Barbara Jo Jeter Nail v. Barry Jeter

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/21/2012 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2012 2110323 Barbara Jo J e t e r N a i l v. Barry J e t e r Appeal from M a r s h a l l C i r c u i t (DR-10-262.01) Court THOMAS, J u d g e . Barbara Jo J e t e r Nail ("the m o t h e r " ) a n d B a r r y Jeter ("the f a t h e r " ) were d i v o r c e d on November 4, 2010. The p a r t i e s have two c h i l d r e n , B a r r y Max ("Max") a n d Emma (sometimes h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o c o l l e c t i v e l y as " t h e c h i l d r e n " ) . The 2110323 divorce of judgment awarded t h e f a t h e r p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l the c h i l d r e n . petition On April i n the Marshall 5, 2011, t h e mother custody filed a C i r c u i t C o u r t i n w h i c h she s o u g h t , among o t h e r t h i n g s , p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n , postminority educational s u p p o r t f o r Max, a n d a h e a r i n g on h e r a l l e g a t i o n t h a t t h e f a t h e r had f a i l e d t o comply w i t h t h e terms of t h e d i v o r c e judgment r e g a r d i n g property. a the transfer of her personal The f a t h e r a n s w e r e d t h e m o t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n a n d f i l e d things, the mother had caused t h e b a l a n c e o f t h e c r e d i t - c a r d account that he counterpetition claiming h a d b e e n made r e s p o n s i b l e increase father that, other f o r i n the divorce i n t h e amount o f $ 4 , 6 2 0 . filed among On A u g u s t a contempt motion a l l e g i n g that judgment t o 17, 2011, t h e t h e m o t h e r was i n f l u e n c i n g Max t o d i s o b e y t h e f a t h e r i n an a t t e m p t t o " ' w i n ' her case o f custody." The m o t h e r r e s p o n d e d t o t h e f a t h e r ' s contempt m o t i o n , d e n y i n g t h e f a t h e r ' s On September allegation. 22, 2 0 1 1 , t h e m o t h e r filed a motion to compel t h e f a t h e r t o produce h i s c e l l u l a r - t e l e p h o n e records. She of h i s asserted that cellular-telephone father had f a i l e d she had requested production r e c o r d s on A u g u s t 22, 2 0 1 1 , b u t t h a t t h e t o p r o d u c e them. 2 The f a t h e r responded t o 2110323 the mother's telephone motion records t o compel, stating were " i m m a t e r i a l , to l e a d t o d i s c o v e r a b l e evidence, that his cellular- irrelevant, not intended a n d s h o u l d n o t be p r o d u c e d . " He c l a i m e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r i n t e n d e d t o " m i s u s e " o r " a t t e m p t t o harm" the father with the information cellular-telephone records. deny t h e m o t h e r ' s m o t i o n that the t r i a l contained purpose telephone court He r e q u e s t e d t o compel o r , limit contained t h a t the t r i a l records A trial his court i n the alternative, t h e use of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n h i s c e l l u l a r - t e l e p h o n e records f o r which in t h e mother stated to the specific that his cellular- were n e e d e d . was h e l d on O c t o b e r 4, 2011, c o u r t heard ore tenus testimony. a t which the t r i a l The t r i a l court entered i t s j u d g m e n t on O c t o b e r 13, 2011, i n which i t t r a n s f e r r e d primary physical Max to custody of " d e c l i n e [ d ] t o s e t any v i s i t a t i o n [his] t h e mother, schedule" f o r Max "due t o age a n d [ h i s ] a c t i o n s [ , ] " d e c l i n e d t o t r a n s f e r o f Emma t o t h e m o t h e r o r t o change t h e m o t h e r ' s schedule steps specifically regarding necessary custody visitation Emma, d i r e c t e d t h e p a r t i e s t o " t a k e t h e t o ensure that the [ m a r i t a l residence] i s l i s t e d a t t h e p r i c e suggested by t h e l i s t i n g 3 agent," awarded 2110323 $3,000 t o t h e f a t h e r , and including, specifically, denied a l l other requested relief, p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l support for m o t h e r f i l e d a m o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e the Max. The trial court's filed a j u d g m e n t on response postjudgment and October 17, the the father amended response to the mother's A hearing was on the mother's motion. trial and an p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on December 7, 2011, 2011, court entered held 2011, and, on December i t s judgment denying 15, her postjudgment motion. The 2011. m o t h e r t i m e l y a p p e a l e d t o t h i s c o u r t on December She seeks this contends t h a t the t r i a l to compel records, the father (2) f a i l i n g she says, he the property refused court's c o u r t e r r e d by to produce to h o l d the to division, review s i x issues. (1) d e n y i n g h e r his i n the failing court's orders to modify the amount o f $3,000 to the regarding custody f a t h e r , and D e n i a l o f t h e M o t i o n t o Compel t h e F a t h e r ' s Telephone Records 4 of (5) a w a r d i n g d e n y i n g an a w a r d 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 s u p p o r t The motion cellular-telephone Emma, (4) m o d i f y i n g h e r c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n , a judgment She f a t h e r i n contempt because, f o l l o w the (3) of 28, for (6) Max. Cellular- 2110323 The mother's first e r r e d b e c a u s e , she efforts. Inc., The 293 Typewriter Co., 341 K e r s h a w , I n c . , 562 6 says, mother A l a . 