Michael L. Keating v. Jodi K. Keating
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
2110816
Michael L. K e a t i n g
v.
J o d i K. K e a t i n g
Appeal from Baldwin C i r c u i t
(DR-10-900364)
Court
On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g
THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e .
T h i s c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n o f December 14, 2012, i s w i t h d r a w n ,
and
the following i s substituted therefor.
2110816
Michael
L.
Keating
("the
husband")
appeals
from
j u d g m e n t d i v o r c i n g h i m f r o m J o d i K. K e a t i n g ( " t h e w i f e " ) .
a
In
t h e j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t , among o t h e r t h i n g s , d i v i d e d t h e
marital
$1,000
property
and
ordered
e a c h month i n p e r i o d i c
This
court's
following.
review
of the t r i a l .
a
of
the
i n M a r c h 1998.
The c h i l d was
manager
the
wife
indicates
record
11 y e a r s
When t h e p a r t i e s m a r r i e d ,
regional
t o pay
the
alimony.
The p a r t i e s m a r r i e d
born of the marriage.
was
the husband
for a
finance
One c h i l d
was
o l d a t the time
the wife
company.
said,
she
The
wife
t e s t i f i e d t h a t no money was owed on t h e house she l i v e d i n a t
the
t i m e she m a r r i e d
the husband.
restaurant chain i n Mobile.
at
the time
w i f e ' s house.
The h u s b a n d w o r k e d f o r a
He d i d n o t own any r e a l
of the marriage,
so
the p a r t i e s
property
lived
i n the
E v e n t u a l l y , t h e w i f e s a i d , t h e y s o l d h e r house
and b u i l t a new h o u s e .
L a t e r , t h e y s o l d t h a t house and moved
i n t o t h e h o u s e i n w h i c h t h e y were l i v i n g when t h e w i f e
filed
for
that,
a divorce
in April
2010.
when t h e p a r t i e s m a r r i e d ,
The w i f e
also t e s t i f i e d
she p a i d o f f t h e h u s b a n d ' s
c a r d d e b t o f b e t w e e n $8,000 and $9,000 and h i s s t u d e n t
w h i c h were a " f e w t h o u s a n d d o l l a r s . "
2
creditloans,
2110816
The
wife
testified
ground of a d u l t e r y .
that
was a t t e n d i n g
a divorce
She s a i d t h a t , i n 2007,
t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was h a v i n g
he
she sought
graduate
she d i s c o v e r e d
an a f f a i r w i t h someone w i t h whom
school.
The w i f e
said
h u s b a n d t o l d h e r t h a t t h e i r m a r r i a g e was o v e r ,
love with
t h e woman w i t h whom he was h a v i n g
t h a t he a n d t h a t woman p l a n n e d t o m a r r y .
testified,
on t h e
t h e woman d e c i d e d
that the
t h a t he was i n
an a f f a i r , a n d
However, t h e w i f e
t o r e t u r n t o h e r own h u s b a n d .
The h u s b a n d , i n t u r n , r e t u r n e d t o t h e w i f e a n d , a c c o r d i n g t o
the
w i f e , " p r e t t y much
acted
p e r f e c t " f o r a time,
but,
the
wife s a i d , the a f f a i r had had a " c a t a s t r o p h i c , h e a r t b r e a k i n g "
e f f e c t on t h e m a r r i a g e .
In
April
2010, t h e w i f e
said,
she l e a r n e d
that the
h u s b a n d was h a v i n g a n o t h e r a f f a i r , t h i s t i m e w i t h someone w i t h
whom he h a d w o r k e d .
She s a i d
that
t h e husband t o l d
her at
t h a t t i m e t h a t t h e i r m a r r i a g e was o v e r a n d t h a t s h e a s k e d h i m
for
h i s wedding band
The
wife
residence
told
testified
and h i s k e y t o t h e m a r i t a l
that
b u t t h a t he r e f u s e d ,
h i m n o t t o move.
divorce
she a s k e d
t h e day a f t e r
t h e husband
telling
The w i f e
said
she l e a r n e d
3
residence.
t o leave the
h e r h i s a t t o r n e y had
that
she f i l e d
o f t h e husband's
f o ra
2010
2110816
a f f a i r , b u t she s t a y e d i n t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e a b o u t two more
weeks.
During
that
two-week p e r i o d ,
the wife
h u s b a n d w o u l d t a l k o p e n l y on t h e t e l e p h o n e
whom he was h a v i n g
wife's
request
the a f f a i r ,
that
he
the
w i t h t h e woman w i t h
a n d he c o n t i n u e d
leave
said,
t h e house.
to refuse the
After
about
two
weeks, t h e w i f e s a i d , she a n d t h e p a r t i e s ' c h i l d moved o u t o f
the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e
began h a v i n g
At
and i n t o a s m a l l e r house, and t h e w i f e
t o pay r e n t .
the time of the t r i a l ,
t h e p a r t i e s owed $292, 574 on
t h e f i r s t m o r t g a g e on t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e .
home-equity
$54,000.
the
line
of c r e d i t
had purchased
house") i n February
did
a balance
of
approximately
D o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e was i n t r o d u c e d i n d i c a t i n g
husband
filed
with
They a l s o h a d a
2010, a b o u t
f o r the divorce.
not t e l l
a house
The w i f e
that
i n Daphne ( " t h e Daphne
two months b e f o r e
testified
the wife
t h a t t h e husband
h e r a b o u t t h e Daphne h o u s e , a n d h e r name d i d n o t
a p p e a r on a n y o f t h e p a p e r w o r k r e g a r d i n g t h e h o u s e .
The w i f e
t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a f t e r she l e a r n e d a b o u t t h e Daphne h o u s e , t h e
h u s b a n d t o l d h e r t h a t he h a d c a s h e d i n a r e t i r e m e n t
for
t h e down payment.
retirement account.
