J.D.H. v. A.M.H.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 01/18/2013 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2110017 J.D.H. v. A.M.H. Appeal from Winston C i r c u i t Court (DR-09-69) PITTMAN, Judge. J.D.H. ("the husband") a p p e a l s from a judgment o f t h e W i n s t o n C i r c u i t C o u r t d i v o r c i n g h i m f r o m A.M.H. ("the w i f e " ) , a w a r d i n g c u s t o d y o f t h e p a r t i e s ' two m i n o r c h i l d r e n , dividing 2110017 t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s , and a w a r d i n g t h e w i f e an a t t o r n e y f e e . We a f f i r m i n p a r t , r e v e r s e i n p a r t , and remand w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s . The p a r t i e s m a r r i e d year-old high-school child, and the i n M a r c h 2005. The w i f e , t h e n a 17- s e n i o r , was p r e g n a n t w i t h t h e h u s b a n d ' s husband, then a 23-year-old high-school g r a d u a t e , was e m p l o y e d as a r e a l - e s t a t e a g e n t . Soon a f t e r t h e marriage, the wife experienced a miscarriage, graduated from high on school, and embarked an c u r r i c u l u m at a nearby u n i v e r s i t y . m a r r i a g e t h e h u s b a n d was father, the b u t he l e f t A t some p o i n t d u r i n g t h e e m p l o y e d by a company owned b y h i s t h a t employment real-estate field. elementary-education The i n 2007 and r e t u r n e d husband insisted on p a y i n g to the w i f e ' s c o l l e g e e x p e n s e s , d e s p i t e h e r s t a t i n g t h a t she h a d b e e n o f f e r e d s c h o l a r s h i p s i n h i g h s c h o o l and c o u l d p r o b a b l y a s c h o l a r s h i p t o t h e u n i v e r s i t y she was Initially, the husband. the p a r t i e s l i v e d Double S p r i n g s , square-foot attending. i n a small house I n June 2006, t h e h u s b a n d ' s p a r e n t s parties a four-acre owned by deeded the p a r c e l of land near the parents' and t h e p a r t i e s b u i l t home i n a four-bedroom, 4000- h o u s e on t h e p a r c e l . The w i f e 2 obtain gave b i r t h t o two 2110017 children: a son, b o r n i n A u g u s t 2007 and a daughter born i n December 2008. On the J u l y 5, 2009, t h e w i f e l e f t t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e two c h i l d r e n and days l a t e r , she had went t o a d o m e s t i c - a b u s e s h e l t e r . filed a complaint d i v o r c e and p e n d e n t e l i t e support, residence. a a l l e g i n g that the c o m m i t t e d a c t s o f p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e on h e r and child divorce ground and that threatened trial spousal The support, pendente wife and lite was custody the entered an husband seeking counterclaimed, seeking ex the of c h i l d r e n on exhibiting erratic parte On order immediate temporary custody of the as marital of use a the the s a f e t y of the c h i l d r e n . court Four c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n , as w e l l h u s b a n d a n s w e r e d and the with behavior J u l y 29, granting c h i l d r e n and that 2009, the the the husband s t a t i n g that i t would s e t the m a t t e r f o r a h e a r i n g at the request of e i t h e r party. the the Two trial days l a t e r , court pendente l i t e the trial i n r e s p o n s e t o a m o t i o n by withdrew its July issues for a hearing. court entered 29 order and Following that a pendente l i t e order set custody, and the husband on A u g u s t 3 alternating the hearing, 2009, g r a n t i n g t h e p a r t i e s j o i n t l e g a l c u s t o d y , t h e w i f e physical wife, 17, sole weekend 2110017 v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the c h i l d r e n . The h u s b a n d was $135 c h i l d s u p p o r t and t o m a i n t a i n p e r week i n p e n d e n t e lite h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e c o v e r a g e f o r t h e w i f e and On December pendente lite 7, 2009, the husband order, a l l e g i n g o r d e r e d t o pay children. moved to modify (a) t h a t he h a d j u s t the graduated f r o m t h e S h e r i f f ' s Academy, t h a t he h a d begun employment as a sheriff's deputy, and t h a t h i s work s c h e d u l e d i d not p e r m i t h i m t o e x e r c i s e a l t e r n a t i n g weekend v i s i t a t i o n ; and the w i f e had r e l o c a t e d t h e c h i l d r e n f r o m M a r i o n C o u n t y , she h a d b e e n l i v i n g i n her deceased C u l l m a n C o u n t y , where she was At the husband's time of the motion to modify, a d v i s e d him papers" and he employment w i t h that would he January the was 13, 2010, husband not probably role. where house, to h e a r i n g on had resigned the his He e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e s h e r i f f a municipality a c t i v e law-enforcement grandmother's that c o h a b i t i n g w i t h a paramour. p o s i t i o n as a s h e r i f f ' s d e p u t y . had (b) suited be where to happier he The h u s b a n d "just serving i f he sought could have basis; The w i f e was a s t u d e n t t e a c h e r i n and e x p e c t e d t o g r a d u a t e f r o m c o l l e g e i n May 4 more had t a k e n a j o b a t a r e a l t y company, where he was w o r k i n g on a c o m m i s s i o n he h a d n o t y e t e a r n e d any c o m m i s s i o n s . a 2010. 