Charles Lee Robbins, Sr. v. State of Alabama ex rel. Mary Beth Robbins Priddy

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/26/2012 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, 2012-2013 2110294 C h a r l e s Lee Robbins, S r . v. S t a t e o f Alabama ex r e l . Mary Beth Robbins Priddy Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t (DR-88-555.02) Court PITTMAN, J u d g e . Charles Lee Robbins, S r . ("the f a t h e r " ) , has appealed f r o m an o r d e r e n t e r e d b y t h e M a d i s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t court") i ngarnishment proceedings ("the trial i n i t i a t e d by the State o f A l a b a m a on t h e r e l a t i o n o f t h e f a t h e r ' s f o r m e r w i f e , Mary B e t h Robbins P r i d d y the father ("the m o t h e r " ) , t o t h e garnishment denying objections of h i s retirement lodged by benefits 2110294 payable by t h e U n i t e d States Social Security ( h e r e i n a f t e r "SSA" o r " t h e g a r n i s h e e " ) . to which the father seeks appellate j u d g m e n t t h a t w i l l s u p p o r t an a p p e a l , Administration B e c a u s e t h e o r d e r as review i s not a we d i s m i s s final the father's appeal. The by m a r r i a g e o f t h e m o t h e r a n d t h e f a t h e r was d i s s o l v e d a judgment o f d i v o r c e entered by t h e t r i a l court i n 1988. A l t h o u g h t h a t j u d g m e n t does n o t a p p e a r i n t h e r e c o r d , be ascertained i t can f r o m s u b s e q u e n t f i l i n g s t h a t t h a t j u d g m e n t (a) awarded c u s t o d y t o t h e mother o f t h e minor c h i l d r e n born o f t h a t m a r r i a g e i n 1983 a n d 1985 a n d (b) d i r e c t e d t h e f a t h e r t o pay support trial court f o r t h e c h i l d r e n t o t h e mother. entered a judgment d e t e r m i n i n g I n 1995, t h e that the father owed t h e m o t h e r $743 i n u n r e i m b u r s e d m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d on the children's behalf, p r o v i s i o n s then i n e f f e c t . but i t d i d not a l t e r any s u p p o r t As o f S e p t e m b e r 1995, t h e f a t h e r ' s m o n t h l y c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n was $ 7 5 0 , b u t t h a t o b l i g a t i o n increased parties t o $800 p e r month until r e a c h e d t h e age o f m a j o r i t y the older child i n December 2002, w h i c h t h e f a t h e r was t o p a y $400 p e r month u n t i l child reached undisputed that t h e age of majority i n June of the after t h e younger 2004. t h e f a t h e r d i d n o t make any payments It is toward s a t i s f y i n g t h e $743 m e d i c a l - e x p e n s e j u d g m e n t u n t i l 2004, when 2 2110294 he p a i d $ 1 8 1 . 0 7 ; f u r t h e r , t h e f a t h e r d i d n o t p a y m o n t h l y support full from September and t h r e e 1995 u n t i l partial June 2004 e x c e p t payments. B y December child f o r one 2009, t h e aggregate o f t h e f a t h e r ' s unpaid monetary o b l i g a t i o n s t o t h e mother, annum, including postjudgment s e e A l a . Code i n t e r e s t a t 12 p e r c e n t p e r 1975, § 8-8-10, before i t s 2011 amendment, h a d grown t o o v e r $ 1 6 7 , 0 0 0 . P u r s u a n t t o 42 U.S.C. § 6 5 4 ( 4 ) ( A ) , provides o f Alabama s e r v i c e s r e l a t i n g t o the enforcement o f c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n s upon a p p l i c a t i o n t h e r e f o r . issuance the State The S t a t e caused the o f an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e i n c o m e - w i t h h o l d i n g o r d e r t o SSA i n A u g u s t 2009 upon b e i n g ("IWO") n o t i f i e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r was r e c e i v i n g income f r o m SSA. However, t h e f a t