Misty Cowart Martin v. Donald Jason Cowart

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: Nov. 16, 2012 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 Reporter of Decisions, 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2110430 M i s t y Cowart M a r t i n v. Donald Jason Cowart Appeal from T a l l a p o o s a C i r c u i t (DR-99-111.03) Court PITTMAN, J u d g e . This i s t h e second time this court. these parties have been before I n t h e f i r s t a p p e a l , w h i c h we d i s m i s s e d a s h a v i n g been t a k e n f r o m a n o n f i n a l o r d e r , we r e c o u n t e d h i s t o r y o f t h e case as f o l l o w s : the procedural 2110430 " [ M i s t y C o w a r t M a r t i n ( ' t h e m o t h e r ' ) and D o n a l d Jason Cowart ('the f a t h e r ' ) ] were married in F e b r u a r y 1999, [when t h e f a t h e r was 19 y e a r s o l d and t h e m o t h e r was 15 y e a r s o l d and p r e g n a n t w i t h t h e p a r t i e s ' c h i l d . The p a r t i e s ] d i v o r c e d s l i g h t l y o v e r a y e a r l a t e r , i n M a r c h 2000. They a g r e e d t o s h a r e j o i n t c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d , and t h e i r a g r e e m e n t was incorporated into the divorce judgment, which provided that the father would exercise his c u s t o d i a l periods during h i s r e g u l a r l y scheduled d a y s o f f . N e i t h e r p a r t y was o r d e r e d t o p a y c h i l d support. I n 2001, t h e m o t h e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n t o modify the custody provision of the divorce judgment; that proceeding concluded when both p a r t i e s agreed t o confirm the o r i g i n a l j o i n t - c u s t o d y p r o v i s i o n of the d i v o r c e judgment. "On F e b r u a r y 11, 2009, t h e m o t h e r f i l e d a s e c o n d p e t i t i o n t o modify the d i v o r c e judgment, s e e k i n g sole p h y s i c a l custody of the c h i l d , scheduled v i s i t a t i o n f o r t h e f a t h e r , and c h i l d s u p p o r t . On March 17, 2009, the f a t h e r filed a counter[p e t i t i o n , ] seeking a m o d i f i c a t i o n of the d i v o r c e judgment t o award him s o l e 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 and ' s u c h o t h e r , further, different, and g e n e r a l r e l i e f t o w h i c h he may, i n e q u i t y and good c o n s c i e n c e , be e n t i t l e d . ' On A p r i l 3, 2009, t h e father filed a petition seeking a finding of c o n t e m p t as t o t h e m o t h e r , a l l e g i n g t h a t she h a d i n t e r f e r e d with h i s c u s t o d i a l r i g h t s to the c h i l d and t h a t she h a d i n t i m i d a t e d t h e c h i l d . "Following a hearing, the t r i a l court [on December 16, 2 0 1 0 , ] d e n i e d t h e p e t i t i o n s t o m o d i f y f i l e d by b o t h p a r t i e s " M a r t i n v. C o w a r t , 84 So. 3d 114, 115 The t r i a l ( A l a . C i v . App. c o u r t ' s December 16, 2010, o r d e r stated: "The c e n t r a l c o n t e n t i o n o f t h e m o t h e r i s t h a t custody i s no l o n g e r f e a s i b l e i n t h a t she 2 2011) . joint is a 2110430 resident of Montgomery County, Alabama. She contends t h a t the b e s t - i n t e r e s t standard a p p l i e s , and t h e f a t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e [Ex p a r t e ] McLendon [, 455 So. 2d 863 ( A l a . 1984),] s t a n d a r d a p p l i e s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e 2001 o r d e r o f m o d i f i c a t i o n . "The undersigned routinely warns parties s u b m i t t i n g a g r e e m e n t s b a s e d upon t r u e j o i n t c u s t o d y o f t h e p e r i l s o f t h e same. The c o u r t i s b o u n d by l a w t o c o n s i d e r s u c h a g r e e m e n t s and t o a c c e p t them when t h e p a r t i e s c o n v i n c e t h e c o u r t t h a t t h e y a r e p r o p e r u n d e r t h e f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s . In t h i s case, t h e p a r t i e s were g i v e n an o p p o r t u n i t y to l i t i g a t e t h i s m a t t e r i n 2000, and 2001, and t h e y d i d n o t c h o o s e t o do s o . I t i s t h e c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n t h a t t h e p a r t i e s have u s e d t h e l a w c o n c e r n i n g joint c u s t o d y t o t h e i r m u t u a l a d v a n t a g e i n t h e p a s t . The c o u r t c a n n o t a t t h i s t i m e f i n d t h a t e i t h e r p a r t y has s u b m i t t e d a l e g a l l y sound reason, s