2110017 The w i f e a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t , i n l a t e A u g u s t 2009, s h e h a d met D.H., a r e c e n t l y d i v o r c e d man, a n d h a d moved i n t o a f t e r having known h i m o n l y a few weeks. h i s home She s t a t e d t h a t on weekday m o r n i n g s s h e t y p i c a l l y t o o k t h e p a r t i e s ' s o n t o a d a y c a r e c e n t e r a t 6:45 a.m. a n d t h e n d r o v e 45 m i n u t e s t o a n o t h e r city, where h e r s t u d e n t - t e a c h i n g post was l o c a t e d a n d where she l e f t t h e p a r t i e s ' d a u g h t e r a t t h e home o f a b a b y s i t t e r who was D.H.'s 2 2 - y e a r - o l d n i e c e . she had not informed The w i f e a l s o a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t t h e husband o f h e r and t h e c h i l d r e n ' s w h e r e a b o u t s when s h e h a d moved. F o l l o w i n g t h e h e a r i n g , t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an amended pendente custody lite order, awarding of the children, the p a r t i e s rotating bearing the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o support or h e r c u s t o d i a l p e r i o d . next 15 months. A final t h e time completed 6 a n d 26, each party f o r the f o u r days 2011. began i n March 2011, t h e w i f e had requirements science teacher a t a middle physical the c h i l d r e n during h i s h e a r i n g was h e l d o v e r the t r i a l her degree with That arrangement c o n t i n u e d M a r c h 11 a n d 25 a n d A p r i l By weekly, joint a n d was employed as a s c h o o l where s h e a l s o s e r v e d a s a g i r l s ' b a s k e t b a l l coach and a s s i s t a n t s o f t b a l l coach. 5 She h a d 2110017 moved out of grandmother's D.H.'s h o u s e house in and was Haleyville. living The e m p l o y e d as a l a w - e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c e r , officer husband t h i s time f o r a n e a r b y m u n i c i p a l i t y where he h o u r s h i f t s and e a r n e d $13.50 p e r h o u r . 2012 hearings, the h u s b a n d had was again as a p a t r o l worked t h r e e 12- (the w i f e r e l y i n g h e r f a t h e r , t h e h u s b a n d on h i s m o t h e r and, h i s father) to a s s i s t with c h i l d deceased Both p a r t i e s depended upon t h e c h i l d r e n ' s r e t i r e d g r a n d p a r e n t s on i n her on to a l e s s e r extent, care. Before resigned his the April law-enforcement p o s i t i o n and had gone t o work i n a n o t h e r of h i s f a t h e r ' s t h r e e business he e n t e r p r i s e s so t h a t , he f l e x i b l e schedule preschools The and said, c o u l d h a v e a more and be a b l e t o p i c k up t h e c h i l d r e n a t t h e i r s p e n d more t i m e w i t h them i n t h e husband testified that, before afternoons. the parties s e p a r a t e d , t h e w i f e had c o m m i t t e d a d u l t e r y w i t h a t l e a s t men, i n c l u d i n g one of her husband p r e s e n t e d evidence y e a r s t h a t t h e c a s e was former h i g h - s c h o o l demonstrating pending, that she accusation had not had of pre-separation sexual relations 6 teachers. The t h a t , d u r i n g the t h e w i f e had moved f i v e and had c o h a b i t e d w i t h two d i f f e r e n t men. husband's three times The w i f e d e n i e d adultery with and two the stated anyone b u t the 2110017 h u s b a n d b e f o r e she h a d f i l e d the complaint for a divorce. d e s c r i b e d t h e h u s b a n d as a p e r s o n who a l t e r n a t e s b e t w e e n charming jealous, and being controlling, and as i n s e c u r e , and p r o n e t o " r a g i n g being She being possessive, fits." The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d s e e n t h e h u s b a n d ' s first " r a g i n g f i t " s i x months a f t e r t h e p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d . w i f e was p a c k i n g newly came i n p r e p a r a t i o n f o r t h e p a r t i e s ' move t o t h e i r constructed home v e r y furniture, The house angry. i n Double Springs when t h e husband He throwing things, kicking began p u n c h i n g w a l l s , and b r e a k i n g was f r i g h t e n e d , and she t e l e p h o n e d pictures. The wife t h e husband's p a r e n t s , who soon a r r i v e d w i t h a b a g c o n t a i n i n g p i l l s ; t h e y i n s t r u c t e d t h e w i f e t o see t h a t t h e h u s b a n d s w a l l o w e d a p i l l . As t h e h u s b a n d took the p i l l , he t o l d t h e w i f e : " I f you want t o , d i v o r c e now. to take I have episode, he had this t o keep me calm." t h e w i f e s a i d , t h e h u s b a n d h a d been v e r y bought her a dozen roses the After me that apologetic: f o l l o w i n g day a C a d i l l a c CTS a u t o m o b i l e t h e f o l l o w i n g week. that, before t h e i n c i d e n t , she h a d n o t known t h a t t h e h u s b a n d h a d been t a k i n g any m e d i c a t i o n that the p i l l s were The w i f e and b u t t h a t she h a d l e a r n e d escitalopram 7 stated later (an a n t i - a n x i e t y d r u g ) and 2110017 lamotrigine (an a n t i - s e i z u r e disorder). The prescriptions from wife drug obtained prescribed a the husband's and d i s c o v e r e d the pharmacist list of for bipolar that the h u s b a n d h a d a l s o b e e n p r e s c r i b e d human g r o w t h hormone ("HGH") and testosterone, inject HGH. a n d , she s a i d , The h u s b a n d w i t h low t e s t o s t e r o n e , stated she h a d s e e n that a n d he a d m i t t e d t h e husband he h a d b e e n diagnosed t h a t he h a d t a k e n that hormone s u p p l e m e n t , b u t he d e n i e d t h a t he h a d b e e n p r e s c r i b e d , o r t h a t he h a d t a k e n , The wife HGH. s t a t e d t h a t t h e husband's p a r e n t s husband's v i o l e n t temper d u r i n g a t h r e e - w e e k p e r i o d when t h e p a r t i e s had l i v e d w i t h t h e husband's p a r e n t s damaged