Brandy Lee Thurman v. James Ronald Thurman, Jr.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 6/24/11 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal 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 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 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 2100135 Brandy Lee Thurman v. James Ronald Thurman, J r . Appeal from Dale C i r c u i t (DR-08-473.02) Court BRYAN, J u d g e . B r a n d y L e e Thurman ("the m o t h e r " ) a p p e a l s e n t e r e d by t h e Dale C i r c u i t Court as i t denied her p e t i t i o n ("the t r i a l for relief from from a judgment court") i n s o f a r a judgment and r e f u s e d t o h o l d James R o n a l d Thurman, J r . ("the f a t h e r " ) , i n 2100135 contempt. Background and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y The record judgment indicates divorcing that the t r i a l the p a r t i e s court on S e p t e m b e r 5, entered 2008. a The d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t i n c o r p o r a t e d an a g r e e m e n t e n t e r e d i n t o b y t h e parties i n July 2008 regarding, division of t h e i r m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y and c u s t o d y c h i l d r e n born d u r i n g the marriage. among other things, the of the three Pursuant t o t h e agreement, the p a r t i e s m a i n t a i n e d j o i n t l e g a l c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n and the mother children, was awarded primary physical subject to the father's v i s i t a t i o n On November 7, 2008, t h e f a t h e r to Rule 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. custodial custody provisions C i v . P., filed of the rights. a motion pursuant requesting r e l i e f from the o f t h e d i v o r c e judgment. The parties s u b s e q u e n t l y e n t e r e d i n t o an a g r e e m e n t on November 24, 2008, w h i c h was r a t i f i e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t on o r a b o u t December 1, 2008, t h a t a w a r d e d t h e f a t h e r p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f t h e parties' two oldest children, T.T. and J.T. The mother maintained primary p h y s i c a l custody of the p a r t i e s ' youngest child, M.T. On A u g u s t 24, 2009, t h e mother 2 filed a petition for a 2100135 rule nisi and a p e t i t i o n r e q u e s t e d , among o t h e r father i n contempt provisions t o modify things, that the t r i a l for failure i n the divorce award h e r t h e c a r e , custody. t o abide The mother court hold the by t h e v i s i t a t i o n judgment and t h a t the t r i a l court c u s t o d y , and c o n t r o l o f a l l t h e c h i l d r e n . The m o t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s November 2008 R u l e 6 0 ( b ) motion had contained coerced f a l s e a l l e g a t i o n s and t h a t t h e f a t h e r had t h e mother the custody-modification a g r e e m e n t t h a t was r a t i f i e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t on December 1, 2008. The counterclaim father seeking into signing subsequently a filed modification an answer and o f t h e December a 2008 j u d g m e n t s o t h a t he was a w a r d e d s o l e p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f M.T. On September immediate t h e mother of personal return 25, 2009, property. t h a t the f a t h e r had r e f u s e d personal property divorce judgment. order filed a motion f o r The m o t h e r alleged t o allow her to r e t r i e v e a l l the t h a t she h a d b e e n a w a r d e d p u r s u a n t t o t h e i r The t r i a l court subsequently entered an s t a t i n g t h e m o t h e r s h o u l d make an e f f o r t t o r e s o l v e t h e issue before father's t r i a l but that i t would address the issue of the alleged resolved before contempt t h a t time. at t r i a l i f the issue was n o t The f a t h e r s u b s e q u e n t l y f i l e d an 3 2100135 amended c o u n t e r c l a i m of the divorce a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e m o t h e r was j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e she h e r v e h i c l e as o r d e r e d had divorce The a denied granted to refinance the p a r t i e s ' youngest c h i l d , h i s p r i o r w r i t t e n c o n s e n t , as she outside r e q u i r e d by the judgment. trial December 