Ex parte Boyd James Landry. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Angela O. Landry v. Boyd James Landry)

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 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 2110739 Ex p a r t e Boyd James Landry PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : Angela O. Landry v. Boyd James Landry) (Autauga C i r c u i t Court, DR-06-65.05) PER CURIAM. On O c t o b e r 6, 2011, A n g e l a O. L a n d r y ("the m o t h e r " ) f i l e d a complaint c o n t a i n i n g two c o u n t s . In the f i r s t count, the 2110739 m o t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t B o y d James L a n d r y ("the f a t h e r " ) h a d been o r d e r e d by t h e A u t a u g a C i r c u i t ("the t r i a l n o t i f y her, her attorney, obtained employment and t h e t r i a l and that violated contumaciously Court the that court father order. willfully mother a l l e g e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r had a c c r u e d c h i l d - s u p p o r t since a previous hearing i n November to i f and when he had The court") 2010. and further arrearages The mother r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r be c i t e d f o r c o n t e m p t o f c o u r t , that he be i n c a r c e r a t e d f o r h i s a c t i o n s , and t h a t he be o r d e r e d t o pay h e r a t t o r n e y ' s fees. In the second count, the mother a l l e g e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s ' o l d e s t c h i l d , B r . L . , had g r a d u a t e d from h i g h and was s c h o o l , was e n r o l l e d a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f A l a b a m a , nearing her 19th birthday. The mother sought p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l support from the f a t h e r i n accordance w i t h Ex p a r t e B a y l i s s , 550 So. 2d 986 also requested that the t r i a l child-support court ( A l a . 1989) . r e c a l c u l a t e the father's o b l i g a t i o n f o r the p a r t i e s ' when B r . L . t u r n e d younger on t h e c h i l d r e n w i t h t h e f a t h e r t o r e i m b u r s e h e r f o r expenses n o t c o v e r e d by order the children 19, m o d i f y t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t t o r e q u i r e the mother t o c a r r y h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e and The m o t h e r father to pay 2 a l l of his insurance, child-support 2110739 arrearages. At the February 14, 2012, t r i a l , t h e mother o r a l l y amended h e r c o m p l a i n t t o a d d a c o n t e m p t c l a i m the father discovery f o r h i s alleged willful as o r d e r e d b y t h e t r i a l refusal court t o respond t o on J a n u a r y 24, 2012. During the course of the proceedings, the f a t h e r that t h e mother's asserted complaint v i o l a t e d the automatic e f f e c t i n h i s pending bankruptcy proceeding. 362. against The f a t h e r a p p a r e n t l y filed stay i n See 11 U.S.C. § an a d v e r s a r y p r o c e e d i n g i n the b a n k r u p t c y c o u r t , a c c u s i n g t h e mother and h e r a t t o r n e y o f v i o l a t i n g the automatic stay. On t h e d a t e o f t h e t r i a l , t h e mother's a t t o r n e y n o t i f i e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t o f t h a t development and informed the t r i a l father's counsel pending pending proceeding. that he h a d a g r e e d with not t o pursue c e r t a i n o f t h e mother's t h e outcome father's court of a motion bankruptcy to l i f t proceeding the stay and the the claims i n the adversary The f a t h e r , who was a c t i n g p r o s e , a c k n o w l e d g e d i n open c o u r t t h a t some a g r e e m e n t h a d b e e n r e a c h e d b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s l i m i t i n g t h e s c o p e o f t h e i s s u e s t h a t w o u l d be that date. both The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t , a f t e r a l o n g parties evidence agreed regarding that only the t r i a l whether 3 court the father would had tried colloquy, receive committed 2110739 c o n t e m p t by f a i l i n g t o p r o v i d e n o t i c e o f h i s r e e m p l o y m e n t by failing the t o answer t h e m o t h e r ' s d i s c o v e r y trial. requests before The p a r t i e