t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e . According a f t e r a f i r e had to the wife, the h u s b a n d ' s t e m p e r was s o o u t o f c o n t r o l d u r i n g his parents that time that had asked the p a r t i e s t o l i v e elsewhere u n t i l they could return to the m a r i t a l The cursed she had seen t h e wife testified that residence. t h e husband had screamed and when t h e c h i l d r e n h a d c r i e d o r h a d h a d d i r t y s a i d he w o u l d "Shut t h e f the w i f e "get i n the c h i l d r e n ' s up" o r " s t o p t h e G d faces" crying." diapers; and yell: In a d d i t i o n , s a i d t h a t t h e husband had t a k e n a k n i f e and c u t t h e 8 2110017 son's b a b y - d e d i c a t i o n t o c h u r c h and outfit (an o u t f i t t h a t t h e son had t h a t , the w i f e s a i d , the husband d i d not b e c a u s e i t was n o t m a s c u l i n e enough) b e c a u s e , he was and too tight was choking the worn child. The like thought, i t husband took i s s u e w i t h the w i f e ' s account of the i n c i d e n t , s t a t i n g t h a t he was trying he had u s e d a k n i f e t o c u t t h e g a r m e n t away b e c a u s e he unfasten to clean the child the stated that could not buttons. wife The a f t e r a b o w e l movement and become more f r e q u e n t the h u s b a n d ' s r a g e s had gradually and more v i o l e n t , and she had become more f r i g h t e n e d of the husband. She stated: "I'm a v e r y s m a l l p e r s o n . He's v e r y b i g , o b v i o u s l y . He l i f t s w e i g h t s a l l t h e t i m e . He w o u l d j e r k me up by my w r i s t s . He'd d r a g me a l l o v e r t h e h o u s e . If I w o u l d n ' t c o n s e n t t o what he was w a n t i n g t o do he w a n t e d me t o be t h i s [sex] f r e a k , so c a l l e d he'd g r a b me up by t h e t h r o a t . The s e x u a l i n c i d e n t s g o t ... h o r r i b l e , and I d i d n o t want t o have s e x a t a l l b e c a u s e i t was so p a i n f u l . " Describing the m a r i t a l residence abuse because that caused her i n J u l y 2009 t o s e e k r e f u g e s h e l t e r , the enraged incident an wife stated Internet streaming f a s t enough. c h a i r and had She that video the he was to tile 9 floor, the i n a domestic- h u s b a n d had watching s a i d t h e h u s b a n d had rammed i t on t h e leave become was not p i c k e d up causing the a chair 2110017 to break head. and sending a wood s h a r d skimming over t h e son's When t h e w i f e p i c k e d up t h e s o n a n d t o o k h i m t o a n o t h e r room, t h e h u s b a n d s t o r m e d o u t s i d e a n d r e p e a t e d l y broken chair against t h e gas g r i l l ; slammed t h e t h e husband then came back i n s i d e , grabbed a p i c t u r e , and threw i t a g a i n s t t h e w a l l , causing glass to shatter a l l over t h e room. The h u s b a n d a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t he h a d become a n g r y on t h a t o c c a s i o n , b u t , he s a i d , h i s a n g e r h a d b e e n p r e c i p i t a t e d b y h i s d i s c o v e r y t h a t t h e w i f e h a d s e n t an i n s t a n t message t o an o l d b o y f r i e n d , one o f t h e t h r e e men w i t h whom, t h e h u s b a n d t h o u g h t , t h e w i f e h a d been unfaithful. The husband's mother, elementary education testified that husband's father, who has a master's a n d r e t i r e d a f t e r t e a c h i n g f o r 25 y e a r s , t h e husband a retired h a d no "anger educator issues." and f o o t b a l l acknowledged t h a t , d u r i n g t h e p a r t i e s ' marriage, confided The wife degree i n i n him about t h e husband's b e i n g about t h e husband's medication]." 10 coach, the wife had "high-tempered." h u s b a n d ' s f a t h e r a l s o s a i d t h a t he h a d e x p r e s s e d h i s concern The "getting to the off [his 2110017 Much of the testimony at trial centered on the issue w h e t h e r t h e w i f e had a c k n o w l e d g e d and had b e e n w i l l i n g t o s e e k the appropriate wife testified s p e e c h was son that not months o f age the assistance had she had developing the son f o r the had son's s p e c i a l needs. been concerned normally because, that she the The son's s a i d , at suddenly stopped t a l k i n g . p r e v i o u s l y b e e n p u t t i n g words t o g e t h e r 18 Whereas in short p h r a s e s , he b e g a n t o s p e a k , i f a t a l l , o n l y s i n g l e w o r d s and seemed t o want t o p l a y a l o n e . The w i f e a t t r i b u t e d t h e c h i l d ' s cessation to of normal h u s b a n d ' s r a g e and son to a speech abuse. certified The his having h u s b a n d ' s m o t h e r had r e g i s t e r e d nurse d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e son was psychologist. After autistic. t e s t i n g the c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e son had ("PDD") and a less t h a t PDD severe t h a t t h e son was was disability than the had sought the to psychologist developmental disorder autism The wife stated her spectrum," but was f u l l - b l o w n autism. r e c e i v i n g speech therapy 11 the r e f e r r e d the w i f e child, a pervasive "on taken L a t e r , the w i f e recommended s p e e c h t h e r a p y . understanding the p r a c t i t i o n e r , who a s e c o n d o p i n i o n f r o m a p e d i a t r i c i a n , who a witnessed She said once p e r week i n h i s 2110017 p r e s c h o o l t h r o u g h a s t a t e p r o g r a m known as " e a r l y - i n t e r v e n t i o n services." The husband and h i s mother presented testimony and d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e s o n was n o t r e c e i v i n g the l e v e l and c o n s i s t e n c y o f e a r l y - i n t e r v e n t i o n s e r v i c e s t h a t he n e e d e d , e i t h e r b e c a u s e t h e w i f e h a d moved and h a d c h a n g e d d a y - c a r e p r o v i d e r s and p r e s c h o o l s so o f t e n o r because t h e w i f e was " i n d e n i a l " a b o u t t h e s e v e r i t y o f t h e s o n ' s The h u s b a n d a l s o p r e s e n t e d best, evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h e w i f e h a d u s e d p o o r judgment companions and, a t w o r s t , interests at trial c u r r e n t l y d a t i n g D.R., i n her choice that, at o f male h a d been u n w i l l i n g t o p u t t h e b e s t o f h e r c h i l d r e n above acknowledged disability. on March h e r own d e s i r e s . 