21, enter failed i n t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t and b e c a u s e r e l o c a t e d w i t h M.T., Dothan w i t h o u t had i n contempt the conducted an 2009, and F e b r u a r y 17, final the court judgment mother's father's custody-modification. father's request on March 5, ore tenus proceeding on 2010, and i t purported to 2010. custody-modification counterclaim The trial seeking court The trial petition, court but i t modification of also denied t o h o l d t h e m o t h e r i n c o n t e m p t and the i t denied an a s p e c t o f t h e m o t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n t o m o d i f y t h a t i t c o n s t r u e d as a r e q u e s t P. 1 f o r r e l i e f pursuant to Rule 60(b), However, t h a t j u d g m e n t d i d n o t dispose of A l a . R. the Civ. mother's The t r i a l c o u r t t r e a t e d t h e m o t h e r ' s A u g u s t 2009 p e t i t i o n t o m o d i f y , i n s o f a r as i t a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s R u l e 6 0 ( b ) m o t i o n had c o n t a i n e d f a l s e a l l e g a t i o n s and t h a t t h e f a t h e r had coerced her i n t o s i g n i n g the c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n agreement, as a R u l e 6 0 ( b ) m o t i o n b e c a u s e i t a l l e g e d g r o u n d s t h a t c o u l d have f a l l e n w i t h i n t h e p a r a m e t e r s o f a R u l e 6 0 ( b ) m o t i o n f o r r e l i e f f r o m a j u d g m e n t . See J o n e s v. R e g i o n s Bank, 25 So. 3d 427, 441 n. 9 ( A l a . 2009) ( c i t i n g Ex p a r t e L a n g , 500 So. 2d 3 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) ; and C a m p b e l l v. C a m p b e l l , 718 So. 2d 76 ( A l a . 1 4 2100135 petitions to hold the father i n contempt. On 2 October 18, 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 f i n d i n g t h a t t h e f a t h e r was not i n contempt of the d i v o r c e judgment. a postjudgment motion, the mother t i m e l y Without filing appealed. Issues On a p p e a l , t h e m o t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l by failing to grant her request f o r r e l i e f 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) , A l a . R. failing return divorce t o use the C i v . P., court erred pursuant to Rule and t h a t t h e t r i a l court erred i t s contempt powers t o compel t h e personal property that she was father awarded in by to the judgment. Facts At the time of t r i a l y e a r s o l d , J.T. was i n December 2009, f i v e y e a r s o l d , and M.T. T.T. was was seven three years C i v . App. 1998)) ( " I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t t h e s u b s t a n c e o f a motion, not i t s nomenclature, i s c o n t r o l l i n g ; the relief s o u g h t i n a m o t i o n d e t e r m i n e s how t h e m o t i o n i s t r e a t e d . " ) . T h e m o t h e r a p p e a l e d f r o m t h e M a r c h 2010 o r d e r , b u t , on S e p t e m b e r 27, 2010, t h i s c o u r t d i s m i s s e d t h e m o t h e r ' s a p p e a l b a s e d on t h e p a r t i e s ' j o i n t m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l b e c a u s e i t was t a k e n f r o m a n o n f i n a l j u d g m e n t . See D e c k e r v. D e c k e r , 984 So. 2d 1216, 1220 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) ( " [ D ] u r i n g a p o s t d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g , [ i f ] the t r i a l c o u r t f a i l s to r u l e on e v e r y p e n d i n g c o n t e m p t m o t i o n , i t s f a i l u r e t o do so does a f f e c t the f i n a l i t y of the d i v o r c e judgment."). 2 5 2100135 old. The Rule mother s t a t e d t h a t , a t the time the 60(b) mother m o t i o n i n November 2008, she and stepfather and living father f i l e d his was o f f of living only with the her $1,029.49 t h a t t h e f a t h e r p a i d h e r i n c h i l d s u p p o r t e a c h month. She had s t a r t e d an e m b r o i d e r y b u s i n e s s a f t e r t h e p a r t i e s d i v o r c e d , but the record i n d i c a t e s t h a t m o t h e r e a r n e d o n l y $10,000 a y e a r through that hearing, t h e m o t h e r had the father children, would and additional for the The business. she not At the time of the c l o s e d her b u s i n e s s . help stated her that she funds to a s s i s t w i t h c h i l d r e n i n 2008, b u t pay had