731, So. 3d 824 ( A l a . C i v . App. contention So. So. So. the trial i t i m p r o p e r l y l i m i t e d her relies 310 i s that ( A l a . C i v . App. Cole 2d 210 2d 2d on 120 250 v. Cole (1975), discovery Tomato Sales, C a m p b e l l v. ( A l a . 1976), Ex Hood v. Regal parte ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) , Reed v. 2 0 0 9 ) , and court Knox Dyas, Hood, 76 2 0 1 1 ) , t o s u p p o r t h e r argument on So. 28 3d appeal. 'Pursuant to Rule 26, Alabama Rules of C i v i l Procedure, a t r i a l court i s given a u t h o r i t y to either limit or restrict discovery, and once t h e trial c o u r t c h o o s e s t o so limit or restrict, i t s action w i l l be l i b e r a l l y and b r o a d l y c o n s t r u e d . This court w i l l not, t h e r e f o r e , reverse unless i t appears the t r i a l c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n "'Ex p a r t e S u l l i v a n , Long & H a g e r t y , 5 67 So. 2d 314, 314-15 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 0 ) . ' "Ex p a r t e H e a l t h S o u t h (Ala. 1997)." Ex p a r t e T u s c a l o o s a The record Corp., Cnty., reflects 712 So. 825 So. 2d 729, that the mother a g a i n s t t h e f a t h e r on A p r i l 5, 2011. 2d 732 1086, 1088 ( A l a . 2001). filed her On A u g u s t 22, action 2011, the m o t h e r r e q u e s t e d t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f , among o t h e r d o c u m e n t s , t h e 5 2110323 father's cellular-telephone produced the other produce stated records. requested documents, h i s cellular-telephone that he was u n a b l e Although records. to print the the father The father d i d not father first h i s cellular-telephone r e c o r d s b e c a u s e Max h a d removed t h e c o m p u t e r a n d p r i n t e r the f a t h e r ' s home. trial, from On S e p t e m b e r 22, 2 0 1 1 , 12 d a y s b e f o r e t h e t h e mother filed a motion t o compel produce h i s c e l l u l a r - t e l e p h o n e records, the father to a n d , on t h e same d a y , the f a t h e r f i l e d h i s r e s p o n s e t o t h e mother's m o t i o n t o compel i n w h i c h he a s s e r t e d irrelevant. party The The m o t h e r n e v e r f i l e d a n o t i c e t o s e r v e a t h i r d - subpoena trial mother's t h a t h i s c e l l u l a r - t e l e p h o n e r e c o r d s were court on t h e f a t h e r ' s cellular-telephone h e a r d t h e arguments o f c o u n s e l r e g a r d i n g t h e request f o r discovery of the r e c o r d s a t t h e O c t o b e r 4, 2011, t r i a l attorney carrier. cellular-telephone a t which t h e mother's a d m i t t e d t h a t she h a d f a i l e d t o s u b p o e n a t h e f a t h e r ' s cellular-telephone carrier for his cellular-telephone b e c a u s e she w a n t e d t o " b y p a s s records ... a d d i t i o n a l c h a r g e s t h a t I w o u l d have t o p a y [ t h e f a t h e r ' s c e l l u l a r - t e l e p h o n e c a r r i e r ] o r someone e l s e . " court order The m o t h e r ' s a t t o r n e y the father t o download 6 suggested that the t r i a l the cellular-telephone 2110323 records "during a lunch break or t h e r e c o r d s t o be The trial ... continue the trial for obtained." court orally denied the mother's c o m p e l b e c a u s e t h e m o t h e r ' s a t t o r n e y had failed motion to to subpoena the f a t h e r ' s c e l l u l a r - t e l e p h o n e c a r r i e r . "'Discovery matters are w i t h i n the t r i a l c o u r t ' s s o u n d d i s c r e t i o n , and t h i s C o u r t w i l l n o t r e v e r s e a t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g on a d i s c o v e r y i s s u e u n l e s s t h e t r i a l c o u r t has c l e a r l y e x c e e d e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n . ' Ex p a r t e Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB, 872 So. 2d 810, 813 (Ala. 2003) ( c i t i n g Home I n s . Co. v. R i c e , 585 So. 2d 859, 862 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ) . " G r o c h o l s k i v. G r o c h o l s k i , 89 So. 2011). I n t h i s c a s e , we 3d 123, determine 128 (Ala. Civ. t h a t the t r i a l court App. acted w i t h i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n because the mother's a t t o r n e y f a i l e d to f o l l o w the proper procedure Furthermore, to the by f i l i n g extent a t h i r d - p a r t y subpoena. that f a t h e r ' s c e l l u l a r - t e l e p h o n e r e c o r d s was error. A l a . R. App. P., a l s o A