Lisa Michelle Blackledge v. Jamie L. Blackledge

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/21/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2110882 L i s a M i c h e l l e Blackledge v. Jamie L. Blackledge Appeal from C l a r k e C i r c u i t Court (DR-09-27) PITTMAN, J u d g e . Lisa Michelle Blackledge ("the w i f e " ) appeals from a judgment o f t h e C l a r k e C i r c u i t C o u r t d i v o r c i n g h e r from Jamie L. B l a c k l e d g e ("the husband"). 2110882 The h u s b a n d f i l e d 2009. The w i f e a complaint filed f o ra divorce an a n s w e r t o t h e h u s b a n d ' s along with a counterclaim also seeking a divorce. on A p r i l 6, complaint, On November 4, 2 0 1 1 , t h e p a r t i e s a p p e a r e d f o r t h e t r i a l s e t t i n g a n d s t a t e d to the court court entered that they had reached a settlement. The trial a f i n a l judgment o f d i v o r c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e c o u r t was s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e t e r m s o f t h e a g r e e m e n t as s t a t e d on the t r i a l date. The j u d g m e n t divorced t h e p a r t i e s and f u r t h e r r e s o l v e i s s u e s r e l a t i n g t o , among o t h e r t h i n g s , c u s t o d y and v i s i t a t i o n , debt settlement. c h i l d support, With regard judgment s t a t e d , i n p e r t i n e n t child p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n , and to the m a r i t a l home, t h e part: "A. The [ w i f e ] s h a l l be a w a r d e d t h e e x c l u s i v e p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e m a r i t a l home ... , i t s c o n t e n t s ( e x c l u d i n g any s p e c i f i c a l l y l i s t e d b e l o w ) , and t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y upon w h i c h i t i s l o c a t e d , a n d t h e [ h u s b a n d ] s h a l l be d i v e s t e d o f a n y r i g h t , t i t l e , o r i n t e r e s t t h e r e i n . The [ w i f e ] s h a l l be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p a y i n g and s a t i s f y i n g any and a l l mortgages, notes, and/or debts associated with t h e home, i n c l u d i n g b u t n o t l i m i t e d t o t h e Mortgage and Note owed t o V i k k i Shows d a t e d S e p t e m b e r 27, 2004, a n d the [ w i f e ] s h a l l i n d e m n i f y and h o l d t h e [ h u s b a n d ] h a r m l e s s from any c l a i m s o f c r e d i t o r s . "B. The [ w i f e ] s h a l l p a y t h e [ h u s b a n d ] t h e sum o f f i f t y t h o u s a n d d o l l a r s ($50,000,00) w h i c h s h a l l represent the [husband's] equitable i n t e r e s t i n the m a r i t a l home a n d p r o p e r t y . The sum s h a l l be p a i d t o 2 2110882 the C l e r k of the c o u r t w i t h i n t h i r t y the date of t h i s Order." The wife filed judgment, a r g u i n g , not agreed to the w o u l d be debts a motion to a l t e r , among o t h e r responsible associated f o r payment o f with the days the that had the parties judgment t h a t the the mortgage m a r i t a l home and on and other would t h e h u s b a n d f r o m any c l a i m s o f c r e d i t o r s . a hearing divorce wife's motion, the trial judgment; the p o r t i o n r e g a r d i n g amended as court wife she that indemnify the of amend, o r v a c a t e things, requirements i n the (30) Following amended the t h e m a r i t a l home was follows: "A. The [ w i f e ] s h a l l be a w a r d e d t h e e x c l u s i v e p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e m a r i t a l home ... , i t s c o n t e n t s ( e x c l u d i n g any s p e c i f i c a l l y l i s t e d b e l o w ) , and t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y upon w h i c h i t i s l o c a t e d , and the [ h u s b a n d ] s h a l l be d i v e s t e d o f any r i g h t , t i t l e , o r interest therein. The [ w i f e ] s h a l l i n d e m n i f y and h o l d t h e [ h u s b a n d ] h a r m l e s s f r o m any note and mortgage indebtedness on the marital home, s p e c i f i c a l l y but not l i m i t e d [ t o ] , the note and m o r t g a g e w i t h V i k k i Shows d a t e d S e p t e m b e r 27, 2004." Paragraph B corresponding The of that section section i n the remained original the same judgment of w i f e f i l e d her n o t i c e of appeal t o t h i s 2012. 