h e r ' s a t t o r n e y a t that time n o t i f i e d counsel appropriate" had f o r t h e S t a t e t h a t an IWO was " n o t because t h e mother's and t h e f a t h e r ' s r e a c h e d t h e age o f m a j o r i t y . that withholding 1 children The S t a t e t h e n n o t i f i e d SSA p u r s u a n t t o t h e IWO s h o u l d not continue. A t one t i m e , A l a b a m a l a w d i d n o t a l l o w t h e u s e o f an IWO as a t o o l t o c o l l e c t u n p a i d c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n s f r o m n o n p a y i n g o b l i g o r s a f t e r t h e c h i l d r e n who h a d been t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e u n d e r l y i n g c h i l d - s u p p o r t awards h a d a t t a i n e d t h e age o f majority. See W.L.S. v . K.S.S.V., 810 So. 2 d 777, 780 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) , a n d S h e e l e y v . Chapman, 953 So. 2d 1252, 1259 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 6 ) . However, t h e s t a t u t e r e l i e d upon i n b o t h W.L.S. a n d S h e e l e y , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , § 30-3-60, was amended i n 2009 s o as t o a l l o w f o r t h e i s s u a n c e o f IWOs f o r "enforcement p o s t - m a j o r i t y of arrearages accrued during m i n o r i t y " as w e l l as a c c r u e d i n t e r e s t . See A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , § 30-3-60(10)c. 1 3 2110294 H a v i n g r e l e a s e d SSA f r o m t h e IWO, t h e S t a t e n e x t began t o seek s a t i s f a c t i o n of the f a t h e r ' s via On F e b r u a r y 4, 2010, garnishment. attorney form filed i n the t r i a l court (Unified Judicial which i t was $165,933.58 unpaid support o b l i g a t i o n a "Process of S y s t e m Form C-21) averred and an a s s i s t a n t that that the the district Garnishment" d i r e c t e d t o SSA father owed garnishee the should in mother withhold compensation payable t o the f a t h e r to s a t i s f y t h a t o b l i g a t i o n . The f o r m a l s o s t a t e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t the r i g h t to claim plaintiff (i.e. , exemption claim claim. The exemption the from garnishment mother) within 15 ( i . e . , the father) had days the and r i g h t to a f t e r the had that the contest any filing of such a f a t h e r f i l e d an o b j e c t i o n t o g a r n i s h m e n t i n w h i c h he a s s e r t e d t h a t S o c i a l S e c u r i t y c o m p e n s a t i o n was exempt f r o m garnishment, to which the State r e p l i e d that such benefits were s u s c e p t i b l e t o g a r n i s h m e n t p u r s u a n t t o 42 U.S.C. § the father defense to later the orally proposed father's objection. 2, 2010, determining asserted a statute-of-limitations garnishment at The t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d that Social 659; a hearing on the an o r d e r on A p r i l Security benefits were subject to garnishment but that garnishment could nonetheless not proceed because the u n d e r l y i n g 4 divorce judgment had not 2110294 been r e v i v e d . garnishment No a p p e a l was t a k e n f r o m t h a t o r d e r b a r r i n g t h e from g o i n g forward. I n J u n e 2010, t h e S t a t e f i l e d the underlying 1990 divorce judgment a motion seeking f o r t h e months o f F e b r u a r y t h r o u g h J u n e 2004, t h e month o f t h e y o u n g e r birthday. That Thereafter, on J u l y 30, 2010, t h e S t a t e f i l e d 21 s e e k i n g motion t o $171,986.71. asserting under by the trial by judicata, he personal The that a l l e g e d i n t h a t f o r m t o have f a t h e r r e p l i e d to the f i l i n g his Social Security the applicable filed an e x e m p t i o n property needed t o pay October statute of the form