T h e r e was a p p r o x i m a t e l y
$19,000 i n t h e
The s e t t l e m e n t s t a t e m e n t p r e p a r e d
4
account
for the
2110816
p u r c h a s e o f t h e Daphne h o u s e
made a down payment
i n d i c a t e d t h a t the husband had
of $22,391.98.
The m o r t g a g e b a l a n c e f o r
t h e Daphne h o u s e was a p p r o x i m a t e l y
trial.
rental
At the time
income
$72,000 a t t h e t i m e o f t h e
of the t r i a l ,
t h e h u s b a n d was
earning
f r o m t h e Daphne h o u s e , and he h a d o f f e r e d t h e
r e n t e r s an o p t i o n t o p u r c h a s e t h e h o u s e f o r $ 1 1 7 , 9 0 0 .
At
earning
the time
an
of
annual
the t r i a l ,
income
of
the wife
worked
approximately
at
$59,640.
h u s b a n d w o r k e d f o r t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Army C o r p s o f
and
had
an
annual
income
of
a
approximately
bank
The
Engineers
$84,575.
In
a d d i t i o n t o t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e j o b s , t h e p a r t i e s a t one t i m e h a d
owned an e n g r a v i n g
and p e r s o n a l i z a t i o n shop c a l l e d P e r s o n a l l y
Y o u r s G i f t s & A c c e s s o r i e s , LLC
P Y ; t h e h u s b a n d owned 49%.
("PY").
The w i f e owned 5 1 % o f
The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t PY n e v e r
t u r n e d a " s i g n i f i c a n t p r o f i t " and t h a t i t h a d "a l o t o f d e b t . "
The
wife
company,
said
that
she h a d
f o r r e v e n u e PY
had
Deepwater H o r i z o n
o i l spill
she
$15,065
had r e c e i v e d
Coast Claims
Facility
wife t e s t i f i e d
filed
a
lost
as
claim
a
with
result
BP,
of the
i n the Gulf of Mexico.
f r o m BP
2010
She
said
from the
Gulf
with the o i l s p i l l .
The
and
i n connection
an o i l
$72,900
t h a t she h a d u s e d t h e money she r e c e i v e d as a
5
2110816
r e s u l t o f t h e o i l s p i l l t o p a y PY's e x p e n s e s , i n c l u d i n g p a y i n g
off
debt,
paying
o u t s t a n d i n g i n v o i c e s t o v e n d o r s , and m a k i n g
payroll.
The
separated,
t h e h u s b a n d t o l d h e r he w a n t e d n o t h i n g more t o do
with
PY.
She
wife
said
said
that
after
she
and
the
husband
t h a t she h a d c l o s e d PY and h a d s o l d t h e
f u r n i t u r e , f i x t u r e s , and e x i s t i n g i n v e n t o r y f o r $65,000.
wife t e s t i f i e d
that, a f t e r using the o i l - s p i l l
money f r o m t h e s a l e o f t h e a s s e t s
still
approximately
undisputed
that,
$20,000
despite
in
being
o f PY,
debt.
a
49%
money a n d t h e
the business
The
partner
The
evidence
i n PY,
was
was
the
husband had not p a i d a n y t h i n g toward i t s debt.
In
a d d i t i o n t o h i s share
o f PY, t h e h u s b a n d h a d a s e c o n d
business, Keating & Associates.
the husband wrote g r a n t s
"project
firm
and
Through K e a t i n g & A s s o c i a t e s ,
f o r government p r o j e c t s , engaged i n
management," and d i d " s t u f f "
firms
he
had
had
contact
f o r an
with
architectural
i n previous
jobs.
K e a t i n g & A s s o c i a t e s h a d no e m p l o y e e s o t h e r t h a n t h e h u s b a n d .
The
wife
testified
that
Keating
& Associates
also
earned
income f r o m a s s i s t i n g BP a f t e r t h e o i l s p i l l i n t h e G u l f .
The
p a r t i e s ' " p r o p o s e d " t a x r e t u r n f o r 2010 i n d i c a t e d t h a t K e a t i n g
& A s s o c i a t e s h a d income o f $109,791 t h a t y e a r .
6
The
husband
2110816
s a i d t h a t , b e c a u s e o f h i s f u l l - t i m e j o b w i t h t h e Army C o r p s
of
E n g i n e e r s , he d i d n o t have t h e t i m e t o d e v o t e t o t h e p r o j e c t s
he h a d b e e n w o r k i n g on t h r o u g h K e a t i n g & A s s o c i a t e s .
time of the t r i a l ,
Keating
that,
he s a i d , he was
& Associates.
However,
a month b e f o r e
the
At
n o t e a r n i n g an income
the
husband
he
had
trial,
also
become
the
from
testified
a
one-third
p a r t n e r i n a v e n t u r e c a l l e d G l o b a l I n f r a s t r u c t u r e s S y s t e m s and
Services,
work."
derived
which
was
established
to
do
"energy
management
He s a i d t h a t he e x p e c t e d t o e a r n a t h i r d o f any
from
that
business.
The
husband
has
profit
also
taught
e n g i n e e r i n g c o u r s e s a t F a u l k n e r U n i v e r s i t y and t h e U n i v e r s i t y
of
S o u t h A l a b a m a , e a r n i n g a p p r o x i m a t e l y $12,000 a n n u a l l y .
The w i f e h a d a r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t t h r o u g h h e r e m p l o y e r
a p p r o x i m a t e l y $20,409.
She t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a t one t i m e ,
of
she
h a d an a d d i t i o n a l r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t o f more t h a n $60,000, b u t
t h e p a r t i e s c l o s e d t h a t a c c o u n t and u s e d t h e p r o c e e d s
the
purchase
of
the
marital
residence.
The
toward
husband
numerous r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t s a t t h e t i m e o f t h e t r i a l .
had
Those
a c c o u n t s t o t a l e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y $57,386.