25, 2011, a man who l i v e d that The wife she was i n S h e l b y County and who s o m e t i m e s s p e n t t h e n i g h t w i t h h e r when t h e c h i l d r e n were there. She s t a t e d t h a t D.R. h a d r e v e a l e d t o h e r t h a t he h a d been c h a r g e d w i t h a d o m e s t i c - v i o l e n c e offense a r i s i n g out of an a l t e r c a t i o n w i t h h i s b r o t h e r b u t t h a t t h e c h a r g e h a d been dismissed. On c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , h a d a l s o known t h a t D.R. convictions, the wife admitted t h a t she h a d two d r i v i n g - u n d e r - t h e - i n f l u e n c e b u t she h a d b e e n 12 unaware that D.R.'s d r i v e r ' s 2110017 license h a d been suspended. When confronted with that i n f o r m a t i o n , she s t a t e d t h a t she would n o t a l l o w h e r c h i l d r e n to be i n a c a r d r i v e n b y D.R. When a s k e d w h e t h e r s h e w o u l d c o n t i n u e h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h D.R. i f t h e t r i a l c o u r t a w a r d e d custody of the c h i l d r e n t o her, On May divorcing she s a i d : 23, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l court t h e p a r t i e s on t h e g r o u n d entered a judgment of i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y of temperament; a w a r d i n g t h e p a r t i e s j o i n t sole p h y s i c a l , custody " I d o n ' t know." legal, and t h e w i f e o f t h e c h i l d r e n ; g r a n t i n g t h e husband s t a n d a r d v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s ; o r d e r i n g t h e husband t o pay c h i l d support o f $166 p e r week; a w a r d i n g t h e w i f e a $25,000 lump-sum property settlement and dividing property; and awarding t h e w i f e the p a r t i e s ' a $5,300 a t t o r n e y personal fee. The h u s b a n d f i l e d a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n t h a t was d e n i e d , f o l l o w i n g a hearing, on on A u g u s t 24, 2 0 1 1 . September evidence did determination; The h u s b a n d t i m e l y 30, 2 0 1 1 , r a i s i n g not support the three issues: trial appealed that the court's that the evidence d i d not support t h e $25,000 lump-sum p r o p e r t y a w a r d t o t h e w i f e ; a n d t h a t t h e t r i a l acted outside the l i m i t s w i f e a $5,300 a t t o r n e y of i t s d i s c r e t i o n fee. 13 custody court i n awarding the 2110017 I. " B e c a u s e t h i s was an i n i t i a l c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n , where t h e p a r t i e s a r e on e q u a l f o o t i n g a n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t must b a s e its d e c i s i o n on what i t determines would be i n the best i n t e r e s t of the c h i l d , our review i s very l i m i t e d . " v. Headrick, (citation 845 So. 2d 823, 825 Headrick ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) omitted). "When [an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ] r e v i e w s a t r i a l c o u r t ' s c h i l d - c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t was b a s e d upon evidence p r e s e n t e d o r e tenus, [ i t ] presume[s] t h e trial court's decision i s correct: '"A custody d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d upon o r a l testimony i s accorded a presumption of correctness on a p p e a l , a n d we w i l l not reverse unless the e v i d e n c e so f a i l s t o s u p p o r t t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t i t i s p l a i n l y a n d p a l p a b l y w r o n g . . . . " ' Ex p a r t e P e r k i n s , 646 So. 2d 46, 47 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) , q u o t i n g P h i l l i p s v. P h i l l i p s , 622 So. 2d 410, 412 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1993) ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . T h i s p r e s u m p t i o n i s b a s e d on t h e t r i a l court's unique p o s i t i o n t o d i r e c t l y observe t h e w i t n e s s e s and t o assess t h e i r demeanor and c r e d i b i l i t y . This opportunity to observe witnesses i s especially important in child-custody cases. 'In c h i l d custody cases e s p e c i a l l y , t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f an a t t e n t i v e trial judge i s of great importance.' W i l l i a m s v. W i l l i a m s , 402 So. 2d 1029, 1032 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1981). I n r e g a r d t o custody d e t e r m i n a t i o n s , [our supreme c o u r t ] h a s a l s o s t a t e d : ' I t i s a l s o w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t i n t h e absence o f s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s w i l l assume t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t made t h o s e f i n d i n g s n e c e s s a r y t o s u p p o r t i t s j u d g m e n t , u n l e s s s u c h f i n d i n g s w o u l d be c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s . ' Ex p a r t e B r y o w s k y , 676 So. 2d 1322, 1324 (Ala. 1996)." Ex p a r t e Fann, 810 So. 2d 631, 633 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) . 