Jerry D. Jones v. Vanessa P. Jones

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 8/3/12 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2012 2110218 J e r r y D. Jones v. Vanessa P. Jones Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t Court (DR-08-672.01) BRYAN, J u d g e . Jerry D. J o n e s ("the father") e n t e r e d b y t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t appeals Court from a judgment ("the t r i a l court") t h a t m o d i f i e d h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n and o r d e r e d him t o make r e t r o a c t i v e payment t o V a n e s s a P. J o n e s ("the m o t h e r " ) 2110218 for one-half behalf of the p a r t i e s ' three The the of c e r t a i n expenses t h a t record trial indicates that court incorporated children on ("the c h i l d r e n " ) . t h e p a r t i e s were d i v o r c e d i n November an a g r e e m e n t she h a d i n c u r r e d 2008. The divorce by judgment o f t h e p a r t i e s , and, p u r s u a n t t o t h a t j u d g m e n t , t h e p a r t i e s were a w a r d 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 a n d t h e m o t h e r 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 . The father was awarded visitation o t h e r weekend, two o v e r n i g h t with the c h i l d r e n every v i s i t s e a c h week, a n d a d d i t i o n a l h o l i d a y a n d summer v i s i t a t i o n , w h i c h i n c l u d e d t h r e e weeks e a c h summer on d a t e s mutually agreed upon by t h e p a r t i e s . The f a t h e r was o r d e r e d t o p a y $450 a month i n c h i l d s u p p o r t , w h i c h represented a deviation from the child-support because the f a t h e r agreed t o provide the children while father were each "school-sponsored" conducted outside On S e p t e m b e r f o r the d a i l y t h e y were i n h i s c a r e . ordered of regular f o r the school of the cost children The 10, 2010, t h e m o t h e r mother alleged, 2 that of were attendance. filed a petition for contempt and a p e t i t i o n t o modify t h e f a t h e r ' s obligation. needs o f The m o t h e r a n d t h e t o pay one-half programs guidelines among other child-support things not 2110218 relevant to t h i s appeal, t h a t t h e f a t h e r had n o t e x e r c i s e d e x t e n d e d v i s i t a t i o n t h a t was child-support reimburse guidelines the mother the ground f o r d e v i a t i n g from the and for the that certain mother contended t h a t , because the the father had expenses. f a t h e r had failed to Further, the f a i l e d to abide by t h e t e r m s o f t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t , he s h o u l d be o r d e r e d pay child The mother father support pursuant also to pay to requested medical, R u l e 32, that the dental, A l a . R. trial Jud. court orthodontic, to Admin. order and the vision expenses f o r the c h i l d r e n . The 29, trial 2011. deviation The from j u d g m e n t was the court c o n d u c t e d an evidence the the c h i l d r e n and ore revealed child-support tenus hearing that guidelines Each p a r t y presented The t h a t the Most of the d i s p u t e d by the mother i n the t h e p r o v i s i o n t h a t he w o u l d p r o v i d e amount o f v i s i t a t i o n children. basis for other for evidence presented the with the e x e r c i s i n g custody evidence regarding f a t h e r had July divorce f a t h e r ' s award of e x t e n d e d v i s i t a t i o n m a t e r i a l needs o f t h e c h i l d r e n w h i l e he was of the c h i l d r e n . the on exercised with the the by each p a r t y was a spreadsheet of party. submitted into 3 evidence 2110218 e x p e n s e s t o t a l i n g $6,004.90 t h a t she had i n c u r r e d on b e h a l f the children since claimed that expenses, per judgment. paying the divorce father the The the was responsible agreement that he entered. for half incorporated father disputed one-half j u d g m e n t was into was She of the of those divorce responsible for o f t h o s e e x p e n s e s b e c a u s e , he a r g u e d , some o f t h e e x p e n s e s i n t h e m o t h e r ' s s p r e a d s h e e t were n o t e x p e n s e s f o r school-sponsored spreadsheet of bills The f o r the programs. Included on e x p e n s e were e x p e n d i t u r e s children that were n o t the r e l a t e d to c o v e r e d by f a t h e r o f f e r 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 l f of c e r t a i n medical mother's medical insurance. had paid e x p e n s e s f o r t h e c h i l d r e n , b a s e d upon an i n v o i c e t h a t t h e m o t h e r had t h a t t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t was s e n t him. The record indicates s i l e n t regarding which p a r t