school the mother s t a t e d t h a t the for December She day alleged that care f a t h e r had for the father asked the supplies for and clothing refused. f a t h e r d i d not pay her s u p p o r t i n November 2008, w h i c h a f f e c t e d h e r a b i l i t y t o l e g a l counsel The t o d e f e n d h i s November 2008 R u l e 60(b) m o t h e r a l s o s t a t e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r had some o f h i s child-support T.T. and J.T., the night at could catch payment f r o m O c t o b e r the a bus father's to h o u s e on school from 6 motion. refund 2008 b e c a u s e begun s p e n d i n g weeknights the child obtain asked her to a r o u n d m i d - S e p t e m b e r 2008, had 2009 father's so that they house. The 2100135 mother stated that the parties had entered into this a r r a n g e m e n t t o s a v e money on g a s o l i n e . The child f a t h e r p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he h a d p a i d support to t h e mother i n September, October, and November 2008, e i t h e r on t h e f i r s t o f t h e month o r a few d a y s before the f i r s t beginning o f t h e month. The f a t h e r testified that, n e a r t h e e n d o f J u l y 2008, t h e c h i l d r e n h a d stayed a t h i s home a l m o s t e v e r y n i g h t b u t t h a t he h a d s t i l l p a i d t h e m o t h e r t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t payments t h a t he was r e q u i r e d t o make pursuant to the divorce According before she judgment. t o t h e mother, a f t e r t h e p a r t i e s d i v o r c e d b u t signed the custody-modification November 2008, t h e f a t h e r h a d t h r e a t e n e d agreement t o take the c h i l d r e n away f r o m h e r i f she d i d n o t a g r e e t o r e u n i t e The mother stated that, on O c t o b e r in their 3 1 , 2008, the family. father p u n c h e d t h e windows o f h e r v e h i c l e a n d s a i d v u l g a r t h i n g s when he saw t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d b r o u g h t h e r b o y f r i e n d , K e v i n , visitation 2009, exchange. and t h e mother The m o t h e r m a r r i e d K e v i n stated that the father to a i n September had threatened K e v i n b y t e l l i n g h i m t h a t he w o u l d e n s u r e t h a t K e v i n w o u l d n o t succeed i n h i s career. 7 2100135 Apparently, together t h e f a t h e r and K e v i n a t F o r t R u c k e r , an Army b a s e n e a r D o t h a n , b e f o r e parties divorced. Kevin were f r i e n d s and w o r k e d the The f a t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t he h a d s h o u t e d a t and t h a t he h a d h i t t h e m o t h e r ' s v e h i c l e w i t h h i s hands on t h a t occasion on O c t o b e r 3 1 , 2008, b u t he s t a t e d t h a t he h a d j u s t b e e n t o l d t h a t t h e m o t h e r and K e v i n h a d h a d an a f f a i r before not the p a r t i e s d i v o r c e d to bring Kevin and t h a t he h a d a s k e d t h e m o t h e r t o v i s i t a t i o n exchanges. The m o t h e r p r o d u c e d s e v e r a l w i t n e s s e s t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t some o f t h e a l l e g a t i o n s made b y t h e f a t h e r i n h i s November 2008 R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n were f a l s e . father stated that he d i d not put any November 2008 R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n t h a t was testified and that motion a f t e r he i t was custody-modification father stated attorney's office modification agreement pointed that t h e mother filed, he was the agreement, that with was present when in detail allegation false. discussed and t h e f a t h e r agreement with signed that father idea. the went 60(b) that t h e mother attorney the mother, The alleged the in his h i s Rule the mother's mother his However, the The at h i s custody- over the h i s attorney had a t h i m and a s k e d t h e m o t h e r i f t h e f a t h e r h a d c o e r c e d 8 2100135 her i n t o r e a c h i n g an a g r e e m e n t , and t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d s t a t e d t h a t she h a d n o t b e e n c o e r c e d . attorney explained According to the f a t h e r , h i s t o the mother t h e consequences o f s i g n i n g the c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n a g r e e m e n t and t h e m o