Armand John Ruberti v. Tami Shea Ruberti

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/18/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter of Decisions, 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 2110938 Armand John R u b e r t i v. Tami Shea R u b e r t i Appeal from Autauga C i r c u i t (DR-93-244.02) Court MOORE, J u d g e . Armand J o h n R u b e r t i ("the f a t h e r " ) a p p e a l s 24, 2012, j u d g m e n t o f t h e A u t a u g a C i r c u i t court") monthly a w a r d i n g Tami monetary Shea benefits Ruberti labeled from a January Court ("the t r i a l ("the m o t h e r " ) as "living certain expense 2110938 a s s i s t a n c e " b a s e d on h e r p e t i t i o n f o r p o s t m i n o r i t y support for t h e p a r t i e s ' d i s a b l e d a d u l t d a u g h t e r , L.N.R. ("the daughter"). The during m o t h e r gave b i r t h t o t h e d a u g h t e r on A u g u s t 25, the p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e . judgment e n t e r e d custody of the i n 1994, daughter with and the rights. before daughter reached the filed a petition J u l y 15, to modify the t h a t t h e f a t h e r pay p o s t m i n o r i t y t h e p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d was The trial 2012. The the in 2011, age a little same day trial court, pertinent o v e r a month of m a j o r i t y , divorce judgment, the as the the mother requesting s u p p o r t f o r the daughter, and who physically disabled. on J a n u a r y to the judgment r e s u l t i n g from t h a t court without a a receiving specified c o u r t s e t the p e t i t i o n f o r a h e a r i n g According trial father mentally the p a r t i e s agreed to p r e s e n t , the p a r t i e s were d i v o r c e d by the mother r e c e i v i n g p h y s i c a l visitation the On The 1992, and d i d p r e s e n t , 24, hearing, information to information to record. presentation trial of court entered the a judgment s t a t i n g , part: " C o u r t e s t a b l i s h e s a sum o f $455.00 p e r month as l i v i n g expense a s s i s t a n c e p a y a b l e to the mother commencing F e b r u a r y 1, 2012. The C o u r t e s t a b l i s h e s an a r r e a r a g e f o r t h i s e x p e n s e , owed by [ t h e f a t h e r ] t o [ t h e m o t h e r ] i n t h e sum o f $ 2 , 7 3 0 . 0 0 . " 2 2110938 The t r i a l c o u r t f u r t h e r o r d e r e d t h e f a t h e r t o p a y t h e a t t o r n e y for t h e m o t h e r t h e sum fees incurred i n the o f $2,789.08 w i t h i n action. The 180 d a y s f o r t h e father filed a timely p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , w h i c h t h e t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d i n p a r t and denied i n part. The father The f a t h e r t i m e l y a p p e a l e d t o t h i s first argues that the t r i a l court awarding the mother " l i v i n g expense a s s i s t a n c e . " contends t h a t Alabama l a w does n o t r e c o g n i z e e x c e p t f o r p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y , w h i c h , he s a y s , not r e q u e s t and c o u l d n o t r e c o v e r . t h a t the mother p e t i t i o n e d o n l y their So. adult 2d 294, petition d i s a b l e d daughter, 297 ( A l a . 1983) for postminority w h i c h , he s a y s , court. erred The father s u c h an award, the mother d i d The f a t h e r f u r t h e r for postminority see Ex p a r t e (recognizing support c a n be a w a r d e d o n l y for a in notes support f o r Brewington, that a parent disabled 445 can child), i n accordance with Rule 32, A l a . R. J u d . Admin., and t h e a p p e n d i c e s t o R u l e 32, w h i c h establish guidelines f o r awarding c h i l d support ("the child- s u p p o r t g u i d e l i n e s " ) , see Ex p a r t e Cohen, 763 So. 2d 253, 256 (Ala. 1999) ("If the t r i a l c o u r t child i s entitled should to postminority use the c h i l d - s u p p o r t ... d e t e r m i n e s t h a t t h e a d u l t s u p p o r t , t h e n ... t h e c o u r t guidelines 3 ... t o c a l c u l a t e t h e 2110938 proper amount of the trial asserts, father him t o pay an trial the trial court daughter i n order was result) Civ. See 2000) (disapproving postminority s u p p o r t as as i m p a c t on the (Crawley, circuit the b e n e f i t s 816 So. child). designation Even i f t r u e , 2d 477, concurring the labeling court's would not