s f u r t h e r a g r e e d t h a t t h e t r i a l w o u l d h e a r e v i d e n c e on t h e m o t h e r ' s c l a i m f o r B a y l i s s and her support request f o r a m o d i f i c a t i o n of the o b l i g a t i o n f o r the younger agreed that the arrearage court support father's children. The and childparties i s s u e s w o u l d n o t be r e s o l v e d a t t h a t hearing. On which March 2, 2012, i t amended amended, t h e t r i a l for the on the t r i a l March court 15, awarded court 2012. entered a judgment, In i t s judgment, t h e mother B a y l i s s as support Br.L., modified the 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 f o r younger provisions provide children, and modified of the d i v o r c e judgment health insurance the health-insurance t o r e q u i r e the mother f o r a l l the c h i l d r e n . The to trial c o u r t a l s o found the f a t h e r i n c r i m i n a l contempt f o r f a i l i n g to n o t i f y the t r i a l for failing the trial and t o respond t o the mother's d i s c o v e r y requests c o u r t p r e v i o u s l y had o r d e r e d . court reserved contempt c o u r t t h a t he h a d o b t a i n e d employment However, the as trial i m p o s i n g p u n i s h m e n t a g a i n s t t h e f a t h e r on t h e f i n d i n g because of the f a t h e r ' s pending 4 bankruptcy 2110739 proceeding. regarding further The the hearing trial court mother's further reserved a l l issues child-support-arrearage because of the claim f a t h e r ' s pending for bankruptcy proceeding. The father i n i t i a l l y filed a n o t i c e of appeal in this c a s e on A p r i l 24, 2 0 1 2 ; r e f e r e n c i n g t h e a p p e a l number a s s i g n e d by t h i s c o u r t , he t h e n f i l e d a p e t i t i o n on May not 4, 2012, final. a s s e r t i n g t h a t t h e M a r c h 15, Upon p r e l i m i n a r y r e v i e w , t r e a t the a p p e l l a t e proceeding appeal f o r the subsequently the purposes filed mother e n t i t l e d dismissed f o r a w r i t o f mandamus of this i n i t i a t e d by compiling 2012, order was decided to f a t h e r as an court the a record. The a motion to d i s m i s s the appeal. her as u n t i m e l y motion filed," as "requesting Although appeal i n the body of her m o t h e r a r g u e d t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t was mother to motion n o n f i n a l because the be the last paragraph of the judgment s t a t e d : "That t h i s case i s o t h e r w i s e continued party." appeal for further hearing upon the motion of either This c o u r t denied the mother's motion to d i s m i s s on J u n e 19, 2012. After further procedural the wrangling over the content of the r e c o r d , t h i s c o u r t ordered the p a r t i e s 5 2110739 to brief the i s s u e s , which 2012, and t h e c a s e was briefing submitted ended to this on November court f o r decision. A f t e r r e v i e w i n g t h e r e c o r d t h a t has been c o m p i l e d , now a p p a r e n t t o t h i s c o u r t t h a t t h e t r i a l a final point judgment or on M a r c h another 15, 2012, believed. f a i l e d to completely The 26, i t is court d i d not enter as b o t h p a r t i e s a t one March 15, 2012, judgment a d j u d i c a t e the contempt c l a i m s because i t l e f t open any p u n i s h m e n t t o be meted o u t a g a i n s t t h e f a t h e r on the contempt f i n d i n g . the mother's claim The j u d g m e n t a l s o f a i l e d t o a d j u d i c a t e child-support-arrearage against claim or her t h e f a t h e r b a s e d on t h e a c c u m u l a t i o n contempt of that arrearage. "'It exceptions, is a an well appeal established will rule l i e only which determines the issues before that, from with a final the court 739 So. 2d 511, 513 ( A l a . C i v . App. T a y l o r v. T a y l o r , 398 So. 2d 267, 269 judgment and a s c e r t a i n s and d e c l a r e s t h e r i g h t s o f t h e p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d . ' " Owens, limited 1999) Owens v. (quoting ( A l a . 