James Carnes v. Mary Elizabeth Carnes

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/7/11 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, 2011-2012 2100567 James Carnes v. Mary E l i z a b e t h Carnes Appeal from Fayette C i r c u i t Court (DR-08-61) BRYAN, J u d g e . James Carnes ("the husband") e n t e r e d by t h e F a y e t t e C i r c u i t Court appeals ("the d i v o r c e d h i m from Mary E l i z a b e t h Carnes as i t entered a permanent restraining from trial ("the order a judgment court") that wife") insofar a g a i n s t him, 2100567 d i v i d e d t h e p a r t i e s ' p r o p e r t y and the w i f e g u i l t y of debts, and refused to contempt. The w i f e f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t f o r a d i v o r c e on May In her complaint, married on the June 24, t h e i r marriage. wife alleged that 2006, and t h a t no 2008. parties were c h i l d r e n were b o r n 13, 2008, t h a t she had a protection-from-abuse order of F a y e t t e County. On t h e same day, subsequently a g a i n s t the and t h a t t h e h u s b a n d had c r i m i n a l c h a r g e s in the 23, The w i f e f u r t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d had a s s a u l t e d t h e w i f e on May obtained find pending the t r i a l husband, against court him entered an o r d e r t h a t a l l o w e d t h e w i f e t o m a i n t a i n t e m p o r a r y use and p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e , a 2004 C h e v r o l e t t r u c k , a four-wheeler, trailer, a garden furniture, h u s b a n d was two disk, dogs, a and lawn her mower, personal a l l o w e d t o m a i n t a i n t e m p o r a r y use and a utility items; possession o f a 1996 Dodge t r u c k , a 1989 C h e v r o l e t t r u c k , a f i s h i n g a s k i boat, On and h i s p e r s o n a l August 6, 2008, an notice of appearance filing t h a t appears on boat, items. a t t o r n e y f o r the husband f i l e d behalf i n the the of the r e c o r d on husband. appeal next i s a motion w i t h d r a w f i l e d by t h e h u s b a n d ' s a t t o r n e y on J a n u a r y 2 The 12, a to 2010. 2100567 A second a t t o r n e y the husband filed on a n o t i c e o f a p p e a r a n c e on b e h a l f April 29, 2010, and the husband c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s l y f i l e d an answer t o t h e w i f e ' s c o m p l a i n t a divorce. On J u l y 30, pendente l i t e r e l i e f , 2010, for the husband f i l e d a motion f o r r e q u e s t i n g t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r order r e q u i r i n g the w i f e to p r e s e r v e the p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y this action" until the p r o p e r t y . 53 four-wheeler August court could equitably d i s t r i b u t e of personal r e f e r e n c e d i n t h e May 17, prohibited items 2010, both the trial parties an "of I n h i s motion, the husband i n c l u d e d a l i s t approximately On the t r i a l of from property, including 2008 p e n d e n t e l i t e court entered an liquidating, of the order. order wasting, that or o t h e r w i s e c o n v e r t i n g any and a l l p e r s o n a l and m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y listed i n the husband's motion f o r pendente l i t e On S e p t e m b e r 21, 2010, relief. the husband f i l e d a motion seeking t o h o l d t h e w i f e i n c o n t e m p t b e c a u s e , he a l l e g e d , she had the four-wheeler 2010, i n v i o l a t i o n of the t r i a l pendente l i t e The trial November 18, she had separated 17, order. court 2010. c o u r t ' s August sold conducted an ore tenus hearing At t h a t h e a r i n g , the w i f e t e s t i f i e d f r o m t h e h u s b a n d on May 3 13, 2008, a f t e r on that the 2100567 h u s b a n d was a r r e s t e d f o r d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e . According to the w i f e , on t h e n i g h t o f May 13, 2008, t h e h u s b a n d h a d b e a t e n h e r and h a d t r i e d t o b r e a k h e r neck. The w i f e a l s o a l l e g e d t h a t , when she g o t i n h e r t r u c k i n an a t t e m p t t o g e t away f r o m t h e h u s b a n d , t h e h u s b a n d " s h o t [ h e r ] t r u c k up a n d s h o t [ h e r ] t i r e s out" while she was i n t h e t r u c k . The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was a r r e s t e d t h a t n i g h t a n d t h a t she f i l e d f o r a n d was granted day. an e x p a r t e p r o t e c t i o n - f r o m - a b u s e According hearing, to the evidence submitted the Fayette subsequently protection held from District Court hearing on a abuse and e n t e r e d order the f o l l o w i n g d u r i n g the ore tenus ("the d i s t r i c t the wife's a court") petition for protection-from-abuse o r d e r on b e h a l f o f t h e w i f e a n d a g a i n s t t h e h u s b a n d on May 27, 2008, i n c a s e no. DR-08-56. indicated that i t was That p r o t e c t i o n - f r o m - a b u s e "permanent" a n d was intended order t o be e f f e c t i v e u n t i l the entry of a d d i t i o n a l orders of the d i s t r i c t court. The h u s b a n d s t a t e d t h a t , on t h e n i g h t o f May 13, 2008, he and t h e w i f e h a d been a r g u i n g a n d t h a t , o u t o f f r u s t r a t i o n , he had thrown cabinet. an ashtray through the glass door o f h i s gun He s t a t e d t h a t he a n d t h e w i f e were c a l m l y 4 picking 2100567 up the glass and t h a t he p u t h i s hands her t o "stop this ... around the I could wife's throat and t o l d break your neck." The h u s b a n d s t a t e d t h a t t h e w i f e t h e n g a v e h i m a b l a c k eye a n d t h a t , when he t r i e d t o r e s t r a i n h e r , s h e b i t h i m . The w i f e a d m i t t e d t h a t she h a d b i t t e n t h e h u s b a n d on t h e l e g when he was h o l d i n g h e r down. The h u s b a n d s t a t e d went t o t h e r e s t r o o m , the wife truck. The went according t o t h e husband, t h e w i f e husband toward t h e husband. life went o u t s i d e outside after that, when he and g o t i n h e r the wife, and, s t a r t e d d r i v i n g the truck The h u s b a n d s t a t e d t h a t he f e a r e d f o