The
to
meet
wife t e s t i f i e d
her
monthly
t h a t she h a d b e e n u s i n g c r e d i t
expenses
7
after
she
and
the
cards
husband
2110816
separated.
their
B o t h p a r t i e s were q u e s t i o n e d e x t e n s i v e l y r e g a r d i n g
finances,
certain
including
expenditures,
their
debt,
the necessity
the necessity f o r
for certain
deductions
from t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e paychecks, l o a n s , and b u s i n e s s
and
to
losses.
Both p a r t i e s contended t h a t the other had access
money t h a t was u n a c c o u n t e d f o r i n t h e documents e x c h a n g e d
during
discovery.
After
parties
Hearing."
the wife
entered
filed
into
a
f o r a divorce
"Temporary
in April
Agreement
2010, t h e
Pending
Final
P u r s u a n t t o t h a t agreement, which t h e t r i a l
court
a d o p t e d on June 4, 2010, t h e h u s b a n d was t o r e t a i n
of t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e .
payments on t h e f i r s t
for
profits
a l lutilities
possession
He a l s o was t o c o n t i n u e
t o make t h e
m o r t g a g e on t h a t r e s i d e n c e
and t o pay
f o rthe m a r i t a l residence.
t h e w i f e were t o be e q u a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e
The h u s b a n d a n d
f o r t h e payments on
the home-equity l i n e o f c r e d i t .
The
custody
husband
and t h e w i f e
o f the minor
p h y s i c a l custody
child,"
also
with
agreed
t o "share
the wife
having
joint
primary
s u b j e c t t o t h e h u s b a n d ' s v i s i t a t i o n . However,
the p a r t i e s a l s o agreed t o evenly d i v i d e " a l l expenses r e l a t e d
to
the minor c h i l d , " w i t h the caveat
8
that "[a]ny cost
greater
2110816
t h a t $50.00 must be m u t u a l l y
limited t o :
"1.
a g r e e d upon.
Including but not
E d u c a t i o n a l t u i t i o n , f e e s and meals/snacks.
"2.
Extracurricular
"3.
Summer camps a n d d a y c a r e .
"4.
C e l l phone
"5.
Clothing.
"6.
activities.
bill.
D o c t o r / c o - p a y expenses and p r e s c r i p t i o n s . "
As t o t h o s e e x p e n s e s , t h e h u s b a n d a g r e e d t o r e i m b u r s e
the wife
for
days
payments
s h e made
on
h i s behalf
within
14
of
notification.
After
divorcing
the t r i a l ,
court
l e g a l custody
of the c h i l d ,
awarded p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l custody.
t o p a y $1,123 p e r month i n c h i l d
h u s b a n d was o r d e r e d
past-due
entered
t h e p a r t i e s on t h e g r o u n d o f a d u l t e r y .
were a w a r d e d j o i n t
was
the t r i a l
pendente
child
judgment
The p a r t i e s
and t h e w i f e
The h u s b a n d was o r d e r e d
support.
t o pay the w i f e a t o t a l
lite
a
support.
I n addition, the
o f $17,259.82 i n
However,
after
a
h e a r i n g on t h e h u s b a n d ' s m o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e t h e
j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t amended t h e j u d g m e n t a n d a w a r d e d t h e
wife
$8,629.91 i n p e n d e n t e l i t e
9
child
support.
That
figure
2110816
r e p r e s e n t s h a l f o f t h e o r i g i n a l award, t o r e f l e c t t h e p a r t i e s '
agreement.
The t r i a l c o u r t o r d e r e d t h a t t h e m a r i t a l home be s o l d a n d
t h a t any e q u i t y r e m a i n i n g
a f t e r t h e payment o f t h e m o r t g a g e ,
the home-equity l i n e o f c r e d i t ,
of
t h e home was t o be p a i d
and fees r e l a t e d t o t h e s a l e
to the wife.
The h u s b a n d was
a l l o w e d t o remain i n t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e u n t i l i t s o l d , and
he was o r d e r e d
t o be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r m a k i n g t h e payments on
both
mortgage
The
the f i r s t
and t h e home-equity l i n e
h u s b a n d a l s o was a w a r d e d
of credit.
t h e h o u s e he h a d p u r c h a s e d i n
Daphne.
The
wife
was a w a r d e d
a l l the business
The h u s b a n d was a w a r d e d a l l t h e b u s i n e s s
& Associates.
vehicles.
was
responsible
parties' credit
$72
accounts
credit
interest i n Keating
court ordered that the wife
f o r paying
t h e debt
cards, which had a balance
f i v e months b e f o r e
court ordered
i n PY.
The p a r t i e s were e a c h a w a r d e d t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e
I n addition, the t r i a l
t o be
interest
on one o f t h e
of
approximately
t h e j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d .
that three of the p a r t i e s ' savings
The
trial
o r "ETrade"
be l i q u i d a t e d t o p a y t h e d e b t i n c u r r e d on two o t h e r
cards,
w h i c h had a combined
10
outstanding
balance
of
2110816
approximately
entered.
debt,
$31,210.84 f i v e months b e f o r e
The
h u s b a n d was
excluding
debt
Finally,
the
The
"attached"
ordered
to
to
the
pay
marital
the
residence.
wife
$1,000
a
alimony.
husband t i m e l y appealed.
The w i f e , who
p r o se a t t i m e s d u r i n g t h i s l i t i g a t i o n ,
on
was
o r d e r e d t o pay any r e m a i n i n g m a r i t a l
h u s b a n d was
month i n p e r i o d i c
the judgment
has
proceeded
d i d not submit a b r i e f
appeal.
Our
s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w o f a j u d g m e n t d e t e r m i n i n g an a w a r d
of alimony
and
dividing marital property
i s well
settled.