benefits of increased were exempt claim limitations, by and by c o l l a t e r a l e s t o p p e l ; a l s o , on S e p t e m b e r of of the garnishment 2010, exemption f i l i n g , only a claimed motor was res 17, to own vehicle and t h a t h i s S o c i a l S e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s were for "necessaries." a stay 6, f o r m i n w h i c h he consisting c l o t h i n g and a s s e r t e d granted court. a s e c o n d Form C- f e d e r a l and A l a b a m a l a w and t h a t t h e S t a t e ' s barred 2010, granted c h i l d ' s 19th a w r i t o f g a r n i s h m e n t d i r e c t e d t o SSA; t h e f a t h e r ' s u n p a i d o b l i g a t i o n was by was r e v i v a l of more than 15 The trial court s o u g h t by days after thereafter the State. the the State responded t o t h a t f i l i n g , On father's and t h e f a t h e r t h e r e a f t e r moved t o d i s m i s s t h e g a r n i s h m e n t p r o c e e d i n g s b e c a u s e t h e S t a t e h a d f a i l e d t o r e s p o n d w i t h i n 15 d a y s t o h i s 5 2110294 exemption f i l i n g . After a hearing, j u d g m e n t on December 21, 2010, dismiss. On the No a p p e a l was January 3, taken from t h a t 2011, SSA the asserted that father's Social father's corrected number. State were State C-21 from (67 due then f i l e d and provision a "grave continued in t o own w h i c h he had days l a t e r , the and $100 no whether the deemed subject to c a u s e d t o be that served Social father again f i l e d a claim the and economic status undue financial December i n personal equity e f f e c t s and interest. father f i l e d On claim. the 15-day d e a d l i n e and That motion t o d i s m i s s was 6 and would that M a r c h 30, responding at he a motor v e h i c l e a motion to dismiss for of 21, (unemployed hardship"; a Security f u r t h e r garnishment e f f o r t s ; t h a t , t h i r d garnishment attempt, a v e r r i n g t h a t the missed and the father's averring court be determine to the trial i n d i g e n t ) , garnishment of h i s S o c i a l S e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s cause C-21; of be the a t h i r d Form without to garnishment, years) filed form to the number, 2011, judgment b a r r e d age that bearing On M a r c h 11, a judgment. a l l e g e d i n t h a t form t o impossible, Security The Form exemption his i t was benefits garnishment. 2010, returned court entered g r a n t i n g the f a t h e r ' s motion to f a t h e r ' s u n p a i d o b l i g a t i o n was $171,986.71. the t r i a l 2011, the State's S t a t e had to his g r a n t e d on A p r i l 19 again exemption 8, 2011; 2110294 a g a i n , no a p p e a l was of the S t a t e ' s On the t h i r d garnishment April 12, father's another that the barred to garnishment 21, 2010, economic his filed father April efforts; $100 Social Security had no i n personal equity filed a contest 2011, a f t e r which the The father filed of On the at benefits 5, averring judgments his and May on 2011, that, to age (67 indigent), would cause a to he this occasion, the exemption court claim set a hearing on timely May i n the 18, case. of the f o u r t h g a r n i s h m e n t e f f o r t as b e i n g barred the doctrine of res $1,200 s e c u r e d t h r o u g h an e a r l i e r IWO; the papers supporting the reimbursement of State and the father by then f i l e d State's additional and o p p o s i n g t h e p r o p r i e t y o f g a r n i s h m e n t o f father's Social Security benefits. the t r i a l and seeking State dismissal j u d i c a t a and a motion form and t h a t he c o n t i n u e d father's trial 8, C-21; a motor v e h i c l e i n w h i c h e f f e c t s and interest. filed, (unemployed " g r a v e and undue f i n a n c i a l h a r d s h i p " ; own