r h i s a n d t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , he s h o t t h e t i r e s o u t o f t h e w i f e ' s t r u c k w i t h a p i s t o l t h a t he h a d r e t r i e v e d f r o m h i s n i g h t s t a n d while he was i n s i d e t h e p a r t i e s ' h o u s e . t h a t two s h e r i f f s spent three After brother some The h u s b a n d came t o h i s h o u s e a n d a r r e s t e d h i m , a n d he days i n j a i l . t h e h u s b a n d was r e l e a s e d from j a i l , t h e husband's a n d s i s t e r went t o t h e p a r t i e s ' h o u s e a n d p i c k e d o f h i s c l o t h i n g a n d one o f h i s t r u c k s . stated stated that he d i d n o t go b a c k because the p r o t e c t i o n - f r o m - a b u s e doing so. 5 The to the p a r t i e s ' order up husband residence p r o h i b i t e d him from 2100567 The wife stated that husband, s e n t him wife stated had "eventually" called t e x t m e s s a g e s , and met that reconcile and sent she district the she that, and the at the husband request attorney a him of letter on The asked the w i f e t o drop the criminal him. According to the wife, January she case DR-10-157, tenus no. pending 2010, against the pending against criminal charges pending However, t h e p a r t i e s ' telephone records c o n t a c t e d the w i f e through throughout trial abuse on November 10, approximately one the indicating telephone summer o f 2010. The had charges week b e f o r e h e a r i n g i n the p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e proceeding. submitted had 31, a t t e m p t s a t r e c o n c i l i a t i o n f a i l e d , and t h e w i f e f i l e d a f o r p r o t e c t i o n from to h u s b a n d a d m i t t e d t h a t he a g a i n s t t h e h u s b a n d had b e e n d i s m i s s e d . petition The attempted husband, s t a t i n g t h a t she w a n t e d a l l c r i m i n a l c h a r g e s t h e h u s b a n d t o be d r o p p e d . i n person. had the the second 2010, in the ore The wife t h a t the husband calls and had t e x t messages wife requested c o u r t e n t e r a permanent r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r that the against the husband. A c c o r d i n g t o the husband, the p r o t e c t i o n - f r o m - a b u s e was " c l e a r e d up" the week before 6 trial. However, order i t is 2100567 unclear f r o m t h e r e c o r d w h e t h e r t h e h u s b a n d was r e f e r r i n g t o the p r o t e c t i o n - f r o m - a b u s e order May 14, 2008, i n case no. t h a t h a d been i n e f f e c t DR-08-56 or since the p e t i t i o n f o r p r o t e c t i o n f r o m abuse t h a t was f i l e d b y t h e w i f e i n c a s e no. DR-10-157 on o r a b o u t November 10, 2010, w h i c h was t h e week before trial. The w i f e s t a t e d t h a t , i n S e p t e m b e r 2008, she moved o u t of the residence of their t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had been r e n t i n g a t t h e time separation, a n d , when she d i d s o , she s e n t the h u s b a n d a l e t t e r i n f o r m i n g h i m t h a t she was m o v i n g a n d t h a t he needed t o make including arrangements a "fishing 1989 Z71 t r u c k . " to pick up his belongings, b o a t and equipment, a s k i b o a t , In the l e t t e r , days t o r e t r i e v e h i s b e l o n g i n g s , make a r r a n g e m e n t s t o d i s p o s e and a t h e w i f e gave t h e h u s b a n d 15 a n d she s t a t e d t h a t she w o u l d of the property t h a t he d i d n o t retrieve. The w i f e s t a t e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d ' s f o r m e r w i f e , t h e husband's former wife's came t o h e r house September 2008. husband, and t h e husband's to pick The w i f e up indicated that had p u t t h e husband's b e l o n g i n g s , husband's h u n t i n g t h e husband's children property in she and h e r f a m i l y s u c h as a d e e r h e a d a n d t h e and f i s h i n g g e a r , i n t h e husband's t r u c k and 7 2100567 in the husband's boat former w i f e t e s t i f i e d p i c k e d up had The and stated p a r t i e s ' belongings However, t h a t t h e b o a t s and o n l y a few wife trailer. the husband's the v e h i c l e t h a t of the husband's b e l o n g i n g s that she had i n a storage been i n them. s t o r i n g some o f the u n i t s i n c e the time t h a t she moved o u t o f t h e p a r t i e s ' r e n t e d m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e . s t a t e d t h a t she his property had The w i f e s t a t e d t h a t she had night thrown that away a wife husband r e f u s e d to so, however, because of the p r o t e c t i o n - f r o m - a b u s e the The o f f e r e d t o a l l o w the husband to r e t r i e v e from the storage u n i t . owned b e c a u s e t h e she husband fire The t h r o w n away a c o u c h t h a t t h e p a r t i e s h u s b a n d had the order. do pit burned a hole was that arrested was no i n the and that longer in couch on she had working condition. The had wife stated that, possession purchased of a a f t e r the four-wheeler p a r t i e s separated, she that had i n November 2006 f o r $ 6 , 0 0 0 . t h a t she had u s e d $4,300 f r o m h e r s e p a r a t e purchase the four-wheeler the remaining $1,700 the The parties wife checking and t h a t t h e h u s b a n d had toward the purchase s t a t e d t h a t she s o l d t h e f o u r - w h e e l e r 8 price. testified account to contributed The wife t o h e r s i s t e r f o r $2,300 2100567 in J u n e 2008. four-wheeler indicates that The h u s b a n d s t a t e d i n November that the b i l l 2006 t h a t he h a d p u r c h a s e d t h e f o r $5,600. record f o r the four-wheeler of sale The stated t h e h u s b a n d was t h e b u y e r o f t h e f o u r - w h e e l e r a n d t h a t t h e w i f e was t h e w i t n e s s t o t h e p u r c h a s e . o f s a l e was n o t i n t r o d u c e d husband a l l e g e d t h a t riding 2010. that indicated sister The w i f e that had n o t r e a l l y The s o l d the four- a n d he p r o d u c e d p i c t u r e s o f t h e w i f e the four-wheeler with July her daughter and h e r n i e c e i n submitted into evidence a b i l l she had s o l d