warrant "[T]he substance of the or l a b e l . " a of reduction controlling obligation." "[T]he on the court's reversal of use the disabled of labels So. provided question of the A n d e r s o n v. A n d e r s o n , 686 4 2d 567, in a true So. 569 that judgment. award t a k e s p r e c e d e n c e over the K e n c h e l v. K e n c h e l , 440 1983). trial 482¬ in support" to avoid the the Security S u p p l e m e n t a l S e c u r i t y Income b e n e f i t s p a y a b l e t o adult the expense Social J., ordered that "living any "spousal have l a b e l e d i t s award from of not the assistance." court award father Accordingly, could A b b e t t v. T r e a d w e l l , App. the father speculates the to avoid which, expense trial The receiving Administration. (Ala. court the characterized with comply. arrearage of " l i v i n g expense a s s i s t a n c e . " assistance" App. d i d not c a n n o t d i s c e r n why "living in support."), court contends t h a t We 83 that form (Ala. Civ. judgment are not nature of the 2d 320, 324 (Ala. 2110938 Civ. App. 1 9 9 6 ) . construed form.'" An allowance i n accordance w i t h 785 (1963) 629, 111 So. 9 1 1 , 912 be considered and i t s s u b s t a n c e a n d n o t i t s mere D u B o i s e v. D u B o i s e , 778, "'will 275 A l a . 220, 228, 153 So. 2d ( q u o t i n g S u l l i v a n v. S u l l i v a n , 215 A l a . 627, (1927)). The m o t h e r p e t i t i o n e d s o l e l y f o r p o s t m i n o r i t y s u p p o r t f o r the daughter. Such s u p p o r t , by d e f i n i t i o n , i n c l u d e s monetary payments made t o c o v e r t h e l i v i n g e x p e n s e s o f a d i s a b l e d a d u l t child. App. See M a r t i n v. M a r t i n , 1986). disabled costs. Postminority child Thus, 494 So. 2d 97, 100 ( A l a . support n e c e s s a r i l y a s s i s t s the and t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t labeling Civ. with covering an a w a r d o f p o s t m i n o r i t y those support as " l i v i n g e x p e n s e a s s i s t a n c e " does n o t t r a n s f o r m t h a t a w a r d i n t o some o t h e r t y p e o f s u p p o r t , otherwise the 575 To h o l d w o u l d be t o i n v a l i d a t e t h e a w a r d on t h e g r o u n d t h a t father requested s u c h as p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y . received no n o t i c e that o r c o u l d be a d j u d i c a t e d . So. 2d 1154 such an a w a r d h a d b e e n See K i r k l a n d v . K i r k l a n d , ( A l a . C i v . App. 1991) (award of periodic a l i m o n y v a c a t e d due t o l a c k o f due p r o c e s s when h u s b a n d h a d no notice that litigated wife was that issue). seeking alimony and p a r t i e s had n o t When c o n s t r u i n g j u d g m e n t s , t h i s 5 court 2110938 s h o u l d adopt t h a t meaning t h a t w i l l assure the v a l i d i t y of the j u d g m e n t r a t h e r t h a n one t h a t w i l l r e n d e r t h e j u d g m e n t and improper. 2005). and Ex p a r t e Snider, Thus, we c o n c l u d e d i d , award Brewington, Rule the 929 So. 2d 447, 457 ( A l a . that the t r i a l court mother illegal postminority intended t o , support under supra. 32(E), A l a . R. J u d . A d m i n . , specifically t h a t CS-41 a n d CS-42 f o r m s " s h a l l be f i l e d provides i n each a c t i o n t o e s t a b l i s h o r m o d i f y c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n s a n d s h a l l be o f record Civ. I n M a r t i n v. M a r t i n , App. filing 1994), this requirements However, s i n c e M a r t i n , CS-41 record court stated this held 637 So. 2d 901, 902 that i n Rule court compliance 32(E) with the mandatory. has e x c u s e d t h e f i l i n g o f a n d CS-42 f o r m s i n c a s e s i n w h i c h t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e clearly established that the child-support complied with the child-support g u i d e l i n e s . v. is (Ala. award See, e . g . , Dunn Dunn, 891 So. 2d 891, 896 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 4 ) . In this c a s e , t h e p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t h a t no r e c o r d w o u l d be made o f the p r o c e e d i n g s , s o we do n o t know f o r a f a c t t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e c e i v e d t h e r e q u i r e d forms and p r o p e r l y c a l c u l a t e d t h e 6 2110938 postminority support; 1 h o w e v e r , we