l a . R. C i v . P., 1 Rule 61, A l a . R. R u l e 45 R u l e 61 the e x c l u s i o n of e r r o r , i t was C i v . P., harmless ("Error Without I n j u r y " ) ; ("Harmless E r r o r " ) . states, 1 The see mother in i t s entirety: "No error in either the admission or the e x c l u s i o n o f e v i d e n c e and no e r r o r o r d e f e c t i n any r u l i n g o r o r d e r o r i n a n y t h i n g done o r o m i t t e d by t h e c o u r t o r by any o f t h e p a r t i e s i s g r o u n d f o r g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l o r f o r s e t t i n g a s i d e a v e r d i c t 7 the 2110323 proffered that she intended frequently telephoned to prove that the father had o r s e n t h a r a s s i n g t e x t messages t o h e r , h e r m o t h e r , and h e r f r i e n d s . P r e s u m a b l y t h e m o t h e r and those p e r s o n s w o u l d have a l l o w e d t h e i r c e l l u l a r - t e l e p h o n e r e c o r d s t o be u s e d t o show t h e a l l e g e d i n c o m i n g messages from the f a t h e r ; thus, telephone any error i n excluding f a t h e r ' s c e l l u l a r - t e l e p h o n e r e c o r d s was The c a l l s and t e x t harmless. R e f u s a l t o H o l d t h e F a t h e r i n Contempt R e g a r d i n g Property Next the mother argues that the trial court t o h o l d t h e f a t h e r i n c o n t e m p t b e c a u s e , she refused to property division. So. 824, the Division failing f o l l o w the the trial court's orders erred by says, he regarding the She p r o v i d e s c i t a t i o n s t o Reed v. Dyas, 28 3d 6, 8 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) , and Hood v. Hood, 76 So. 831 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) , i n s u p p o r t "The standard of review of a c o n t e m p t i s as f o l l o w s : of t h i s argument. judgment of or f o r v a c a t i n g , m o d i f y i n g , or o t h e r w i s e d i s t u r b i n g a judgment or o r d e r , u n l e s s r e f u s a l t o t a k e such action appears to the court inconsistent with s u b s t a n t i a l j u s t i c e . The c o u r t a t e v e r y s t a g e o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g must d i s r e g a r d any e r r o r o r d e f e c t i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g w h i c h does n o t a f f e c t t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of the p a r t i e s . " 8 3d 2110323 "'"[W]hether a p a r t y i s i n contempt o f c o u r t i s a d e t e r m i n a t i o n committed t o the sound 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 , and, a b s e n t an a b u s e o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n o r u n l e s s t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s u n s u p p o r t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e s o as t o be p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y wrong, t h i s c o u r t w i l l affirm."' "Nave v. Nave, 942 So. 2d 372, 377 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) ( q u o t i n g S t a c k v . S t a c k , 646 So. 2d 5 1 , 56 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 4 ) ) . F u r t h e r m o r e , " ' " ' [ i ] n ore tenus proceedings, the t r i a l c o u r t i s the s o l e judge of the f a c t s and o f t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e w i t n e s s e s , and i t s h o u l d a c c e p t o n l y t h a t t e s t i m o n y which i t considers worthy of b e l i e f . ' Clemons v. C l e m o n s , 627 So. 2d 431, 434 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) . " ' " G l a d d e n v . G l a d d e n , 942 So. 2d 362, 369 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e R.E.C., 899 So. 2d 272, 279 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) ) . " S.A.T. v . E.D., 972 So. 2d 804, 809 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) . The divorce judgment r e q u i r e d t h e p a r t i e s t o agree t o a d i v i s i o n of t h e i r personal property. father t e s t i f i e d that the p a r t i e s ' Any r e m a i n i n g p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y t h a t t h e y c o u l d n o t a g r e e upon was t o be s o l d , a n d t h e p a r t i e s were i n s t r u c t e d t o e q u a l l y d i v i d e t h e p r o c e e d s o f t h e s a l e o f any d i s p u t e d of p e r s o n a l property. According the mother had c r e a t e d a l i s t she w a n t e d . to the father's of the personal items testimony, property that The f a t h e r d i d n o t a g r e e t o a l l o w t h e m o t h e r t o 9 2110323 have a l l t h e p r o p e r t y l i s t e d on t h e m o t h e r ' s l i s t . he c r e a t e d two l i s t s . that I provided list two. [on] l i s t one. list she w a n t e d . " prepared He s a i d : and s a i d "These two l i s t s she c o u l d p i c k e i t h e r were list one o r ... I gave h e r t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o c h o o s e what The father t e s t i f i e d that the l i s t s he were an a t t e m p t t o r e a c h an a g r e e m