of sale the four-wheeler to her on J u n e 15, 2008. In 2006, before the parties p u r c h a s e d a 2004 C h e v r o l e t and or admitted into the record. the wife wheeler t o her s i s t e r , However, t h e b i l l t h e husband truck. had purchased were married, According the truck the wife t o t h e w i f e , she together with the i n t e n t i o n t h a t i t w o u l d be t h e h u s b a n d ' s t r u c k ; h o w e v e r , s h e stated that the truck "wound up" b e i n g a d m i t t e d t h a t h e r name was on t h e t i t l e her truck. The w i f e t o t h e t r u c k , and the evidence produced by t h e w i f e i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e d e b t on t h e truck was i n h e r name o n l y . A t some t i m e b e f o r e 2009, t h e 2004 C h e v r o l e t truck 9 was r e p o s s e s s e d . M a r c h 25, The wife 2100567 i n t r o d u c e d e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t she owed $11,902.53 on t h e truck. The w i f e s t a t e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d s h o u l d be responsible f o r a t l e a s t a p o r t i o n o f t h e d e b t owed on t h e 2004 truck truck because Chevrolet she a n d t h e h u s b a n d h a d made p a y m e n t s on t h e together. The w i f e also introduced evidence i n d i c a t i n g that owed a d e b t t o D i r e c T V i n t h e amount o f $721.01. She stated t h a t t h e p a r t i e s h a d owed a d e b t t o D i r e c T V a t t h e t i m e they separated, but she admitted that she h a d she that maintained D i r e c T V s e r v i c e f r o m May 2008 t h r o u g h S e p t e m b e r 2008 w h i l e t h e husband d i d not l i v e i n the m a r i t a l t e s t i f i e d t h a t she t o o k o u t a l o a n clothes f o r the wife's at the time CitiFinancial of The i n 2007 t o p a y f o r s c h o o l the balance $3,978.88. F i n a l l y , on that the wife loan a p p e a r s t o be a t e l e p h o n e company. indicates CenturyTel that, $89.45. as of The b i l l March 2008, from presented e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t she owed a d e b t t o C e n t u r y T e l , wife wife c h i l d and t h e husband's f o u r c h i l d r e n ; trial, was residence. which produced by the the wife owed 1 However, t h e b i l l had a h a n d w r i t t e n n o t a t i o n t h a t s t a t e d t h a t , as o f November 17, 2010, t h e b a l a n c e owed t o C e n t u r y T e l was $211.71. 1 10 2100567 The wife between works $75,000 and as power and a s e c u r i t y plants. r e g i s t e r e d nurse, $90,000 a y e a r . t h a t he i s a p i p e f i t t e r travel a The and she earns husband testified and t h a t h i s j o b r e q u i r e s extensive c l e a r a n c e b e c a u s e he w o r k s on T h e r e i s no indication amount o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s i n c o m e . nuclear i n the record o f the The h u s b a n d m a i n t a i n e d that he d i d n o t have p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e m a j o r i t y o f h i s t o o l s , g u n s , f i s h i n g e q u i p m e n t , and h u n t i n g e q u i p m e n t t h a t were l a s t i n t h e wife's possession. Following the p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e above evidence, the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a f i n a l j u d g m e n t o f d i v o r c e on F e b r u a r y 2011. Pursuant t o t h a t judgment, the t r i a l 9, court entered a permanent r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r t h a t p r o h i b i t e d the husband f r o m contacting, harming, or h a r a s s i n g husband f r o m going wife, the w i f e , p r o h i b i t e d the on o r a b o u t t h e p r e m i s e s o c c u p i e d and p r o h i b i t e d t h e h u s b a n d f r o m b e i n g presence a t any t i m e . approximately awarded marriage, the 40 items remaining The trial court of p e r s o n a l items of 11 awarded property. personal i n c l u d i n g the four-wheeler, i n the by t h e wife's the husband The property wife was of the an e m b r o i d e r y m a c h i n e , 2100567 h e r b r i d a l engagement r i n g s e t , and The of trial the court ordered following debts: repossession of the the p a r t i e s ' dog. t h e p a r t i e s t o e a c h pay the debt owed as 2004 C h e v r o l e t a 2 one-half result t r u c k ; the of DirecTV the debt; t h e C i t i F i n a n c i a l d e b t ; and t h e C e n t u r y T e l debt. trial willfully violated o r d e r s and that court held that e i t h e r of the t r i a l was not g u i l t y of On March 8, amend, o r v a c a t e Ala. R. C i v . P. the wife had not c o u r t ' s pendente l i t e Finally, the she contempt. 2011, the the husband filed a motion alter, d i v o r c e judgment, pursuant to Rule Before 59, t h e t r i a l c o u r t r u l e d on t h e h u s b a n d ' s postjudgment motion, the husband f i l e d a n o t i c e of appeal M a r c h 21, 2011. by operation Civ. P., 3 and The of law h u s b a n d ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was on June 7, 2011, see R u l e 59.1, the husband's n o t i c e of a p p e a l , T h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e d t h a t one been awarded t o the w i f e i n the p e n d e n t e l i t e o r d e r had d i e d . 2 of the trial on denied Ala. w h i c h had R. been two dogs t h a t had c o u r t ' s May 2008 R u l e 59.1 p r o v i d e s t h a t a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n t h a t i s n o t r u l e d on by t h e c o u r t w i t h i n 90 d a y s i s deemed d e n i e d a t t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e 90-day p e r i o d . The 9 0 t h day f o l l o w i n g t h e h u s b a n d ' s f i l i n g o f h i s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on M a r c h 8, 2011, was Monday, June 6, 2011, a S t a t e h o l i d a y . Therefore, the h u s b a n d ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was deemed d e n i e d on T u e s d a y , June 7, 2011. See F i r s t A l a b a m a S t a t e Bank v. McGowan, 758 3 12 2100567 h e l d i n a b e y a n c e p e n d i n g a r u l i n g on h i s p o s t j u d g m e n t motion, became e f f e c t i v e on t h a t d a t e . See R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 