1981)). "An o r d e r t h a t does n o t d i s p o s e o f a l l c l a i m s o r d e t e r m i n e t h e r i g h t s and l i a b i l i t i e s o f a l l t h e p a r t i e s t o an a c t i o n i s n o t a f i n a l j u d g m e n t . See S t o n e v. H a l e y , 812 So. 2d 1245 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2001) . I n s u c h an i n s t a n c e , an a p p e a l may be h a d ' o n l y upon an e x p r e s s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e r e i s no 6 2110739 j u s t r e a s o n f o r d e l a y and upon an e x p r e s s d i r e c t i o n f o r t h e e n t r y o f j u d g m e n t . ' See R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P." Eubanks v. M c C o l l u m , 828 So. 2d 935, 937 2002). Upon a d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t ( A l a . C i v . App. a judgment i s n o t f i n a l , t h i s c o u r t h a s d i s c r e t i o n t o t r e a t an a p p e a l as a p e t i t i o n f o r a writ (Ala. o f mandamus. See Campton v. M i l l e r , C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . issues i n both Because h i s appeal the father we treat the appeal raised and h i s p e t i t i o n mandamus, we f i n d t h a t t h e m o t h e r w o u l d as a p e t i t i o n 19 So. 3d 245 t h e same for a writ of n o t be p r e j u d i c e d i f for a writ o f mandamus; t h e r e f o r e , we e l e c t t o do s o . I n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r s may be r e v i e w e d b y a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus. 2d 1047, 1049 Ex p a r t e A l f a Mut. Gen. I n s . Co., 681 So. ( A l a . 1996). However, i t i s n o t " ' " t h e p r o p e r f u n c t i o n o f [a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus] t o r e - e x a m i n e , o r c o r r e c t e r r o r s i n any j u d g m e n t o r d e c r e e . . . . " ' " C & D Logging, 3 So. 3d 930, 936 Ex p a r t e ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) ( q u o t i n g S t a t e v. Cobb, 288 A l a . 675, 678, 264 So. 2d 523, 526 (1972), q u o t i n g i n t u r n (1881)). A petition as a s u b s t i t u t e S t a t e v. W i l l i a m s , 69 A l a . 3 1 1 , 316 f o r a w r i t o f mandamus " ' c a n n o t f o r an a p p e a l . ' " 7 be u s e d Ex p a r t e S o u t h e a s t A l a b a m a 2110739 Med. C t r . , 835 (quoting 893, So. Ex p a r t e 894 2d 1042, 1045 (Ala. C i v . App. Empire F i r e & Marine Ins. ( A l a . 1998)). Co., 720 So. 2d In h i s p e t i t i o n for a mandamus, t h e f a t h e r s e e k s r e v i e w o f t h e m e r i t s the the trial court correctable court, court I f any e r r o r s have b e e n c o m m i t t e d b y i n those regards, those errors would be on a p p e a l and c a n n o t be r e v i e w e d v i a a p e t i t i o n a w r i t o f mandamus. The 2012, father also asserts that the t r i a l court's M a r c h 15, judgment i s v o i d because i t v i o l a t e s t h e a u t o m a t i c entered pursuant filed t o 11 U.S.C. § 362 a t t h e t i m e h i s bankruptcy (recognizing all of of several of as r e v i e w o f t h e p r o c e d u r e b y w h i c h t h e t r i a l found him i n contempt. for writ f a c t u a l a n d l e g a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n s made b y t h e t r i a l as w e l l 2002) other t h a t , upon t h e f i l i n g judicial See a n d Ex p a r t e against U.S.C. actions, the debtor Williford, 11 the father § 362 of a bankruptcy p e t i t i o n , and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e enumerated e x c e p t i o n s , stayed); petition. stay with certain are automatically 902 So. 2d 658, 662 (Ala. 2004) ( " ' [ C ] o n t r o l l i n g a u t h o r i t y i n t h i s c i r c u i t p r o v i d e s t h a t actions taken i n v i o l a t i o n of the automatic stay are void.'" ( q u o t i n g memorandum d e c i s i o n o f b a n k r u p t c y c o u r t ) ) . 8 See a l s o 2110739 C a f f e y v. R u s s e l l S.D. A l a . 2008) (In re Caffey), 384 B.R. 297, 306 ("In t h e E l e v e n t h C i r c u i t (Bankr. '[a]ctions taken i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e a u t o m a t i c s t a y a r e v o i d and w i t h o u t U n i t e d S t a t e s v. White, 466 F.3d 1 2 4 1 , 1244 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2006) ( c i t i n g Borg-Warner Acceptance 1308 (11th C i r . circuits))."). effect.' 