t h e r s t a t e d that she u n d e r s t o o d t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f s i g n i n g t h e a g r e e m e n t . The father not stated h a v i n g an The t h e mother never complained about attorney. mother modification legal that effect stated agreement of her t h a t , when she signed the custody- i n November 2 0 0 8 , she u n d e r s t o o d t h e signature, and she admitted that the f a t h e r ' s a t t o r n e y h a d a s k e d h e r i f anyone h a d c o e r c e d h e r i n t o signing the custody-modification denied s t a t i n g that agreement. However, she t h e f a t h e r h a d n o t c o e r c e d h e r , a n d she s t a t e d t h a t she h a d t o l d t h e f a t h e r ' s a t t o r n e y t h a t she h a d no other choice but to s i g n the custody-modification agreement. The m o t h e r a l s o a d m i t t e d t h a t she u n d e r s t o o d t h a t b y the c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n to challenge the signing a g r e e m e n t she was g i v i n g up t h e r i g h t allegedly false allegations made i n the f a t h e r ' s November 2008 R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n . The m o t h e r s t a t e d t h a t she h a d b e e n a w a r d e d a trampoline, a s w i n g s e t , and t h e c h i l d r e n ' s t e l e v i s i o n s , b e d s , c l o t h i n g , 9 2100135 and t o y s i n the divorce allowed the mother marital residence, judgment b u t t h a t t h e f a t h e r had not to retrieve where those the items father from lived. the The former father p r e s e n t e d documentary evidence of a l e t t e r sent v i a f a c s i m i l e transmission September first from h i s a t t o r n e y t o the mother's 1 1 , 2009, approximately ore tenus hearing i n this three attorney months before matter, indicating that on the the f a t h e r had t r i e d t o r e t u r n the b e l o n g i n g s the mother r e q u e s t e d on two p r i o r occasions. mother c o u l d come t o t h e f a t h e r ' s home t o r e t r i e v e t h e i t e m s on S e p t e m b e r 19 o r 2 6 , 2009. attorney's confirm secretary letter further stated that her property f a i l e d to inform not the f a t h e r ' s back. the The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e r h e r t h a t she n e e d e d t o the scheduled pick-up time w i t h a d m i t t e d t h a t i t was get The t h e f a t h e r , and she fault H o w e v e r , she a l s o t h a t she d i d n o t alleged that the l e t t e r o n l y r e f e r e n c e d h e r d a u g h t e r ' s p r o p e r t y and not a l l t h e property awarded t o h e r i n t h e d i v o r c e judgment. 3 The f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t he h a d a t t e m p t e d t o s e t up a t i m e f o r t h e mother t o r e t r i e v e t h e c h i l d r e n ' s b e l o n g i n g s b u t t h a t T h e m o t h e r h a d c u s t o d y o f h e r d a u g h t e r , who b i o l o g i c a l or adopted c h i l d of the f a t h e r . 3 10 i s not the 2100135 the mother stated had that, modification want t h e custody failed after to the r e t r i e v e them. parties agreement, the trampoline or the of the p a r t i e s ' had mother The signed father the stated that swing s e t because the also custody- she did not father had contend on older children. Discussion I n i t i a l l y , we appeal that from the the note t h a t the trial court mother does not should December 2008 j u d g m e n t on have g r a n t e d the grounds her that relief i t was o b t a i n e d by t h e f a t h e r ' s a l l e g e d l y f r a u d u l e n t a l l e g a t i o n s . See Rule 6 0 ( b ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. the t r i a l the The c o u r t e r r e d by d e n y i n g h e r December 60(b)(6). C i v . P. mother argues o n l y that request from 2008 c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n R u l e 60(b) for relief judgment under provides, in pertinent part: "On m o t i o n and upon s u c h t e r m s as a r e j u s t , t h e c o u r t may relieve a p a r t y or a p a r t y ' s legal r e p r e s e n t a t i v e from a f i n a l judgment, o r d e r , or proceeding f o r the f o l l o w i n g reasons:(1) mistake, i n a d v e r t e n c e , s u r p r i s e , o r e x c u s a b l e n e g l e c t ; (2) n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e w h i c h by due d i l i g e n c e c o u l