3 as the divorce. c o u r t on June 15, 2110882 On a p p e a l , the wife argues t h a t , because t h e p o r t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t a d d r e s s i n g t h e m a r i t a l home deviated from t h e terms o f t h e p a r t i e s ' s e t t l e m e n t as s t a t e d i n open c o u r t , t h e i n c l u s i o n o f t h o s e error. Having reviewed the transcript agreement t e r m s was i n of the proceedings b e l o w , we a g r e e w i t h t h e w i f e t h a t t h e r e was no m e n t i o n o f t h e m a r i t a l home w h a t s o e v e r i n t h e r e c i t a t i o n o f t h e t e r m s o f t h e p a r t i e s ' agreement; r a t h e r , t h e agreement t h a t t h e w i f e p a y t h e h u s b a n d $50,000 was s t a t e d w i t h o u t regard to the marital home. The wife cites Junkin v. J u n k i n , 647 So. 2 d 797 (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 9 4 ) , i n w h i c h t h i s c o u r t r e v e r s e d a j u d g m e n t t h a t deviated from the p a r t i e s ' e v i d e n c e had been p r e s e n t e d also agreement on t h e d i s p u t e d i s s u e . when no The w i f e c i t e s M.D.L. v . M.R.C., 891 So. 2d 876 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004). the settlement I n M.D.L., t h i s court reversed terms t h e r e i n d e v i a t e d a j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as from t h e terms o f t h e s e t t l e m e n t agreement between t h e p a r t i e s . 891 So. 2d a t 879. Finally, t h e w i f e c i t e s J . F . v . D.C.W., 896 So. 2d 577 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004); i n that case, like i n Junkin, this j u d g m e n t when no e v i d e n c e h a d b e e n p r e s e n t e d 4 court reversed a on an a w a r d t h a t 2110882 was i n c l u d e d i n the judgment t h a t d e v i a t e d from the a g r e e m e n t on w h i c h t h e j u d g m e n t had b e e n b a s e d . settlement 896 So. 2d at husband i n d i c a t e t h a t the trial 581. The cases c o u r t may in (Ala. the a c c e p t or r e j e c t a s e t t l e m e n t part, 2d 582, c i t e d by see v. W i l l i a m s , ( 1 9 5 4 ) , and 591 Williams P o r t e r v. C i v . App. 261 agreement, i n whole or A l a . 328, P o r t e r , 441 74 So. 2d 921, 924 1983); however, n e i t h e r of the cases c i t e d the husband stand f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t a t r i a l r e j e c t or modify a p o r t i o n of a settlement ore So. 337, t e n u s e v i d e n c e has court court. p r e s e n t case, the t r a n s c r i p t s of the p r o c e e d i n g s t h a t on the had trial date, at which the reached a settlement In no the occurred p a r t i e s announced t h a t a g r e e m e n t , and may a g r e e m e n t when been p r e s e n t e d t o the by of the h e a r i n g they on the w i f e ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , r e v e a l t h a t no o r e t e n u s e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d to the trial court. Indeed, at the h e a r i n g on the postjudgment motion, the t r i a l c o u r t agreed t h a t i t should hear ore tenus evidence m a r i t a l home b a r r i n g issue. we an regarding agreement of the B a s e d on J u n k i n and reverse the t r i a l the court's d i s p o s i t i o n of p a r t i e s as to t h e o t h e r c a s e s c i t e d by t h e j u d g m e n t and 5 the that wife, remand t h e c a s e f o r 2110882 the entry of a judgment i n accordance with the actual agreement o f t h e p a r t i e s o r f o r t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f e v i d e n c e for the trial court's consideration e q u i t a b l e judgment i n a c c o r d a n c e this in formulating an w i t h the cases d i s c u s s e d i n opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d Thomas, Moore, concur. 6 and Donaldson, 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.