1982) Corp. v. H a l l , (citing numerous 685 F.2d 1306, cases from other The q u e s t i o n o f j u r i s d i c t i o n i s r e v i e w a b l e b y a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus, Ex p a r t e F l i n t C o n s t r . Co., 775 So. 2d 805, 808 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , and a v o i d judgment w i l l n o t s u p p o r t an a p p e a l , s e e C o l b u r n v. C o l b u r n , 14 So. 3d 176, 179 (Ala. 559 an C i v . App. 2009) ( q u o t i n g Vann v. Cook, 989 So. 2d 556, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008)) appeal appeal ("'A v o i d j u d g m e n t w i l l n o t s u p p o r t a n d 'an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t must d i s m i s s an from such a void judgment.'"). consider the father's p e t i t i o n As as t o t h i s a attempted result, we issue. We a g r e e w i t h t h e f a t h e r t h a t , as a g e n e r a l r u l e , upon a debtor's filing a bankruptcy petition, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) operates t o stay a l l actions or proceedings against the debtor that c o u l d impact debtor's certain the debtor's creditors. 11 U.S.C. exceptions t o the broad 9 estate or the r i g h t s § 362(b), however, of the provides reach of the automatic stay 2110739 imposed part, by § 3 6 2 ( a ) . that the f i l i n g Section of 362(b) p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t a bankruptcy petition does not o p e r a t e as a s t a y "(1) u n d e r s u b s e c t i o n (a) o f t h i s s e c t i o n , o f t h e commencement o r c o n t i n u a t i o n o f a c r i m i n a l a c t i o n o r proceeding against the debtor; "(2) u n d e r s u b s e c t i o n (a) -¬ "(A) o f t h e commencement o r c o n t i n u a t i o n o f a civil a c t i o n o r p r o c e e d i n g -- " "(ii) f o r the establishment or modification o f an o r d e r f o r domestic support o b l i g a t i o n s ; II "(B) of the c o l l e c t i o n of a domestic s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n from p r o p e r t y t h a t i s not the p r o p e r t y of the e s t a t e . " 1 A " d o m e s t i c s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n " i s d e f i n e d a t 11 U.S.C. § 101(14A). The B a n k r u p t c y Law M a n u a l d e s c r i b e s s u c h an o b l i g a t i o n as 1 "all obligations i n the nature of alimony, maintenance, o r s u p p o r t o f a spouse, former spouse, or c h i l d of t h e d e b t o r or such c h i l d ' s p a r e n t w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o w h e t h e r t h e d e b t i s e x p r e s s l y so designated. To come w i t h i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n , t h e o b l i g a t i o n must be owed t o o r r e c o v e r a b l e b y a spouse, former spouse, or c h i l d o f the d e b t o r or such c h i l d ' s p a r e n t , l e g a l g u a r d i a n , or r e s p o n s i b l e r e l a t i v e o r owed t o o r r e c o v e r a b l e b y a g o v e r n m e n t a l u n i t . Only such o b l i g a t i o n s t h a t a r e e s t a b l i s h e d or 10 2110739 Thus, § 362(b) p r o v i d e s criminal proceedings exceptions against t o the automatic the debtor enumerated civil proceedings therefore, must proceedings In h e r c o m p l a i n t , the nature the for certain against the father. determine against and stay f o r of t o comply w i t h t h e t r i a l employment, the We, trial-court t h e mother sought a f i n d i n g o f c r i m i n a l contempt a g a i n s t t h e f a t h e r f o r h i s w i l l f u l failure debtor. court's order and, i n h e r amended finding of c r i m i n a l contempt respond to her discovery court. I n h e r contempt c l a i m s , recover any d e b t and contumacious complaint, regarding h i s she s o u g h t f o r the father's requests as o r d e r e d failure a to by t h e t r i a l t h e mother d i d n o t seek t o o r p a s t - d u e payment o f a domestic-support o b l i g a t i o n f r o m t h e f a t h e r , w h i c h w o u l d be i m p e r m i s s i b l e u n d e r 11 U.S.C. § 362. See C a f f e y , supra. The m o t h e r s o u g h t t o s u b j e c t t o e s t a b l i s h m e n t b e f o r e , on, o r a f t e r t h e ppliccabl d a t e o f t h e o r d e r f o r r e l i e f b y r e a s o n o fa a p p l i a b l e e provisions of a separation agreement, divorce d e c r e e , o r p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t , an o r d e r o f a c o u r t o f r e c o r d , o r a d e t e r m i n a t i o n made i n accordance w i t h a p p l i c a b l e nonbankruptcy law by a governmental u n i t are i n c l u d e d . " Nancy C. D r e h e r , B a n k r u p t c y Law M a n u a l § 7.15 ( 5 t h e d . 