Derek Anthony Santiago v. Jenny Kim Santiago

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 03/08/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2110654 Derek Anthony Santiago v. Jenny Kim Santiago Jenny Kim Santiago v. Derek Anthony Santiago Appeals from Madison C i r c u i t (DR-10-663.01) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . Court 2110654 Derek Anthony S a n t i a g o Kim S a n t i a g o the ("the w i f e " ) ("the husband") a p p e a l s , cross-appeals, Madison C i r c u i t Court ("the t r i a l p a r t i e s ' June 29, 2010, d i v o r c e The parties' judgment reached divorce incorporated was from t h e judgment o f court") modifying the judgment. uncontested. t h e terms b y t h e p a r t i e s on May and Jenny The of a settlement 19, 2010. divorce agreement Pursuant to the s e t t l e m e n t agreement, t h e d i v o r c e judgment d i v i d e d t h e m a r i t a l property custody and awarded the p a r t i e s joint o f t h e i r two m i n o r c h i l d r e n . legal Among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e d i v o r c e judgment awarded t h e w i f e a p o r t i o n whichever i s greater) and p h y s i c a l (30% o r $919.40, p e r month o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s military- r e t i r e m e n t i n c o m e ; i t a l s o awarded h e r o n e - h a l f t h e b a l a n c e o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s I n d i v i d u a l R e t i r e m e n t A c c o u n t ("IRA") a n d onehalf of the balance o f h i s 401(k) r e t i r e m e n t account. The d i v o r c e judgment, s u b j e c t t o c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s , o r d e r e d t h e wife t o convey t o t h e husband h e r o n e - h a l f interest i nthe m a r i t a l home a n d f o r t h e h u s b a n d t o p a y t h e w i f e h e r o n e - h a l f equity i n t h e home; t h e d i v o r c e judgment a l s o p e r m i t t e d t h e w i f e t o r e m a i n i n t h e m a r i t a l home f o r 90 d a y s f o l l o w i n g t h e entry of the divorce judgment, 2 with t h e husband being 2110654 r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e m o r t g a g e payments and c e r t a i n u t i l i t y other and household expenses. R e g a r d i n g c h i l d s u p p o r t and a l i m o n y , t h e d i v o r c e ordered the husband t o pay the wife child judgment support i n the amount o f $808 p e r month and a l i m o n y i n t h e amount o f p e r month f o r f i v e y e a r s . the husband t o m a i n t a i n The d i v o r c e judgment a l s o t h e c h i l d r e n on h i s $1,000 ordered health-insurance p o l i c y and t o p a y f o r t h e i r " m e d i c i n e " and c o - p a y s n o t c o v e r e d by insurance. The divorce judgment further husband t o pay f o r t h e c h i l d r e n ' s r e a s o n a b l e The d i v o r c e under Rule because 3 2 , A l a . R. the parties J u d . Admin., had agreed to true 2010, only three months followed joint-custody Neither p a r t y appealed the divorce O c t o b e r 1, guidelines h a d n o t been a the c o l l e g e expenses. judgment n o t e d t h a t t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t arrangement. On ordered and judgment. a few 1 days a f t e r the e n t r y o f t h e p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e judgment, t h e husband R e g a r d i n g t h e p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e , we n o t e t h a t t h e p a r t i e s s i g n e d a d i v o r c e a g r e e m e n t on May 11, 2010, a p p r o x i m a t e l y one week b e f o r e t h e y s i g n e d t h e s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t on May 19, 2010. A t t h e t i m e t h e p a r t i e s s i g n e d t h e d i v o r c e a g r e e m e n t , t h e y were n o t r e p r e s e n t e d b y l e g a l c o u n s e l . A p p a r e n t l y , an attorney helped them with the divorce "paperwork" by f i n a l i z i n g the s e t t l e m e n t agreement ( i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h e d i v o r c e a g r e e m e n t ) and a l s o by a s s i s t i n g them w i t h t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e "CS" c h i l d - s u p p o r t f o r m s r e q u i r e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 3 2 , A l a . R. J u d . Admin. 1 3 2110654 filed in the court a obligation support trial under the petition, the husband gainfully employed petition divorce alleged and that support. The that her m a t e r i a l change o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s child to modify his judgment. the wife employment warranting husband s p e c i f i c a l l y childIn had his become constituted a a r e c a l c u l a t i o n of requested that the t r i a l c o u r t " r e - c a l c u l a t e c h i l d s u p p o r t b a s e d on t h e p a r t i e s ' current income and paid by the from the On an [husband] to time s o u g h t an of filing attorney O c t o b e r 21, "Answer/Counter wife, modify the represented counterclaimed amount o f the [ w i f e ] making this Petition." wife change denied of support to be i t retro-active The husband also fee. 2010, the w i f e , proceeding Petition," by to counsel, modify and 2 on filed the that her circumstances husband's c h i l d - s u p p o r t October an pro se, 29, 2010, employment c o n s t i t u t e d a o b l i g a t i o n , the modification wife the and child-support A l t h o u g h i n her warranting filed amended answer husband's o b l i g a t i o n under the d i v o r c e judgment. the child answer material of alleged in the her T h e w i f e i n i t i a l l y was r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e a t t o r n e y who helped the p a r t i e s w i t h t h e i r d i v o r c e . See n o t e 1, s u p r a . T h a t a t t o r n e y l a t e r w i t h d r e w , and t h e w i f e t h e r e a f t e r was r e p r e s e n t e d by d i f f e r e n t l e g a l c o u n s e l . 2 4 2110654 counterclaim required that the under Rule husband was paying 20% less than 32, A l a . R. J u d . A d m i n . , a n d t h a t that f a c t c o n s t i t u t e d 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 a r e c a l c u l a t i o n of h i s child-support requested warranting obligation. The wife t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e c a l c u l a t e t h e amount o f c h i l d s u p p o r t t o be p a i d b y t h e h u s b a n d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 32, A l a . R. J. A d m i n . , a n d t o make i t r e t r o a c t i v e f r o m t h e t i m e f i l i n g of h i s p e t i t i o n . The w i f e a l s o s o u g h t an a t t o r n e y f e e . On M a r c h 9, 2 0 1 1 , t h e h u s b a n d f i l e d t o m o d i f y t h e d i v o r c e judgment. husband a l l e g e d t h a t of the an amended petition I n h i s amended p e t i t i o n , t h e the wife's employment, as w e l l as h e r r e c e i p t o f a p o r t i o n o f h i s m o n t h l y m i l i t a r y - r e t i r e m e n t income pursuant change to the divorce of circumstance judgment, warranting constituted pay o n e - h a l f the that the t r i a l of the uncovered medical c h i l d r e n and t o f u r t h e r order share of college requested, expenses income. child In a d d i t i o n , court order the wife to e x p e n s e s and c o - p a y s f o r t h e w i f e t o pay a p r o r a t a f o r the c h i l d r e n . i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , that 5 material a r e c a l c u l a t i o n of s u p p o r t b a s e d on t h e p a r t i e s ' c u r r e n t the husband requested a the t r i a l The court husband order a 2110654 l e s s e r amount o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y o r t e r m i n a t e his periodic- alimony o b l i g a t i o n . On April modify wife the 7, 2011, divorce alleged a l i m o n y and judgment. that circumstances the w i f e there an increase and education been i n the to amended p e t i t i o n amended p e t i t i o n , a r e q u i r e d an