d n o t have b e e n d i s c o v e r e d i n t i m e t o move f o r a new t r i a l u n d e r R u l e 5 9 ( b ) ; (3) f r a u d ( w h e t h e r heretofore denominated i n t r i n s i c or extrinsic), m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , o r o t h e r m i s c o n d u c t o f an a d v e r s e p a r t y ; (4) t h e j u d g m e n t i s v o i d ; (5) t h e j u d g m e n t has b e e n s a t i s f i e d , r e l e a s e d , o r d i s c h a r g e d , o r a p r i o r judgment upon w h i c h i t i s b a s e d has been r e v e r s e d o r o t h e r w i s e v a c a t e d , o r i t i s no l o n g e r 11 Rule 2100135 e q u i t a b l e t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t s h o u l d have p r o s p e c t i v e a p p l i c a t i o n ; o r (6) a n y o t h e r r e a s o n justifying r e l i e f f r o m t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e j u d g m e n t . The m o t i o n s h a l l be made w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e , a n d f o r r e a s o n s ( 1 ) , ( 2 ) , a n d (3) n o t more t h a n f o u r (4) months a f t e r t h e j u d g m e n t , o r d e r , o r p r o c e e d i n g was entered or taken." 4 Our supreme c o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t " ' " [ r ] e l i e f under Rule 60(b)(6) i s r e s e r v e d f o r e x t r a o r d i n a r y c i r c u m s t a n c e s , and i s a v a i l a b l e o n l y i n c a s e s o f extreme h a r d s h i p o r i n j u s t i c e . " ' " Ex parte Hicks, , [Ms. 1100136, ( A l a . 2011) January ( q u o t i n g Chambers Walker, 459 So. 2d 8 6 1 , 866 Douglass v. C a p i t a l C i t y C h u r c h 920 (Ala. 1983)). 14, 2011] County ( A l a . 1984), o f Nazarene, So. 3d Comm'rs v . quoting i n turn 443 So. 2d 917, Furthermore, " [ t ] h e d e c i s i o n t o g r a n t o r deny a R u l e 60(b) (6) motion i s w i t h i n the d i s c r e t i o n o f the t r i a l judge. Ex p a r t e W a l - M a r t S t o r e s , I n c . , 725 So. 2d 279, 283 (Ala. 1 9 9 8 ) . The o n l y i s s u e we c o n s i d e r on an a p p e a l from t h e d e n i a l o f a Rule 60(b) m o t i o n i s whether, by d e n y i n g t h e m o t i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n . I d . T h e r e f o r e , an a p p e a l f r o m t h e d e n i a l of a R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) m o t i o n 'does n o t p r e s e n t f o r r e v i e w t h e c o r r e c t n e s s o f t h e judgment t h a t t h e movant s e e k s t o s e t a s i d e , b u t p r e s e n t s f o r r e v i e w B e c a u s e t h e m o t h e r i s r e l y i n g on R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) f o r r e l i e f f r o m t h e December 2008 j u d g m e n t , t h e m o t h e r ' s A u g u s t 2009 R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n i s n o t s u b j e c t t o t h e f o u r - m o n t h t i m e l i m i t a t i o n s e t f o r t h i n R u l e 6 0 ( b ) . F o r p u r p o s e s o f t h i s a p p e a l , we w i l l assume, w i t h o u t d e c i d i n g , t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n was f i l e d w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e . 4 12 2100135 o n l y the c o r r e c t n e s s of the order from which the a p p e a l i s t a k e n . ' S a t t e r f i e l d v. W i n s t o n I n d u s . , I n c . , 553 So. 2d 61, 63 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . " R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) i s an e x t r e m e remedy and r e l i e f u n d e r R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) w i l l be g r a n t e d o n l y ' i n u n i q u e situations where a p a r t y c a n show exceptional circumstances s u f f i c i e n t t o e n t i t l e him t o r e l i e f . ' N o w l i n v. D r u i d C i t y Hosp. Bd., 475 So. 2d 469, 471 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) . The p u r p o s e o f R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) i s n o t t o r e l i e v e a p a r t y f r o m a f r e e and d e l i b e r a t e c h o i c e t h e p a r t y has p r e v i o u s l y made. C i t y o f Daphne v. C a f f e y , 410 So. 2d 8, 10 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) . " Wood v. Wade, 853 So. 2d 909, 912-13 ( A l a . 