e n t and t h a t , once an a g r e e m e n t , t h e m o t h e r was f r e e t o t a k e her p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y from the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e . the regarding exactly lists She can have e v e r y t h i n g on l i s t two o r e v e r y t h i n g the p a r t i e s reached offered Instead, lists the three into evidence. division questions of The personal mother's property and a n s w e r s . The f a t h e r testimony consists of She s a i d t h a t she h a d n e v e r t o l d t h e f a t h e r t o keep h e r p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , t h a t she had asked f o r her personal property, and t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d never communicated w i t h h e r about the p e r s o n a l property. We d e t e r m i n e t h a t , u n l i k e t h e w i f e i n Reed, 28 So. 3d a t 8, and t h e w i f e failed trial father i n Hood, to provide 76 So. sufficient 3d a t 831, t h e m o t h e r evidence indicating that has the 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 d e c l i n i n g t o h o l d t h e i n contempt of c o u r t . c o u l d have r e a s o n a b l y In t h i s case, the t r i a l determined that the f a t h e r ' s 10 court testimony 2110323 was c r e d i b l e and t h a t he had a t t e m p t e d t o a b i d e by t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r , e s p e c i a l l y i n l i g h t of the mother's r e l a t i v e l y slight testimony c o n t r a d i c t i n g the f a t h e r ' s e x t e n s i v e testimony his o f f e r of documentary evidence. "'"'The o r e t e n u s r u l e i s g r o u n d e d upon t h e p r i n c i p l e t h a t when t h e t r i a l c o u r t h e a r s o r a l t e s t i m o n y i t has an o p p o r t u n i t y t o e v a l u a t e t h e demeanor and c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s . ' The r u l e a p p l i e s t o ' d i s p u t e d i s s u e s of f a c t , ' whether the d i s p u t e i s b a s e d e n t i r e l y upon o r a l t e s t i m o n y o r upon a combination of oral testimony and documentary e v i d e n c e . " ' " Y e a g e r v. L u c y , 998 So. 2d 460 ( A l a . 2008) ( q u o t i n g Reed v. B o a r d o f T r s . f o r A l a b a m a S t a t e U n i v . , 778 So. 2d 791, 795 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ) . "We a l s o n o t e t h a t ' " [ i ] t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t an a p p e l l a n t has t h e b u r d e n o f p r e s e n t i n g a r e c o r d c o n t a i n i n g s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o show e r r o r by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . " ' W i l c o x e n v. W i l c o x e n , 907 So. 2d 447, 450 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) ( q u o t i n g L e e t h v. J i m W a l t e r Homes, I n c . , 789 So. 2d 243, 246 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 0 ) ) . " Ex p a r t e Brown, 26 So. The 3d 1222, 1225 ( A l a . 2009). D e n i a l o f a Change i n t h e C u s t o d y o f Emma "On a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w o f c u s t o d y m a t t e r s , t h i s c o u r t is l i m i t e d when t h e e v i d e n c e was presented ore t e n u s , and, i n s u c h c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d ' a b s e n t an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n o r where i t i s shown t o be p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y w r o n g . ' A l e x a n d e r v. A l e x a n d e r , 625 So. 2d 433, 434 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1993) ( c i t i n g B e n t o n v. B e n t o n , [520 So. 2d 534 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 8 ] ) . As 11 and 2110323 t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h i g h l i g h t e d i n [Ex p a r t e ] P a t r o n a s [ , 693 So. 2d 473 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) ] , '"[T]he t r i a l court i s i n the better position t o consider a l l o f t h e e v i d e n c e , a s w e l l as t h e many i n f e r e n c e s t h a t may be drawn f r o m t h a t e v i d e n c e , a n d t o d e c i d e t h e i s s u e o f c u s t o d y . " ' P a t r o n a s , 693 So. 2d a t 474 ( q u o t i n g E x p a r t e B r y o w s k y , 676 So. 2d 1322, 1326 (Ala. 1 9 9 6 ) ) . Thus, a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w o f a j u d g m e n t m o d i f y i n g c u s t o d y when t h e e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d ore tenus i s l i m i t e d t o d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t . See P a t r o n a s , 693 So. 2d a t 4 7 5 . " Cheek v . D y e s s , Initially, authority 1 So. 3d 1025, 1029 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) . we n o t e that t h e mother's o n l y c i t a t i o n s t o r e g a r d o u r s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w and t h a t t h e mother rightly concedes that change i n custody she b o r e would t h e burden materially of proving that a promote Emma's