b e c a u s e , among o t h e r r e a s o n s , training an In her had s u c h t h a t she filed material attorney The 2011. in increase i n periodic d u r a t i o n of p e r i o d i c alimony she w a n t e d t o p u r s u e a d d i t i o n a l help her h e r s e l f i n the f u t u r e . obtain employment The that allow w i f e a l s o s o u g h t an fee. t r i a l c o u r t h e l d an o r e t e n u s h e a r i n g on November S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , on court the change w o u l d s u f f i c i e n t l y c o v e r h e r m o n t h l y l i v i n g e x p e n s e s and her to support to entered a December modification judgment 12, 2011, that, 28, the trial among other t h i n g s , i n c r e a s e d the husband's c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n from $808 per month to periodic-alimony ordered, $1,496.70 per obligation. month The and terminated modification judgment in part: "1. husband] parties' support The c o u r t GRANTS t h e request of [the t o r e - c a l c u l a t e c h i l d s u p p o r t b a s e d on t h e c u r r e n t income. The C o u r t d e t e r m i n e s t h e t h e [ h u s b a n d ] s h a l l pay to the [wife] 6 his 2110654 towards t h e s u p p o r t and maintenance o f t h e p a r t i e s ' m i n o r c h i l d r e n [ i s ] t h e sum o f ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND NINETY-SIX AND 70/100 ($1,496.70) DOLLARS, p e r m o n t h . T h i s m o d i f i c a t i o n i s made r e t r o - a c t i v e from t h e f i l i n g o f t h i s p e t i t i o n . The c h i l d s u p p o r t g u i d e l i n e s s e t f o r t h i n R u l e 32, [ A l a . R. J u d . Admin.,] have b e e n f o l l o w e d a n d a p p l i e d . " 2 . The C o u r t c o n c l u d e s t h e [ w i f e ' s ] e a r n i n g c o n s t i t u t e 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 . The alimony award i s hereby TERMINATED, effective January, 2012. The [husband's] request f o r r e t r o a c t i v e t e r m i n a t i o n o f a l i m o n y i s h e r e b y DENIED. "3. A l l remaining claims of the p a r t i e s not r u l e d on h e r e i n a r e h e r e b y DENIED. "4. A l l o t h e r p r o v i s i o n s s h a l l remain i n e f f e c t . " of the Divorce Judgment (Capitalization i n original.) Thereafter, motions 2012. both parties filed t h a t were d e n i e d b y t h e t r i a l timely postjudgment c o u r t on F e b r u a r y 29, The h u s b a n d t i m e l y a p p e a l e d , a n d t h e w i f e t i m e l y c r o s s - appealed. Appeal The abused husband contends i t s discretion o b l i g a t i o n because, on a p p e a l in that increasing the t r i a l his court child-support he m a i n t a i n s , t h e w i f e f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e o f 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 t o warrant the increase. We f i n d t h e h u s b a n d ' s c o n t e n t i o n t o be 7 2110654 without merit. The husband bases this f a u l t y premise that the t r i a l court granted contention on the the w i f e ' s request t o m o d i f y c h i l d s u p p o r t when, i n f a c t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t , i n t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n j u d g m e n t , s p e c i f i c a l l y "GRANT[ED] t h e r e q u e s t [the husband] to p a r t i e s ' current re-calculate income." child support based on of the (Capitalization i n original.) We n o t e t h a t t h e p r o c e e d i n g s b e l o w were i n i t i a t e d b y t h e h u s b a n d by f i l i n g under a petition the petition divorce the gainfully to modify h i s child-support o b l i g a t i o n judgment; husband employed as alleged and that that her m a t e r i a l change o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s child previously the wife employment warranting petition, employment, the husband alleged had become constituted income. that the a In h i s wife's as w e l l as h e r r e c e i p t o f a p o r t i o n o f h i s m o n t h l y m i l i t a r y - r e t i r e m e n t income p u r s u a n t t o t h e d i v o r c e constituted in his a r e c a l c u l a t i o n of s u p p o r t b a s e d on t h e p a r t i e s ' c u r r e n t amended stated, a material change of circumstances judgment, warranting a r e c a l c u l a t i o n o f c h i l d s u p p o r t b a s e d on t h e p a r t i e s ' c u r r e n t income. We increase in child granted recognize that the wife support, the husband's c o u n t e r p e t i t i o n e d f o r an but the t r i a l petition 8 court to modify h i s specifically child-support 2110654 o b l i g a t i o n b a s e d on t h e p a r t i e s ' c u r r e n t i n c o m e . husband's petition r e s u l t e d i n an increase Although in his the child- s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n , r a t h e r t h a n t h e d e c r e a s e he a p p a r e n t l y h a d hoped f o r , he Therefore, is not now in a position to complain. as t o t h e h u s b a n d ' s a p p e a l , we a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as i t m o d i f i e d t h e h u s b a n d ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n . Cross-appeal In trial her cross-appeal, court retroactive failed child the wife to grant support first h e r a "sum t o § 30-3-114, A l a . Code 1975. reliance on 30-3-114 certain" t h a t , she m a i n t a i n s , pursuant § contends t o be misplaced. We find See does n o t a p p l y i n proceedings p r e v i o u s l y has been o r d e r e d per i n which pursuant the amount o f was M i t c h e l l , 718 So. 2d 65, 68 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998) 3-114 that required the wife's Calloway v. ( S e c t i o n 30¬ child to a divorce support judgment, § 30-3-110, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ) . Sections 30-3-110 and 30-3-114 were enacted as p a r t of t h e same a c t , A c t No. 94-213, A l a . A c t s 1994, and must be r e a d together. (noting See L o c k e v. Wheat, 350 So. 2d 451, 453 the general proposition that d e a l i n g w i t h t h e same s u b j e c t m a t t e r 9 ( A l a . 1977) statutory a r e t o be r e a d sections in pari 2110654 materia). provides, S e c t i o n 30-3-110, t h e f i r s t section of t h a t a c t , i n part: "There i s hereby c r e a t e d a c i v i l a c t i o n t o e s t a b l i s h an o r d e r o f r e t r o a c t i v e [ c h i l d ] s u p p o r t w h i c h may be b r o u g h t a g a i n s t a n o n - s u p p o r t i n g p a r e n t who has a d u t y t o s u p p o r t as t h e l e g a l p a r e n t o f a c h i l d o r c h i l d r e n b u t has f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e s u p p o r t . .... An a c t i o n u n d e r t h i s s e c t i o n can be b r o u g h t o n l y i f s u p p o r t has n o t p r e v i o u s l y b e e n o r d e r e d p u r s u a n t t o a d i v o r c e o r o t h e r a c t i o n i n t h i s o r any other j u r i s d i c t i o n . " Section "[t]he 30-3-114, order of cited by the w i f e , retroactive c e r t a i n j u d g m e n t and may [child] provides i n part support shall be that a cover a l l p e r i o d s i n which the sum non- supporting parent f a i l e d to provide support." In in Calloway, supra, t h i s c o u r t concluded t h a t the that case was precluded from bringing an father action r e t r o a c t i v e c h i l d s u p p o r t u n d e r § 30-3-110 when t h e i s s u e child s u p p o r t p r e v i o u s l y had b e e n a d d r e s s e d d i v o r c e judgment. I n so d o i n g , t h i s c o u r t i n the of parties' reasoned: "By A c t No. 94-213, § 1, A l a . A c t s 1994, c o d i f i e d a t § 30-3-110, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e c r e a t e d 'a c i v i l a c t i o n t o e s t a b l i s h an o r d e r o f r e t r o a c t i v e s u p p o r t w h i c h may be b r o u g h t a g a i n s t a n o n - s u p p o r t i n g p a r e n t who has a d u t y t o s u p p o r t as t h e l e g a l p a r e n t o f a c h i l d or c h i