5 ) , A l a . R. App. P. B e f o r e we a d d r e s s t h e i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d by t h e h u s b a n d on appeal, we note this court's judgment t h a t i s e n t e r e d a f t e r standard of review as to a the p r e s e n t a t i o n of ore tenus evidence. "A d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t t h a t i s b a s e d on e v i d e n c e presented ore tenus i s a f f o r d e d a presumption of c o r r e c t n e s s . Brown v. Brown, 719 So. 2d 228 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 8 ) . T h i s p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s i s b a s e d upon t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s u n i q u e p o s i t i o n t o o b s e r v e t h e p a r t i e s and w i t n e s s e s f i r s t h a n d and t o e v a l u a t e t h e i r demeanor and c r e d i b i l i t y . Brown, s u p r a ; H a l l v. M a z z o n e , 486 So. 2d 408 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . A j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t b a s e d on i t s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t s w i l l be r e v e r s e d o n l y where i t i s s o u n s u p p o r t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e as t o be p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y w r o n g . Brown, s u p r a . However, t h e r e i s no presumption of correctness i n the t r i a l court's a p p l i c a t i o n o f l a w t o t h e f a c t s . G a s t o n v. Ames, 514 So. 2d 877 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . " R o b i n s o n v. R o b i n s o n , 795 So. 2d 729, 732-33 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2001). On a p p e a l , t h e h u s b a n d f i r s t erred i n entering argues t h a t the t r i a l a permanent r e s t r a i n i n g court order against him So. 2d 1116 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 0 ) , and R i c h b u r g v. C r o m w e l l , 428 So. 2d 621 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) . 13 2100567 because the parties were divorced on the ground of i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f temperament and b e c a u s e t h e h u s b a n d d i d n o t have a h i s t o r y of that there the trial was domestic sufficient court's contacting, a d m i t t e d t h a t he had that he had told or However, we evidence i n the order harming, violence. restraining harassing the record the to that he could wife. break support husband The p u t h i s hands a r o u n d t h e w i f e ' s her conclude her from husband neck neck. The h u s b a n d a l s o a d m i t t e d t o f i r i n g a handgun a t a t r u c k t h a t o c c u p i e d by t h e w i f e . the separated, order. failed sets despite existence of a husband a l s o argues t h a t the to comply w i t h forth injunction. the Although the husband presumably i n the permanent to the w i f e . Rule 65(d)(2), requirements However, o u r husband f a i l e d 4 the r e l a t i o n s h i p continued was that after they protection-from-abuse 4 The the Furthermore, the r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s p a r t i e s ' tumultuous and trial court's A l a . R. Civ. for an order review of the record to argue b e f o r e the trial judgment P., which issuing reveals court that an that the 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 w i f e had c o n t a c t e d while the protection-from-abuse order was e f f e c t , t h e h u s b a n d d i d n o t a r g u e on a p p e a l t h a t r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r s h o u l d have a l s o b e e n a p p l i e d 14 2100567 r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r i n the d i v o r c e judgment d i d not comply w i t h Rule 65, A l a . R. Civ. P. Accordingly, c o n s i d e r t h a t a r g u m e n t on a p p e a l . Co. , 612 So. 2d 409, 410 this c o u r t may not See Andrews v. M e r r i t t O i l ( A l a . 1992) ("[An appellate c]ourt c a n n o t c o n s i d e r a r g u m e n t s r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on appeal; r a t h e r , o u r r e v i e w i s r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e e v i d e n c e and a r g u m e n t s c o n s i d e r e d by t h e t r i a l court."). The h u s b a n d a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e x c e e d e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n by m a k i n g him r e s p o n s i b l e f o r payment o f of the 2004 C h e v r o l e t d e b t owed on the truck. contends t h a t , because the w i f e purchased truck before a l l o c a t e d any the parties married, responsibility he The one-half husband t h e 2004 C h e v r o l e t should not have f o r payment o f t h e d e b t been secured by t h e 2004 C h e v r o l e t t r u c k . In for support one-half of o f h i s argument t h a t he the debt on h u s b a n d c i t e s A l a . Code 1975, husband i s not liable the s h o u l d n o t be 2004 C h e v r o l e t f o r the debts c o m m i t t e d by h e r b e f o r e m a r r i a g e , t h e r e f o r as i f she truck, § 30-4-6, w h i c h p r o v i d e s : or engagements w i f e , c o n t r a c t e d or entered i n t o before marriage, suable liable but were s o l e . " 15 she of the "The the or f o r t o r t s remains l i a b l e and (Emphasis added.) Our 2100567 research has r e v e a l e d no caselaw interpreting § 30-4-6, d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t t h a t p r o v i s i o n dates back t o the Alabama Code o f 1886 ( f o u n d , a t t h a t t i m e , a t § 2344). " ' P r i n c i p l e s of s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n b i n d t h i s Court t o i n t e r p r e t p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f a s t a t u t e " t o mean e x a c t l y what i t says" a n d t o engage i n judicial construction only i f the l a n g u a g e i n t h e s t a t u t e i s a m b i g u o u s . ' " S u l l i v a n v. S m i t h , 925 So. 2 d 972, 976 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) (quoting Ex parte A l a b a m a Bd. o f P a r d o n s & P a r o l e s , 814 So. 2 d 870, 872 ( A l a . 