best interests. " P u r s u a n t t o E x p a r t e M c L e n d o n [ , 455 So. 2 d 863 (Ala. 1994)], a parent seeking t o modify custody must d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e change i n c u s t o d y w o u l d m a t e r i a l l y promote t h e c h i l d ' s w e l f a r e and t h a t t h e d i s r u p t i o n c a u s e d b y t h e change i n c u s t o d y w o u l d be o f f s e t by t h e advantages o f t h a t c u s t o d y change." Smith v. Smith, Despite 865 So. 2 d 1207, 1210 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) . t h e meager authority cited, testimony presented t o the t r i a l trial court d i d not exceed mother's p e t i t i o n we have c o u r t and conclude t h a t t h e i t s discretion f o r c u s t o d y o f Emma. 12 examined t h e by denying t h e 2110323 In her brief, t h e mother asserts overwhelming evidence t o t h e t r i a l of fitness stalked as a p a r e n t . and h a r a s s e d relationship with that court of the father's She a l l e g e d that Emma was b r u s h i n g medical The mother's had a hostile Max, h a d s p o k e n t o t h e c h i l d r e n a b o u t t h e i n h i s bed a t times, and lack the f a t h e r had h e r and h e r mother, m o t h e r i n a d e r o g a t o r y manner, h a d u r i n a t e d while she p r e s e n t e d i n t h e bathroom h e r t e e t h , had allowed Emma t o s l e e p a n d h a d n o t a t t e n d e d t o Emma's s c h o l a s t i c needs. f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d , d i s p u t i n g o r e x p l a i n i n g each o f t h e allegations. The father denied the mother's a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t h a d s t a l k e d o r h a r a s s e d a n y o n e , t h a t he h a d urinated Emma's i n Emma's p r e s e n c e , scholastic needs. 2 o r t h a t he h a d n o t a t t e n d e d t o The 3 father testified that a p p r o x i m a t e l y s i x t i m e s i n t h e p a s t y e a r Emma h a d s l e p t i n h i s bed when s h e was " s c a r e d and u p s e t . " T h e f a t h e r a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t , b e c a u s e o f an a l l e g a t i o n t h a t he i n a p p r o p r i a t e l y t o u c h e d Emma, he h a d b e e n i n v e s t i g a t e d by t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s a n d t h a t t h e r e p o r t h a d returned "not i n d i c a t e d . " 2 When q u e s t i o n e d , K a t h y H u t c h i n s , t h e s c h o o l c o u n s e l o r a t Emma's s c h o o l , a g r e e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r a n d t h e f a t h e r were " f a i r l y involved parents." H u t c h i n s s a i d t h a t s h e h a d no a c a d e m i c c o n c e r n s a b o u t Emma. 3 13 2110323 The f a t h e r responded t o the mother's testimony regarding h e r a l l e g a t i o n t h a t he h a d f a i l e d t o a t t e n d t o Emma's m e d i c a l needs. his He s a i d t h a t Emma h a d f a l l e n o f f h e r b i c y c l e w h i l e i n care and t h a t testified believe that she t o l d he e x a m i n e d she needed m e d i c a l n e x t day, him that h e r hand attention. h e r hand and t h a t hurt. He he d i d He a d m i t t e d not that the w h i l e t h e m o t h e r was e x e r c i s i n g h e r v i s i t a t i o n with Emma, Emma h a d c o m p l a i n e d t o t h e m o t h e r ; t h e m o t h e r t o o k Emma for an X - r a y , a n d i t was d e t e r m i n e d t h a t she h a d a b r o k e n bone in h e r hand. The f a t h e r also explained that, on a n o t h e r o c c a s i o n , t h e m o t h e r h a d t a k e n Emma t o t h e d o c t o r and Emma was diagnosed with a u r i n a r y - t r a c t i n f e c t i o n . not complained o f a n y symptoms t o him. He s a i d Emma h a d Finally, he a g r e e d t h a t he h a d a s t r a i n e d r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h Max. After concluded hearing o r e tenus the t r i a l court t h a t a change i n Emma's c u s t o d y w o u l d n o t m a t e r i a l l y promote h e r b e s t interests. position and weigh case. evidence, t o hear The t r i a l c o u r t was i n t h e the disputed We d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e t r i a l testimony i n this court d i d not exceed i t s d i s c r e t i o n by r e f u s i n g t o t r a n s f e r the custody m o t h e r b e c a u s e i t s j u d g m e n t c o u l d be r e a s o n a b l y 14 best o f Emma t o t h e supported by 2110323 the evidence presented at by t h e f a t h e r . See W i l l i a m s , 402 2d 1032. The M o d i f i c a t i o n of the Mother's C h i l d - S u p p o r t The raise Obligation mother appears to a s s e r t t h a t , a l t h o u g h any support argument regarding a modification o b l i g a t i o n at the t r i a l , the t r i a l she of f a t h e r t o pay $200. In of her argument, f o l l o w i n g statement: "In Jennings (Ala. C i v . App. trial court R u l e 32 2004), the t o compute t h e [, A l a . R. Jud. court she includes required remanded t h e 892 only So. case " ' I n a p p l i c