l d r e n b u t has f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e s u p p o r t . ' The l a s t s e n t e n c e o f § 30-3-110 s t a t e s : 'An a c t i o n u n d e r t h i s s e c t i o n can be b r o u g h t o n l y i f s u p p o r t has n o t p r e v i o u s l y been o r d e r e d p u r s u a n t t o a d i v o r c e or o t h e r a c t i o n i n t h i s o r any o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n . ' 10 for 2110654 "Words u s e d i n a s t a t u t e must be g i v e n t h e i r n a t u r a l , p l a i n , o r d i n a r y , a n d commonly u n d e r s t o o d m e a n i n g , a n d where p l a i n l a n g u a g e i s u s e d a c o u r t i s b o u n d t o i n t e r p r e t t h a t l a n g u a g e t o mean e x a c t l y what i t s a y s . ' IMED C o r p . v. S y s t e m s E n g i n e e r i n g A s s o c s . C o r p . , 602 So. 2d 344, 346 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . " Calloway, 718 So. 2d a t 68. In t h e p r e s e n t child support divorce apply case, i t i s undisputed p r e v i o u s l y has been a d d r e s s e d i n t h e p a r t i e s ' judgment; thus, neither t o the f a c t s o f t h i s case. Next, the w i f e discretion We a g r e e . conclusion of correctness e r r o n e o u s and a g a i n s t will is periodic-alimony of the f a c t s of t h i s attends on i s s u e s o f f a c t , not d i s t u r b t h e t r i a l case. ( A l a . 1977) ( " I t i s the ore tenus, trial a court's a n d [an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ] will court's conclusion unless i t i s c l e a r l y the great weight of the evidence, a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t i f , u n d e r any r e a s o n a b l e supported supra. c o u r t abused i t s t h a t where t h e e v i d e n c e h a s b e e n t a k e n presumption 30-3-114 A t t h e o u t s e t , we n o t e t h a t t h e o r e R a i d t v. C r a n e , 342 So. 2d 358, 360 axiomatic nor § See C a l l o w a y , t h e husband's tenus r u l e a p p l i e s t o our review See § 30-3-110 contends that the t r i a l i n terminating obligation. that the issue of by c r e d i b l e evidence."). 11 but aspect, i t 2110654 At the time of t h e i r divorce i n June 2010, h a d b e e n m a r r i e d more t h a n 16 y e a r s . was 43 years o l d and the husband the parties At t h a t time, the w i f e was 47 years old. Two c h i l d r e n were b o r n o f t h e m a r r i a g e -- a d a u g h t e r and a son. A t t h e t i m e o f t h e d i v o r c e , t h e d a u g h t e r was the left son was Korea 13 y e a r s o l d . i n 1989. The 16 y e a r s o l d and The w i f e i s a n a t i v e o f K o r e a ; h u s b a n d has a military she background, h a v i n g f o r m e r l y s e r v e d i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Army. At the time of the p a r t i e s ' the modification h e a r i n g , the husband worked f o r a r e s e a r c h and t e c h n o l o g y c o r p o r a t i o n . in acquisition certification d i v o r c e and a t t h e t i m e o f The h u s b a n d has a m a s t e r ' s degree a c c o u n t i n g and c o n t r a c t i n g and a p r o f e s s i o n a l i n contracting. At the time of the parties' d i v o r c e , t h e w i f e h a d j u s t begun w o r k i n g a t a c l o t h i n g as a t r a i n e e ; she was settlement modification agreement store n o t w o r k i n g when t h e p a r t i e s s i g n e d t h e in May h e a r i n g , the manager a t t h e c l o t h i n g 2010. w i f e was At the working time as of the a part-time store. D u r i n g most o f t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e , t h e h u s b a n d was s o l e wage e a r n e r and wife worked at least s o u r c e o f income f o r t h e p a r t i e s . part time 12 during 2003 through the The 2006, 2110654 starting o u t as a c o s m e t i c s a l e s a s s o c i a t e a n d e n d i n g as an a s s i s t a n t manager a t a "PX," o r " p o s t m i l i t a r y base. done "things making s t u f f the The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e w i f e a l s o h a d on h e r own," f o r people" husband, t h e w i f e ' s bills, e x c h a n g e , " s t o r e on a such as "cleaning h o u s e s [and] a n d "house s i t t i n g . " money h a d n o t gone According to t o pay household e x p l a i n i n g t h a t " h e r money was h e r money a n d my money was o u r money." During at s p r i n g 2010, t h e p a r t i e s d i s c u s s e d t h e same employment. time, During they those also discussed conversations, d i v o r c e , and, the wife's they discussed the p o s s i b i l i t y o f t h e w i f e ' s s t a r t i n g h e r own c l e a n i n g and t h e h u s b a n d p r i n t e d t h e w i f e b u s i n e s s regarding that p o s s i b l e business p a r t i e s signed the settlement seeking business, cards and b r o c h u r e s venture. A t the time the agreement i n w h i c h t h e husband a g r e e d t o p a y t h e w i f e m o n t h l y p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y i n t h e amount of $1,000 f o r f i v e years, t h e w i f e was n o t e m p l o y e d b u t t h e h u s b a n d was aware t h a t s h e was l o o k i n g f o r employment. settlement judgment a g r e e m e n t t h a t was i n c o r p o r a t e d does not mention the 13 wife's into The the divorce efforts to find 2110654 employment terminate and not state that periodic alimony will i f t h e w i f e becomes e m p l o y e d . Regarding parties' does the divorce h i s employment husband's income, at the time of the i n June 2010, t h e h u s b a n d ' s g r o s s p a y from t o t a l e d $3,993.11 e v e r y two weeks, b a s e d on an h o u r l y r a t e o f $47.51 p l u s $192.31 i n " [ b ] e n e f i t s . " B e g i n n i n g i n J a n u a r y 2011, t h e h u s b a n d ' s g r o s s p a y f r o m h i s employment t o t a l e d $4,069.11 e v e r y two weeks, b a s e d on an h o u r l y r a t e o f $48.60 plus $192.31 in "[b]enefits." In a d d i t i o n r e g u l a r p a y , t h e h u s b a n d a l s o r e c e i v e d bonus to h i s income; during November 2010 t h e h u s b a n d r e c e i v e d a $12,000 b o n u s , d u r i n g 2011 t h e h u s b a n d r e c e i v e d a $500 b o n u s , and d u r i n g 2011 t h e h u s b a n d r e c e i v e d a $750 b o n u s . t h a t h i s 2010 bonus income was the husband s i m i l a r bonus income d u r i n g 2011. September The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d income t o t a l e d $13,750. not guaranteed, May Although expected to bonus receive The h u s b a n d ' s 2010 f e d e r a l i n c o m e - t a x r e t u r n r e f l e c t s t h a t h i s g r o s s t a x a b l e income f r o m his employment reflects total difference t o t a l e d $106,208; h i s a c c o m p a n y i n g W-2 form g r o s s p a y i n t h e amount o f $117,496.48. The i n h i s g r o s s p a y and h i s g r o s s t a x a b l e attributable to pre-tax income 14 t h a t was deposited income i s into his 2110654 401(k) r e t i r e m e n t account ( $ 2 , 4 9 9 . 9 0 ) , and C a f e 125" for account ($1,009.12). officiating of the D u r i n g 2010, football modification wife $992.40 p e r retirement time of as he expected to hearing, the husband i n m i l i t a r y - r e t i r e m e n t income, parties' receive month i n t h e husband's divorce and at the time At was the paid and the military- income, per the p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e judgment. the FSA" "Other f o o t b a l l games d u r i n g 2011. month paid "Medical t h e h u s b a n d r e c e i v e d $635 games, and $2,315.60 p e r was into a i n t o an a c c o u n t d e s i g n a t e d $800-$900 f o r o f f i c i a t i n g time ($7,779.17), At of the the m o d i f i c a t i o n h e a r i n g , t h e h u s b a n d a l s o r e c e i v e d $857 p e r month in Veterans Administration d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s . 