeks ( t h e p e r i o d b e t w e e n t h e d a t e t h e documents were due and t h e d a t e o f t r i a l ) , we conclude that the t r i a l c o u l d p r o p e r l y a s s e s s t h e maximum p e n a l t y o f 5 days 14 court f o r each 2100101 week o f c o n t e m p t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e Civ. be former husband's f a t h e r a l s o contends held i n contempt for failing t h a t he t o appear claims that, h a v i n g d i v e s t e d h i m s e l f o f any f o r m e r m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e , he was action. be First, interest his he i n the no l o n g e r a v i a b l e p a r t y to The p r o b l e m w i t h t h a t argument i s , as d i s c u s s e d p r e v i o u s l y , t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s f a t h e r was would could because p r e s e n c e a t t r i a l was u n n e c e s s a r y f o r two r e a s o n s . the A l a . R. P. The not 70A(a)(2)(C)(ii), held i n contempt of c o u r t i f he c e r t a i n f i n a n c i a l documents f o r t h e t r i a l s p e c i f i c date before t r i a l . asserts that aspects of d i d not case that he produce c o u r t ' s r e v i e w by a Next, the former husband's f a t h e r h i s c o u n s e l s e r v e d as h i s a g e n t the on n o t i c e might still to handle pertain t o him. c o r r e c t l y n o t e s t h a t an a t t o r n e y i s g e n e r a l l y r e g a r d e d as s p e c i a l a g e n t , l i m i t e d i n d u t y and a u t h o r i t y t o t h e any He "'a vigilant p r o s e c u t i o n o r d e f e n s e o f t h e r i g h t s o f t h e c l i e n t . '" W i l l i a m s v. N o r t h A l a b a m a C o u r t R e p o r t i n g S e r v . , 833 So. (Ala. Murphy, C i v . App. 543, 547 have the 2001) (1881)). power (quoting Robinson v. 2d 622, 626 69 A l a . However, as n o t e d p r e v i o u s l y , t r i a l c o u r t s to punish f o r contempt 15 i n the interest of 2100101 p r o t e c t i n g a n d e n f o r c i n g t h e i r j u d g m e n t s . See, e . g . , B r i c k l e y v. Brickley, 586 So. 2d 214 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1991). In Brickley, t h e f a t h e r f a i l e d t o appear i n c o u r t , and e v i d e n c e indicated that court's this he h a d no i n t e n t i o n o f a b i d i n g by t h e t r i a l B r i c k l e y , 586 So. 2d a t 215. Similarly, i n orders. case, the trial court determined that the former h u s b a n d ' s f a t h e r h a d l i e d t o t h e c o u r t ; t h a t he h a d r e f u s e d t o produce documents disposition of apparently, that orders the court the not abide by to a proper action; the t r i a l over t h e m a t t e r by f a i l i n g We c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l the necessary declaratory-judgment he w o u l d or j u r i s d i c t i o n deemed and, court's t o appear. court erred i n determining f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s f a t h e r t o be i n c o n t e m p t o f c o u r t t h o u g h h i s a t t o r n e y was p r e s e n t even at t r i a l . AFFIRMED IN PART; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART. Thompson, P . J . , a n d Thomas, J . , c o n c u r . Bryan a n d Moore, J J . , concur writings. 16 i n the r e s u l t , without

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.