Daniel Warren v. Carol Warren

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/20/2012 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 ((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 2100785 D a n i e l Warren v. C a r o l Warren Appeal from Jackson C i r c u i t (DR-99-20.4) Court On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g THOMAS, Judge. The following opinion o f February 3, 2 0 1 2 , i s w i t h d r a w n , i ss u b s t i t u t e d t h e r e f o r . and t h e 2100785 Daniel mother") Warren were ("the father") divorced in separation agreement According to August was judgment. " a g r e e [ d ] t o pay minor fee 2008, school, the into parties' the judgment, ("the divorce the father f o r the p a r t i e s ' before the parties' child a petition "other mother each college-admission a sum f o r an father counterclaim, o f money e q u a l in state answered student the requesting judgment because reduced expenses of as the a the that father divorce result. testing, to hold associated and The to at the average petition trial in and court provision lost his income father in costs." advance cost of Troy U n i v e r s i t y . " had 2 college the the registration f a t h e r "pay mother's postminority-educational-support time seeking expenses a s s o c i a t e d w i t h f u r t h e r sought t o have the semester attendance The t o pay graduated c h i l d ' s acceptance to Troy U n i v e r s i t y , i n c l u d i n g e x p e n s e s , and the The college costs f a t h e r i n contempt f o r f a i l i n g f o r her of divorce the mother f i l e d incurred The the Warren 2000. incorporated a l l reasonable February from high with Carol child." In the and the also job had filed modify the he been requested a the divorce had held at drastically that both 2100785 parents be required expenses, that financial aid, support within time be t o pay the mother that limited five the to and The the award activity c a s e was of child of the the be child's college required to child of be a bachelor's required average, degree a and that the room and fees at a state-supported college. first s e t f o r a h e a r i n g i n A u g u s t 2009. not c a l l e d trial October 26, 2009, toward the child's c o u r t e n t e r e d an father expenses pending apparently February "The t o pay 2011, Parties $650 p e r the the rendered 59, father A l a . R. to filed C i v . P., on the October for trial, matter. 4, 2010, entry [the father] college which, on stating: against the [the Judgment i s amount of issue." purportedly pursuant s e e k i n g t o have the 3 in the was order judgment so case after i n the p e t i t i o n . e x e c u t i o n may a motion, of On requiring The c o u r t e n t e r e d an alleged against $74,821.74 f o r which The on trial consented on month trial f a t h e r ] f o r the matters hereby order set for t r i a l 10, full¬ to the cost of t u i t i o n , limited a "C" t o be t h a t d a t e , h o w e v e r , t h e c a s e was the seek postminority educational attainment to earn at l e a s t amount o f s u p p o r t be board, and the years, that s t u d e n t and a portion February to 2011 Rule order 2100785 set a s i d e ; i n that motion entry of further had able the the his counsel him. In on an court on 11, the as consented his and counsel counsel motion, f a t h e r owed and amount due. February 9, f o r the mother t h a t they had However, the without arrived at the specifying According to f i l e a formal o b j e c t i o n to the clerk's office informed her the the filed proposed order order courthouse that by not father d e l i v e r e d a proposed 2011, the father 2011, entered to the o b j e c t e d to the proposed order. proposed trial the on court mother's i t s order. h i s motion, the f a t h e r a l s o complained t h a t the of p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l support not having In 1 f o r the mother had f a t h e r had already counsel agree denied f a t h e r , when h i s c o u n s e l February order, to trial t h a t the had against alleged that alleged, to order d i s c u s s e d t h e amount t h e been to an he supported by any evidence he was because ordered the only amount t o pay was "evidence" Because the February 10, 2011, o r d e r was not a final judgment because i t failed to resolve the father's counterclaim seeking a m o d i f i c a t i o n of h i s p o s t m i n o r i t y educational-support o b l i g a t i o n , see d i s c u s s i o n , i n f r a , the f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n was n o t a R u l e 5 9 m o t i o n , w h i c h t y p e o f m o t i o n c a n be d i r e c t e d o n l y t o a f i n a l j u d g m e n t . Ex p a r t e T r o u t m a n S a n d e r s , L L P , 866 So. 2 d 5 4 7 , 550 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ( q u o t i n g M a l o n e v . G a i n e y , 726 So. 2 d 7 2 5 , 725 n.2 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1999)). 