3 We note t h a t the evidence c o n t a i n e d i n the record r e g a r d i n g t h e c o r r e c t amount o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s income f o r p u r p o s e s o f d e t e r m i n i n g h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t and p e r i o d i c - a l i m o n y o b l i g a t i o n s i s somewhat c o n f u s i n g b e c a u s e t h e h u s b a n d a p p e a r s t o b a s e s u c h o b l i g a t i o n s p r i m a r i l y on what he c o n s i d e r s t o be h i s "net income" r a t h e r than h i s i n c o m e / b e n e f i t s t h a t are a c t u a l l y a v a i l a b l e f o r such c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . For example, the h u s b a n d ' s amount o f " g r o s s i n c o m e " on h i s Form 41, C h i l d Support-Obligation Income S t a t e m e n t / A f f i d a v i t , b o t h a t t h e t i m e o f t h e d i v o r c e and a t t h e t i m e o f t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n h e a r i n g , does n o t a p p e a r t o c o r r e s p o n d t o o t h e r more c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d as t o t h e amount t h a t s h o u l d have b e e n reported. We n o t e t h a t t h e h u s b a n d ' s e a r n i n g s s t a t e m e n t s f o r pay p e r i o d e n d i n g June 19, 2010, t h r o u g h t h e pay p e r i o d e n d i n g S e p t e m b e r 9, 2011, and h i s 2010 f e d e r a l and s t a t e i n c o m e - t a x r e t u r n s r e v e a l t h a t t h e h u s b a n d p o s s i b l y s o u g h t t o have h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t and p e r i o d i c - a l i m o n y o b l i g a t i o n s e s t a b l i s h e d on 3 15 2110654 Regarding signed the the wife's settlement j u d g m e n t was At of the time approximately total of parties' wife 30 agreement she began a t a r a t e o f $9.50 p e r the modification hours per $1,560 per moved o u t , r e p r e s e n t i n g her The wife and a t t e n d e d the per $12 month. parties' divorce has hour. worked hour for Following judgment, husband p a i d the a the the approximately t h e n moved o u t ; a r o u n d the equivalent of wife a high-school a community c o l l e g e i n K o r e a . According describes stating: the per she per hour, the $20,000, s h a r e o f t h e e q u i t y i n t h e m a r i t a l home. the U n i t e d S t a t e s , the cosmetics. she hearing, week e a r n i n g t h r e e months a f t e r t h e d i v o r c e and to i n c r e a s e d t o $12 r e m a i n e d i n t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l home f o r t i m e t h a t she parties clothing t h a t r a t e was and before the divorce approximately divorce but after the s t o r e on June 10, 2010; 2010 shortly t h e w i f e became e m p l o y e d a t a entered, and d u r i n g f a l l income, her F o l l o w i n g h e r move w i f e t o o k some c l a s s e s r e l a t i n g t o t h e w i f e , she has oral education communication language b a r r i e r s ; skills as average, "I think I understand E n g l i s h b e t t e r that I she d e s c r i b e s h e r w r i t i n g s k i l l s as p o o r . The wife l e s s e r amounts o f income t h a n r e q u i r e d f o r t h o s e 16 to talk"; testified purposes. 2110654 t h a t she b e l i e v e d t h a t h e r i n a b i l i t y t o s p e a k E n g l i s h w e l l h a d impacted her a b i l i t y to f i n d employment. The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she r e c e i v e s no b e n e f i t s f r o m h e r employment and employment. overtime. that She she also has not testified been that offered she full-time i s not She t e s t i f i e d t h a t she does n o t r e c e i v e b o n u s e s and does n o t a n t i c i p a t e a r a i s e . She t e s t i f i e d t h a t she has b e e n t r y i n g t o l o o k f o r o t h e r employment. to return to school The w i f e t e s t i f i e d she would l i k e but t h a t she d i d n o t have t h e money t o p a y f o r i t . to complete her t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a l t h o u g h h e r income was s u f f i c i e n t p r e s e n t m o n t h l y e x p e n s e s , she l i v e d i n a savings the She also a p p r o x i m a t e l y $30,000-$31,000 from the husband's The wife t o meet h e r f o r emergencies testified that i n a retirement 401(k) account. education The w i f e has $10,000 a c c o u n t t h a t she w a n t s t o r e s e r v e children. that " p a y c h e c k t o p a y c h e c k " and h a d no income t o i n v e s t i n r e t i r e m e n t . for offered she has account derived The w i f e testified that t h e e x p e n s e s she i n c u r s f o r t h e c h i l d r e n h a d i n c r e a s e d , as h a d her household expenses. standard the The w i f e o f l i v i n g as b e i n g husband, pointing described her postdivorce l o w e r t h a n when she was m a r r i e d t o out, for instance, 17 that during the 2110654 parties' the marriage family and she had had shopped department s t o r e but department testified t h a t she had t h e t i m e she charged that different for her quality clothes stores, such as meat f o r at t h a t , s i n c e t h e d i v o r c e , she discount at purchased higher The wife attorney fee f i l e d h e r answer and c o u n t e r c l a i m , so she had expense attorneys on a credit represent card. her at the her nice shopped at TJMaxx. n o t b e e n a b l e t o pay a The wife had trial-court two level, and h e r a t t o r n e y f e e s a t t h e t i m e o f t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n h e a r i n g t o t a l e d approximately was n o t a b l e t o pay $5,967.50. her The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t attorney fees The record contains statements monthly living expenses; a l l of she "comfortably." regarding those both parties' statements include expenses f o r and/or a l l o c a t e d to the c h i l d r e n . In her October 2010 p r o se answer and c o u n t e r p e t i t i o n , t h e w i f e a l l e g e d t h a t her monthly expenses totaled approximately i n i t i a l p r o se answer and c o u n t e r p e t i t i o n was the w i f e ' s testimony not admitted the husband's $2,795; discussed during at the m o d i f i c a t i o n h e a r i n g , but i n t o evidence. In her interrogatory question February that 2011 regarding i t was answer her to average monthly expenses, the w i f e responded t h a t her average monthly 18 2110654 e x p e n s e s t o t a l e d $2,710.44; t h a t r e s p o n s e was admitted into evidence. The after w i f e a l s o compiled a monthly budget d u r i n g saving a years' expenses f o r a year; into evidence totaled and worth of receipts and fall looking t h a t b u d g e t s t a t e m e n t a l s o was reflects that the wife's monthly 2011 at admitted expenses $4,092. The husband also prepared s t a t e m e n t ; t h a t s t a t e m e n t a l s o was a monthly i n t o evidence and r e f l e c t s that, i n a d d i t i o n to h i s e x i s t i n g child-support and periodic-alimony totaled expenses, $6,539. the admitted expenditures o b l i g a t i o n s , the husband's monthly expenses In addition husband i n c l u d e d , f o r h a i r r e s t o r a t i o n and to typical among o t h e r $510.75 f o r l e g a l monthly things, fees. living $485.05 4 I n h i s monthly e x p e n d i t u r e s statement, the husband a l s o s o u g h t t o e s t a b l i s h t h e amount o f h i s m o n t h l y i n c o m e . We have c a r e f u l l y r e v i e w e d t h a t s t a t e m e n t and n o t e t h a t t h e amount o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s s e l f - d e t e r m i n e d m o n t h l y income a p p e a r s t o be l e s s t h a n t h e amount t h a t a c t u a l l y s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d f o r alimony purposes. See n o t e 3, s u p r a . 4 We a l s o n o t e t h a t t h e h u s b a n d p r e p a r e d , and introduced i n t o evidence, a statement r e l a t i n g to c e r t a i n expenses t h a t he and t h e w i f e had s p e n t on t h e c h i l d r e n ; t h a t s t a t e m e n t r e f l e c t s t h a t s u c h e x p e n s e s t o t a l e d $1,968.18, o f w h i c h he p a i d $1,324.73 and t h e w i f e p a i d $643.45. 