a b l e g e n e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n s are not supporting a u t h o r i t y , and an appellate c o u r t has no d u t y t o p e r f o r m a l i t i g a n t ' s l e g a l r e s e a r c h . L e g a l Systems, Inc. v. H o o v e r , 619 So. 2d 930 (Ala. Civ. App. 19 9 3 ) ; L o c k e t t v. A.L. S a n d l i n Lumber Co., 588 So. 2d 889 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 1 ) ; and M o a t s v. M o a t s , 585 So. 2d 1386 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 1 ) . S i m i l a r l y , a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s do n o t , " b a s e d on u n d e l i n e a t e d p r o p o s i t i o n s , c r e a t e l e g a l arguments f o r the a p p e l l a n t . " McLemore v. F l e m i n g , 604 So. 2d 353, 353 (Ala. 1992). This c o u r t w i l l address o n l y those i s s u e s p r o p e r l y presented and f o r w h i c h s u p p o r t i n g a u t h o r i t y has b e e n c i t e d . the 2d 437 for the i n compliance Admin.]." 15 have i n t h e amount o f v. J e n n i n g s , c h i l d support not child- court should her monthly c h i l d support support did her a l t e r e d i t s j u d g m e n t on h e r p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n and the So. with 2110323 S i m o n t o n v. C a r r o l l , C i v . App. 1 9 8 7 ) . ' 512 So. 2d 1384 ( A l a . "Asam v. D e v e r e a u x , 686 So. 2d 1222, 1224 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) . M o r e o v e r , '[w]hen an a p p e l l a n t f a i l s t o p r o p e r l y a r g u e an i s s u e , t h a t i s s u e i s w a i v e d a n d w i l l n o t be c o n s i d e r e d . ' Asam, 686 So. 2d a t 1224." R.B.S. v. K.M.S., 58 So. 3d 795, 800 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) . The m o t h e r h a s n e i t h e r p r o p e r l y p r e s e n t e d of a child-support consider Although we will not A w a r d o f $3,000 t o t h e F a t h e r i t i s not e n t i r e l y p a r t i e s ' testimony debts According father therefore, the issue. The had modification; nor argued the i s s u e on clear, t h a t a t the time of the d i v o r c e the p a r t i e s at least three joint t o the p a r t i e s ' testimony, responsible we d i s c e r n f r o m t h e f o r t h e debt credit-card the t r i a l accounts. c o u r t made t h e on t h e p a r t i e s ' Discover c r e d i t c a r d , a n d i t made t h e m o t h e r r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e d e b t s on the parties' Although card the exact date i s disputed, some d a t e entered US Bank c r e d i t s h o r t l y before or a f t e r and B e l k credit i t i s undisputed the divorce card. 4 t h a t on j u d g m e n t was t h e m o t h e r t r a n s f e r r e d $3,000 o f t h e US Bank a c c o u n t The B e l k c r e d i t c a r d i s a l s o r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e r e c o r d as t h e GE Money Bank c a r d , t h e GE c a r d , t h e GEMB c a r d , t h e B e l k / G E Money Bank c a r d , a n d t h e GEMB/OLDN c a r d . 4 16 2110323 debt and $1,400 account. The of the Belk father amounted t o $4,620. said account the debt to the transfers, Discover including At the time of the t r i a l , the f a t h e r s a i d t h a t he h a d p a i d t h e minimum payment on t h e D i s c o v e r for approximately fees, one account year. I n h e r b r i e f , t h e m o t h e r o f f e r s no a p p l i c a b l e s u p p o r t f o r h e r argument t h a t she s h o u l d n o t be r e q u i r e d t o p a y t h e f a t h e r an a w a r d o f $3,000. S t a c k v. S t a c k , She p r o v i d e s 646 So. 2d 51 c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the standard contempt. Ala. to one c i t a t i o n t o t h i s ( A l a . C i v . App. court, 1994), f o r i t s o f r e v i e w o f a judgment o f c i v i l We d e t e r m i n e t h a t , i n v i o l a t i o n o f R u l e 28(a)(10), R. App. P., t h e m o t h e r has f a i l e d t o c i t e any a u t h o r i t y support requiring a conclusion that h e r t o pay t h e f a t h e r further entertain this The D e n i a l the trial $3,000. court erred Thus, we will argument. of P o s t m i n o r i t y Educational S u p p o r t f o r Max "Generally, t h e d e c i s i o n whether t o award postminority educational support i s w i t h i n the d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l court a f t e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e f a c t o r s s e t o u t i n Ex p a r t e B a y l i s s , 550 So. 2d 986, 987 ( A l a . 