do know t h a t o r a l was p r e s e n t e d t o t h e t r i a l order court. i s b a s e d on e v i d e n c e t h a t court, 789 i s not before we c o n c l u s i v e l y presume t h a t s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e . ' " "'[W]hen a t r i a l judgment i s L e e t h v. J i m W a l t e r Homes, I n c . , ( q u o t i n g Newman v. S t a t e , 623 So. 2d 1171, 1172 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) ) . that established the that missing the court's the a p p e l l a t e the court's So. 2d 243, 247 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2000) presume testimony testimony trial court Thus, we would have clearly computed the father's postminority-support o b l i g a t i o n i n accordance with the c h i l d - support g u i d e l i n e s . We r e j e c t t h e f a t h e r ' s a r g u m e n t s t h a t t h e trial the court f a i l e d to properly evidence determination f o l l o w t h e g u i d e l i n e s and t h a t d i d not support the t r i a l court's as t o t h e amount o f p o s t m i n o r i t y ultimate s u p p o r t due. The father f i l e d some f o r m s as a t t a c h m e n t s t o h i s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , b u t we do n o t know w h e t h e r t h o s e f o r m s had b e e n f i l e d w i t h t h e t r i a l c o u r t a t t h e t i m e o f i t s d e c i s i o n o r whether t h e mother had a l s o f i l e d forms a t t h a t time. A l t h o u g h t h e f a t h e r a s s e r t s t h a t he h a d f i l e d h i s forms, and a l t h o u g h t h e mother a s s e r t s t h a t b o t h p a r t i e s had f i l e d t h e a p p r o p r i a t e f o r m s , t h e r e c o r d c a n n o t be e n l a r g e d on a p p e a l by such s t a t e m e n t s . R o b e r t s v. R o b e r t s , 424 So. 2d 644, 645 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 2 ) . 1 7 2110938 The f a t h e r f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l o r d e r i n g him t o pay the mother's a t t o r n e y ' s court erred i n fees. The f a t h e r contends t h a t , w i t h o u t a f i n d i n g o f contempt, the t r i a l h a d no b a s i s f o r t h e a w a r d . father i n contempt The m o t h e r d i d s e e k t o h o l d t h e for failing t o pay c e r t a i n d e n t a l expenses of the daughter, b u t the t r i a l not to hold the f a t h e r a w a r d an a t t o r n e y ' s court proceeding." App. 2 0 0 9 ) . may A trial court and elected court cannot Sosebee v. S o s e b e e , 896 So. 2d 557, 564 C i v . App. 2 0 0 4 ) . trial i n contempt. medical f e e i n a c o n t e m p t a c t i o n when no f i n d i n g o f c o n t e m p t i s made. (Ala. court However, " i t i s w e l l s e t t l e d award Beverly an attorney v. B e v e r l y , fee i n a that a modification 28 So. 3d 1, 5 ( A l a . Civ. The j u d g m e n t does n o t c l e a r l y s t a t e t h e b a s i s f o r t h e a t t o r n e y - f e e a w a r d , b u t we n o t e t h a t t h e p a r t i e s a g r e e d t o resolve a l l other pending matters, including c l a i m f i l e d by t h e mother, and l i t i g a t e d modification support. of the divorce only the p e t i t i o n f o r judgment t o o b t a i n Under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e contempt postminority we c o n s t r u e t h e j u d g m e n t as awarding a f e e s o l e l y f o r the e f f o r t s o f the mother's in prosecuting the modification p e t i t i o n . 8 attorney See B e v e r l y , supra. 2110938 Finally, attorney's the father maintains fee i s not supported by that t h e amount of the the evidence. Again, b e c a u s e t h e p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t h a t no r e c o r d w o u l d be made o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s , we must presume t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e c e i v e d sufficient evidence to support i t s award. Leeth, supra. Hence, we f i n d no b a s i s f o r r e v e r s i n g t h e j u d g m e n t due t o t h e alleged lack o f any evidence to support the a t t o r n e y - f e e award. The judgment of the trial court i s affirmed. The m o t h e r ' s r e q u e s t f o r d o u b l e t h e amount o f h e r c o s t s a n d f e e s pursuant t o R u l e 38, A l a . R. App. P., i s d e n i e d . AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . 9

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.