19 2110654 Periodic matters alimony resting and i t s subsequent within c o u r t , and t h e t r i a l t h e sound modification discretion of the are trial c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t as t o t h o s e i s s u e s n o t be r e v e r s e d a b s e n t a showing Tiongson 765 So. 2d 643, 645 v. T i o n g s o n , will o f an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . ( A l a . C i v . App. 1999) . In this B r a y v. B r a y , 979 So. 2d 798 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007), court set forth the applicable standard of review follows: "'Our standard of review when reviewing an appeal from a judgment granting or denying a requested m o d i f i c a t i o n of alimony i s w e l l s e t t l e d . "'"An o b l i g a t i o n t o p a y a l i m o n y may be m o d i f i e d o n l y upon a s h o w i n g o f a m a t e r i a l change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t has o c c u r r e d since the t r i a l court's previous j u d g m e n t , a n d t h e b u r d e n i s on the p a r t y seeking a m o d i f i c a t i o n t o make t h i s s h o w i n g " " ' G l o v e r v. G l o v e r , 730 So. 2d 218, 220 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998) ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) . ' " E d e r e r v. E d e r e r , App. 200 4 ) . 900 So. 2d 427, 428 (Ala. "'Where a t r i a l c o u r t r e c e i v e s o r e t e n u s e v i d e n c e , i t s j u d g m e n t b a s e d on t h a t evidence i s e n t i t l e d t o a presumption of c o r r e c t n e s s on a p p e a l a n d w i l l n o t be 20 Civ. as 2110654 r e v e r s e d absent a showing t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n o r t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t i s so u n s u p p o r t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e as t o be p l a i n l y a n d p a l p a b l y w r o n g . ' " S e l l e r s v. S e l l e r s , C i v . App. 20 0 4 ) . " 893 So. 2d 456, 457-58 ( A l a . 979 So. 2d a t 800. Even i f a m a t e r i a l trial court change o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s i s shown, a i s not required Kiefer, 671 So.2d Mullins v. M u l l i n s , t o modify 710, 711 (Ala. 475 So. 2d 578 alimony. C i v . App. Kiefer 1995) v. (citing ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 5 ) ) . F a c t o r s the t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d c o n s i d e r i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether to m o d i f y an a l i m o n y award include, among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y o f each spouse, t h e payee spouse's need f o r alimony, t h e payor spouse's spouse's Posey, estate. Kiefer, 634 So. 2d 571 ability t o pay a l i m o n y , and each 671 So.2d a t 711 (citing ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 4 ) ) . P o s e y v. When, as i n t h i s c a s e , a p r o v i s i o n a w a r d i n g p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y i s b a s e d upon the agreement o f t h e p a r t i e s , modified Trammell, without close 589 So. 2d 743 that provision scrutiny, s h o u l d n o t be s e e , e.g., ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 1 ) , Trammell v. especially when a s h o r t t i m e , i n t h i s c a s e o n l y a p p r o x i m a t e l y 17 months, s e p a r a t e s t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n h e a r i n g from t h e p r e v i o u s e n t r y o f 21 2110654 the divorce judgment. 888 ( A l a . C i v . App. (Ala. C i v . App. (Ala. Civ. See J e f f c o a t , 423 1 9 8 2 ) , R o b e r t s v. R o b e r t s , 1 9 8 1 ) , and App. J e f f c o a t v. 1979) 395 T a y l o r v. T a y l o r , (cases involving a 369 So. 2d So. 2d 1035 So. 2d 1240 relatively short p e r i o d s e p a r a t i n g the e n t r y of the d i v o r c e judgment from modification hearing; two i n each case, t h e p e r i o d was l e s s than years). In the present case, the divorce j u d g m e n t was o n l y a l i t t l e more t h a n t h r e e months b e f o r e his the petition to modify. The divorce entered the husband judgment, as filed agreed between the p a r t i e s , awarded the w i f e monthly p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y in the limited amount o f $1, 000 for periodic-alimony rehabilitative alimony. 671 704 So.2d 699, periodic alimony rehabilitative alimony, See, Alfred, 89 So. 3d to e.g., be We in construe the this nature of T r e u s d e l l v. T r e u s d e l l , ( A l a . C i v . App. 1995) ( t h r e e - y e a r award of construed being in as The purpose been d e s c r i b e d subclass of p e r i o d i c alimony, resume s u p p o r t i n g years. award alimony). w h i c h has five himself 786, 790 by the of this nature rehabilitative court as being i s t o a l l o w a spouse t o b e g i n or h e r s e l f . See, ( A l a . C i v . App. 22 of e.g., a or Alfred v. 2012); Enzor v. 2110654 Enzor, 98 So. 3d 15, 21 ( A l a . C i v . App. B e n s o n v. B e n s o n , 876 So. 2d 1157, ("'This court sub-class has defined 1164 2011) . See ( A l a . C i v . App. rehabilitative alimony of p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y " t h a t a l l o w s a spouse reestablish a self-supporting status."'" F o w l e r , 773 So. 2d 491, on o t h e r g r o u n d s ) Jeffcoat, 495 (quoting ( A l a . C i v . App. Enzor, supra), 628 So. 2d 741, 743 also quoting 2000) 2003) as "a "time to Fowler v. (overruled i n t u r n J e f f c o a t v. ( A l a . C i v . App. 1993) overruled on o t h e r g r o u n d s , Crenshaw v. C r e n s h a w , 816 So. 2d 1046 ( A l a . Civ. App. 2001))). "'[R]ehabilitative g e n e r a l l y c o n n o t e s an a t t e m p t t o e n c o u r a g e alimony[]' a dependent ... spouse t o become s e l f - s u p p o r t i n g by p r o v i d i n g a l i m o n y f o r a limited period can of time obtained." 73, 76 support during gainful M o l n a r v. M o l n a r , 173 W. for Va. 200, 202, a dependent spouse or retraining following a dependent spouse Enzor, 98 may So. gain skills 3d a t 23. 2003), for stated: 23 a limited divorce t o become Regarding t h i s c o u r t i n K o r n v. K o r n , 867 App. employment (1984). R e h a b i l i t a t i v e alimony i s i n t e n d e d reeducation See which be 314 S.E.2d to provide period so of that the self-sufficient. alimony i n general, So. 2d 338, 345-46 ( A l a . C i v . 2110654 "Under A l a b a m a l a w , p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y ' i s t o s u p p o r t t h e f o r m e r d e p e n d e n t s p o u s e and e n a b l e t h a t s p o u s e , to the e x t e n t p o s s i b l e , t o m a i n t a i n the s t a t u s t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had e n j o y e d d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e , u n t i l t h a t spouse i s s e l f - s u p p o r t i n g or m a i n t a i n i n g a l i f e s t y l e o r s t a t u s s i m i l a r t o t h e one enjoyed d u r i n g the m a r r i a g e . ' O'Neal v. O ' N e a l , 678 So. 2d 161, 164 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996)." Our review t h a t the t r i a l of the f a c t s i n the p r e s e n t obligation. t h e h u s b a n d knew t h a t t h e w i f e was t i m e he a g r e e d t o pay wife's amounts t o part-time of the change Even i f t h e w i f e ' s p a r t - t i m e termination obligation of the of husband's change o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s , fact her p e r i o d i c alimony i n the that amount are not convinced employment t h a t p a y s o n l y a material termination Given the the l o o k i n g f o r employment a t o f $1,000 p e r month f o r f i v e y e a r s , we the us court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n t e r m i n a t i n g husband's p e r i o d i c - a l i m o n y the case