"When t h e t r i a l c o u r t f a s h i o n s a p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n
f o l l o w i n g the p r e s e n t a t i o n of ore tenus evidence,
i t s j u d g m e n t as t o t h a t e v i d e n c e i s p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t
on a p p e a l and w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d a b s e n t a s h o w i n g
t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n or t h a t
i t s d e c i s i o n i s p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y w r o n g . R o b e r t s
v. R o b e r t s , 802 So. 2d 230, 235
(Ala. Civ.
App.
2 0 0 1 ) ; P a r r i s h v. P a r r i s h , 617 So. 2d 1036,
1038
( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) ; and H a l l v. Mazzone , 486 So.
2d 408,
410
( A l a . 1986) . A p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n i s
required
to
be
equitable,
not
equal,
and
a
d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f what i s e q u i t a b l e r e s t s w i t h i n t h e
broad d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t .
P a r r i s h , 617
So. 2d a t 1038.
In f a s h i o n i n g a p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n
and
an a w a r d o f a l i m o n y ,
the t r i a l
c o u r t must
c o n s i d e r f a c t o r s s u c h as t h e e a r n i n g c a p a c i t i e s o f
the p a r t i e s ; t h e i r f u t u r e p r o s p e c t s ; t h e i r ages,
h e a l t h , and s t a t i o n i n l i f e ;
the l e n g t h of the
p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e ; and t h e s o u r c e , v a l u e , and t y p e
of m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y .
R o b i n s o n v. R o b i n s o n , 795 So.
2d 729, 734 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) .
'[W]e n o t e t h a t
t h e r e i s no r i g i d s t a n d a r d o r m a t h e m a t i c a l
formula
11
2110816
on w h i c h a t r i a l c o u r t must b a s e i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n
o f a l i m o n y and t h e d i v i s i o n o f m a r i t a l a s s e t s . '
Yohey v. Yohey, 890 So. 2d 160, 164 ( A l a . C i v . App.
2 0 0 4) ."
S t o n e v. S t o n e , 26 So. 3d 1232, 1236
( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) .
The h u s b a n d c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e amount o f p a s t - d u e p e n d e n t e
lite
c h i l d support the t r i a l
c o u r t awarded t o t h e w i f e i n t h e
f i n a l j u d g m e n t was m a t h e m a t i c a l l y i n c o r r e c t o r , a l t e r n a t i v e l y ,
that
the t r i a l
award
because,
temporary
court exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n
the
husband
agreement
pendency o f the
the
says,
the
parties
i n making
that
violated
the
during
the
award
had
reached
litigation.
The t r i a l c o u r t a w a r d e d t h e w i f e $20,731 f o r e x p e n s e s she
h a d i n c u r r e d on b e h a l f
of the c h i l d .
o f f s e t t h a t amount b y $3,471.18
i n c u r r e d on b e h a l f
husband
The t r i a l
the
$17,259.82
agreement,
$8,629.91.
However,
r e c o r d how
the t r i a l
so
court
then
and i t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e
i n pendente l i t e
c o u r t t h e n d i v i d e d t h a t amount i n h a l f ,
parties'
$20,731
trial
f o r expenses the husband had
of the c h i l d ,
owed t h e w i f e
The
that
the
wife
support.
to r e f l e c t
was
awarded
t h i s c o u r t i s unable t o d i s c e r n from the
court a r r i v e d
i n e x p e n s e s , on
at the i n i t i a l
which the other
based.
12
figure
of
c a l c u l a t i o n s were
2110816
The
she
w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d k e p t up w i t h t h e e x p e n s e s
h a d i n c u r r e d on b e h a l f o f t h e c h i l d d u r i n g t h e 19 months
b e t w e e n t h e t i m e t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r a d o p t i n g t h e
temporary agreement and t h e e n t r y o f t h e f i n a l judgment.
total
amount
o f those
expenses
was
$18,542.66.
agreed t h a t t h e husband's share o f those
b e e n $9,271.33.
did
In addition,
wife
e x p e n s e s w o u l d have
t h e w i f e a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t she
n o t make a l l o f h e r s h a r e o f t h e payments t o w a r d t h e home-
equity
line
agreement.
of
credit
When
as
called
f o r i n the
t h e h u s b a n d was g i v e n
m i s s e d payments, t h e w i f e
said,
discuss
t h e husband each e x p e n d i t u r e
s p e n t on b e h a l f
acknowledged
of the c h i l d ;
pendency o f t h e l i t i g a t i o n ,
those
that
f o r those
she d i d n o t
o f more t h a n
h o w e v e r , she s a i d ,
refused to discuss anything
temporary
he w o u l d owe h e r a t o t a l o f
The w i f e
with
also
a credit
$5,196.33.
had
The
The
$50
t h e husband
w i t h h e r and, t h r o u g h o u t t h e
had r e f u s e d t o reimburse h e r f o r
expenditures.
In h i s o r i g i n a l b r i e f t o t h i s c o u r t , t h e husband a s s e r t e d
t h a t he owes t h e w i f e
for
only
$371.25 i n p e n d e n t e l i t e
support
t h e 19 months t h e t e m p o r a r y a g r e e m e n t was i n e f f e c t .
On
r e h e a r i n g , t h e h u s b a n d c o n t e n d s t h a t , "upon f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s , "
13
2110816
he
d o e s n o t owe
any p e n d e n t e
lite
support.
Given that
the
p a r t i e s h a d a g r e e d t o d i v i d e t h e e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d on b e h a l f
of
the c h i l d ,
fees,
meals
including
and
expenses f o r items such as
snacks, clothes,
medical
tuition,
e x p e n s e s , and
c h i l d ' s e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s , the husband's
the
claim
that
he s h o u l d p a y l e s s t h a n $400 t o w a r d s u p p o r t o f t h e c h i l d f o r
a 19-month p e r i o d i s i m p l a u s i b l e .