2001), c i t i n g 788 i n t u r n Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a G r e a t So. 2 d 886, Blue plain reading of § 30-4-6 woman t o e n f o r c e 296 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) ) . reveals s e c t i o n a p p l i e s when a t h i r d p a r t y f i l e s married R.R., 889 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n B l u e C r o s s & S h i e l d v . N i e l s e n , 714 So. 2 d 292, A Southern that that Code an a c t i o n a g a i n s t a a contract that the married woman e n t e r e d i n t o b e f o r e s h e m a r r i e d o r when a t h i r d p a r t y f i l e s an a c t i o n a g a i n s t a m a r r i e d woman t o r e c o v e r damages a r i s i n g f r o m a tort committed According be liable by t h e m a r r i e d woman b e f o r e she m a r r i e d . t o § 30-4-6, t h e m a r r i e d woman's h u s b a n d w o u l d n o t i n the contract-enforcement action or the t o r t a c t i o n i f t h e m a r r i e d woman e n t e r e d i n t o t h e c o n t r a c t b e f o r e 16 2100567 she m a r r i e d o r i f t h e m a r r i e d woman c o m m i t t e d t h e t o r t she married. lends Accordingly, parties' divorce marriage, action i s a debt t h a t 867, 868-69 marital debt, is a decision court. ( A l a . 1990). the loan that definition debt the Using J a c k s o n , 567 So. t h e above d e f i n i t i o n o f to finance the t r u c k c o u l d n o t be c l a s s i f i e d i t d i d n o t meet the threshold contributions during However, t h e w i f e a r g u e d a t t r i a l be a l l o c a t e d some p o r t i o n Chevrolet in a t o t h e sound o f m a r i t a l d e b t , i . e . , i t was n o t i n c u r r e d husband should 2004 i s left i n c u r r e d by t h e w i f e because the p a r t i e s ' marriage. the o f m a r i t a l debt See Ex p a r t e p u r c h a s e o f t h e 2004 C h e v r o l e t marital i s incurred during the and t h e a l l o c a t i o n d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l as § 30-4-6 any s u p p o r t t o t h e husband's argument. A " m a r i t a l debt" 2d we c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t before truck because he that o f t h e d e b t on made monetary t o w a r d t h e payment o f t h e d e b t s e c u r e d b y t h e 2004 C h e v r o l e t truck. To d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e d e b t on t h e 2004 C h e v r o l e t t r u c k c o u l d p r o p e r l y be a l l o c a t e d b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s as a m a r i t a l d e b t , t h e p e r t i n e n t q u e s t i o n , i s w h e t h e r t h e 2004 C h e v r o l e t we t h i n k , t r u c k c o u l d be c l a s s i f i e d a s a m a r i t a l a s s e t s u b j e c t t o d i v i s i o n h a d i t n o t been r e p o s s e s s e d 17 2100567 during the p a r t i e s ' separation. could not division, be classified a n d i n s t e a d was follows that marital debt the debt and that on as I f t h e 2004 C h e v r o l e t a marital the wife's t h e 2004 separate should subject to property, i t Chevrolet the husband a l l o c a t e d any p o r t i o n o f t h a t d e b t . asset truck truck not Conversely, i s not have been i f t h e 2004 C h e v r o l e t t r u c k c o u l d have b e e n p r o p e r l y c l a s s i f i e d as m a r i t a l property, then the trial court could a l l o c a t e d a p o r t i o n of the debt secured have, in b y t h e 2004 equity, Chevrolet t r u c k t o t h e husband. Regarding m a r i t a l property and s e p a r a t e property, c o u r t has h e l d : "A p a r t y ' s ' " s e p a r a t e e s t a t e " i s t h a t p r o p e r t y o v e r w h i c h [he o r ] she e x e r c i s e s e x c l u s i v e c o n t r o l a n d f r o m w h i c h t h e [ s p o u s e ] ... d e r i v e s no b e n e f i t b y r e a s o n o f t h e m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . ' Gartman v. G a r t m a n , 376 So. 2d 711, 713 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 7 8 ) . The s e p a r a t e e s t a t e o f t h e p a r t i e s i n a d i v o r c e proceeding includes property owned p r i o r t o t h e marriage and property received by gift or i n h e r i t a n c e during the marriage. § 30-2-51(a), A l a . Code 1975. A l t h o u g h m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y generally i n c l u d e s property purchased or otherwise accumulated by t h e p a r t i e s d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e , i t may a l s o include the property acquired before the marriage or r e c e i v e d by g i f t o r i n h e r i t a n c e d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e when i t i s u s e d , o r income f r o m i t i s u s e d , r e g u l a r l y f o r t h e common b e n e f i t o f t h e p a r t i e s d u r i n g t h e i r m a r r i a g e . See § 3 0 - 2 - 5 1 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975. 18 this 2100567 "The t r i a l j u d g e i s g r a n t e d b r o a d d i s c r e t i o n i n determining whether p r o p e r t y purchased before the p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e o r r e c e i v e d by g i f t o r i n h e r i t a n c e was u s e d ' r e g u l a r l y f o r t h e common b e n e f i t o f t h e p a r t i e s d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e . ' See § 3 0 - 2 - 5 1 , A l a . Code 1975. Even i f t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s t h a t s u c h p r o p e r t y was r e g u l a r l y u s e d f o r t h e common b e n e f i t of the p a r t i e s during the marriage, the d e t e r m i n a t i o n whether t o i n c l u d e such p r o p e r t y i n t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s t o be d i v i d e d b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s 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 t h e t r i a l c o u r t . [Ex p a r t e ] D u r b i n , 818 So. 2d 404 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) . " N i c h o l s v . N i c h o l s , 824 So. 2d 797, 802 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) . The r e c o r d indicates that t h e 2004 C h e v r o l e t p u r c h a s e d by t h e w i f e b e f o r e t h e p a r t i e s m a r r i e d , 2004 C h e v r o l e t secured only. b y t h e 2004 C h e v r o l e t t r u c k was f i n a n c e d b y t h e w i f