2012) (footnotes omitted). 11 2110739 impose a penalty against the father order, f a t h e r i n c r i m i n a l contempt. As a result, the e x c e p t i o n U.S.C. 3 6 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) f o r the to the court. having of c o u r t h e l d the trial his contemptuously v i o l a t e d orders the t r i a l the for In i t s automatic stay found i n commencement o r continuation of 2 11 a c r i m i n a l a c t i o n a g a i n s t a d e b t o r i s a p p l i c a b l e t o the contempt claims that were addressed i n the trial-court proceedings. See G u a r i g l i a v. Community N a t ' l Bank & T r u s t Co., 758, 761 (E.D.N.Y. 1 9 7 4 ) , a f f ' d , 516 F.2d ( h o l d i n g t h a t , i f contempt p r o c e e d i n g punish debtor either state for or contumacious federal court, r a i s e i t s hand t o s t a y In her complaint 896 382 (2d C i r . i s , in reality, conduct against bankruptcy F.Supp. court 1975) one to dignity of should not modify the proceeding). the mother also sought to 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 , b o t h t o add an o b l i g a t i o n to Br.L. pay postminority educational support for and to a d j u s t the 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 f o r the p a r t i e s ' "A f i n d i n g o f c r i m i n a l c o n t e m p t i s a p p r o p r i a t e where a p a r t y has shown d i s o b e d i e n c e t o a c o u r t ' s o r d e r and where t h e a c t s c o m p l a i n e d o f were s p e c i f i c , i d e n t i f i a b l e v i o l a t i o n s f r o m the p a s t . " F l u d d v. G i b b s , 2 Fludd, 817 So. 2d a t 715. 12 2110739 remaining c h i l d r e n . in § The e x c e p t i o n 362(b)(2)(A)(ii) a t o the automatic s t a y found applies civil to action the or commencement continuation of establishment o r m o d i f i c a t i o n o f an o r d e r f o r d o m e s t i c - s u p p o r t obligations, including child-support the mother's c o m p l a i n t seeking child-support proceeding or orders. f o r the That p o r t i o n o f an a d j u s t m e n t o f t h e f a t h e r ' s o b l i g a t i o n f a l l s w i t h i n the p l a i n language of § 3 6 2 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( i i ) a n d c l e a r l y does n o t come w i t h i n t h e s c o p e o f the automatic stay. Because Alabama law t r e a t s postminority educational s u p p o r t as a f o r m o f c h i l d s u p p o r t t h a t may be through awarded a timely filed action in a only domestic- r e l a t i o n s p r o c e e d i n g , s e e Ex p a r t e B a y l i s s , s u p r a , we c o n c l u d e that a complaint seeking to obtain a m o d i f i c a t i o n of a divorce such support i n i t i a t e s a civil judgment action to establish a d o m e s t i c - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n t h a t comes w i t h i n t h e e x c e p t i o n to the automatic 362(b)(2)(A)(ii). bankruptcy Therefore, the orders awarding B a y l i s s support f o r Br.L. child-support obligation stay set 13 in of the t r i a l and m o d i f y i n g f o r the p a r t i e s ' c h i l d r e n a r e n o t v o i d as v i o l a t i n g out § court the father's remaining the bankruptcy stay. minor 2110739 Although judgment the mother awarding her the also initially amount o f sought certain a arrearages a s s e r t e d had b e e n a c c u m u l a t e d by t h e f a t h e r s i n c e t h e judgment, the arrearages, parties agreed that i . e . , the c o l l e c t i o n w o u l d n o t be considered because the of Accordingly, trial previous those of a d o m e s t i c - s u p p o r t order, court u n t i l a l a t e r pending court bankruptcy did not enter void for Hence, no p a r t o f t h e M a r c h 15, violating U.S.C. § 3 6 2 ( b ) ( B ) ; 72 ( A l a . C i v . App. h u s b a n d had prevented any judgment a bankruptcy p e t i t i o n , of a debt from finding that occurred that due is Cf. 11 stay. So. 2d 270, the 271¬ former automatic stay f o r m e r h u s b a n d owed a material warranting an p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y b e c a u s e she p o r t i o n of t h a t d e b