From
the
evidence contained
i n the
record,
c o u r t c o u l d have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was
in
the
entitled
how
the
and
that
t o reimbursement f o r the expenses f o r
w h i c h she h a d d o c u m e n t a t i o n .
determine
trial
uncooperative
s h a r i n g e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d on b e h a l f o f t h e c h i l d
w i f e was
the
trial
$8,629.91 i n p e n d e n t e l i t e
N o n e t h e l e s s , b e c a u s e we
court
arrived
at
the
cannot
award
of
c h i l d s u p p o r t t o t h e w i f e , we must
r e v e r s e t h e judgment as t o t h i s i s s u e and remand t h e c a u s e f o r
the
trial
court
to recalculate
t h e amount o f p e n d e n t e
s u p p o r t owed t o t h e w i f e o r t o d e m o n s t r a t e how
lite
i t reached the
$20,731 amount o f e x p e n s e s on w h i c h i t s a w a r d i s b a s e d .
The h u s b a n d a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e f i n a l judgment
h i m t o make t h e m o n t h l y payments
the
requiring
on b o t h t h e f i r s t m o r t g a g e
m a r t i a l r e s i d e n c e and t h e h o m e - e q u i t y l i n e o f c r e d i t
14
on
was
2110816
inequitable
balance
because,
he
says,
approximately
reason
one-half
..."
in
of the
on t h e h o m e - e q u i t y l i n e o f c r e d i t was a t t r i b u t a b l e t o
the purchase o f the w i f e ' s v e h i c l e .
that
half
alone,
arguably,
of the [home-equity
He s t a t e s t h a t ,
"[f]or
she s h o u l d be o b l i g a t e d t o p a y
line
of c r e d i t ] i n s t a l l m e n t s .
The h u s b a n d ' s argument as t o t h i s i s s u e i s one p a r a g r a p h
l e n g t h , a n d he f a i l s
his
to cite
any a u t h o r i t y i n s u p p o r t o f
position.
" R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) [ , A l a . R. App. P.,] r e q u i r e s
t h a t arguments i n b r i e f s c o n t a i n d i s c u s s i o n s o f
f a c t s and r e l e v a n t l e g a l a u t h o r i t i e s t h a t s u p p o r t
t h e p a r t y ' s p o s i t i o n . I f t h e y do n o t , t h e a r g u m e n t s
a r e w a i v e d . Moore v. P r u d e n t i a l R e s i d e n t i a l S e r v s .
Ltd. P'ship,
849 So. 2d 914, 923 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ;
A r r i n g t o n v. M a t h i s , 929 So. 2d 468, 470 n. 2 ( A l a .
C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ; Hamm v. S t a t e , 913 So. 2d 460, 486
( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 2 ) .
'This i s so, because " ' i t
i s n o t t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h i s C o u r t t o do a p a r t y ' s
legal
research
o r t o make
and address
legal
a r g u m e n t s f o r a p a r t y b a s e d on u n d e l i n e a t e d g e n e r a l
p r o p o s i t i o n s not supported by s u f f i c i e n t a u t h o r i t y
o r a r g u m e n t . ' " ' Jimmy Day P l u m b i n g & H e a t i n g , I n c .
v. S m i t h ,. 964 So. 2d 1, 9 ( A l a . 2007) ( q u o t i n g B u t l e r
v. Town o f A r g o , 871 So. 2d 1, 20 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ,
q u o t i n g i n t u r n Dykes v. Lane T r u c k i n g , I n c . , 652
So. 2d 248, 251 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) ) . "
White
1058
Sands Group, L.L.C. v. PRS I I , L L C , 998 So. 2d 1 0 4 2 ,
( A l a . 2008).
M o r e o v e r , we n o t e t h a t , i n t h e f i n a l j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l
c o u r t p e r m i t t e d t h e husband t o remain i n t h e m a r i t a l
15
residence
2110816
until
i ti s sold.
A l s o , t h e p a r t i e s h a d u s e d t h e money f r o m
t h e w i f e ' s r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t t o make t h e down payment on t h e
marital
residence.
discovered
affair,
that
The r e c o r d
i n d i c a t e s t h a t when t h e w i f e
t h e h u s b a n d was i n v o l v e d i n a s e c o n d e x t r a m a r i t a l
t h e husband acknowledged t h e a f f a i r and t o l d t h e w i f e
their
marriage
was
"over."
When
husband t o l e a v e t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e ,
so
the wife
and t h e c h i l d
square footage
were
Throughout
remained
failed
t h e pendency
i n the m a r i t a l
t o reimburse
incurred
on b e h a l f
b e n e f i t of remaining
the t r i a l
of
the
residence.
the wife
She a l s o s a i d t h a t
litigation,
the
A t t h e same
f o r h i s share
of the c h i l d .
h a l f the
t h e r e n t a l house d i d n o t .
husband
time,
he
of the expenses
The h u s b a n d h a s h a d t h e
i n t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e , a n d , as he t o l d
c o u r t , h i s l i f e s t y l e has n o t changed s i n c e t h e w i f e
and t h e c h i l d l e f t t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e .
before
residence f o r
r e n t i n g had approximately
had a p o o l ;
refused,
The w i f e s a i d t h e house
of the m a r i t a l residence.
the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e
asked the
t h e husband
a n d t h e c h i l d moved t o a s e p a r a t e
w h i c h t h e w i f e has had t o pay r e n t .
she
the wife
u s , we
cannot
say that
the t r i a l
B a s e d on t h e r e c o r d
court
abused i t s
d i s c r e t i o n i n r e q u i r i n g t h e h u s b a n d t o make b o t h t h e m o n t h l y
16
2110816
mortgage payments
payments
on
the
on
the
m a r i t a l residence
balance
owed
on
the
that
the
and
the
home-equity
monthly
line
of
credit.
