Mohammad Heyat v. Anahita Rahnemaei

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 2110382 Mohammad Heyat v. A n a h i t a Rahnemaei A n a h i t a Rahnemaei v. Mohammad Heyat Appeals from Shelby C i r c u i t (DR-10-900375) PER CURIAM. Court 2110382 Mohammad divorcing her him custody support, Heyat from A n a h i t a of and The parties' their husband") appeals Rahnemaei minor son, ("the ordering a judgment wife"), him to awarding pay child d i v i d i n g the p a r t i e s ' p r o p e r t y . wife 26, 2010. ("the filed a complaint In her complaint, son, child seeking a d i v o r c e on the w i f e requested support, alimony, an August custody award of of the a l l the p a r t i e s ' j o i n t p r o p e r t y , t o be h e l d h a r m l e s s f r o m a l l d e b t s o f the p a r t i e s , attorney f e e . The s o u g h t ex p a r t e p e n d e n t e l i t e custody of the lite, and marital an residence and p e n d e n t e l i t e ("the a counterclaim. s t a t e d t h a t he one was to c h i l d support, The parties house") relief be granted, the and an pendente t h a t the into trial h u s b a n d f i l e d an answer husband sought specifically custody event of t o be h e l d h a r m l e s s f r o m a l l d e b t s attorney fee. a pendente 2 the an e q u i t a b l e d i v i s i o n o f On the husband's c o u r t s e t a s i d e t h e ex p a r t e c u s t o d y entered also possession d i d n o t want a d i v o r c e ; h o w e v e r , i n t h e the p a r t i e s ' p r o p e r t y , the t r i a l son, I n h i s answer, the husband p a r t i e s ' son, c h i l d s u p p o r t , a l i m o n y , the p a r t i e s , of the Greystone c o u r t g r a n t e d on A u g u s t 27, 2010. and w i f e , by m o t i o n , lite motion, o r d e r , and agreement of the concerning 2110382 custody o f t h e s o n and payment of c e r t a i n of the parties' e x p e n s e s and d e b t s ; t h e a g r e e m e n t d i d n o t r e q u i r e t h e h u s b a n d to pay c h i l d the parties parties support. were In a d d i t i o n , "frozen" by t h r e e a c c o u n t s owned by a pendente lite a g r e e d t o an a r r a n g e m e n t p e r m i t t i n g order. The the husband t o w i t h d r a w $500 p e r month f o r l i v i n g e x p e n s e s and $450 p e r month to pay the Southside mortgage on the parties' a trial i n July 2011, judgment d i v o r c i n g t h e p a r t i e s . the house ("the house"). After of rental son to the wife and the t r i a l court entered a The j u d g m e n t a w a r d e d c u s t o d y awarded the husband specified v i s i t a t i o n ; t h e h u s b a n d was a l s o o r d e r e d t o p a y $991 p e r month in child support. Pursuant t o the judgment, the wife was a w a r d e d e x c l u s i v e p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e G r e y s t o n e h o u s e , w h i c h was to be after sold with the proceeds of the sale a deduction divided f r o m t h e p r o c e e d s o f $100,000, t h a t t h e h u s b a n d a g r e e d t h a t he owed t h e w i f e . given the $150,000. option The of purchasing h u s b a n d was the awarded equally, an amount The w i f e Greystone the Southside house was for house and o r d e r e d t o assume t h e i n d e b t e d n e s s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h a t h o u s e . Finally, the t r i a l c o u r t awarded t h e w i f e 3 "a one h a l f (1/2) 2110382 i n t e r e s t i n and t o any r e a l e s t a t e owned by t h e [ h u s b a n d ] i n Iran, should The such ownership judgment exist." ordered that the attorney fees f o r the p a r t i e s ' r e s p e c t i v e a t t o r n e y s be p a i d o u t o f a p a r t i c u l a r b a n k account of the p a r t i e s . were to be remaining husband court divided, funds and t h e w i f e amended opportunity the and wife The remaining with the the husband filed chose not by account r e c e i v i n g 75% motions. permitting the of the Both r e c e i v i n g 25%. postjudgment i t s judgment to purchase wife funds i n t h a t the The husband The exercise husband the t h e G r e y s t o n e h o u s e f o r $250,000 i f her right to purchase G r e y s t o n e h o u s e w i t h i n 18 months o f t h e e n t r y o f t h e judgment. trial the divorce t i m e l y a p p e a l e d , and t h e w i f e timely cross-appealed. On argues appeal, that testimony the husband the trial raises several issues. court erred in He admitting first certain r e g a r d i n g t h e h u s b a n d ' s r e l i g i o u s d e v o u t n e s s and t h e w i f e ' s a c c u s a t i o n s t h a t he h a r b o r e d a n t i - A m e r i c a n sentiments. The failure to an a b u s e of husband award then him a t l e a s t argues joint that the trial court's c u s t o d y o f t h e s o n was the t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n . The h u s b a n d n e x t c h a l l e n g e s 4 the 2110382 t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i v i s i o n of the p a r t i e s ' p r o p e r t y . Finally, the h u s b a n d a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n when it i m p u t e d t o t h e h u s b a n d a m o n t h l y income o f $5,000 there being light of despite a l a c k o f e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h a t amount and the fact that the trial court's award of G r e y s t o n e house t o the w i f e " e l i m i n a t e d " the husband's to earn. court's the On cross-appeal, award of a o n e - h a l f husband might own the u n a b l e , as a woman, t o e n f o r c e to t h i s c o u r t , we are 312 "The question ( A l a . C i v . App. question. The dismiss at 312. has the "A demonstrates that that property r a i s e s the she reviewing would issue of 'final there on lack of So. 2d 897 jurisdictional a determination a duty to dismiss i t s own motion." judgment has be jurisdiction the that is a been a 5 Wilhoite, "terminal complete the c a s e ; i f the n o t moved f o r a d i s m i s s a l , t h e n t h e c o u r t a p p e a l on that ( o p i n i o n on r e t u r n t o r e m a n d ) . court, f i n a l , has trial right in Iran. W i l h o i t e v. W i l h o i t e , 2004) ability real estate whether a judgment i s f i n a l i s a judgment i s not appellee arguing the the r e q u i r e d t o take n o t i c e of the j u r i s d i c t i o n ex mero motu. 303, challenges i n t e r e s t i n any in Iran, Although neither party wife in 897 decision adjudication should So. 2d which of a l l 2110382 m a t t e r s i n c o n t r o v e r s y between t h e l i t i g a n t s . " ' " Dees v . S t a t e , 563 So. 2d 1059, 1061 I d . (quoting ( A l a . C i v . App. 1990) ( q u o t i n g i n t u r n T i d w e l l v. T i d w e l l , 496 So. 2d 91, 92 Civ. App. 1986))). In W i l h o i t e , t h e t r i a l if (Ala. any e x i s t , court ordered t h a t " ' " a l l monies, i n t h e name o f e i t h e r p a r t i e s s h a l l be d i v i d e d between t h e p a r t i e s 65% t o t h e husband and 3 5 % t o t h e w i f e . " ' " Id. to a t 311. We c o n c l u d e d that the f a i l u r e of the t r i a l d e t e r m i n e i f t h e moneys e x i s t e d , who h a d p o s s e s s i o n court of the moneys, o r w h i c h p a r t y was o b l i g a t e d t o p a y a p o r t i o n o f t h e moneys t o the other adjudicate parties. the d i v i s i o n Id. that property. judgment owns of to a marital In the present the w i f e a one-half husband amounted court the property, from the t r i a l same completely between court the awarded i f t h e h u s b a n d owns d i d not decide and, t h u s , the to property interest i n property The t r i a l suffers case, failure whether the the t r i a l failure to court's completely a d j u d i c a t e t h e d i v i s i o n o f m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y as t h e j u d g m e n t i n Wilhoite did. is not a f i n a l A c c o r d i n g l y , because t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment j u d g m e n t , we must d i s m i s s cross-appeal. 6 the appeal and t h e 2110382 APPEAL DISMISSED; CROSS-APPEAL Thompson, JJ., DISMISSED. P . J . , and P i t t m a n , B r y a n , concur. 7 Thomas, a n d Moore,

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.