1 4 2100785 presented to s u b m i t t e d by The support amount t h e m o t h e r as an f a t h e r s a i d t h a t he h a d listed by the mother r e l a t e d expenses the the child exhibit as either allegedly given automobile exorbitant or unsupported week gasoline, had the charge food, pay his was evidence year. for not he cost, being expenses order. to the college- Troy books and University father, he had was that the being alleged including the earned mother ordered To to documentary reasonable s u p p l i e s , and totaled for had $4,526.09). presented indicated room and b o a r d , According to the expenses, n e a r l y $ 7 5 , 0 0 0 he father or ( e . g . , an Supplies" totaling the mother child) supplies," although contended, attending the 2 expenses actual although documentation and "Misc. unreasonable, that, of to her proposed for "miscellaneous c l a i m t h a t the cost of t u i t i o n , expenses by clothing, already l i s t e d support list ( e . g . , t h e amount o f money t h e a u t o m o b i l e would per a o b j e c t e d t o some o f t h o s e purportedly $250 was other $14,700 per o n l y $37,087.22 B o t h p a r t i e s a g r e e on a p p e a l t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o o k no t e s t i m o n y a n d was p r e s e n t e d no d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e a t a n y time d u r i n g the pendency of t h i s proceeding r e g a r d i n g e i t h e r the p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l expenses anticipated to be i n c u r r e d , o r a c t u a l l y i n c u r r e d , by t h e c h i l d or t h e f a t h e r ' s a b i l i t y t o pay. 2 5 2100785 in 2010, an amount postminority father educational credits educational father requested order sentence father and h o l d had father on trial Ruzic State App. 2007)). order the first must v. the father ex r e l . Thornton, whether can appeal by we on 866 LLC v. So. other 988 So. 2 d 555 may be taken A l a . Code 1975, § 12-22-2. the have notice ( A l a . C i v . App. abrogated 6 appeals. See J . B r y a n t , o f Human R e s . , requested presented court State an he the 675, 2003), matter. the consider 677 February indicated that that This the remove 3d Generally, Finally, on t h e So. Dep't judgment. pay. arguments appeal. the postminority set aside The of ordered d i d , however, to the order. ( A l a . C i v . App. v. court 2011 this 23 of to amount father further the father the r e l i e f i s s u e ex mero motu. Birmingham, F.G. court we over The amount required the court order. the consider appeal, jurisdictional 568-69 The may half the t r i a l 2011 was court denied we than an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g consented jurisdiction (citing he i n the February Before final support that the t r i a l h i s motion. of less against expenses The t r i a l in is t o pay i n the February requested 2011 that a City 2009) 2d 564, grounds by ( A l a .C i v . only A final from a judgment 2100785 is "one t h a t court c o n c l u s i v e l y determines and a s c e r t a i n s involved." As the rights before of the parties above, the i n response father filed a t o the mother's counterclaim of the p a r t i e s ' based d i v o r c e judgment. The t r i a l t o pay $74,821.74 i n p o s t m i n o r i t y on t h e a l l e g a t i o n s c o n t a i n e d petition. father's However, request educational-support the t r i a l for a modification court ordered the educational failed of a provision i n the mother's court 3 contempt seeking modification of the postminority-educational-expense father the B e a n v . C r a i g , 557 S o . 2 d 1 2 4 9 , 1 2 5 3 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) . noted petition, and d e c l a r e s the issues support contempt t o address his o b l i g a t i o n i n the February the postminority2011 order. 4 T h e p r i m a r y e x c e p t i o n t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t an a p p e a l be t a k e n f r o m a f i n a l j u d g m e n t i s when a t r i a l c o u r t h a s c e r t i f i e d a judgment d e c i d i n g fewer than a l l t h e pending claims o r r e s o l v i n g t h e i s s u e s i n v o l v i n g fewer than a l l the p a r t i e s a s a f i n a l j u d g m e n t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. Civ. P. S e e B e a n , 557 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 5 3 . 