convinces $12 circumstances per that hour warranting periodic-alimony a obligation. employment amounts t o a m a t e r i a l t h a t f a c t a l o n e does n o t j u s t i f y husband's five-year b a s e d on the u n i q u e and holding, we note the periodic-alimony particular f a c t s of this case. In so modification short period. proceedings The that the a l l occurred parties' divorce within p a r t i e s d i v o r c e d i n June 2010; 24 a and relatively the husband 2110654 f i l e d h i s p e t i t i o n t o m o d i f y c h i l d s u p p o r t i n O c t o b e r 2010; t h e n f i l e d h i s amended p e t i t i o n t o m o d i f y b o t h c h i l d and alimony i n M a r c h 2011; In a support the m o d i f i c a t i o n h e a r i n g was t h i s i n s t a n c e , t h e h u s b a n d i s h i g h l y e d u c a t e d and has h e l d i n November and he 2011. much h i g h e r e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y equivalent of than the a high-school education. language b a r r i e r s . D u r i n g 2010, wife, The who wife has the also has the year i n which the p a r t i e s d i v o r c e d , t h e h u s b a n d ' s g r o s s pay f r o m h i s employment t o t a l e d $117,496.48; although h i s gross t a x a b l e income for federal i n c o m e - t a x p u r p o s e s f r o m t h a t employment t o t a l e d $106,208, t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n g r o s s pay and g r o s s t a x a b l e income r e s u l t e d i n l a r g e p a r t f r o m h i s d e f e r r i n g o t h e r w i s e t a x a b l e income i n t h e amount o f $7,779.17 by c o n t r i b u t i n g t h a t amount t o h i s account. B e g i n n i n g i n J a n u a r y 2011, s m a l l r a i s e i n h i s r e g u l a r pay. are not guaranteed, the 401(k) t h e h u s b a n d r e c e i v e d an In a d d i t i o n , a l t h o u g h bonuses husband $10,000 a n n u a l l y i n bonus i n c o m e . expected The to receive over h u s b a n d a l s o was paid $2,315.60 p e r month i n m i l i t a r y - r e t i r e m e n t income and $857 p e r month i n d i s a b i l i t y benefits. 25 2110654 The the w i f e , on t h e parties w i f e was was signed other the h a n d , was settlement agreement. The At e a r n e d $12 the an time of the Although the she w i f e began w o r k i n g p a r t at the c l o t h i n g s t o r e s h o r t l y b e f o r e entered. the d i v o r c e h o u r w o r k i n g a p p r o x i m a t e l y 30 time judgment modification hearing, the hours per t h a t amount t o t a l e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y $1,560 p e r not time t h e h u s b a n d knew t h a t not w o r k i n g at t h a t time, l o o k i n g f o r employment. not w o r k i n g at the month. was wife week; She did a n t i c i p a t e r e c e i v i n g a r a i s e o r bonus o r a d d i t i o n a l work hours. The wife also was paid $992.40 per month in the husband's m i l i t a r y - r e t i r e m e n t income. The worked p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d f o r o v e r 16 y e a r s , for a relatively p a r t i e s ' marriage. y o u n g e r c h i l d was small amount of and time the wife during the At the time of the p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e , 13 y e a r s o l d and t h e end of the husband's year p e r i o d i c - a l i m o n y - o b l i g a t i o n p e r i o d e s s e n t i a l l y with the time that from h i g h s c h o o l . of the marriage education that c h i l d w o u l d be The w i f e , who was from pursuing, or graduate e i t h e r p r e v e n t e d because chose t o become s e l f - s u p p o r t i n g . 26 5- coincides expected to not to o r s e l f - s u p p o r t i n g employment, s h o u l d now an o p p o r t u n i t y their The wife pursue be an allowed testified 2110654 that she would education The but like to t h a t she to school should transition complete d i d n o t have t h e money t o pay be from permitted financial f i n a n c i a l independence. additional a reasonable dependence wife may with expenses be education able her her for i t . rehabilitative amount o f t i m e on the husband to to In t h i s i n s t a n c e , the w i f e d e s i r e s to in order employment t h a n a p a r t - t i m e j o b p a y i n g the to w i f e , c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the purpose of alimony, pursue return to meet most current obtain better $12 p e r h o u r . of her Although current her p o r t i o n o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s m i l i t a r y - r e t i r e m e n t i n c o m e , and the c a s e , we without this by t h e t r i a l court i n this cannot h o l d t h a t the w i f e i s f i n a n c i a l l y independent the h u s b a n d ' s a l i m o n y payment b a s e d on particular case rehabilitative Finally, its ordered employment monthly income, increase i n c h i l d support part-time to discretion and given the nature the of purpose and facts of alimony. the wife contends t h a t in failing the t o award her an trial court attorney abused fee. We agree. "This court reviews abuse-of-discretion an award of standard." 27 an Mahaffey attorney v. fee on Mahaffey, an 806 2110654 So. 2d 1286, 1292 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2001) . w h e t h e r t o a w a r d an a t t o r n e y the trial court must In determining f e e a n d t h e amount o f t h e f e e , consider factors such as t h e e a r n i n g c a p a c i t i e s of the p a r t i e s , the r e s u l t s of the l i t i g a t i o n , the parties' financial parties. K o r n v. K o r n , 867 So. 2d a t 347; G l o v e r v. G l o v e r , 678 circumstances, and t h e conduct of the So. 2d 174, 176 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) . In the present earning capacity circumstances circumstances. following proceedings case, than t h e husband the wife. a r e much better The than has a much higher husband's financial the wife's financial The h u s b a n d , w i t h i n a r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t p e r i o d the divorce judgment, initiated the m o d i f i c a t i o n b e l o w by f i r s t s e e k i n g t o m o d i f y h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n a n d t h e n l a t e r by a l s o s e e k i n g , among o t h e r t h i n g s , to terminate h i speriodic-alimony o b l i g a t i o n . The r e s u l t s o f t h e l i t i g a t i o n have b e e n f a v o r a b l e f o r t h e w i f e . facts abused of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r i t s discretion case, B a s e d on t h e we h o l d t h a t t h e t r i a l i n denying the wife's request court f o r an a t t o r n e y f e e i n t h e amount o f $5,967.50. Accordingly, with respect to the wife's cross-appeal, the judgment o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d i n p a r t and r e v e r s e d 28 2110654 i n p a r t , and t h i s c a u s e i s remanded f o r an o r d e r c o n s i s t e n t with the opinion. The husband's r e q u e s t denied. f o r an a t t o r n e y f e e on a p p e a l i s The w i f e ' s r e q u e s t f o r an a t t o r n e y f e e on a p p e a l i s g r a n t e d i n t h e amount o f $3,500. APPEAL AFFIRMED. CROSS-APPEAL -- AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED I N PART; AND REMANDED. P i t t m a n , Thomas, a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , c o n c u r . Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n the r e s u l t , 29 with writing. 