y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e payment o f t h e c h i l d r e n ' s m e d i c a l t h a t were n o t c o v e r e d by h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e . his own expense incurred report on report, behalf showed t h a t of he which the was showed children. providing t h e y were i n h i s c a r e , w h i c h was The one- The the He around 50% father offered averred he had that the children of the f a t h e r f u r t h e r a r g u e d t h a t h i s income was 4 expenses expenses f o r the was while time. materially 2110218 the same as had increased support i t had b e e n i n 2008 b u t so as obligation. to warrant However, i n i t i a l determination t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s income elimination the CS-42 of his forms child- used in the of the f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s income had a c t u a l l y i n c r e a s e d a month s i n c e t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t was $4,376, and $128 a that month $3,738 t o The the since entered, m o t h e r ' s income had the divorce judgment $127 f r o m $4,249 t o a c t u a l l y decreased was entered, from $3,610. r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e f a t h e r had p a i d t h e c o s t of health insurance f o r the c h i l d r e n d u r i n g the p a r t i e s ' marriage and continued that he insurance had a f t e r the to pay the parties divorced, of despite the health fact so. However, 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 c h i l d r e n ' s h e a l t h - i n the i . e . , $268 a month -- the father the p a r t i e s ' divorce child-support parties' support CS-42 c h i l d - s u p p o r t proceedings obligation, ultimately guidelines agreed due to to although, to the 5 a require him that divorce c o s t s -- specifically their the insurance judgment d i d not cost determine the noted deviation father's do were a t t r i b u t e d t o f o r m t h a t was as to from award used i n father's above, the of the childextended 2110218 visitation with children could at the cost the $25 each mother t e s t i f i e d t h a t insurance a month. At the through her conclusion party health would be insurance f o r the responsible for c h i l d r e n ' s m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s t h a t were n o t the employer of the ore the p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t h a t , i n the f u t u r e , mother would p r o v i d e that The receive health of tenus hearing, children. children one-half of c o v e r e d by the and the health insurance. On August judgment t h a t health above. 19, incorporated insurance The 2011, and the trial the court parties' noncovered medical entered a agreement regarding expenses discussed judgment f u r t h e r s t a t e d , i n p e r t i n e n t part: "2. That the C o u r t f i n d s t h a t the [ f a t h e r ] d i d n o t pay o n e - h a l f ( 1 / 2 ) o f t h e m e d i c a l b i l l s , nor one-half ( 1 / 2 ) of the s c h o o l - r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s to t h e [ m o t h e r ] . However, t h e [ f a t h e r ] c l a i m e d t h a t he d i d n o t r e c e i v e any n o t i c e o f a m a j o r i t y o f t h e s e b i l l s , and t h e [ m o t h e r ] c o n f i r m e d t h a t she d i d n o t s e n d them a f t e r he d i d n o t r e s p o n d t o t h e first notice. Therefore, the [ f a t h e r ] i s not found i n contempt of c o u r t . He i s , however, o r d e r e d t o r e i m b u r s e t h e [ m o t h e r ] $2,714.75, w h i c h r e p r e s e n t s o n e - h a l f ( 1 / 2 ) o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n what she p a i d f o r t h e s e b i l l s and what he has previously reimbursed her. The [ f a t h e r ] s h a l l pay t h a t s a i d amount a t t h e r a t e o f $100 a month u n t i l t h e same i s paid in f u l l . " 3 . T h a t t h e p a r t i e s o r i g i n a l l y a g r e e d on an amount o f c h i l d s u p p o r t w h i c h d i d n o t f o l l o w t h e 6 final 2110218 g u i d e l i n e s due t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e [ f a t h e r ] was g o i n g t o be k e e p i n g t h e c h i l d r e n more t h a n t h e amount o f t i m e t h a t w o u l d have b e e n a w a r d e d i n a regular v i s i t a t i o n order. T h e r e was conflicting t e s t i m o n y as t o w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e [ f a t h e r ] h a d f o l l o w e d t h e t e r m s o f t h e a g r e e m e n t , b u t t h e r e was insufficient evidence presented to come t o a c o n c l u s i o n one way o r t h e o t h e r w h e t h e r o r n o t he had followed the visitation as set out. Furthermore, the [mother] d i d t e s t i f y t h a t the [ f a t h e r ] i s now b a c k f