i n that from garnishment, and status a f o u r t h Form alleged The of exemption garnishment of State $175,408.29. December and the disposing effort. o b l i g a t i o n was claim further years) 2011, unpaid have i n c r e a s e d 2011, t a k e n from the judgment f i n a l l y court entered an o r d e r h i s exemption c l a i m ; A u g u s t 11, denying the however, t h a t 7 On order 2011, f a t h e r ' s motions d i d not direct 2110294 SSA, the garnishee, t o u n d e r t a k e any a c t i o n s f o r t h e b e n e f i t of the S t a t e or the On August district mother. 30, attorney, 2011, filed u n p a i d o b l i g a t i o n was to $177,496.27. attacking 2011, the ruling the a State, fifth through a different C-21, the father's Form a l l e g e d i n t h a t f o r m t o have After that f i l i n g , correctness of on t h e S t a t e ' s increased the f a t h e r f i l e d the trial court's f o u r t h garnishment a motion August effort 11, and a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s and a c o n t e s t o f g a r n i s h m e n t d i r e c t e d t o t h e State's fifth garnishment effort; i n h i s c l a i m of exemption and m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s d i r e c t e d t o t h e f i f t h g a r n i s h m e n t the father averred, effects i n addition to invoking of the judgments garnishment efforts, on t h e S t a t e ' s that d i a g n o s i s of colon cancer, lungs" and that he was d i s a b l e d c u r r e n t spouse he had sole first "received with metastasis "the any care form, preclusive through a third tentative i n t o the l i v e r provider and for" his (who, he s a i d , h a d a l s o b e e n d i a g n o s e d w i t h c a n c e r and h a d r e q u i r e d t h r e e m a j o r o r g a n t r a n s p l a n t s ) . After further filings regarding the legal and factual soundness of the f a t h e r ' s a t t e m p t s t o r e s i s t the S t a t e ' s fifth g a r n i s h m e n t e f f o r t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s s u e d an o r d e r on O c t o b e r 12, 2011, ruling against the f a t h e r ' s contest and e x e m p t i o n ; h o w e v e r , t h a t o r d e r d i d n o t compel SSA as 8 claims of garnishee 2110294 t o u n d e r t a k e any a c t i o n s on b e h a l f o f t h e S t a t e o r t h e m o t h e r . The father's motion November 15, The seeking and to set aside that order was denied on 2011. father f i l e d review of the claims of a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l on December 19, t r i a l court's exemption garnishment e f f o r t . directed d e n i a l of h i s to the 2011, objections State's fifth A f t e r a review of the p e r t i n e n t statutes and c a s e l a w a p p l i c a b l e t o g a r n i s h m e n t p r o c e e d i n g s , we conclude t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s a p p e a l i s p r e m a t u r e : t h e r e i s , as o f y e t , final judgment i n the case i n f a v o r of the mother a g a i n s t that aggrieves The the principal has, 6 of the body o f statutes 1975 that ... in plaintiff may obtain the possession or under that 9 of Chapter the of the garnishment named g a r n i s h e e by filing i s believed A l a . Code 1975, §§ may an to be See instances, however, Alabama's g a r n i s h m e n t s t a t u t e s of a issue affidavit from the therefor. 