1989) . G a b e l v. L o r e s , 608 So. 2d 1365, 1366 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1992) . When t h e e v i d e n c e regarding those f a c t o r s i s i n c o n f l i c t , the t r i a l court's f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s a r e presumed correct. A b e r n a t h y v. S u l l i v a n , 676 So. 2d 939, 941 ( A l a . Civ. App. 1 9 9 6 ) . However, t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s l e g a l 17 by not 2110323 c o n c l u s i o n s and i t s a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e l a w t o t h e f a c t s are not c l o t h e d w i t h such a presumption; r e v i e w o f t h o s e m a t t e r s i s de novo. H e n d e r s o n v. H e n d e r s o n , 978 So. 2d 36, 39 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) . " G o e t s c h v. G o e t s c h , 66 So. The parte Bayliss, 550 necessary, the t r i a l c o u r t may would dissolved child 986, and and requested support 987 are shall appear The the child's education." the and case, education, e n j o y e d had relationship the in commitment Id. an Ex factors reasonable and of the to, and In a d d i t i o n , a enjoyed family i f the marriage unit had been guidance." the had and standard and and the responsiveness to evidence p e r t i n e n t of living f a m i l y u n i t been p r e s e r v e d , b e t w e e n Max been Id. record contains the not preserved f a c t o r s r e g a r d i n g Max's commitment t o and contains s e t out ( A l a . 1989). r e l a t i o n s h i p with h i s parents In t h i s college 2011) . a l s o c o n s i d e r "the s t a n d a r d of l i v i n g t h a t the have parental advice the ( A l a . C i v . App. i n c l u d i n g p r i m a r i l y the f i n a n c i a l resources and child's 2d factors that a p t i t u d e f o r , the child educational So. " a l l relevant parents 790 f a c t o r s t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t must c o n s i d e r r e g a r d i n g award of p o s t m i n o r i t y are 3d 788, the father. aptitude for a he and might have the s t r a i n e d The some e v i d e n c e p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e p a r t i e s ' 18 to record also respective 2110323 financial resources. evidence indicating b o o k s , room, and However, the the record estimated costs does n o t of Max's contain tuition, board. It i s undisputed t h a t Max i s an e x c e l l e n t s t u d e n t . Max t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d e s i r e d t o a t t e n d t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f A l a b a m a and t h a t he intended had completed a standardized had " s e n t h i s t r a n s c r i p t s , " and a d m i s s i o n and to nor been said that t h a t he i n t e n d e d time to apply. applied He college entrance t e s t , f o r s c h o l a r s h i p s , but, the a p p r o p r i a t e neither to major i n b u s i n e s s . he said, to apply i t was A l a b a m a o r t o any o t h e r i n s t i t u t i o n . to the t h a t Max had University of hearing on t h e m o t h e r ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , t h e rightly s t a t e d : "He's don't know what s c h o l a r s h i p s expenses are. college. There's post-minority trial court educational In fact, no way s u p p o r t on erred by we in are. We don't even the world that." We refusing support because the 19 for yet A t t h e December 7, n o t a p p l i e d . He's trial 2011, court not been a c c e p t e d . don't even know know what exactly could We which award any cannot conclude t h a t the to I he not I t i s undisputed accepted that he award postminority mother's a t t o r n e y failed to 2110323 provide evidence to the t r i a l court i n d i c a t i n g the a n t i c i p a t e d e x p e n s e s o f Max's education. However, t h e m o t h e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l court erred i n f a i l i n g t o reserve j u r i s d i c t i o n over the i s s u e of p o s t m i n o r i t y educational support. We a g r e e . age o f m a j o r i t y , a t r i a l consider 5 When a c h i l d i s n e a r i n g t h e court should reserve j u r i s d i c t i o n to the issue of postminority educational support. A p e t i t i o n seeking p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l support must be f i l e d b e f o r e t h e c h i l d r e a c h e s 19 y e a r s o f age o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t l a c k s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o a c t upon t h e p e t i t i o n . 550 So. 2d a t 987 proceeding (a t r i a l court 6 has j u r i s d i c t i o n , Bayliss, "[i]n a f o r d i s s o l u t i o n of marriage or a m o d i f i c a t i o n of a T h i s c o u r t has c a u t i o n e d t h a t i t " w i l l e v e n t u a l l y move t o w a r d a p o l i c y i n w h i c h i t w i l l no l o n g e r remand t h e s e matters t o the t r i a l court f o r the t a k i n g of a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e " when t h e p a r t y r e q u e s t i n g p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l -^^pport has f a i l e d t o meet h i s o r h e r b u r d e n o f p r o o f . Taylor su ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . v. T a y l o r , 991 So. 2d 228, 235 n.2 members o f t h e c o u r t , i n c l u d i n g t h e a u t h o r of t h i s Two o p i n i o n , have a d v o c a t e d t h a t t h e t i m e has a l r e a d y come f o r t h e c o u r t t o move t o t h a t p o l i c y . I d . a t 237-38 (Thomas, J . , c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t and d i s s e n t i n g i n p a r t , j o i n e d by Moore, J.). 