The
husband
also
argues
month i n p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y
inequitable.
and
The
s a i d her
w i f e w o r k e d as
was
the
a c c o u n t and
He
amount t h e
each
$3,156.52 e a c h month. I n h i s
to demonstrate t h a t
the
a c t u a l l y $3,667.65, and
w i f e ' s " t r u e " m o n t h l y income was
discount
$1, 000
a b r a n c h manager o f a bank
the husband attempts
$3,156.52 as t h e w i f e had
of
t o t h e w i f e i s n o t j u s t i f i e d and i s
take-home pay
b r i e f on a p p e a l ,
award
not
claimed.
wife
The
husband
c o n t r i b u t e d to
t o t h e payment o f h e r
attempts
her
to
retirement
health-insurance
premium.
a l s o c h a l l e n g e s a number o f t h e e x p e n s e s on h e r b u d g e t
being
too
determines
considered,
high
t h a t , by
the
month w i t h o u t
On
the
monthly
wife
unnecessary.
his
The
calculation,
would
have
a
husband
ultimately
when c h i l d
surplus
of
support
$518.81
is
each
r e c e i v i n g alimony.
other
hand,
"disposable
t h a t income was
Corps
or
as
the
income"
husband
of
claimed
$5,112.14.
that
he
I t appears
had
a
that
o n l y what he e a r n e d f r o m h i s j o b w i t h t h e Army
of Engineers.
I t d i d not
17
include his teaching
jobs,
2110816
f r o m w h i c h he e a r n e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y $12,000 a n n u a l l y , income he
e a r n e d f r o m t h e r e n t a l p r o p e r t y he h a d p u r c h a s e d i n Daphne, o r
his
income
from K e a t i n g
& Associates,
w h i c h was
more
than
$100,000 b e f o r e t h e d i v o r c e , o r f r o m h i s c o n s u l t i n g work w i t h
Global
Infrastructures
Systems
and
Services.
The
husband
c l a i m e d t h a t , b a s e d on h i s m o n t h l y take-home p a y o f $5,112.14,
he w o u l d have
a shortfall
required
t o pay
evidence,
the
$1,000
trial
o f $201.04
a month
court
e a c h month i f he
i n alimony.
could
have
Based
believed
on
the
were
the
wife's
c a l c u l a t i o n s as t o h e r income and e x p e n s e s o v e r t h e h u s b a n d ' s
calculations.
Additionally,
the
d e t e r m i n e d t h a t the husband's t o t a l
pay t h e w i f e
him,
$1,000
trial
court
income was
have
s u f f i c i e n t to
a month i n a l i m o n y w i t h o u t
as t h e h u s b a n d a r g u e s .
could
"crippling"
A l s o , we n o t e t h a t t h e payments
t o w a r d t h e m o r t g a g e and t h e b a l a n c e o f t h e h o m e - e q u i t y l i n e o f
credit
constitute
expenditures.
$3,190.18
of
the
husband's
When t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e s e l l s ,
monthly
the husband
w i l l be r e l i e v e d o f t h a t b u r d e n and w i l l be a b l e t o l o w e r h i s
m o n t h l y m o r t g a g e o r r e n t a l payments
i f he c h o o s e s .
F u r t h e r m o r e , i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t o a w a r d a l i m o n y and
divide
marital
property,
the t r i a l
18
court
may
consider
the
2110816
relative
fault
marriage.
App.
the p a r t i e s
L a c k e y v. L a c k e y ,
2009); and Davis
So.
is
of
3d
guilty
,
f o r t h e breakdown
18 So. 3d 393, 401
v. D a v i s ,
(Ala. C i v .
[Ms. 2110119, O c t . 12, 2012]
( A l a . C i v . App. 2012) .
of misconduct
of the
"'Where one s p o u s e
toward the other
spouse,
the t r i a l
c o u r t ' s a w a r d may be as l i b e r a l as t h e e s t a t e o f t h e o f f e n d i n g
spouse w i l l
McDowell,
Shirley
permit
under
the circumstances.'"
644 So. 2d 27, 28
v.
Shirley,
600
M c D o w e l l v.
( A l a . C i v . App. 1994)
So. 2d 284, 287
(quoting
( A l a . C i v . App.
1992)).
In h i s b r i e f , t h e husband appears t o argue t h a t t h e t r i a l
c o u r t s h o u l d n o t have c o n s i d e r e d
awarding
the wife
alimony
reconciled after h i s affair
the
wife
were
affair.
intimate
evidence of h i s adultery i n
because,
he
says,
the p a r t i e s
i n 2007 came t o l i g h t a n d he a n d
after
the wife
The h u s b a n d d i d n o t p r o v i d e
learned
o f t h e 2010
any a u t h o r i t y f o r h i s
c o n t e n t i o n t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e p a r t i e s were i n t i m a t e a f t e r
separated,
the t r i a l
court
a d u l t e r y when d e t e r m i n i n g
The
after
wife
she
whether t o award
acknowledged
discovered
could not consider
t h e husband's
alimony.
that
t h e two h a d b e e n
t h e husband's
second
19
they
intimate
affair.
She
2110816
testified
that after
she h a d moved t o t h e r e n t a l h o u s e , t h e
h u s b a n d h a d o c c a s i o n a l l y come o v e r a n d " a c t e d l i k e he m i s s e d "
her.
She s a i d t h a t
glass
o f w i n e a n d t h a t , on " p r o b a b l y
had
they
would watch t e l e v i s i o n
"wound up h a v i n g r e l a t i o n s . "
three"
a n d have a
occasions,
The w i f e s a i d t h e i r
they
intimacy
had o c c u r r e d b e c a u s e s h e was l o n e l y a n d m i s s e d t h e h u s b a n d a n d
b e c a u s e he h a d t o l d h e r t h a t he m i s s e d h e r a n d " n o t t o g i v e
up."