e Thus, a t t h e t i m e i t was p u r c h a s e d , t h e 2004 whether there was sufficient f i n d i n g t h a t t h e 2004 C h e v r o l e t the t i t l e to the t r u c k was i n t h e w i f e ' s name o n l y , a n d t h e d e b t t r u c k was t h e w i f e ' s s e p a r a t e p r o p e r t y . then, making i t m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y . Chevrolet The q u e s t i o n becomes, evidence t o support a t r u c k was u s e d r e g u l a r l y f o r common b e n e f i t o f t h e p a r t i e s d u r i n g nothing t r u c k was Our r e v i e w the marriage, of the record t h a t w o u l d s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e 2004 thus reveals Chevrolet t r u c k was r e g u l a r l y u s e d f o r t h e common b e n e f i t o f t h e p a r t i e s during the t h e i r marriage. wife For a l l t h a t appears i n t h e r e c o r d , purchased the truck with 19 the i n t e n t of g i v i n g the 2100567 t r u c k t o the husband, but, continue f o r whatever reason, d r i v i n g the t r u c k h e r s e l f . she chose to T h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n i n the r e c o r d t h a t , because of the p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e , the husband derived any Chevrolet benefit truck. not subject to d i v i s i o n have wife's we purchase conclude, of based classified as m a r i t a l i n the p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e parties. be debt classified subject At t r i a l , responsible Chevrolet as to m a r i t a l property, allocation simply of the because debt upon the she by property truck we cannot truck divorce owed h u s b a n d had some unknown amount t o t h e payment o f t h a t d e b t . incurred the truck on wife before the the should the 2004 contributed However, i n e q u i t a b l e to a l l o c a t e a p o r t i o n of the the was of the w i f e contended t h a t the husband for part truck f i n d i t wholly on c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e 2004 C h e v r o l e t been marital 2004 action. c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e d e b t s e c u r e d by t h e 2004 C h e v r o l e t a the i n t h i s c a s e , t h a t t h e 2004 C h e v r o l e t have b e e n p r o p e r l y B e c a u s e we could the Accordingly, evidence presented could from p a r t i e s ' marriage to we debt the husband s i m p l y because the husband v o l u n t a r i l y chose to a s s i s t the wife before the with the repayment p a r t i e s married. of the debt Accordingly, 20 she that had part incurred of the 2100567 d i v o r c e judgment o r d e r i n g t h e husband t o pay o n e - h a l f d e b t owed on t h e 2004 C h e v r o l e t The husband allocated never also argues liability that he should that the wife f o r that n o t have debt because and d i d n o t b e n e f i t However, t h e r e c o r d borrowed money from CitiFinancial in trial clearly could have B a s e d on t h a t concluded that action marriage because i t was and, f u r t h e r m o r e , a b e n e f i c i a r y of the loan incurred during because the husband taken o u t by b e c a u s e t h e p r o c e e d s o f t h e l o a n were u s e d t o p r o v i d e to the l o a n was a m a r i t a l d e b t t h a t c o u l d be a l l o c a t e d the divorce parties' court CitiFinancial t o pay f o r c l o t h i n g f o r her c h i l d and f o r t h e husband's f o u r c h i l d r e n . the he debt during the p a r t i e s marriage i n order evidence, been from t h a t l o a n . from the funds o b t a i n e d indicates truck i s reversed. any p o r t i o n o f t h e C i t i F i n a n c i a l accepted of the the the was wife support t h e husband's c h i l d r e n . The h u s b a n d f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t he s h o u l d n o t have b e e n a l l o c a t e d any p o r t i o n o f t h e d e b t owed t o D i r e c T V b e c a u s e t h e wife continued t o e n j o y D i r e c T V s e r v i c e a f t e r he moved o u t o f the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e . amount owed t o DirecTV However, t h e w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e was for service 21 that she and t h e 2100567 husband enjoyed testimony, to during the t r i a l living Pielach, courts that a debt t h a t had marriage while together 681 are of supported not the by evidence."). in So. the the 2d Based 154 the 1996) to s u b s t i t u t e t h e i r court reasonable i f the A c c o r d i n g l y , we c o u r t e r r e d by d e t e r m i n i n g trial inferences that t h a t the w i f e were residence. (Ala. on debt accumulated during h u s b a n d and marital 154, allowed trial marriage. c o u r t c o u l d have c o n c l u d e d DirecTV represented parties' their to See ("The own court's be Ex still parte appellate judgment f o r decision drawn from cannot conclude t h a t the t h a t t h e D i r e c T V d e b t was Jackson, 567 So. 2d a t trial a marital court's division inequitable. "When t h e t r i a l c o u r t f a s h i o n s a p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n f o l l o w i n g the p r e s e n t a t i o n of ore tenus evidence, i t s j u d g m e n t as t o t h a t e v i d e n c e i s p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t on a p p e a l and 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 t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n or t h a t i t s d e c i s i o n i s p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y w r o n g . R o b e r t s v. R o b e r t s , 802 So. 2d 230, 235 (Ala. Civ. App. 2 0 0 1 ) ; P a r r i s h v. P a r r i s h , 617 So. 2d 1036, 1038 (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) ; and H a l l v. M a z z o n e , 486 So. 2d 408, 410 ( A l a . 