14 2110017 The evidence undisputed evidence, a model p a r e n t . of the trial evidence, best in this case was highly disputed. The however, i n d i c a t e s t h a t n e i t h e r p a r t y Under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , court to observe the i t was the witnesses, to province sift the and t o d e t e r m i n e w h i c h p a r e n t w o u l d b e t t e r s e r v e i n t e r e s t s of the children. Because the trial "'those f i n d i n g s , we f i n d i n g s necessary s u c h f i n d i n g s w o u l d be 810 1324 So. must assume t h a t t h e 2d a t 633 (Ala. to clearly support trial Ex ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e B r y o w s k y , 676 out c o u r t made i t s judgment, erroneous.'" the court determined t h a t i s s u e i n f a v o r of the w i f e w i t h o u t s e t t i n g specific was parte So. unless Fann, 2d 1322, court could 1996)). E v i d e n c e was presented from which the have f o u n d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d had trial committed domestic or v i o l e n c e b e f o r e the p a r t i e s separated. family S e c t i o n 30-3-131, A l a . Code 1975, a p a r t o f t h e C h i l d C u s t o d y and Abuse A c t , § 30-3-130 e t s e q . , Domestic or A l a . Code 1975, Family provides: " I n e v e r y p r o c e e d i n g where t h e r e i s a t i s s u e a dispute as to the custody of a child, a d e t e r m i n a t i o n by t h e c o u r t t h a t d o m e s t i c o r f a m i l y violence has occurred raises a rebuttable p r e s u m p t i o n by t h e c o u r t t h a t i t i s d e t r i m e n t a l t o t h e c h i l d and n o t i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e c h i l d t o be p l a c e d i n s o l e c u s t o d y , j o i n t l e g a l c u s t o d y , or j o i n t p h y s i c a l custody w i t h the p e r p e t r a t o r of 15 2110017 domestic or f a m i l y v i o l e n c e . N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the provisions regarding rebuttable presumption, the j u d g e must a l s o t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t what, i f any, i m p a c t t h e d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e had on t h e c h i l d . " The wife court, presented would have a b u s i v e c o n d u c t had evidence that, warranted a i f believed finding by that the the trial husband's d e t r i m e n t a l l y a f f e c t e d the p a r t i e s ' son. In h i s a p p e l l a t e b r i e f , the husband acknowledges the f a c t t h a t the trial court could have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t he domestic or f a m i l y v i o l e n c e before he claims, he rebutted the had committed the p a r t i e s separated, but, s t a t u t o r y presumption against an a w a r d o f c u s t o d y t o him by p r e s e n t i n g evidence i n d i c a t i n g that his c h a r a c t e r i z e d by post-separation c o n d u c t was not similar behavior. Based authorized on the evidence presented, to f i n d otherwise. First, the the trial trial court court was could r e a s o n a b l y have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h o s e most k n o w l e d g e a b l e a b o u t the husband's conduct i n p a r e n t i n g and father the c h i l d r e n were u n l i k e l y t o have r e p o r t e d i d e a l b e h a v i o r e x h i b i t e d by t h e h u s b a n d . d e n i e d e v e n t h a t t h e h u s b a n d had had p a r t i e s ' marriage. The The any h i s mother less-than- husband's mother "anger i s s u e s " d u r i n g the h u s b a n d ' s f a t h e r , when a s k e d w h e t h e r he had demanded t h a t t h e p a r t i e s l i v e e l s e w h e r e u n t i l t h e 16 fire 2110017 damage t o t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e t h a t he d i d n o t r e c a l l had been r e p a i r e d , s t a t e d b o t h h a v i n g made s u c h a demand a n d t h a t he w o u l d n o t a c t u a l l y have "made In a d d i t i o n , t h e t r i a l [the p a r t i e s ] leave." c o u r t was p r e s e n t e d w i t h evidence f r o m w h i c h i t r e a s o n a b l y c o u l d have f o u n d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d h a d an overly frequent aggressive changes temperament that accounted i n employment a n d h i s r e p e a t e d employment a t one o f h i s f a t h e r ' s c o m p a n i e s . city attorney According his to to the had t h e husband had been t h e a r r e s t i n g on 70% o f t h e c a s e s attorney returns f o r t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y i n which t h e husband s e r v e d as a p a t r o l o f f i c e r , officer for he h a d p r o s e c u t e d . The city s t a t e d t h a t one c r i m i n a l d e f e n d a n t h a d a l l e g e d that the husband had been u n n e c e s s a r i l y r o u g h d u r i n g an a r r e s t , a n d that when t h e d e f e n d a n t situation guilty had been r e s o l v e d to resisting pleaded a r r e s t a n d s i g n e d a document r e l e a s i n g t h e c i t y from l i a b i l i t y . The c i t y a t t o r n e y was l a t e r c o n t a c t e d by t h e mayor, who i n q u i r e d w h e t h e r t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y was r e q u i r e d t o a f f o r d t h e h u s b a n d a n y d u e - p r o c e s s r i g h t s i f he f r o m employment. any connection criminal resigned A l t h o u g h t h e c i t y a t t o r n e y d e n i e d knowing o f between defendant's t h e husband's