5 A p p a r e n t l y , t h e mother l a b o r e d under a f a l s e b e l i e f t h a t h e r r e q u e s t f o r 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 f o r Max was r e q u i r e d t o be f i l e d b e f o r e he r e a c h e d 18 y e a r s o f age r a t h e r t h a n o u r l e g i s l a t i v e l y p r e s c r i b e d age o f m a j o r i t y -- 19 y e a r s o f age. 6 20 2110323 d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t , [ t o ] a w a r d sums o f money o u t o f t h e p r o p e r t y and income o f e i t h e r education of a or both child of parents that f o r the post-minority dissolved a p p l i c a t i o n i s made t h e r e f o r ... b e f o r e age of majority"(emphasis may e n t e r t a i n a p e t i t i o n filed has after a child previously trial court added)). Moreover, a t r i a l the t r i a l jurisdiction support. App. has r e s e r v e d jurisdiction on support petition should: over concerning the v. B r i t t , and t h e the issue. whether of o r when See postminority educational support, reserve educational 684 So. 2d 1325, 1326 ( A l a . C i v . education[al] the p e t i t i o n jurisdiction guidance to c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t , "[w]hen a p a r e n t reserve j u r i s d i c t i o n . " reserved issue f o r post-minority (1) g r a n t party 673 So. 2d 456, 457 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) . courts 1996), t h i s support r e a c h e s t h e age o f 19 i f a p r o p e r p e t i t i o n e d f o r such In B r i t t court f o r postminority educational We r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h i s c o u r t h a s p r o v i d e d l i t t l e to when the c h i l d a t t a i n s the timely L a n g d a l e v. Baty, marriage, a o r (2) deny t h e p e t i t i o n In B r i t t , over support, files a the t r i a l the issue court and court had e a r l i e r of postminority thus p e r m i t t i n g i t t o consider t h a t i s s u e anew upon t h e m o t h e r ' s s e c o n d p e t i t i o n , 21 despite the fact that 2110323 the child h a d r e a c h e d t h e age o f 19. 1326-27. Britt, B r i t t h a s b e e n u s e d as a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e that a t r i a l a petition court should reserve j u r i s d i c t i o n v. A k r i d g e , 738 So. 2d 1277, 1279 1999). In Akridge, this judgment r e f u s i n g ordered court reversed t o award p o s t m i n o r i t y the t r i a l court to reserve denial of postminority the t r i a l court's educational support jurisdiction trial court had based on t h e fact In where a c h i l d educational over the h a d n o t y e t r e a c h e d t h e age o f m a j o r i t y . that the c h i l d situations o n l y once, i n ( A l a . C i v . App. i s s u e f o r f u t u r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n when t h e t r i a l its principle when i t d e n i e s f o r p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l support Akridge and 684 So. 2d a t i s approaching support 19 y e a r s o f age, a c o u r t s h o u l d r e s e r v e t h e i s s u e so t h a t i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n to c o n s i d e r awarding p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l support w i l l not be l o s t before the parent seeking the support on t h e behalf i s able to present the appropriate evidence. t o t h e r e c o r d , on O c t o b e r 7, 2012, Max w i l l age. Therefore, the i n s t r u c t i o n reach According 19 y e a r s o f we remand t h e c a u s e t o t h e t r i a l t h a t i t e n t e r an o r d e r r e s e r v i n g court with jurisdiction over the i s s u e 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 22 child's f o r Max. 2110323 In err c o n c l u s i o n , we d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e t r i a l b y (1) d e n y i n g t h e mother's m o t i o n t o compel t h e f a t h e r t o produce h i s c e l l u l a r - t e l e p h o n e r e c o r d s , the f a t h e r i n contempt r e g a r d i n g refusing t o modify modifying court d i dnot the custody t h e mother's (2) r e f u s i n g t o h o l d the property o f Emma, child-support division, (3) (4) r e f u s i n g t o obligation, or (5) a w a r d i n g a j u d g m e n t i n t h e amount o f $3,000 t o t h e f a t h e r . reverse t h e judgment insofar as t h e t r i a l court We d i dnot r e s e r v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o g r a n t o r deny an a w a r d o f p o s t m i n o r i t y educational support i n s t r u c t i n g the t r i a l jurisdiction for over f o r Max, a n d we remand the cause, c o u r t t o amend i t s j u d g m e n t t o r e s e r v e the postminority-educational-support issue future consideration. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n Moore, J . , c o n c u r s and Bryan, J J . , concur. i n the r e s u l t , without 23 writing. WITH

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.