2110654 MOORE, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g I concur i n the r e s u l t . i n t h e r e s u l t as to those o p i n i o n r e v e r s i n g t h e judgment e n t e r e d Court ("the trial court") parts failed attorney's to award to the extent fees; Jenny Kim main by t h e M a d i s o n C i r c u i t i t terminated a l i m o n y o b l i g a t i o n of Derek Anthony S a n t i a g o and of the Santiago ("the ("the the father") mother") f u r t h e r , I c o n c u r i n t h e r e s u l t i n s o f a r as the main o p i n i o n a f f i r m s t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment f a i l i n g t o a w a r d t h e m o t h e r a "sum support. part c e r t a i n " amount o f r e t r o a c t i v e c h i l d As t o t h a t p a r t o f t h e m a i n o p i n i o n a f f i r m i n g t h a t of the t r i a l court's judgment modifying the father's c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n , I a l s o concur i n the r e s u l t , but I do so f o r t h e r e a s o n s s e t o u t b e l o w . The f a t h e r and t h e m o t h e r were d i v o r c e d by a j u d g m e n t o f entered by t h e t r i a l incorporated a court settlement on June 29, 2010. agreement entered That judgment between the p a r t i e s , pursuant to which the p a r t i e s agreed that the p a r t i e s would share joint legal and p h y s i c a l custody of t h e i r two m i n o r c h i l d r e n , t h a t t h e f a t h e r w o u l d p a y t h e m o t h e r $808 p e r 5 Two c h i l d r e n were b o r n o f t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e , one on A p r i l 4, 1994, and one on December 3, 1996. The c h i l d r e n were 16 y e a r s o l d and 14 y e a r s o l d , r e s p e c t i v e l y , on t h e d a t e o f 5 30 2110654 month in child support for five years expenses of the children's c h i l d r e n , and reasonable $404 p e r month and w o u l d c o v e r t h e t h e r e a f t e r u n t i l December 1, 2018, health that college the and f a t h e r w o u l d pay expenses. The the settlement agreement e x p r e s s l y d e c l a r e d t h a t the c h i l d - s u p p o r t p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e a g r e e m e n t were a d e v i a t i o n f r o m R u l e 32, A l a . R. Admin., arrangement. The because of the parties' f a t h e r a l s o a g r e e d t o pay as p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y f o r 60 On O c t o b e r 1, 2010, the child-support ground t h a t the joint-custody $1,000 p e r month t o t h e the f a t h e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n to modify provisions of the divorce had m o t h e r , who had no time the p a r t i e s entered had obtained g a i n f u l employment. due to material mother months. the a Jud. change in into the The the j u d g m e n t on j o b and no settlement income 29, 2010, the mother filed at agreement, f a t h e r contended t h a t , employment status of m o t h e r , h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n s h o u l d be d e c r e a s e d . October the an amended answer and the On a c o u n t e r c l a i m r e q u e s t i n g an i n c r e a s e i n c h i l d s u p p o r t t o c o m p l y the d i v o r c e . The c h i l d - s u p p o r t agreement c a l l e d f o r the f a t h e r of m a j o r i t y f o r both c h i l d r e n . had a g r e e d t o pay p o s t m i n o r i t y i g n o r a n t o f t h e law and b e c a u s e 31 p r o v i s i o n s of the s e t t l e m e n t t o make payments p a s t t h e age The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he c h i l d s u p p o r t b e c a u s e he was t h e d i v o r c e was u n c o n t e s t e d . 2110654 with Rule 32. petition to March request recalculated father On based also that on requested 9, 2011, t h e f a t h e r h i s child-support the p a r t i e s ' obligation current a modification amended h i s incomes. o f t h e terms be The of the d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t t o make b o t h p a r t i e s e q u a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the health expenses Additionally, periodic and c o l l e g e the father alimony be asked expenses that eliminated h i s o b l i g a t i o n t o pay altogether. r e s p o n d e d by amending h e r c o u n t e r c l a i m periodic of the c h i l d r e n . The mother t o s e e k an i n c r e a s e i n alimony. A f t e r a t r i a l , the t r i a l court modified the child-support provisions of the divorce judgment by a w a r d i n g t h e mother $1,496.70 p e r month, r e t r o a c t i v e t o t h e d a t e o f t h e f i l i n g o f the father's petition court also mother. to terminated amend, motions the t r i a l alimony payable vacate, or court denied. clarify trial to the i t s judgment, court which The f a t h e r a p p e a l e d , a n d t h e cross-appealed. In erred the p e r i o d i c The B o t h t h e f a t h e r and t h e m o t h e r moved t h e t r i a l alter, mother i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h R u l e 32. h i s appeal, the father argues i n increasing h i s child-support 32 that the t r i a l obligation. court The m a i n 2110654 o p i n i o n does n o t the t r i a l . address t h a t c o n t e n t i o n on the ground c o u r t granted the f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n . So. A l t h o u g h a p a r t y c a n n o t a p p e a l when no a d v e r s e made a g a i n s t him 1056, 1059 or her, v. Robertson, 3d a t ruling i s 500 So. ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) , a p a r t y a g g r i e v e d o r p r e j u d i c e d by j u d g m e n t can a p p e a l . (Ala. Holloway that R o b i n o v. K i l g o r e , 838 So. 2d 366, 2d a 369 2002). " B l a c k ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y 65 ( 6 t h ed. ' a g g r i e v e d p a r t y ' as f o l l o w s : 1990) defines "'One whose l e g a l r i g h t i s i n v a d e d by an a c t c o m p l a i n e d o f , o r whose p e c u n i a r y i n t e r e s t i s d i r e c t l y and a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d by a decree or j u d g m e n t . . . . The word "aggrieved" refers to a substantial grievance, a d e n i a l of some p e r s o n a l , pecuniary or property right, or the i m p o s i t i o n upon a p a r t y o f a b u r d e n o r obligation.'" Birmingham Racing So. 2d 207, 210 6 Comm'n v. A l a b a m a T h o r o u g h b r e d A s s ' n , ( A l a . C i v . App. "aggrieved person" 1999) 775 ( c o n s t r u i n g meaning of u n d e r § 22-22A-7, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ) . Black's Law D i c t i o n a r y 77 ( 9 t h ed. 2009) defines "aggrieved" as "having legal rights t h a t are adversely a f f e c t e d ; h a v i n g b e e n harmed by an i n f r i n g e m e n t o f l e g a l rights." 6 33 2110654 Before the t r i a l court entered the m o d i f i c a t i o n judgment i n t h i s c a s e , t h e f a t h e r was r e q u i r e d t o p a y t h e m o t h e r , b a s e d on t h e p a r t i e s ' s e t t l e m e n t the agreement, monthly c h i l d s u p p o r t i n amount o f $808 p e r month amount decreasing terminating to $404 altogether modification through per the o b l i g a t i o n i s now $1,496.70. legal at 2018. father's with that that point and Pursuant monthly to the child-support judgment o f $688.70 p e r month i n t h e obligation. The j u d g m e n t i n v a d e d t h e r i g h t s o f t h e f a t h e r t h a t h a d been e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e settlement agreement and incorporated into j u d g m e n t and a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d t h e p e c u n i a r y father by obligation. the 2015, Thus, t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n r e s u l t e d i n an i m m e d i a t e i n c r e a s e father's child-support month i n December judgment, June imposing upon Consequently, j u d g m e n t as an a g g r i e v e d him an the divorce i n t e r e s t s of the additional financial t h e f a t h e r has a r i g h t to appeal party. Moreover, although the t r i a l court s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d i n its modification judgment t h a t child-support-modification substance, increase the t r i a l the father's court i t was petition, granted child-support 34 granting the i t i s clear the mother's o b l i g a t i o n by father's that, in motion to applying 2110654 Rule 32. The father specifically requested a downward m o d i f i c a t i o n i n