t ) ; and change t o former husband's f a i l u r e h i s s h a r e o f t h a t d e b t and former w i f e ' s bankruptcy order f a t h e r ; t h a t s t a y , however, d i d not p r e v e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s had pay 2012, collect 2003) ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e collection court automatic B e n j a m i n v. B e n j a m i n , 858 filed former wife's trial the date proceedings. e s t a b l i s h i n g an a r r e a r a g e o r a u t h o r i z i n g t h e m o t h e r t o an a r r e a r a g e . she regarding by t h e t r i a l father's the issues money Hill 14 v. Hill, 730 increase was So. in covering 2d 248, to the in to the his 251 2110739 (Ala. C i v . App. 1999) (recognizing that the f i l i n g of a b a n k r u p t c y p e t i t i o n s t a y s t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n i n a d i v o r c e case of the debtor's exercise interests of control i n property over such of the estate, property, a n d any m o n e t a r y claims a g a i n s t a debtor other than f o r alimony, or any maintenance, support). Based on t h e above, we conclude that a l l the issues c o n s i d e r e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t were e x c e p t e d f r o m t h e a u t o m a t i c stay. any As a r e s u l t , portion t h e f a t h e r has f a i l e d of the t r i a l v i o l a t e d the automatic The father ruling for (Ala. on a m o t i o n that because i t stay. contends that the t r i a l f a i l e d t o recuse h i m s e l f . judge, An a d v e r s e t o r e c u s e c a n be r e v i e w e d v i a a p e t i t i o n a w r i t o f mandamus. 1989). c o u r t ' s o r d e r was v o i d additionally Judge S i b l e y R e y n o l d s , to establish However, Ex p a r t e M e l o f , 553 So. 2d 554, 556 Judge R e y n o l d s denied the motion t o r e c u s e on J a n u a r y 24, 2012, a n d t h e f a t h e r d i d n o t i n s t i t u t e this appellate proceeding P., until April governs 24, 2012. Rule for filing 21(a) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. App. the time mandamus p e t i t i o n s , and i t p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t part: "The p e t i t i o n [ f o r a w r i t o f mandamus] s h a l l be f i l e d w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e . The p r e s u m p t i v e l y 15 2110739 reasonable time f o r f i l i n g a p e t i t i o n s e e k i n g review o f an o r d e r o f a t r i a l c o u r t ... s h a l l be t h e same as t h e t i m e f o r t a k i n g an a p p e a l . I f a p e t i t i o n i s f i l e d outside t h i s presumptively reasonable time, i t shall include a statement of circumstances c o n s t i t u t i n g good c a u s e f o r t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t t o c o n s i d e r t h e p e t i t i o n , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h a t i t was f i l e d beyond t h e p r e s u m p t i v e l y r e a s o n a b l e time." The f a t h e r h a d 42 d a y s f r o m t h e e n t r y o f t h e o r d e r on 24, 2012, w i t h i n w h i c h mandamus. Rule to f i l e a petition 4 ( a ) , A l a . R. App. P. t h i s appellate proceeding January for a writ The f a t h e r and f i l e d h i s p e t i t i o n of instituted more t h a n 42 d a y s a f t e r t h e o r d e r d e n y i n g h i s m o t i o n t o r e c u s e was e n t e r e d . Although the father f i l e d that motion d i dnot t o l l a w r i t o f mandamus. a motion t o r e c o n s i d e r t h a t order, t h e time f o r f i l i n g See Ex p a r t e F i b e r T r a n s p . , So. 2d 98, 100 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 4 ) . file a statement file the p e t i t i o n . The that The f a t h e r a l s o d i d n o t Id. asserts that the t r i a l jurisdiction over a lack of subject-matter r e v i e w a b l e by a p e t i t i o n court the proceedings. jurisdiction "We note jurisdiction f o r a w r i t o f mandamus." 