2002) . "In a d d i t i o n , under Rule 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) , r e l i e f i s g r a n t e d o n l y i n t h o s e e x t r a o r d i n a r y and c o m p e l l i n g circumstances when t h e p a r t y c a n show t h e c o u r t s u f f i c i e n t e q u i t a b l e grounds t o e n t i t l e him t o r e l i e f , b u t r e l i e f s h o u l d n o t be g r a n t e d t o a p a r t y who has f a i l e d t o do e v e r y t h i n g r e a s o n a b l y w i t h i n h i s power t o a c h i e v e a f a v o r a b l e r e s u l t b e f o r e t h e j u d g m e n t becomes f i n a l ; o t h e r w i s e , a m o t i o n f o r s u c h r e l i e f f r o m a f i n a l j u d g m e n t w o u l d l i k e l y become a mere s u b s t i t u t e f o r a p p e a l a n d w o u l d s u b v e r t t h e p r i n c i p l e of f i n a l i t y of judgments." P a t t e r s o n v. Hays, 623 So. 2d 1142, 1145 Also, "where there r e s o l v e d and t h e t r i a l are disputed ( A l a . 1993). issues of f a c t c o u r t has r e c e i v e d o r e t e n u s the ore tenus r u l e i s a p p l i c a b l e t o our review t o be evidence, o f a r u l i n g on a R u l e 60(b) (6) m o t i o n . " Ex p a r t e A & B T r a n s p . , I n c . , 8 So. 3d 430, 924, 932 ( A l a . 2007) (citing 432 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 5 ) ) . 13 S h i p e v. S h i p e , 477 So. 2d "'[W]hen a t r i a l c o u r t h e a r s 2100135 ore tenus testimony, its findings on disputed facts are p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t and i t s j u d g m e n t b a s e d on t h o s e f i n d i n g s w i l l n o t be reversed unless the judgment i s p a l p a b l y e r r o n e o u s m a n i f e s t l y u n j u s t . ' " F a d a l l a v. F a d a l l a , 929 (Ala. 2005) (quoting (Ala. 2002)). P h i l p o t v. State, So. 843 or 433 2d So. 2d 429, 125 F u r t h e r m o r e , when a judgment f a i l s 122, to include s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , " a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s w i l l assume t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t made t h o s e f i n d i n g s necessary to support i t s j u d g m e n t , u n l e s s s u c h f i n d i n g s w o u l d be c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s . " Ex p a r t e B r y o w s k y , 676 After mother's a So. review arguments trial court Rule 60(b)(6) of on into agreement. that she the 1324 appeal, motion we not relief judgment signing Although did for the ( A l a . 1996). record, on and cannot exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n custody-modification coerced 2d 1322, from the the financial to the threatened filing of her and Kevin h i s November 14 the mother's 2008 she was custody-modification evidence means a t t o r n e y t o d e f e n d t h e f a t h e r ' s R u l e 60(b) f a t h e r had that the that December basis underlying the conclude i n denying the the mother p r e s e n t e d have considering to indicating obtain m o t i o n and t h a t t h e i n the p e r i o d l e a d i n g 2008 R u l e an 60(b) motion, up the 2100135 trial court present could have concluded that the mother evidence of e x t r a o r d i n a r y or c o m p e l l i n g sufficient to grant her Rule 60(b)(6) that the mother had freely m o d i f i c a t i o n a g r e e m e n t and t h a t she had a t t o r n e y t h a t t h e f a t h e r had not c o e r c e d agreement. affirm Accordingly, we circumstances judgment. signed The the The failing to use also argues that that aspect the i t s c o n t e m p t power r e t u r n t h e p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y t h a t was the p a r t i e s ' divorce to father custody- her i n t o s i g n i n g the of the f r o m t h e December 2008 c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n mother trial compel trial motion f o r judgment. court erred by the father to awarded t o the mother i n judgment. " ' C i v i l c o n t e m p t ' i s d e f i n e d as a 'willful, continuing failure o r r e f u s a l o f any p e r s o n t o comply with a court's lawful writ, subpoena, p r o c e s s , o r d e r , r u l e , o r command t h a t by i t s n a t u r e is s t i l l capable of b e i n g complied w i t h . ' Rule 7 0 A ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. The d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f whether a p a r t y i s i n contempt i s w i t h i n the sound discretion of the trial court, and that 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 a b s e n t a s h o w i n g that the court exceeded the limits of its d i s c r e t i o n . S t a c k v. S t a c k , 646 So. 2d 51 ( A l a . C i v . App. 19 9 4 ) . 