agreement 17 resignation to release and t h e the c i t y from 2110017 liability, the t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d c e r t a i n l y have p r o p e r l y drawn i n f e r e n c e t h a t t h e two e v e n t s were r e l a t e d . c o u r t was a l s o p r e s e n t e d w i t h d i r e c t e v i d e n c e the husband's a g g r e s s i v e n e s s to facility tape According where t h e p a r t i e s ' children met t h e h u s b a n d when he e n t e r e d h e r i n a t h r e a t e n i n g a n d i n t i m i d a t i n g manner, h e l d up a recorder, i n s t r u c t e d h e r n o t t o " l a y a f i n g e r on" h i s children, a n d demanded preschool d i r e c t o r s t a t e d t h a t , i n h e r 15 y e a r s ' with trial indicating that was a k i n t o b u l l y i n g . the d i r e c t o r of a preschool were e n r o l l e d , she f i r s t The the preschool, copies of the c h i l d r e n ' s f i l e s . she had never been The experience addressed i n that manner a n d t h a t she d i d n o t want t h e h u s b a n d i n h e r facility again. The t r i a l that the wife court was p r e s e n t e d had d e a l t w i t h with evidence challenges indicating i n a more p a t i e n t , r e s o u r c e f u l , a n d e f f e c t i v e manner t h a n t h e h u s b a n d . A f t e r t h e parties' continue separation, the her education, wife obtained graduated a Pell grant to f r o m c o l l e g e on t i m e , was s u c c e s s f u l i n f i n d i n g a t e a c h i n g j o b i n t h e a r e a , and remained continuously employed. The wife's numerous moves were n e c e s s i t a t e d , t o some e x t e n t , by t h e l o c a t i o n o f h e r s t u d e n t - 18 2110017 t e a c h i n g a s s i g n m e n t a n d t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f summer j o b s college graduation. wife candidly With respect described to her dating after h e r two p a r a m o u r s , t h e criterion as follows: w h e t h e r a man i s "good t o me a n d g o o d t o my k i d s . " T h e r e was no e v i d e n c e t o i n d i c a t e t h a t e i t h e r p a r a m o u r h a d n o t met t h a t criterion. Although the evidence supported the conclusion that the w i f e was l e s s d i l i g e n t t h a n t h e h u s b a n d a n d h i s m o t h e r a b o u t i n s u r i n g t h a t t h e son r e c e i v e d a l l a v a i l a b l e s e r v i c e s f o r h i s d i s a b i l i t y , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment a p p r o p r i a t e l y p r o v i d e d : "[T]he [wife] shall u s e a l l due d i l i g e n c e i n i n v e s t i g a t i n g the l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t y / d e v e l o p m e n t a l d e l a y / a u t i s m o f t h e male c h i l d . She s h a l l c o n s u l t d i r e c t l y w i t h t h e [ h u s b a n d ' s m o t h e r ] on t h i s i s s u e and t h e [ h u s b a n d ' s m o t h e r ] s h a l l have t h e r i g h t t o a t t e n d any a n d a l l v i s i t s t o h e a l t h - c a r e p r o v i d e r s related to this issue." I n sum, we c a n n o t s a y t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s c u s t o d y award was u n s u p p o r t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e so as t o be p l a i n l y a n d p a l p a b l y wrong. II. 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 e r r e d i n a w a r d i n g t h e w i f e a lump-sum p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t o f $25,000 b e c a u s e , he s a y s , t h e c o u r t made no f a c t u a l 19 finding as t o what t h a t sum 2110017 represented or how i t was calculated, and there was no evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the husband had a s s e t s from which t o pay t h e award. represented marital The wife approximately residence. In argues half order that the $25,000 the p a r t i e s ' equity to understand the award i n the parties' arguments, i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o o u t l i n e t h e sequence o f events with respect to the m a r i t a l residence. I n June 2006, t h e h u s b a n d ' s p a r e n t s c o n v e y e d a f o u r - a c r e parcel of undeveloped land parties obtained a to the p a r t i e s , construction loan after in the which the amount of $202,490.75 f r o m a l o c a l bank, e x e c u t e d a n o t e a n d m o r t g a g e t o t h e bank, a n d b u i l t t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e . to experience financial The p a r t i e s began p r o b l e m s as t h e r e a l - e s t a t e market d e c l i n e d and t h e husband's r e a l - e s t a t e commissions d w i n d l e d . I n June 2007, when t h e y c o u l d no l o n g e r make t h e i r payments t o t h e bank, the p a r t i e s $215,000 t o a l i m i t e d - l i a b i l i t y sold company mortgage the property f o r ("LLC") owned b y t h e husband's f a t h e r and u s e d t h o s e funds t o s a t i s f y t h e mortgage i n d e b t e d n e s s t o t h e bank. 1 I n November 2008, when t h e r e a l - T h e w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d n o t known t h a t t h e p a r t i e s ' m o r t g a g e p a y m e n t s h a d n o t been made. She s a i d t h e husband had t o l d h e r o n l y t h a t "they" had " p a i d o f f t h e m o r t g a g e " when, i n f a c t , t h e p a r t i e s h a d c o n v e y e d t h e p r o p e r t y 1 20 2110017 estate the market c o l l a p s e d , parties. The t h e LLC r e c o n v e y e d t h e p r o p e r t y husband's father e x p e c t e d t o be r e p a i d $215,000 the property, loan of only testified that he h a d f o r t h e L L C ' s 2007 p u r c h a s e o f b u t , he s a i d , t h e p a r t i e s h a d q u a l i f