3 The mother argues i n h e r a p p l i c a t i o n f o ra r e h e a r i n g t h a t the trial court's d e n i a l of the father's motion seeking r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e F e b r u a r y 2011 o r d e r resulted i n a denial of the father's counterclaim seeking modification of h i s p o s t m i n o r i t y - e d u c a t i o n a l - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n . She a r g u e s that because the t r i a l c o u r t was p e r m i t t e d t o a c c o r d t h e p r o p e r r e l i e f t o t h e p a r t i e s b a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d , s e e , g e n e r a l l y , R u l e 5 4 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. ( p e r m i t t i n g a t r i a l c o u r t t o accord a p a r t y t h e r e l i e f c a l l e d f o r by t h e e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l e v e n when a p a r t y h a s n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y 4 7 2100785 See 1998) Jordan v. Jordan, ( d i s m i s s i n g an father's claim adjudicate to 717 So. appeal reopen the mother's a 2d from 822, 822 (Ala. Civ. App. a judgment adjudicating a divorce judgment but counterclaim seeking failing to a child-support r e q u e s t e d s u c h r e l i e f ) , we m u s t p r e s u m e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t denied the father's request for m o d i f i c a t i o n of his p o s t m i n o r i t y - e d u c a t i o n a l - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n when i t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r t h e F e b r u a r y 2011 order. We a r e not c o n v i n c e d by the mother's argument. A t r i a l c o u r t i s p e r m i t t e d t o e n t e r an o r d e r r e s o l v i n g l e s s t h a n a l l t h e c l a i m s b e f o r e i t ; an o r d e r r e s o l v i n g f e w e r than a l l the c l a i m s b e f o r e the c o u r t i s not a f i n a l judgment u n l e s s c e r t i f i e d as s u c h by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . See R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. An i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r may b e r e c o n s i d e r e d b y a t r i a l c o u r t on i t s own m o t i o n o r on t h e m o t i o n o f a n y p a r t y at any t i m e b e f o r e e n t r y o f a f i n a l judgment. L a n i e r v. S u r r e t t , 772 So. 2 d 1 187 , 11 88 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2000 ) ("An i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r i s s u b j e c t t o r e v i s i o n at any time b e f o r e the c o u r t e n t e r s a f i n a l judgment t h a t d i s p o s e s of a l l the issues."). The m o t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e f a c t t h a t t h e t r i a l court denied the f a t h e r ' s motion seeking r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e F e b r u a r y 2011 o r d e r r e n d e r s t h a t i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r f i n a l because the t r i a l court again f a i l e d to address the f a t h e r ' s claim for modification. The t r i a l c o u r t c l e a r l y l e f t the f a t h e r ' s m o d i f i c a t i o n c l a i m p e n d i n g by f a i l i n g t o address i t i n t h e F e b r u a r y 2011 o r d e r ; i t s c o n t i n u e d f a i l u r e t o a d d r e s s t h a t same c l a i m b y n o t m e n t i o n i n g i t w h e n d e n y i n g t h e m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r t h e F e b r u a r y 2011 o r d e r d o e s n o t h a v e t h e e f f e c t of d e n y i n g the f a t h e r ' s m o d i f i c a t i o n r e q u e s t . If i t did, every i n t e r l o c u t o r y order t h a t a t r i a l court r e v i s i t s at the b e h e s t o f a p a r t y w o u l d become f i n a l i f t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d the request f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n . The f a c t t h a t t h e f a t h e r i n c l u d e d a "prayer f o r general r e l i e f " i n h i s motion seeking r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 1 o r d e r h a s no e f f e c t on our r e a s o n i n g . 8 2100785 modification). does not and ascertain[] than pursuant that we a trial a l l the fewer Rule Rule a 54(b) 54(b), of obligation counterclaim 3d 900, Fielding, 843 impact t h a t the of the So. 2d his or R. Civ. court parties," a p p e a l as of as having to the final we do issues judgment not believe appropriate in to the make date see he filed King v. Barnes, 54 Fielding v. 2010), the and App. 2002), educational for paying and the postminority-educational- postminority counterclaim deciding i s permitted (Ala. Civ. responsible order a P., court App. 769 an w o u l d be trial Civ. 766, amount order the the resolving parties father's (Ala. of the certify a modification, 905 f a t h e r was filing Ala. the rights claims retroactive