h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n to account f o r a change in the employment status of corresponding i n c r e a s e i n her income. mother the trial the divorce asked provisions of court to the mother with On t h e o t h e r h a n d , modify j u d g m e n t by the w h i c h she needs of the a g r e e d was not applying children while modified c h i l d support construed according merely according 220, 228, effect, 153 the i n her trial care. to t o the mother. i t s effect t o i t s form. So. f o r her The s o l e l y by a p p l y i n g R u l e i n c r e a s e t h e amount p a y a b l e be sufficient 2d 778, court and D u B o i s e v. 785 did (1963). the Rule not grant t o meet trial court to should and D u B o i s e , 275 the the 32 i n o r d e r substance 32 support A judgment In the child-support c h i l d - s u p p o r t g u i d e l i n e s b e c a u s e t h e amount o f c h i l d to the substance not Ala. and modification p e t i t i o n of the f a t h e r . Nevertheless, the the trial court c h i l d - s u p p o r t p r o v i s i o n s of incorporating the parties' d i d not the e r r by divorce settlement modifying judgment. agreement into In the d i v o r c e judgment, the t r i a l c o u r t found t h a t the c h i l d - s u p p o r t g u i d e l i n e s e s t a b l i s h e d i n R u l e 32 s h o u l d n o t a p p l y b e c a u s e t h e 35 2110654 parties would be sharing joint custody of the children, t h e r e b y r e b u t t i n g t h e p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e amount e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e g u i d e l i n e s w o u l d be t h e c o r r e c t amount o f c h i l d t o be awarded. See Rule 32(A)(i) & Rule support 32(A)(1)(a). " T h e r e s h a l l be a r e b u t t a b l e p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t c h i l d support should be modified when t h e difference b e t w e e n t h e e x i s t i n g c h i l d - s u p p o r t a w a r d and the amount d e t e r m i n e d by a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e s e g u i d e l i n e s v a r i e s more t h a n t e n p e r c e n t (10%), unless the v a r i a t i o n i s due to the f a c t t h a t the e x i s t i n g c h i l d - s u p p o r t award r e s u l t e d from a r e b u t t a l of the g u i d e l i n e s and t h e r e has b e e n no change i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t r e s u l t e d i n the r e b u t t a l of the guidelines." Rule 32(A)(3)(c) (emphasis added). Because the t r i a l support guidelines court deviated in fashioning f r o m t h e R u l e 32 its accordance w i t h the p a r t i e s ' s e t t l e m e n t the parties arrangement continued as o r i g i n a l divorce existed to exercise at judgment, 7 the time original award the of t h e m o t h e r was same the not joint-custody entry of as i n Rule 3 2 ( A ) ( 3 ) ( c ) . be a modified However, The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t the p a r t i e s sometimes v a r y s c h e d u l e when he t r a v e l s . 36 the e n t i t l e d to presumption that c h i l d support should 7 in a g r e e m e n t , and b e c a u s e rebuttable s e t out child- that 2110654 "even when t h e r e i s no r e b u t t a b l e p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t a party's child-support obligation should be m o d i f i e d , we have h e l d t h a t "'a t r i a l c o u r t may [ s t i l l ] m o d i f y a c h i l d s u p p o r t a w a r d "upon p r o o f o f 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 t h a t i s s u b s t a n t i a l and c o n t i n u i n g . " E.g., Romano v. Romano, 703 So. 2d 374, 375 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1997) . See a l s o W i l l i a m s v. B r a d d y , 689 So. 2d 154 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) ( e x p l a i n i n g t h a t t h e " m a t e r i a l change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s " standard a p p l i e s even i f t h e p r e s u m p t i o n i n f a v o r o f modification under [former] Rule 3 2 ( A ) ( 3 ) ( b ) [ , A l a . R. J u d . A d m i n . , now R u l e 3 2 ( A ) ( 3 ) ( c ) , A l a . R. J u d . Admin.,] i s n o t applicable). See generally Thomas v. V a n h o r n , 876 So. 2d 488, 491 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) ( " C h i l d - s u p p o r t judgments a r e never a b s o l u t e l y ' f i n a l ' i n the s t r i c t e s t sense, because such judgments a r e always s u b j e c t t o m o d i f i c a t i o n i n t h e f u t u r e upon a showing of a material change i n circumstances.").' "Reeves v. R e e v e s , App. 2 0 0 4 ) . " 894 So. 2d 712, 714 (Ala. C i v . J o n e s v. J o n e s , 101 So. 3d 798, 803 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) . The mother d i s c h a r g e d h e r burden o f proof by presenting an e x h i b i t s h o w i n g t h e c u r r e n t f i n a n c i a l needs o f t h e c h i l d r e n and testifying more money. t h a t , " [ e ] v e r y month, e v e r y y e a r i t ' s c o s t i n g Everything money on t h e k i d s . " increase This went up, a n d I have court has r e p e a t e d l y i n t h e age o f c h i l d r e n , a l o n g 37 with t o s p e n d more held t h a t an a correlative 2110654 increase in their i n c r e a s e i n the financial needs, c o s t o f l i v i n g due 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 child support. 828, 829-30 very scant as to the financial divorce sufficient c h i l d support, very l i m i t e d 798 The 1994). with an an i n c r e a s e i n Tolbert, Although So. 2d the e v i d e n c e i s the needs from the time of the e n t r y of the to the time the 656 in evidence before of increase the modification s h o r t p e r i o d , the t r i a l i t t o j u s t i f y an court increase c a n n o t r e v e r s e i t s j u d g m e n t b a s e d on s t a n d a r d of review. ( A l a . C i v . App. warranting C a m p b e l l v. a relatively and we coupled to i n f l a t i o n , c o n s t i t u t e s p r e c i s e amount o f judgment h e a r i n g , w h i c h was had e.g., ( A l a . C i v . App. children's original See, when See B r a y v. B r a y , 979 So. in our 2d 2007). mother's p r o v i n g a m a t e r i a l change o f circumstances d i d not a u t o m a t i c a l l y j u s t i f y the t r i a l c o u r t ' s i n c r e a s i n g the amount o f c h i l d s u p p o r t t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e R u l e 32 g u i d e l i n e s . The should trial court still have considered the parties' j o i n t - c u s t o d y a r r a n g e m e n t and t h e 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 f a t h e r had been s a t i s f y i n g most o f t h e f i n a n c i a l c h i l d r e n through the p r e v i o u s arrangement. needs o f the Nevertheless, the f a t h e r does n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y a r g u e t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e f a i l s 38 to 2110654 s u p p o r t t h e amount o f t h e i n c r e a s e . the trial court Therefore, I concur d i d not e r r i n e s t a b l i s h i n g c h i l d a r a t e o f $1,496.70 p e r m o n t h . that support at 8 T h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t s p e c i f y when t h e f a t h e r ' s c h i l d s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n w o u l d t e r m i n a t e , b u t i t a p p e a r s t h a t , by m o d i f y i n g t h e p r e v i o u s c h i l d - s u p p o r t p r o v i s i o n s t o comply w i t h R u l e 32, t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n t e n d e d that the father could p e t i t i o n t o m o d i f y h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n as e a c h c h i l d r e a c h e s t h e age o f m a j o r i t y . However, t h a t m o d i f i c a t i o n w o u l d not impact the f a t h e r ' s v o l u n t a r y o b l i g a t i o n t o pay c o l l e g e expenses f o r the c h i l d r e n . 8 39

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.