16 lacked may be r a i s e d a t any t i m e , a n d t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n o f s u b j e c t - m a t t e r is L.L.C., 902 s h o w i n g good c a u s e f o r h i s f a i l u r e t o t i m e l y father f i n a l l y subject-matter the p e t i t i o n f o r Ex p a r t e 2110739 F l i n t Constr. Co., 775 So. 2d a t 808. Thus, we consider the f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n as t o t h a t i s s u e . The father asserts that adjudicate the jurisdiction to modification claims asserted m o t h e r on O c t o b e r 6, d e c l a r e d the t r i a l 2011. the contempt i n the The trial court and lacked child-support- complaint filed by f a t h e r notes that t h i s c o u r t ' s F e b r u a r y 28, 2011, the court judgment t o be v o i d i n L a n d r y v. L a n d r y , 91 So. 3d 88 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2012) ("Landry III"), trial court that judgment. The and ordered the to vacate f a t h e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e m o t h e r b a s e d one contempt c l a i m s and the a d j u d i c a t e those her, entered her court could the mother a l l e g e d t h a t the t r i a l court a "general attorney, order" and the r e q u i r i n g the trial employment. The mother d i d not judgment her complaint. in judgment, which i s c o n t a i n e d Ex p a r t e Cade, 521 circumstances in on claims. In her c o m p l a i n t , had the child-support-modification claim t h a t v o i d j u d g m e n t and t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , t h e t r i a l not of So. 2d 85, which father to c o u r t when he cite This the court notify obtained new F e b r u a r y 28, 2011, has that reviewed i n t h e r e c o r d i n L a n d r y I I I , see 87-88 appellate 17 ( A l a . 1987) court can ( d e f i n i n g the take judicial 2110739 notice of a record February 28, requiring 2011, the reemployment. in a prior judgment father to At t r i a l , appeal), does notify and finds not c o n t a i n the that any trial provision court of f o r her contempt With regard her t h e mother specifically court to modify the " o r i g i n a l d i v o r c e the parties," judgment, benefit so of referring to judgment claim. to the c h i l d - s u p p o r t - m o d i f i c a t i o n complaint, his the mother d i d not attempt t o prove t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d v i o l a t e d t h e F e b r u a r y 28, 2011, as t h e b a s i s the the requested settlement October 4, as t o award parties' oldest child. the trial agreement o f 2007, divorce support her postminority the aspect of f o r the The mother requested that the t r i a l court r e c a l c u l a t e the f a t h e r ' s also child- s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n f o r t h e p a r t i e s ' y o u n g e r c h i l d r e n once t h e o l d e s t c h i l d a t t a i n e d t h e age o f m a j o r i t y . base e i t h e r of those m o d i f i c a t i o n c l a i m s The m o t h e r d i d n o t on t h e F e b r u a r y 28, 2011, j u d g m e n t , n o r d i d she p r e s e n t any e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l that to effect. Hence, we conclude that the f a t h e r has not proven h i s p r e m i s e t h a t t h e c o n t e m p t and m o d i f i c a t i o n c l a i m s a r o s e o u t o f the void February 28, 2011, judgment. 18 Thus, because the 2110739 f a t h e r ' s argument t h a t t h e t r i a l jurisdiction court lacked subject-matter t o a d j u d i c a t e t h e mother's e n t i r e l y on t h a t i n c o r r e c t p r e m i s e , In summary, we e l e c t a writ of mandamus appropriately raises recuse. decided issues insofar regarding relief grounds the that jurisdiction as a We d i s m i s s t h e p e t i t i o n f o r i t raises and i n s o f a r the order We d e n y t h e p e t i t i o n e x t e n t i t seeks the f a t h e r ' s appeal as on a p p e a l i s based we n e e d n o t a d d r e s s i t . to treat p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus. complaint more as i t u n t i m e l y denying for a writ issues the motion to o f mandamus t o t h e f r o m t h e M a r c h 15, 2012, o r d e r on t h e trial court lacked subject-matter t o e n t e r t h a t o r d e r and t h a t t h e o r d e r violated 11 U.S.C. § 362. The f a t h e r ' s motion to strike i s granted. r e q u e s t f o r t h e a w a r d o f a t t o r n e y f e e s on a p p e a l The m o t h e r ' s i s denied. PETITION DISMISSED I N PART AND DENIED IN PART. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n , concur. 19 Thomas, and Moore, J J . ,

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.