The w i f e
intimate,
also
testified
that,
after
they
t h e h u s b a n d t o l d h e r t h a t he was s t i l l
h a d been
seeing the
woman w i t h whom he h a d b e e n h a v i n g an a f f a i r b u t t h a t t h e w i f e
could
no l o n g e r
pursue
a divorce
on t h e g r o u n d o f a d u l t e r y
because they had had sex s i n c e they had separated.
the w i f e
they
on
said,
s h e n e v e r moved b a c k i n w i t h
t h e husband and
never r e c o n c i l e d a f t e r t h e second a f f a i r .
the other
hand,
testified
that
However,
The h u s b a n d ,
the wife
h a d been t h e
i n s t i g a t o r of t h e i r i n t i m a c y a f t e r they separated.
He d i d n o t
contend t h a t they had ever r e c o n c i l e d a f t e r t h e second a f f a i r .
The
that
h u s b a n d a l s o c i t e s no a u t h o r i t y t o s u p p o r t
the parties'
requires
intimacy
a determination
after
separating
that the wife
20
h i s contention
necessarily
condoned t h e a f f a i r .
2110816
In
fact,
our
review
never forgave
Based
various
of
the
record
indicates that
or condoned the husband's
on
the
evidence
sources of
of
the
adultery,
his
amount o f h i s income and
income, the
husband's
the
the
child's lifestyle,
t h e h u s b a n d ' s comment t h a t h i s l i f e s t y l e
a t a l l s i n c e he
trial
t h e w i f e had
c o u r t d i d not
h u s b a n d t o pay
The
and
the w i f e
husband
discretion
engraving
we
not
changed
conclude
that
the
$1,000 a month i n p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y .
that
i n d i v e s t i n g him
PY.
separated,
had
abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n o r d e r i n g
asserts
business,
wife
conduct.
w i f e ' s i n c o m e , t h e c h a n g e s i n t h e w i f e and
and
the
the
trial
court
exceeded i t s
of h i s i n t e r e s t i n the p a r t i e s '
The
w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t the
b e e n p r o f i t a b l e and
had
not
She
s a i d t h a t she had u s e d t h e p r o c e e d s f r o m t h e s a l e , as w e l l
as money r e c e i v e d as
debts,
but
that
PY
a r e s u l t of
still
husband acknowledged t h a t
PY's
debt,
business.
even
though
had
he
he
she
had
the
had
was
of
not
a
s o l d the
o i l spill,
debt
Furthermore, i n arguing
s h a r e o f PY was
the t r i a l
that
business
about
paid
49%
business.
t o pay
PY's
$20,000.
The
any
money
shareholder
toward
in
t h a t d i v e s t i n g him
of h i s
i n e q u i t a b l e , the husband never mentions
c o u r t a w a r d e d him K e a t i n g
21
& Associates
and
the
that
divested
2110816
t h e w i f e o f any
The
interest
husband conceded
she may
have had
i n that business.
t h a t , a l t h o u g h he d i d n o t have t h e
he once h a d t o p u t i n t o K e a t i n g & A s s o c i a t e s , i t was
ongoing concern.
just
become
which
he
time
still
an
E v i d e n c e a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t the husband had
a p a r t n e r i n another
expected
to earn
consulting
income.
The
business
from
husband's c o n t e n t i o n
t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d i v e s t i n g him o f
his
i n t e r e s t i n PY i s n o t w e l l
The
husband a l s o argues
taken.
t h a t the t r i a l
d i s c r e t i o n i n r e q u i r i n g him t o l i q u i d a t e
t o pay c e r t a i n m a r i t a l d e b t .
w h i c h were a c c u m u l a t e d
pay
nor
marital
the
debt
wife
mentioned,
parties'
n e c e s s a r i l y meant t h a t n e i t h e r
the t r i a l
court heard
respective
and
incomes
the
Based
the
c o u r t abused
proceeds
of
parties'
from
debt,
of
i t s discretion
financial
debt.
22
accounts
husband
As
employment
breakdown
cannot
of
the
say
that
i n ordering that
be
to
r e g a r d i n g the
their
the
the
accounts.
the evidence
and
causes
those
on t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s , we
certain
accounts
d u r i n g the course of the marriage,
marriage.
trial
financial
The l i q u i d a t i o n o f t h e a c c o u n t s ,
r e c e i v e d proceeds
opportunities,
c o u r t abused i t s
used
t o pay
the
the
2110816
The h u s b a n d a l s o c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t a b u s e d i t s
discretion
in
mandating
more
expensive
health-insurance
coverage through the w i f e ' s employer r a t h e r than the
available
The
through h i s employer
husband
cites
no
i n c a l c u l a t i n g c h i l d support.
authority
for
A c c o r d i n g l y , t h i s argument i s w a i v e d .
So. 2d a t
The
insurance
this
contention.
W h i t e Sands Group,
998
1058.
husband
argues
that
the
trial
court
abused
its
d i s c r e t i o n i n a w a r d i n g t h e w i f e $12,000 t o be p a i d t o w a r d h e r
attorney
states
fee.
that
In
support
the wife
of
his contention,
f a i l e d t o demonstrate
the
that
husband
she
f i n a n c i a l need f o r an award o f an a t t o r n e y f e e and t h a t
was
no e v i d e n t i a r y b a s i s f o r an award
o f $12,000.
"'Whether t o award 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,
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. 1994) . " 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
( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) . '
23
had
a
there
2110816
" G l o v e r v. G l o v e r ,
App. 1 9 9 6 ) . "
E.A.B. v.
(Ala.
D.G.W., [Ms.
C i v . App.
In t h i s
determined
So.
2d
as
the
court's
primary
cause
court's
176
2100718, S e p t . 7,
mentioned,
husband's
the
of
The
wife
the
breakdown of
indicated
of
testified
that
the
her
wife
aware
behalf.
said,
she
that
the
s e r v i c e s of
t h a t she
had
paid
expenses.