i e d $151, 956. to On November e x e c u t e d a note and mortgage i n t h a t 2 1 , 2008, f o ra the p a r t i e s amount t o t h e bank a n d p a i d t h e l o a n p r o c e e d s t o t h e h u s b a n d ' s f a t h e r , who made a l l t h e m o r t g a g e payments u n t i l f u r t h e r payments. mortgage the allowed but I n J a n u a r y 2011, t h e bank f o r e c l o s e d on t h e and t h e husband's foreclosure June 2010, a f t e r w h i c h he made no sale father purchased the property f o r $151,961. t h e husband t o l i v e he d i d n o t r e c o n v e y 2 The h u s b a n d ' s i n t h e former m a r i t a l the property at father residence, t o t h e husband. The h u s b a n d ' s f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was s a v i n g t h e p r o p e r t y f o r the p a r t i e s ' c h i l d r e n . The w i f e residence argues t h a t the p a r t i e s ' e q u i t y was a p p r o x i m a t e l y $50,000 $202,490.75 i n the m a r i t a l t h e d i f f e r e n c e between ( w h i c h amount, t h e w i f e s a y s , was t h e v a l u e o f t h e t o t h e LLC a n d t h e L L C , a c t i n g t h r o u g h t h e h u s b a n d ' s f a t h e r , had p a i d o f f t h e mortgage note. The w i f e s t a t e d t h a t s h e r e a l i z e d t h a t s h e h a d b e e n "hoodooed t h e w h o l e m a r r i a g e . " T h e e v i d e n c e was u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e w i f e h a d n o t i c e o f foreclosure proceedings. 2 the 21 2110017 marital residence construction $151,961 loan as determined that (the p r i c e was paid f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e i n 2011). to h a l f of that the house. "equity" The w i f e ' s paid by by the p a r t i e s ' off in full t h e husband's original i n 2007) father She a s s e r t s t h a t she was because the husband s t i l l and at the entitled lives i n argument i s i n c o r r e c t , because, a t t h e t i m e o f t h e e n t r y o f t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t on May 23, 2011, t h e parties h a d no e q u i t y i n the property only a r i g h t o f r e d e m p t i o n , see § 6-5-248, A l a . Code 1975. § 6-5-250, A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h statutory See a l s o provides: "The s t a t u t o r y r i g h t s o f r e d e m p t i o n g i v e n o r conferred by this article a r e mere personal p r i v i l e g e s and n o t p r o p e r t y o r p r o p e r t y r i g h t s . The p r i v i l e g e s must be e x e r c i s e d i n t h e mode a n d manner p r e s c r i b e d b y s t a t u t e a n d may n o t be w a i v e d i n a d e e d o f t r u s t , j u d g m e n t , o r m o r t g a g e , o r i n any a g r e e m e n t b e f o r e f o r e c l o s u r e o r e x e c u t i o n s a l e . The r i g h t o f p r i v i l e g e c o n f e r r e d under t h i s a r t i c l e i s not s u b j e c t t o l e v y and s a l e under e x e c u t i o n o r attachment nor i s i t s u b j e c t t o a l i e n a t i o n except i n the cases p r o v i d e d f o r i n t h i s a r t i c l e ; b u t i f the r i g h t o r p r i v i l e g e i s p e r f e c t e d b y r e d e m p t i o n as p r o v i d e d i n t h i s a r t i c l e , t h e n , and n o t u n t i l t h e n , i t becomes p r o p e r t y o r r i g h t s o f p r o p e r t y s u b j e c t t o levy, s a l e , a l i e n a t i o n , or other d i s p o s i t i o n , except as i s e x p r e s s l y a u t h o r i z e d b y s t a t u t e . " 3 S e c t i o n 6 - 5 - 2 4 8 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l whose r e a l p r o p e r t y i s s o l d a t a f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e by v i r t u e o f t h e f o r e c l o s u r e o f a m o r t g a g e t h e r e o n "may e x e r c i s e t h e r i g h t o f r e d e m p t i o n ... w i t h i n one y e a r f r o m t h e date of the [ f o r e c l o s u r e ] s a l e . " 3 22 2110017 If, as t h e w i f e c o n t e n d s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n t e n d e d i t s $25,000 lump-sum award "equity" in to the right" therein, If trial the represent marital the court the residence a w a r d was intended the w i f e ' s e q u i t a b l e share wife's or e r r o n e o u s as a division vehicles, of furniture, most evidence least does not perceived "property a matter i t s lump-sum a w a r d t o o f any other m a r i t a l of their furnishings, The and disclose any law. represent asset, then agreed property equipment. marital of parties personal c o u r t d i v i d e d the p r o p e r t y about which they The of other any t h e a w a r d i s u n s u p p o r t e d by any e v i d e n c e . upon share The trial c o u l d not agree. asset worth $25,000 f r o m w h i c h a lump-sum a w a r d t o t h e w i f e at could have b e e n d e r i v e d . III. The husband m a i n t a i n s the l i m i t s t h a t the t r i a l court acted o f i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n o r d e r i n g him an a t t o r n e y f e e o f t o pay outside the $5,300. " I t i s w i t h o u t q u e s t i o n t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t has wide d i s c r e t i o n i n awarding a t t o r n e y fees t o p a r t i e s i n a d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g . Hansen v. Hansen, 401 So. 2d 105, 107 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 1 ) . "'Whether t o a w a r d an a t t o r n e y f e e i n a domestic r e l a t i o n s case i s w i t h i n the s o u n d 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, 23 wife 2110017 a b s e n t an abuse o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n , i t s ruling on that question will not be r e v e r s e d . Thompson v. Thompson, 