1986). A p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n i s required to be equitable, not equal, and a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f what i s e q u i t a b l e r e s t s w i t h i n t h e 22 See 868-69. Next, the husband argues t h a t the t r i a l o f p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y was is the debt s u b j e c t to a l l o c a t i o n i n the p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e a c t i o n . Ex p a r t e the 2100567 broad d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t . P a r r i s h , 617 So. 2d a t 1038. I n f a s h i o n i n g a p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n and an a w a r d o f a l i m o n y , the t r i a l c o u r t must c o n s i d e r f a c t o r s s u c h as t h e e a r n i n g c a p a c i t i e s o f the p a r t i e s ; t h e i r f u t u r e p r o s p e c t s ; t h e i r ages, h e a l t h , and s t a t i o n i n l i f e ; t h e l e n g t h o f the p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e ; and t h e s o u r c e , v a l u e , and t y p e o f m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y . R o b i n s o n v. R o b i n s o n , 795 So. 2d 729, 734 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) . " S t o n e v. The S t o n e , 26 his wife personal income, m a c h i n e , a dog, testimony 3d 1232, such and presented four-wheeler. four-wheeler Regarding as the the w i f e ' s by the purchased parties' dog married. was The dog, t h a t had four-wheeler, dog from the an embroidery to funds toward the purchase the record indicates that during there the was The parties' no The who of the marriage. in the the husband b e f o r e the introduced pound. purchased i n d i s p u t e as s i g n e d , b e f o r e t h e p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d , parties' been " b r i d a l engagement s e t . " p u r c h a s e d by wife 2009). c o u r t e r r e d because i t t h e p a r t i e s was Regardless, was r e c o r d t h a t the parties' ( A l a . C i v . App. property c o n t r i b u t e d the m a j o r i t y of the the 1236 husband argues t h a t the t r i a l awarded the with So. indication a document t h a t she i n order t o adopt the record reflects that the h u s b a n d p u r c h a s e d t h e w i f e ' s engagement r i n g b u t t h a t t h e w i f e p u r c h a s e d her wedding band. F i n a l l y , of the r e c o r d i s d e v o i d 23 2100567 o f any e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g t h e e m b r o i d e r y m a c h i n e , e x c e p t t h a t the p a r t i e s d i s p u t e d i t s value i n an e x h i b i t i n t r o d u c e d into evidence. Thus, b a s e d on t h a t e v i d e n c e , we trial cannot conclude t h a t the c o u r t c o u l d n o t have a w a r d e d t h e w i f e t h e an e m b r o i d e r y m a c h i n e , a dog, four-wheeler, and t h e w i f e ' s b r i d a l engagement set. The husband property was also argues inequitable that the because, he division says, of personal the evidence i n d i c a t e d t h a t the w i f e d e l i b e r a t e l y destroyed or t r a n s f e r r e d t h e p a r t i e s ' p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y w h i l e t h a t p r o p e r t y was her care. The h u s b a n d a l s o a r g u e s t h a t , b a s e d on t h e testimony at t r i a l i n d i c a t i n g t h a t she was not in under wife's possession of the m a j o r i t y of the p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y t h a t the t r i a l awarded to otherwise the husband, disposed of the his wife personal improperly property. gave court away However, review of the r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t the o n l y p i e c e of four-wheeler, and there i s no evidence in i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e w i f e gave away o r d e l i b e r a t e l y any the was record destroyed of the husband's p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , w i t h the e x c e p t i o n 24 our personal p r o p e r t y t h a t the w i f e s o l d d u r i n g the p a r t i e s ' s e p a r a t i o n the or of 2100567 the couch longer and t h e f i r e p i t that claimed were no i n good c o n d i t i o n . The wife belongings family maintained that had r e t r i e v e d credible she h a d made t h e husband's required or concealed to turn over such p r o p e r t y . 5 consists authority t h e husband's that there on appeal. t h e above this t h e husband's See was more should property have that been he was t h e husband f o r t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f of only i s no trial belongings. the wife The argument p r e s e n t e d t o support The and t h a t t h e w i f e had the personal a w a r d e d o r t o compensate destroyed husband's that the wife's testimony The h u s b a n d a l s o a r g u e s t h a t argument belongings. than t h e husband's t e s t i m o n y not d e s t r o y e d ground the a v a i l a b l e t o h i m a n d t h a t members o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s c o u r t c o u l d have c o n c l u d e d fact the wife a s s e r t i o n ; he argument. evidence property, Rule b y t h e h u s b a n d on t h i s Therefore, indicating we w i l l 28(a) (10), cites no despite the that the wife not address this A l a . R. App. P. We n o t e t h a t t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t s t a t e d t h a t t h e w i f e " s h a l l make a good f a i t h e f f o r t t o f i n d any i t e m s n o t a l r e a d y i n t h e h u s b a n d ' s p o s s e s s i o n a n d r e t u r n o r s e e t h e same i s r e t u r n e d i f found o r , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , a l l o w t h e husband t o r e t r i e v e t h e same i f he w i l l n o t be i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e r e s t r a i n i n g order " 5 25 2100567 (requiring an appellant to cite authority a r g u m e n t s made on a p p e a l ) ; and Asam v. 1222, 1996) will 1224 ( A l a . C i v . App. address only which supporting D e v e r e a u x , 686 properly been So. discussed have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e and CitiFinancial for debt action, could b e c a u s e we division of the 2004 C h e v r o l e t trial have have been reversed marital estate, t r u c k , we court to 1229 i . e . , the (Ala. Civ. App. and property, the divorce trial court's debt owed on of the the contained marital F o s t e r v. F o s t e r , 365 1978) (reversing a i n c l u d e d p a r t of the w i f e ' s remanding the case t o the t r i a l division the i t s division e s t a t e i n the d i v i s i o n of p r o p e r t y property of in the remand t h e c