We
In a d d i t i o n ,
had
she
could
i t
marriage.
rejected
the
,
have
were
supported
p a i d her
still
by
her
many
trial
of
the
attorneys,
time of
attorney
the
attorney
f i l e d the
current attorney
owed
The
no e v i d e n t i a r y b a s i s
$5,000 t o t h e
the
the
Moreover, c o n t r a r y
wife's
f i r s t r e p r e s e n t e d h e r i n t h i s c a s e and who
on
court
evidence also
t o t h e h u s b a n d ' s a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e r e was
value
3d
circumstances
husband's arguments d u r i n g the l i t i g a t i o n .
the
So.
f i n d i n g t h a t t h e h u s b a n d ' s c o n d u c t was
judgment
for
(Ala. Civ.
2012]
trial
financial
more f a v o r a b l e t h a n t h e w i f e ' s .
the t r i a l
174,
2012).
case,
that
678
the
who
complaint
trial,
the
$10,000 and
was
for
outstanding
n o t e t h a t t h e r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e i s 1,010
pages
l o n g , e x c l u d i n g the 3 boxes of e x h i b i t s , which h o l d about
500
p a g e s o f documents e a c h .
the
The
wife's testimony
regarding
amount she had p a i d t o h e r a t t o r n e y s p r o v i d e d t h e t r i a l
24
court
2110816
with
an
evidentiary basis
t h e r e f o r e , we
f o r i t s a w a r d o f an
conclude t h a t the t r i a l
attorney
c o u r t d i d n o t abuse i t s
d i s c r e t i o n i n o r d e r i n g t h e h u s b a n d t o pay t h e w i f e an
f e e o f $12,000.
(Ala.
Civ.
discretion
wife's
See
App.
T.K.T. v. F.P.T., 716
1998)
(trial
i n awarding wife
attorney's
paid attorney
fees
an
totaled
$7,100 and
court
attorney
So.
did
attorney
2d 1235,
not
fee of
$20,250 and
costs of
fee;
1240
abuse
its
$15,000 when
she
had
already
$3,418.15).
F i n a l l y , the husband contends t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t abused
its
discretion
"settlement
trial
that
i n denying h i s motion to enforce
agreement"
of t h i s matter.
the
wife's
first
grounds f o r h i s request
first
attorney
the
The
parties
had
reached
a
purported
before
the
husband c i t e s a motion t o withdraw
attorney
filed
with
the
to withdraw from the case,
court.
the
As
wife's
stated:
"1.
The
[ w i f e ] and
reached a settlement
[the husband] have a p p a r e n t l y
agreement i n s a i d case.
"2. The [ w i f e ] has i n f o r m e d t h e u n d e r s i g n e d
counsel
t h a t she w i s h e s t o a l l o w [ t h e h u s b a n d ' s ] a t t o r n e y ,
Mr. Thomas P. O l l i n g e r , t o d r a f t s a i d
settlement
a g r e e m e n t and r e p r e s e n t h e r s e l f p r o se f r o m t h i s
point forward."
The
trial
court granted
t h e m o t i o n on F e b r u a r y 4, 2011.
t h a n two weeks l a t e r , t h e w i f e r e t a i n e d a s e c o n d a t t o r n e y ,
25
Less
who
2110816
f i l e d a n o t i c e o f a p p e a r a n c e on F e b r u a r y
that
and
the
16, 2011.
husband's a t t o r n e y d r a f t e d a s e t t l e m e n t
the
husband
signed
i t on
February
9,
h o w e v e r , n e v e r s i g n e d t h e document, and
motion
seeking
enforcement
agreement.
A h e a r i n g was
On
2011,
May
11,
the
of
i t was
denying
A transcript
trial
court
the A p r i l
8,
and
2011,
2011.
The
purported
entered
8,
B e c a u s e we
h e a r i n g , we
an
2011,
order
order."
proceedings
does
is
presume
not
that
evidence.'"
(Ala.
before
the
the
judgment
( q u o t i n g Newman v.
C i v . App.
order
appellate
court's
1993))).
26
not
do n o t have a t r a n s c r i p t
v. J i m W a l t e r Homes, I n c . , 789 So. 2d 243,
that
stating
"interim
must assume t h a t t h e
court's
2011.
husband's
247
is
S t a t e , 623
evidence
See
(Ala. Civ.
i s based
court,
of
court's decision
not t o e n f o r c e the p u r p o r t e d s e t t l e m e n t agreement.
("'[W]hen a t r i a l
a
settlement
a r g u m e n t s on t h e
p r e s e n t e d at t h a t h e a r i n g supports the t r i a l
2000)
wife,
the husband f i l e d
what i t c a l l e d an
of the A p r i l
appear i n the r e c o r d .
the
agreement,
h e l d on t h e m o t i o n on A p r i l 8,
that, a f t e r hearing testimony
motion,
I t appears
we
on
App.
evidence
conclusively
supported
So.
Leeth
2d
by
1171,
the
1172
2110816
For the reasons s e t f o r t h
a b o v e , we r e v e r s e t h a t p o r t i o n
of t h e judgment a w a r d i n g t h e w i f e pendente l i t e
in
t h e amount o f $ 8 , 6 2 9 . 9 1 ,
trial
a n d we remand
child
support
t h e cause f o r t h e
c o u r t t o r e c o n s i d e r t h e award o r t o p r o v i d e
this
court
w i t h g u i d a n c e as t o how t h e amount o f t h e award was d e t e r m i n e d
and t o e n t e r
a judgment
accordingly.
The r e m a i n d e r o f t h e
judgment i s a f f i r m e d .
APPLICATION
FOR REHEARING OVERRULED; OPINION OF DECEMBER
14, 2012, WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; AFFIRMED
REVERSED
IN PART;
IN PART; AND REMANDED.
Pittman,
Thomas, Moore, a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , c o n c u r .
27
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.