u p p o r t e d i n the e v i d e n c e , t o change t h e j o i n t c u s t o d y o r d e r o f 2001, u n d e r e i t h e r s t a n d a r d s u b m i t t e d by t h e p a r t i e s . " A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e m o t h e r ' s P e t i t i o n To M o d i f y i s DENIED, and f u r t h e r , t h e f a t h e r ' s C o u n t e r - P e t i t i o n To M o d i f y i s DENIED." This trial court court contempt dismissed had failed petition. dismissed the judgment. The c o u r t had When Tallassee. On the to mother's rule December on 27, appeal the 2011, f a t h e r ' s c o n t e m p t p e t i t i o n and because father's the pending trial entered the court a final mother t i m e l y a p p e a l e d , a r g u i n g t h a t the trial e r r e d i n denying her p e t i t i o n to modify. the parties The divorced, f a t h e r was they were both living e m p l o y e d a t Mount V e r n o n 3 in Mills, 2110430 where he w o r k e d i r r e g u l a r h o u r s , and t h e m o t h e r l i v e d w i t h h e r grandmother. The m o t h e r remarrried soon a f t e r the p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e , b u t t h a t m a r r i a g e l a s t e d o n l y f o u r months. second d i v o r c e , until was the mother l i v e d w i t h her grandmother she m a r r i e d f o r t h e t h i r d t i m e i n 2001. also short-lived, e n d o f 2001. A f t e r her again That marriage and t h e m o t h e r was d i v o r c e d b e f o r e t h e I n 2002, t h e m o t h e r moved t o Montgomery. The m o t h e r and h e r f o u r t h h u s b a n d , whom she m a r r i e d i n 2007, have been t o g e t h e r s i n c e 2002. the time of t r i a l , They have a c h i l d t o g e t h e r , and, a t t h e m o t h e r was pregnant with her third child. The f a t h e r h a s m a r r i e d t w i c e s i n c e h i s d i v o r c e f r o m t h e mother i n 2000, and he has three children -- one by m o t h e r , one by h i s s e c o n d w i f e , and one by h i s p r e s e n t At the time outside of t r i a l i n 2010, t h e home, t h e f a t h e r t h e mother was was a Tallapoosa not the wife. employed County law- e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c e r , and t h e p a r t i e s ' 1 1 - y e a r - o l d c h i l d was i n t h e s i x t h g r a d e a t a magnet s c h o o l i n Montgomery. The e v i d e n c e was undisputed that the p a r t i e s had never a c t u a l l y e x e r c i s e d true j o i n t custody of the c h i l d a f t e r June 2001, when t h e m o t h e r ' s f i r s t p e t i t i o n t o m o d i f y t h e c u s t o d y 4 2110430 provision of the divorce agreement t o c o n f i r m the divorce judgment c o n c l u d e d w i t h t h e p a r t i e s ' the o r i g i n a l judgment. Rather, joint-custody p r o v i s i o n of t h e m o t h e r h a s h a d de facto s o l e 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 , and t h e f a t h e r has v i s i t e d with the c h i l d on a l t e r n a t i n g weekends. The f a t h e r claimed t h a t , a f t e r t h e c h i l d s t a r t e d s c h o o l , t h e c h i l d had spent h a l f o f e v e r y summer w i t h h i m . The m o t h e r d i s p u t e d she that claim, but a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s summer v i s i t a t i o n h a d b e e n more e x t e n s i v e The than h i s usual alternating-weekend v i s i t a t i o n . evidence was also undisputed that, although the f a t h e r has o c c a s i o n a l l y c o n t r i b u t e d funds t o pay f o r v a r i o u s expenses a s s o c i a t e d school supplies, with the c h i l d and c l o t h i n g s u c h as s c h o o l he h a s n e v e r paid s u p p o r t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 32, A l a . R. J u d . Admin. covered The the c h i l d meals, child N o r h a s he on h i s e x i s t i n g h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e policy. c h i l d ' s m e d i c a l expenses a r e covered by M e d i c a i d . I n 2 0 0 1 , t h e p a r t i e s , who b o t h l i v e d i n T a l l a s s e e time, agreed t o confirm o f t h e 2000 d i v o r c e continuing different the o r i g i n a l judgment. f o r the next cities, joint-custody at the provision B e g i n n i n g i n 2002, h o w e v e r , a n d 8 years, t h e mother 5 the p a r t i e s h a d de facto sole lived in physical 2110430 c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d , and t h e f a t h e r v i s i t e d w i t h t h e c h i l d alternating parties' we are that weekends. Given those c i