650 So. 2d 928 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 4 ) . " F a c t o r s t o be c o n s i d e r e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t when a w a r d i n g such fees include the financial circumstances of the p a r t i e s , the p a r t i e s ' conduct, the r e s u l t s of the litigation, and, where a p p r o p r i a t e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s k n o w l e d g e and e x p e r i e n c e as t o t h e v a l u e o f t h e s e r v i c e s p e r f o r m e d by t h e a t t o r n e y . " F i g u r e s v. F i g u r e s , 624 So. 2d 188, 191 (Ala. C i v . App. 1993) . A d d i t i o n a l l y , a t r i a l c o u r t i s p r e s u m e d t o have k n o w l e d g e f r o m w h i c h i t may s e t a r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e e v e n when t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e as t o the reasonableness of the a t t o r n e y fee. T a y l o r v. T a y l o r , 486 So. 2d 1294 (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 8 6 ) . ' " Martin v. Martin, 85 So. 3d ( q u o t i n g G l o v e r v. G l o v e r , 414, 678 423 So. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2d 174, 176 2011) (Ala. Civ. App. 1996)). This divorce but, (Ala. in litigation was p r o t r a c t e d and u n l i k e i n B r a s f i e l d v. B r a s f i e l d , C i v . App. awarding 1996) 2d 1091, 1095 court acted w i t h i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n and contentious divorce l i t i g a t i o n i n v o l v i n g assets exceeding $2.3 insists the that $100,000 So. protracted million), a (trial 679 contentious, parties the had wife's t h a n h i s , as e v i d e n c e d , attorney few marital financial he s a y s , by 24 fee in assets. circumstances the The husband are f a c t s t h a t her better gross 2110017 m o n t h l y income i s $3,156 and h i s i s o n l y $2,340, and wife decided to have elective breast-augmentation c o s t i n g $2,900 t h e week b e f o r e t h e M a r c h 25, 2011, The husband a l s o insists, motion, t h a t the t r i a l or t o c r e d i t him at t r i a l an During free, as he with endorsing the p a r t i e s ' only the i n her in his and surgery trial date. postjudgment handing over to the check i n the amount o f utility bills on the wife $2,298. s e p a r a t i o n , the husband l i v e d r e s i d e n c e owned by h i s f a t h e r . the w i f e l i v e d argued the c o u r t ' s judgment f a i l e d t o acknowledge insurance-refund paying that former rent- marital D u r i n g most o f t h a t t i m e , when d e c e a s e d g r a n d m o t h e r ' s house i n M a r i o n C o u n t y and w i t h a p a r a m o u r i n C u l l m a n C o u n t y , she a l s o p a i d housing the expense o t h e r April 26, 2011, apartment i n Jasper; than u t i l i t i e s . trial date, h o w e v e r , she the S e v e r a l months wife provided her monthly r e n t a l expense at t h a t l o c a t i o n . no moved The to l i v e into trial continue to i n c u r a housing an to court probably r e n t - f r e e i n h i s f a t h e r ' s house, w h i l e w i f e would probably no before e v i d e n c e as c o u l d p r o p e r l y have i n f e r r e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d w o u l d continue 4 the expense. The e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t the check r e p r e s e n t e d a r e t u r n premium f o r f o r c e - p l a c e d i n s u r a n c e on t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e d u r i n g the pendency of the f o r e c l o s u r e p r o c e e d i n g s . 4 25 2110017 As p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d , the specific findings divorced the of fact, parties on divorce but, the judgment i n c l u d e s because ground of the found the adultery settlement, husband's with we testimony three men court i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y and awarded the w i f e s o l e p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y of the lump-sum p r o p e r t y trial c h i l d r e n and assume t h a t t h e t r i a l that before the the no wife had parties' a court committed separation u n w o r t h y o f b e l i e f and d e t e r m i n e d , i n s t e a d , t h a t t h e h u s b a n d ' s v i o l e n t and a b u s i v e c o n d u c t was breakup of the marriage. Accordingly, o u t s i d e the attorney we limits fee. p r i m a r i l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the cannot find that the trial court of i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n awarding the w i f e That s a i d , t h e h u s b a n d ' s argument t h a t he not been c r e d i t e d w i t h d e l i v e r i n g t o the w i f e the refund check instruct with that the i n the trial amount, payment o f h e r acted amount o f court, on thus making attorney fee the sum credit due to had insurance- $2,298 i s w e l l - t a k e n , remand, t o an the the and we husband wife for $3,002. Conclusion That p o r t i o n of sole physical the custody of divorce the 26 judgment a w a r d i n g the children is affirmed. wife That 2110017 p o r t i o n o f t h e j u d g m e n t a w a r d i n g t h e w i f e a lump-sum settlement affirmed, o f $25,000 i s r e v e r s e d . but the t r i a l court property The a t t o r n e y - f e e a w a r d i s i s instructed to credit the h u s b a n d w i t h $2,298 t o w a r d t h e payment o f t h a t f e e . The c a u s e is 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 w i t h this opinion. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , a n d Thomas, J . , concur. 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 27 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.