o l l o w i n g t h e s c h e d u l e as s e t out i n the d i v o r c e agreement. T h e r e f o r e , s i n c e b o t h the income and the amount of visitation are r e l a t i v e l y t h e same as t h e y were a t t h e t i m e t h e a g r e e m e n t was e n t e r e d , t h i s C o u r t c o u l d f i n d no grounds t o j u s t i f y a m o d i f i c a t i o n i n c h i l d support at t h i s t i m e . " On motion that September pursuant the support trial pursuant 19, 2011, to Rule the mother f i l e d 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. court either to Rule 32 order or the modify a postjudgment C i v . P., father the requesting t o pay father's child child- support o b l i g a t i o n to r e f l e c t the c o s t of the h e a l t h insurance t h a t he no l o n g e r p a y s . postjudgment The trial c o u r t g r a n t e d the mother's m o t i o n i n p a r t , and i t i s s u e d an amended j u d g m e n t on O c t o b e r 19, 2011. The c o u r t a c k n o w l e d g e d t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t was a month f o r t h e " b e n e f i t t h a t , at the time e n t e r e d , t h e f a t h e r was paying $718 and w e l f a r e o f t h e c h i l d r e n . " The trial c o u r t made t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n by a d d i n g $450 a month i n child s u p p o r t p l u s $268 a month f o r h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e . 7 Thus, 2110218 the trial because court the agreed father health insurance, p a i d by the the no amount o f child the court child support. father timely On longer paying argument $268 a that, month for obligation. a modification The trial drop i n the [ f a t h e r ] ' s f i n a n c i a l significant trial mother's t h e r e had b e e n a " m a t e r i a l c h a n g e i n amounts father's child-support a the [ f a t h e r ] , " thereby j u s t i f y i n g that " [ t ] h i s is was with difference support." ordered and justifies B a s e d on the father Without f i l i n g any those to court held responsibility a change in f i n d i n g s of pay of $718 the fact, a month postjudgment motions, in the appealed. appeal, the father argues: (1) that the trial court improperly m o d i f i e d h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n because there had n o t b e e n a m a t e r i a l change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s and the t r i a l for c o u r t e r r e d by m a k i n g him c e r t a i n e x p e n s e s t h a t he was judgment t o Our retroactively (2) that responsible not o b l i g a t e d by the divorce pay. standard for reviewing these issues i s w e l l settled: "When a t r i a l c o u r t h e a r s o r e t e n u s e v i d e n c e , i t s j u d g m e n t b a s e d on f a c t s f o u n d f r o m t h a t e v i d e n c e w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l u n l e s s t h e j u d g m e n t i s n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e and i s p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y wrong. T h r a s h e r v. W i l b u r n , 574 So. 2d 839, 841 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 0 ) . F u r t h e r , m a t t e r s o f 8 2110218 c h i l d s u p p o r t a r e w i t h i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e trial court and w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d absent e v i d e n c e o f an a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n o r e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t i s p l a i n l y a n d p a l p a b l y wrong. I d . " Spencer 2001). v. S p e n c e r , ( A l a . C i v . App. However, t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s a p p l i c a t i o n o f l a w t o f a c t s i s r e v i e w e d de novo. (Ala. 812 So. 2d 1284, 1286 See L a d d e n v. L a d d e n , 49 So. 3d 702, 712 C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) . The father concluding first that circumstances Specifically, argues there since had the he c o n t e n d s that the t r i a l been entry that a of court material the the t r i a l divorce court erred change by in judgment. incorrectly a p p l i e d t h e l a w when i t m o d i f i e d h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n to reflect the cost of the health insurance t h a t he was no longer providing f o r the c h i l d r e n . Rule pertinent 32(A)(3)(c), A l a . R. J u d . Admin., states, part: " T h e r e s h a l l be a r e b u t t a b l e p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t c h i l d support should be m o d i f i e d when t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e e x i s t i n g c h i l d - s u p p o r t award and t h e amount d e t e r m i n e d b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e s e g u i d e l i n e s v a r i e s more t h a n t e n p e r c e n t (10%), unless the v a r i a t i o n i s due t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e e x i s t i n g c h i l d - s u p p o r t award r e s u l t e d from a r e b u t t a l o f t h e g u i d e l i n e s a n d t h e r e h a s been no change i n t h e circumstances that r e s u l t e d i n the r e b u t t a l of the guidelines." 