a s e w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o reconsider judgment t h a t i m p r o p e r l y divided part e s t a t e i n l i g h t o f t h i s o p i n i o n . See 1227, divorce action, have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t c e r t a i n p e r s o n a l above, 2d court t h e D i r e c T V d e b t c o u l d have b e e n a l l o c a t e d as p a r t o f a l t h o u g h we 2d presented of cited"). d i v i s i o n of m a r i t a l debt i n the p a r t i e s ' the support (stating that "[t]his issues a u t h o r i t y has A l t h o u g h we and those in divorce separate i n a d i v o r c e judgment court to "reassess i n the d i v o r c e and the e n t i r e judgment"). F i n a l l y , the husband argues t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d 26 So. by 2100567 refusing to h o l d the w i f e i n contempt f o r v i o l a t i n g 2008 p r o t e c t i o n - f r o m - a b u s e district court pendente l i t e the divorce in case order, no. (case no. t h a t the husband requested wife i n contempt f o r her pendente l i t e DR-08-56, o r d e r , w h i c h was action order w h i c h was and e n t e r e d by DR-08-61). the divorce action. 6 the reveals court hold the August the August 2010 pendente lite the 2010 Accordingly, w i l l c o n s i d e r o n l y t h e h u s b a n d ' s argument t h a t t h e t r i a l e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g to h o l d the w i f e 2010 court i n record only t h a t the t r i a l i n the by August the t r i a l by May entered The f a i l u r e to abide the we court i n contempt f o r v i o l a t i n g order by selling the four- wheeler. " A b s e n t an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n , o r u n l e s s t h e j u d g m e n t o f the trial plainly party court and i s u n s u p p o r t e d by palpably wrong, the the evidence determination i s i n contempt i s w i t h i n the so of as to be whether sound d i s c r e t i o n of a the F u r t h e r m o r e , the p r o p r i e t y of s e e k i n g a f i n d i n g of contempt a g a i n s t the w i f e i n the d i v o r c e a c t i o n f o r v i o l a t i n g the protection-from-abuse order i s q u e s t i o n a b l e because the p r o t e c t i o n - f r o m - a b u s e a c t i o n , w h i c h was i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , was a s e p a r a t e p r o c e e d i n g f r o m t h e d i v o r c e a c t i o n , w h i c h was i n the t r i a l c o u r t . A l s o , the protection-from-abuse order e n t e r e d i n May 2008 i n c a s e no. DR-08-56 does n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e w i f e was r e s t r a i n e d o r e n j o i n e d f r o m c o n t a c t i n g t h e husband. 6 27 2100567 trial Civ. court." Shonkwiler App. 2000) (Ala. v. K r i s k a , 780 So. 2d 703, 706 ( A l a . ( c i t i n g Shellhouse C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) ) . contempt under contempt) o r Rule v. B e n t l e y , 690 So. 2d 401 In order t o f i n d the wife g u i l t y of either Rule 70A(a)(2)(C)(ii) 70A(a)(2)(D) (civil (criminal c o n t e m p t ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., t h e t r i a l c o u r t w o u l d have h a d t o d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e w i f e had 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 comply w i t h a c o u r t order. See T.L.D. v. C.G., 849 So. 2d 200, 205 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) . In May 2008, s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e w i f e f i l e d f o r a d i v o r c e , the t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e w i f e temporary use and p o s s e s s i o n of the four-wheeler, specifically In forbid among o t h e r t h i n g s . the wife June 2008, t h e w i f e from s e l l i n g That order d i d n o t the s o l d the four-wheeler four-wheeler. to her s i s t e r . A t t h e r e q u e s t o f t h e h u s b a n d , i n A u g u s t 2010, t h e t r i a l entered a pendente lite order that p r o h i b i t e d both court parties from l i q u i d a t i n g , w a s t i n g , o r o t h e r w i s e c o n v e r t i n g any and a l l personal or m a r i t a l property. I n i t s judgment, the trial c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e w i f e had n o t w i l l f u l l y v i o l a t e d any of i t s temporary orders. We c a n n o t c o n c l u d e that the t r i a l c o u r t exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n by d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t t h e w i f e had n o t w i l l f u l l y v i o l a t e d t h e May 2008 o r d e r b y s e l l i n g t h e f o u r - 28 2100567 w h e e l e r , e v e n t h o u g h t h e w i f e was g r a n t e d and possession sold. of the four-wheeler o n l y temporary use a t the time that i t was F u r t h e r m o r e , 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 exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n by c o n c l u d i n g court t h a t t h e w i f e had not w i l l f u l l y v i o l a t e d t h e A u g u s t 2010 p e n d e n t e l i t e o r d e r b e c a u s e t h e w i f e ' s a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n o f t h a t o r d e r o c c u r r e d more t h a n two years before the trial court entered the order. A c c o r d i n g l y , 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 c o u r t e x c e e d e d its d i s c r e t i o n by d e t e r m i n i n g violated either t h a t the w i f e had not w i l l f u l l y o f i t s pendente l i t e orders. B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l court, i n s o f a r as i t d i v i d e d t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y and d e b t s , i s r e v e r s e d , a n d t h e c a s e i s remanded w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h e trial c o u r t t o e n t e r a judgment c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s opinion. In a l l o t h e r r e s p e c t s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment i s a f f i r m e d . AFFIRMED I N PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, concur. P . J . , and P i t t m a n , 29 Thomas, a n d Moore, JJ.,

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.