r c u m s t a n c e s s i n c e the at a loss neither to party understand "has material entry the submitted of the of the 2001 judgment, statement legally s u p p o r t e d i n t h e e v i d e n c e , t o change t h e in court's trial a changes on sound joint reason, custody order 2001." "Where, as i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e r e i s a p r i o r judgment a w a r d i n g j o i n t p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y , '"the b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d " ' s t a n d a r d a p p l i e s i n any subsequent custody-modification proceeding. Ex parte J o h n s o n , 673 So. 2d 410, 413 (Ala. 1994) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e C o u c h , 521 So. 2d 987, 989 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) ) . To j u s t i f y a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f a p r e e x i s t i n g judgment a w a r d i n g custody, the p e t i t i o n e r must d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e r e has b e e n a m a t e r i a l change o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s s i n c e t h a t judgment was e n t e r e d and t h a t ' " i t [ i s ] i n the [ c h i l d ' s ] b e s t i n t e r e s t s t h a t the [judgment] be modified"' in the manner r e q u e s t e d . Nave v. Nave, 942 So. 2d 372, 376 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) ( q u o t i n g Means v. Means, 512 So. 2d 1386, 1388 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1987))." Ex p a r t e We meant Blackstock, So. 3d 801, 804-05 (Ala. 2009). a r e a l s o a t a l o s s t o u n d e r s t a n d what t h e when opportunity they 47 did not i t to stated that "the litigate this matter choose c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t was to do so." parties i n 2000, The trial were and material proved i n t h i s case o c c u r r e d 6 court given an 2001, and change of after the 2110430 entry of the statement 2000 and 2001 i s meant t o somehow t o be judgments. imply estopped that from I f the trial court's the parties i t considered seeking of the j u d g m e n t s , o r b a r r e d by custody p r o v i s i o n s of the e a r l i e r a modification the d o c t r i n e of res j u d i c a t a from r e l i t i g a t i n g the custody i s s u e , then the t r i a l child c o u r t e r r e d as a m a t t e r o f l a w . custody are retains never res jurisdiction j u d i c a t a , and 447, 989 459 2d 727, ( A l a . 1994) n.9 730 final with respect her to the evidence circumstances, that and i t w o u l d be sole petition 929 a l s o S e l f v. F u g a r d , 1987) the (stating that " c h i l d a particular court, are subject (emphasis established the i n the physical for Snider, made p u r s u a n t t o d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g s , t h a t sense, ongoing") The See ( A l a . C i v . App. c u r r e n t l y before in circuit court Ex p a r t e L i p s c o m b , 660 ( q u o t e d i n Ex p a r t e (Ala. 2005)). determinations the of o v e r t h e m a t t e r f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n upon a showing of changed c i r c u m s t a n c e s . " 2d 986, "[M]atters set of So. So. 518 2d So. custody although circumstances to m o d i f i c a t i o n and, added)). a material change in mother p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g b e s t i n t e r e s t of the custody. modification Although also 7 the sought child to award father's counter- an of award sole 2110430 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 , he d i d n o t p u r s u e t h a t r e q u e s t at trial reverse o r c r o s s - a p p e a l from t h e judgment. the t r i a l court's judgment A c c o r d i n g l y , we denying t h e mother's p e t i t i o n t o m o d i f y , a n d we remand t h i s c a u s e w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s to award t h e mother establish a schedule sole physical custody f o r the father's of the c h i l d , to visitation c h i l d , and t o determine t h e f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t with the obligation p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 32, A l a . R. J u d . Admin. The mother i s awarded $2, 657 as an attorney f e e on appeal. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Moore, J . , c o n c u r s . Thompson, P . J . , a n d B r y a n a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r i n t h e result, without writings. 8

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.