seeking the may certification modification support the a l l the Because would F e b r u a r y 2011 judgment. pending case. So. court's must d i s m i s s court than to present the declare[] from a n o n f i n a l Although involving and 2d a t 1253, So. been taken fewer trial " c o n c l u s i v e l y determine[] the i s s u e s before B e a n , 557 any Because the 5 his which support between the date date of the of February We n o t e t h a t we h a v e r e q u i r e d r e t r o a c t i v e a p p l i c a t i o n of p o s t m i n o r i t y - e d u c a t i o n a l - s u p p o r t o r d e r s s i n c e B a y l i s s v. B a y l i s s , 575 So. 2 d 1117 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 0 ) , was decided. 5 9 2100785 2011 order, instructions February 2011 we may that not the order trial as inconsistent results. the court trial counterclaim court final the the merits of that we properly 2011 order. cause the adjudicate of the appeal the the and, i f necessary, support the risk so of that pending father's o b l i g a t i o n by h o l d i n g a counterclaim with certifying incurring dismiss amount o f p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l February this consider modification postminority-educational-support on remand without Instead, can seeking simply trial adjust awarded i n the 6 The trial court's failure to address the father's counterclaim f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n of h i s p o s t m i n o r i t y - e d u c a t i o n a l s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n may h a v e b e e n p r o m p t e d b y i t s b e l i e f t h a t the mother c o u l d choose between e n f o r c i n g the settlement agreement between h e r and t h e f a t h e r o r s e e k i n g e n f o r c e m e n t of the d i v o r c e judgment through a contempt p e t i t i o n , a c h o i c e t o which the f a t h e r r e f e r s i n h i s motion seeking r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e F e b r u a r y 2011 o r d e r . However, a s e t t l e m e n t agreement i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o a d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t , l i k e t h e one i n the p r e s e n t case, l o s e s i t s c o n t r a c t u a l n a t u r e , i s subsumed i n t o t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t , a n d m u s t be e n f o r c e d l i k e a n y other judgment. T u r e n n e v . T u r e n n e , 884 So. 2d 844, 848 (Ala. 2003); East v. East, 395 So. 2d 78 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980) ( e x p l a i n i n g t h a t , i f an a g r e e m e n t i s n o t m e r g e d i n t o a j u d g m e n t , t h e a g r e e m e n t may be e n f o r c e d b y a c i v i l a c t i o n b u t t h a t , i f an a g r e e m e n t i s m e r g e d i n t o a j u d g m e n t , o n l y the j u d g m e n t may be e n f o r c e d ) ; Thomas v . C a m p b e l l , 960 So. 2 d 6 9 4 , 697 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ) ( q u o t i n g R a l l s v . R a l l s , 383 So. 2d 8 5 7 , 859 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 9 8 0 ) , o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , E x p a r t e B a y l i s s , 550 So. 2 d 9 8 6 , 994 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ) ( " R a t h e r , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a p e t i t i o n t o m o d i f y s u c h an 6 10 2100785 The mother's request for an attorney fee on appeal is denied. APPLICATION WITHDRAWN; OVERRULED; OPINION OPINION OF FEBRUARY SUBSTITUTED; APPEAL and Bryan, 3, DISMISSED 2012, WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P.J., Pittman, and Moore, JJ., concur. undertaking i s g o v e r n e d b y t h e p r i n c i p l e t h a t 'an a g r e e m e n t between the parties fixing child support payments, when i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o a judgment, becomes merged i n t o the judgment and t h e r e b y l o s e s i t s c o n t r a c t u a l n a t u r e t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t a c o u r t o f e q u i t y has t h e p o w e r t o m o d i f y t h e d e c r e e when changed circumstances so j u s t i f y . ' " ) ; see a l s o L i n d e n m u t h v. L i n d e n m u t h , 66 So. 3 d 267 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010). Thus, the mother must seek to enforce the father's postminorityeducational-support o b l i g a t i o n through a contempt p e t i t i o n , and the f a t h e r i s e n t i t l e d to seek a m o d i f i c a t i o n of h i s p o s t m i n o r i t y - e d u c a t i o n a l - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n i n response to her contempt p e t i t i o n . 11

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.