9 in 2110218 I t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e between t h e f a t h e r ' s o r i g i n a l c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n v a r i e d b y more t h a n 1 0 % f r o m the amount determined guidelines. However, obligation was by application the father's of the child-support original child-support the r e s u l t of a r e b u t t a l of the guidelines b e c a u s e i t was by " f a i r , w r i t t e n a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s establishing a therefor." Rule modification of proper i f there different amount 32(A)(i), the and A l a . R. father's stating Jud. child-support "'has b e e n [ a ] change the reasons Admin. Thus, obligation i n the was circumstances that r e s u l t e d i n the [ i n i t i a l ] r e b u t t a l of the g u i d e l i n e s . ' " Duke v. Duke, (quoting former 872 So. Rule 2d 153, 157 32(A)(3)(b), A l t h o u g h the mother a l l e g e d t h a t the circumstances that resulted ( A l a . C i v . App. A l a . R. there in Jud. 2003) Admin.). 1 h a d b e e n a change i n the rebuttal of the g u i d e l i n e s , i . e . , t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d n o t been e x e r c i s i n g h i s visitation to the f u l l extent, the t r i a l court d i d not find that the circumstance that r e s u l t e d i n the i n i t i a l r e b u t t a l of E f f e c t i v e J a n u a r y 1, 2009, " [ f ] o r m e r s u b s e c t i o n (b) o f R u l e 3 2 ( A ) ( 3 ) was moved t o s u b s e c t i o n ( c ) . " Comment t o Amendments t o R u l e 32, A l a . R. J u d . Admin., E f f e c t i v e J a n u a r y 1, 2009. 1 10 2110218 t h e g u i d e l i n e s h a d c h a n g e d s o as t o w a r r a n t m o d i f i c a t i o n u n d e r Rule 32(A)(3)(c). a rebuttable A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e m o t h e r was n o t e n t i t l e d t o presumption o b l i g a t i o n was due t o be However, even when that the father's child-support modified. there i s no r e b u t t a b l e presumption t h a t a p a r t y ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n s h o u l d be m o d i f i e d , have h e l d we that "a t r i a l c o u r t may [ s t i l l ] m o d i f y a c h i l d - s u p p o r t award 'upon proof of a material change of circumstances t h a t i s s u b s t a n t i a l and c o n t i n u i n g . ' E.g., Romano v. Romano, 703 So. 2d 374, 375 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) . See a l s o W i l l i a m s v. B r a d d y , 689 So. 2d 154 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996) ( e x p l a i n i n g t h a t t h e ' m a t e r i a l change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s ' standard applies even i f the presumption i n favor of m o d i f i c a t i o n under [ f o r m e r ] Rule 32(A)(3)(b) i s n o t applicable). See g e n e r a l l y Thomas v . V a n h o r n , 876 So. 2d 488, 491 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) ('Childs u p p o r t judgments a r e never a b s o l u t e l y " f i n a l " i n the s t r i c t e s t sense, because such judgments a r e a l w a y s s u b j e c t t o m o d i f i c a t i o n i n t h e f u t u r e upon a s h o w i n g o f a m a t e r i a l change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s . ' ) . " R e e v e s v. R e e v e s , 894 So. 2d 712, 714 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 4 ) . T h i s c o u r t has h e l d t h a t " ' [ t ] h e s t a n d a r d changed c i r c u m s t a n c e s the for determining i s t h e i n c r e a s e d needs o f t h e c h i l d a n d a b i l i t y o f t h e parent t o respond t o those needs.'" v. A l l e n , Coleman 966 So. 2d 929, 932 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) v. Coleman, 648 So. 2d 11 605, 606 (Ala. Allen (quoting C i v . App. 2110218 1994)). be A l t h o u g h the i n c u r r i n g an children, this c o u r t has does circumstances. increase the not constitute See R e e v e s , 894 children's "not constitute c o n d i t i o n s , and of a month f o r t h e record So. expenses a to a i n the material lead us the needs, c o n d i t i o n s , Because material was the mother to failed we conclude in (holding that an amount o f to prove that a the needs, children"). Our review any other evidence been a m a t e r i a l that since the $30 in or c i r c u m s t a n c e s of the change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s