15 from specifically told his c o u r t ' s judgment d e n y i n g t h e m o t h e r ' s R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) relief not motion f o r r e l i e f t h e December 2008 c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n testified did 2100135 "... '... I n r e v i e w i n g a c a s e a l l e g i n g c o n t e m p t , our r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d i s l i m i t e d s o l e l y t o determining i f there i s support f o r the t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r . ' G r a n t v. G r a n t , 849 So. 2d 186, 188 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) . " R o u t z o n g v. B a k e r , 20 So. 3d 802, 810 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . The t r i a l c o u r t h e a r d e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e f a t h e r had a t t e m p t e d , on more t h a n one o c c a s i o n , t o a r r a n g e f o r t h e m o t h e r t o come t o h i s home t o r e t r i e v e h e r p e r s o n a l Because the record contains evidence supporting property. the c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t the f a t h e r had not w i l l f u l l y trial failed o r r e f u s e d t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t , we h o l d the trial c o u r t d i d n o t e x c e e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n by that concluding t h a t t h e f a t h e r was n o t i n c o n t e m p t . The m o t h e r f u r t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l have e n t e r e d an o r d e r compelling court should the father to allow her to r e t r i e v e h e r p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y and t h a t , by f a i l i n g t o compel the f a t h e r t o a l l o w her t o r e t r i e v e the p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , the trial court provisions trial impermissibly modified of the divorce judgment. the p r o p e r t y - d i v i s i o n We disagree that the c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t h a s m o d i f i e d any p a r t o f t h e p r o p e r t y - division provisions of the divorce judgment. See Rhyne v. Rhyne, 564 So. 2d 966, 967 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1989) ( h o l d i n g t h a t 16 2100135 the apparent denial of t h e husband's request f o r an order c o m p e l l i n g t h e w i f e t o d e l i v e r t o h i m t h e p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y he had b e e n a w a r d e d i n t h e i r d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t d i d n o t c o n s t i t u t e a m o d i f i c a t i o n of the o r i g i n a l d i v o r c e judgment). The record i n d i c a t e s t h a t s e v e r a l a t t e m p t s were made t o a l l o w t h e m o t h e r to retrieve the personal property t h a t she h a d b e e n awarded p u r s u a n t t o t h e d i v o r c e judgment b u t t h a t , n e v e r t h e l e s s , mother a p p a r e n t l y piece of judgment. never obtained p h y s i c a l possession property that she was awarded in the of each divorce A c c o r d i n g l y , we w i l l n o t h o l d t h a t t h e t r i a l committed e r r o r f o r f a i l i n g to enter an o r d e r the court compelling the f a t h e r t o make t h a t p r o p e r t y a v a i l a b l e t o t h e m o t h e r when t h e e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t he h a d a t t e m p t e d t o do s o . However, s u c h a c o n c l u s i o n does n o t a l t e r t h e f a c t t h a t t h e m o t h e r i s e n t i t l e d to receive the property parties' divorce j u d g m e n t . See, g e n e r a l l y , Dunn v. Dunn, So. 3d 704, 709 ( A l a . C i v . App. jurisdiction modify to t h a t she was a w a r d e d i n t h e a 2008) property ("A trial division court in a 12 loses divorce j u d g m e n t 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e j u d g m e n t . " ) . Conclusion The judgment o f t h e t r i a l 17 court i s due t o be affirmed. 2100135 The father's request f o r an attorney's f e e on appeal is g r a n t e d i n t h e amount o f $1,500. AFFIRMED. Thompson, concur. P . J . , and Pittman, 18 Thomas, a n d Moore, 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.