9 of § 6-6-370. h o l d i n g a j u d g m e n t on w h i c h e x e c u t i o n process 6 typically control A l a . Code 1975, s t a t i n g , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e amount due and garnishment s u b j e c t money o r e f f e c t s o f a t h i r d person," i . e . , a garnishee. Any govern A l a b a m a Code; s u c h a p r o c e e d i n g as i t s g o a l , " t o r e a c h and defendant SSA father. p r o c e e d i n g s i n Alabama appears i n A r t i c l e Title no defendant chargeable 6-6-390 & 6-6-391. In such recognize 2110294 that both the putative garnishee and e n t i t l e d t o n o t i c e a n d an o p p o r t u n i t y interest e n t i t l e d to assert their 6-6-394, statutes 6-6-450, further are t o a p p e a r as p a r t i e s i n See A l a . Code 1975, §§ 6¬ & 6-6-459. provide defendant r e s p e c t i v e p o s i t i o n s as t o the p l a i n t i f f ' s garnishment c l a i m . 6-393, the f o r the Alabama's garnishment entry of a conditional judgment a g a i n s t a n o n a p p e a r i n g and nonanswering g a r n i s h e e and an a d d i t i o n a l p e r i o d d u r i n g w h i c h s u c h a g a r n i s h e e may a p p e a r before See t h e c o n d i t i o n a l j u d g m e n t i s made an a b s o l u t e A l a . Code 1975, § 6-6-457. judgment. I n c o n t r a s t , when a g a r n i s h e e appears and answers t h e p r o c e s s o f g a r n i s h m e n t , t h e p l a i n t i f f may, b y s t a t u t e , c o n t r o v e r t which a hearing t h e answer w i t h i n 30 d a y s , on t h e c o n t r o v e r s y i s t o take place. after See A l a . Code 1975, § 6-6-458. As merely to that appeals, Alabama's " [ a ] n appeal lies garnishment ... article states at the instance of the p l a i n t i f f , the defendant, the garnishee, claimant." appellate A l a . Code 1975, § or the contestant, 6-6-464. The question j u r i s d i c t i o n under the p r e d e c e s s o r t o t h a t was e x a m i n e d b y o u r supreme c o u r t in which that court indicated the necessity j u d g m e n t o r d e c r e e , " as i s r e q u i r e d 10 of a of statute i n S t e i n e r B r o s . v. N a t i o n a l Bank o f B i r m i n g h a m , 115 A l a . 379, 22 So. 30 or First (1897), "final i n appeals generally, i n 2110294 order to support an appeal in a garnishment action and i d e n t i f i e d t h e c l a s s e s o f o r d e r s t h a t w o u l d s u p p o r t an a p p e a l : " [ T ] h e j u d g m e n t r e n d e r e d , as b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s , the p l a i n t i f f i n s t i t u t i n g i t , and t h e g a r n i s h e e s t a n d i n g i n t h e r e l a t i o n o f a d e f e n d a n t , has a l l t h e properties and qualities of finality and c o n c l u s i v e n e s s o f a j u d g m e n t r e n d e r e d i n any o t h e r c i v i l suit. A judgment a g a i n s t the g a r n i s h e e i n f a v o r o f t h e p l a i n t i f f , as f i n a l l y and c o n c l u s i v e l y f i x e s and d e t e r m i n e s t h e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e g a r n i s h e e and t h e r i g h t s o f t h e p l a i n t i f f as i f i t had b e e n r e n d e r e d i n a s u i t i n t e r p a r t e s commenced i n t h e o r d i n a r y mode o f i n s t i t u t i n g c i v i l s u i t s ; and s u c h i s i n e f f e c t the d e c l a r a t i o n of the s t a t u t e . A judgment a g a i n s t the p l a i n t i f f , d i s c h a r g i n g the g a r n i s h e e [ ] t h e o n l y f i n a l j u d g m e n t w h i c h can be r e n d e r e d i n h i s f a v o r [ ] as c o n c l u s i v e l y a d j u d g e s t h a t he was n o t s u b j e c t t o t h e p r o c e s s , was n o t t h e d e b t o r o f t h e p l a i n t i f f , and had n o t p o s s e s s i o n , o r custody, or c o n t r o l of e f f e c t s of such debtor. Either judgment the one i n f a v o r of the p l a i n t i f f , or t h a t i n f a v o r of the garnishee concludes the r i g h t s of the p a r t i e s i n r e s p e c t to the cause of a c t i o n i n v o l v e d the m a t t e r of r i g h t a s s e r t e d by t h e one and d e n i e d by t h e o t h e r . " 115 Ala. at 384, 22 So. at 31 (emphasis added; citations omitted). Those p r i n c i p l e s were l a t e r a p p l i e d i n a s e t t i n g similar t o t h a t p r e s e n t i n t h i s a p p e a l i n Edwards v. E d w a r d s , 249 A l a . 