entered, the change change m i g h t s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e r e has in material 2d a t 715 c i r c u m s t a n c e s of the fails needs o f h e l d t h a t such a minimal a d d i t i o n a l i n the did i n d i c a t e s t h a t the mother would a d d i t i o n a l $25 expense monthly month record the trial there change children. has divorce court that been 2 a judgment erred by We n o t e t h a t t h i s c o u r t has h e l d t h a t " t h e i n c r e a s e i n age o f a m i n o r c h i l d and t h e c o r r e l a t i v e i n c r e a s e i n n e e d f o r s u p p o r t , when c o u p l e d w i t h t h e i n c r e a s e i n t h e c o s t o f l i v i n g due to i n f l a t i o n [over a p e r i o d of seven y e a r s ] , [was] s u f f i c i e n t t o c o n s t i t u t e a m a t e r i a l change o f circumstances," where t h e f a t h e r ' s income had i n c r e a s e d and t h e m o t h e r had r e c e n t l y become u n e m p l o y e d . C a m p b e l l v. T o l b e r t , 656 So. 2d 828, 829-30 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1994) . However, i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , o n l y two y e a r s had p a s s e d s i n c e t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d and t h e t r i a l j u d g e f o u n d t h a t " t h e p a r t i e s were m a k i n g a b o u t t h e same amount as t h e y were m a k i n g when t h e o r i g i n a l s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t was e n t e r e d i n t o . " 2 12 2110218 modifying the f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n . Accordingly, t h a t a s p e c t of the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment i s r e v e r s e d , and c a u s e i s remanded f o r t h e e n t r y o f a j u d g m e n t c o n s i s t e n t this the with opinion. The father requiring him also to argues reimburse that the the trial court mother for one-half e x p e n s e s she had i n c u r r e d on b e h a l f o f t h e c h i l d r e n . erred of wholly f a i l e d t o comply w i t h R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , P., w h i c h r e q u i r e s an a p p e l l a n t t o c i t e and other a u t h o r i t i e s the appellant relies a r g u m e n t s made on a p p e a l . See 1234, 2010) 1244 ( A l a . C i v . App. L.L.C. v. PRS I I , LLC, appellant's failure this with court argument). a 998 to So. S w i n d l e v. 2d 1042, basis for Accordingly, that o f c e r t a i n e x p e n s e s she father A l a . R. cases, App. statutes, on t o s u p p o r t Swindle, 55 So. the 3d ( q u o t i n g W h i t e Sands G r o u p , comply w i t h judgment t h a t r e q u i r e s the the the However, we w i l l n o t a d d r e s s t h a t a r g u m e n t on a p p e a l b e c a u s e t h e has by 1058 Rule ( A l a . 2008)) 28(a)(10) disregarding aspect of f a t h e r t o pay the the (the provides appellant's trial court's the mother one-half i n c u r r e d on b e h a l f o f t h e c h i l d r e n i s 13 2110218 affirmed. 3 Accordingly, the t r i a l court's judgment father's child-support o b l i g a t i o n i s reversed, is remanded w i t h instructions to the t r i a l judgment c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n . trial court's modifying the and t h e cause court to enter a The r e m a i n d e r o f t h e judgment i s a f f i r m e d . AFFIRMED I N PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Pittman a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t with Thompson, writing. P.J., concurs i n part writing. and d i s s e n t s i n part, Although t h i s court w i l l not address the merits of the f a t h e r ' s a r g u m e n t on a p p e a l , we n o t e t h a t t h e t r i a l court c o u l d have c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r , d u r i n g h i s t e s t i m o n y a t the o r e tenus h e a r i n g , a c c e p t e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r p a y i n g oneh a l f o f any n o n c o v e r e d m e d i c a l expenses t h a t had been i n c u r r e d by t h e c h i l d r e n , d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t t h e d i v o r c e judgment did n o t r e q u i r e h i m t o do c o n t r i b u t e t o o n e - h a l f o f any noncovered medical expenses. 3 14 2110218 THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g in part. I w o u l d a f f i r m t h e judgment entirety. Therefore, main o p i n i o n the i n p a r t and d i s s e n t i n g court I must r e s p e c t f u l l y d i s s e n t to the extent judgment m o d i f y i n g of the t r i a l that i t reverses ini t s from the that portion of the f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n . 15

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.