350, 31 So. 2d 69 (1947). In Edwards, the former wife was a w a r d e d p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y p u r s u a n t t o a 1929 j u d g m e n t d i v o r c i n g her from the obligation terminated. former was husband; reduced I n 1945, the in although 1930 former 11 and the former 1933, w i f e sought i t husband's was not to g a r n i s h the 2110294 former h u s b a n d ' s wages e a r n e d former husband then filed garnishment proceedings. from a railroad a motion The company; the those court denied the trial s e e k i n g t o quash former husband's motion t o quash w i t h o u t a d d r e s s i n g the d u t y o f the railroad company to withhold h u s b a n d ' s wages, a f t e r appeal. Our supreme any portion of which the former husband court d i s m i s s e d the t h a t " t h e o n l y o r d e r made h e r e was the attempted to appeal, observing preliminary i n character" and r u l i n g t h a t i t " w i l l n o t s u p p o r t an a p p e a l . " 351-52, 31 So. former 249 A l a . a t 2d a t 70. B o t h o f t h e f o r e g o i n g o p i n i o n s were a p p a r e n t l y o v e r l o o k e d by t h i s c o u r t when i t d e c i d e d Ex p a r t e W a l t e r s , 646 So. 2d (Ala. any C i v . App. authority 1 9 9 4 ) , i n w h i c h we 154 held, without c i t a t i o n to o t h e r t h a n § 6-6-464 i t s e l f , t h a t mandamus t o r e v i e w a d e n i a l o f a motion t o quash a p r o c e s s of garnishment would not l i e because another adequate remedy (i.e., appeal) purportedly e x i s t e d to review that d e n i a l . See 646 So. 2d a t 155. statute, However, decisions of our Edwards, holding proceedings only rights this court supreme that i s bound, court, appeal from judgments of the p l a i n t i f f such will that by as Steiner lie finally in by the Bros. and garnishment adjudicate the and t h e named g a r n i s h e e w i t h r e s p e c t 12 2110294 to each o t h e r . Walters To t h e e x t e n t t h a t i t h e l d o t h e r w i s e , i s hereby e x p r e s s l y Ex parte overruled. F o r a l l t h a t a p p e a r s i n t h e r e c o r d , as t o b o t h t h e fourth g a r n i s h m e n t e f f o r t and t h e f i f t h g a r n i s h m e n t e f f o r t u n d e r t a k e n by the State in this case, the trial court t o date has, in effect, done n o t h i n g more t h a n deny a d e f e n d a n t ' s e f f o r t s to prevent the garnishment from p r o c e e d i n g to a f i n a l judgment; n o t a b l y , SSA has n o t y e t a p p e a r e d i n any c a p a c i t y t h e r e i n , and the or S t a t e has an absolute not sought the e n t r y of a c o n d i t i o n a l judgment judgment against SSA. There i s , therefore, c u r r e n t l y no f i n a l j u d g m e n t as t o t h e f i f t h g a r n i s h m e n t e f f o r t f r o m w h i c h an a p p e a l w i l l l i e . supra. The f a t h e r ' s appeal See S t e i n e r B r o s . and i s , therefore, Edwards, dismissed. 2 APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P.J., and Bryan, Thomas, and Moore, JJ., concur. We n o t e t h a t , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., upon t h e i s s u a n c e o f t h i s c o u r t ' s c e r t i f i c a t e o f j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s A u g u s t 11, 2011, and O c t o b e r 12, 2011, orders w i l l a g a i n be " s u b j e c t t o r e v i s i o n a t any t i m e b e f o r e the e n t r y o f j u d g m e n t a d j u d i c a t i n g a l l t h e c l a i m s and t h e r i g h t s and l i a b i l i t i e s o f a l l t h e p a r t i e s . " 2 13

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.