T.K.W. v. State Department of Human Resources ex rel. J.B.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/04/2013 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 2111034 T.K.W. v. State Department o f Human Resources ex r e l . J.B. Appeal from Bibb J u v e n i l e Court (CS-91-19.02) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . The behalf State Department o f Human o f J.B. ("the m o t h e r " ) , f i l e d Resources ("DHR"), on i n t h e Bibb Juvenile C o u r t ("the j u v e n i l e c o u r t " ) a p e t i t i o n s e e k i n g t o have T.K.W. ("the father") held i n contempt for his failure t o pay a 2111034 child-support judgment arrearage as r e q u i r e d b y a November 2 0 , 2 0 0 9 , of the j u v e n i l e contempt p e t i t i o n arrearage court. The and a r g u e d t h a t and had n o t w i l f u l l y father he was u n a b l e refused Court ("the c i r c u i t filed a pending 2011, and the motion court"). asking that t r a n s f e r r e d the docket of the Bibb I n December the i n the j u v e n i l e court t o pay the t o do s o . On O c t o b e r 24, 2 0 1 1 , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t matter to the domestic-relations answered the action Circuit 2011, t h e f a t h e r purportedly be " c l o s e d . " still On December 8, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h a t m o t i o n s t a t i n g t h a t t h e a c t i o n was " c l o s e d t o f u r t h e r r e v i e w " i n juvenile circuit court. court However, determined on that February 22, i t lacked 2012, t h e subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e contempt a c t i o n , and i t o r d e r e d that the action Also be t r a n s f e r r e d b a c k t o t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t . February 22, apparently court, We note action circuit 2012, the i n recognition that that juvenile court entered of t h e t r a n s f e r from an order, the circuit " r e i n s t a t e d " t h e contempt a c t i o n i n t h a t t h e same j u d g e who i n the j u v e n i l e court presided considered court. 2 over on court. t h e contempt the a c t i o n i n the 2111034 On F e b r u a r y 23, 2012, t h e f a t h e r court a "motion to set aside 2009," w h i c h , as d i s c u s s e d pursuant t o Rule 60(b), that motion; i n both filed the order i n the j u v e n i l e d a t e d November i n f r a , we t r e a t as a m o t i o n A l a . R. C i v . P., a n d he l a t e r the o r i g i n a l motion 20, filed amended and t h e amended m o t i o n , t h e f a t h e r a r g u e d t h a t t h e November 20, 2009, j u d g m e n t was v o i d . the See R u l e juvenile-court action. the 60(b)(4). judge Later, recuse t h e f a t h e r moved himself from t h e contempt On M a r c h 14, 2012, t h e j u v e n i l e - c o u r t j u d g e motion to recuse. On May 9, that denied 2012, t h e j u v e n i l e court d e n i e d t h e f a t h e r ' s R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n . The j u v e n i l e c o u r t conducted a hearing DHR's c o n t e m p t a c t i o n . entered and order On May 17, 2012, t h e j u v e n i l e a judgment d e t e r m i n i n g ordering, on t h e m e r i t s among o t h e r of court t h e f a t h e r t o be i n c o n t e m p t t h i n g s , t h a t an i n c o m e - w i t h h o l d i n g ("IWO") i n t h e amount o f $500 p e r month be i s s u e d t o t h e Social Security income from judgment, Administration that the agency. juvenile with regard In reaching court made the to the i t s May father's 17, 2012, following factual findings: the "1. The [ f a t h e r ] was o r d e r e d b y t h i s c o u r t on 2 0 t h d a y o f November 2009, t o p a y t h e amount o f 3 2111034 $500 p e r month u n t i l h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t arrearage o b l i g a t i o n was met. T h [ a t j u d g m e n t ] was entered p u r s u a n t t o an a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s a t w h i c h t h e [ f a t h e r ] was r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l . "2. The [ f a t h e r ] has f a i l e d t o c o m p l y w i t h t h i s O r d e r o f S u p p o r t f o r a t l e a s t t h e p a s t s i x months and i s $15,155.56 i n a r r e a r s and i n t e r e s t as o f t h e 9 t h day o f May 2012. "3. The [ f a t h e r ] r e c e i v e s i n e x c e s s o f $5,300 p e r month f r o m S o c i a l S e c u r i t y D i s a b i l i t y , V e t e r a n ' s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n P e n s i o n and 'CRSC.' [1] "4. The [ f a t h e r ' s ] t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e d t h a t he i s i n s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e same f i n a n c i a l s i t u a t i o n c u r r e n t l y as he was i n November o f 2009 when he e n t e r e d i n t o t h e a g r e e m e n t t o pay $500 p e r month t o w a r d t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e owed by him, and h i s t e s t i m o n y f u r t h e r d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t he has s u b s t a n t i a l d e b t s t h a t he has w i l l i n g l y i n c u r r e d and t h a t he has c o n t i n u e d t o i n c u r , some o f w h i c h a r e e v e n i n c u r r e d month t o month, w h i c h c o u l d have f u n d e d h i s s u p p o r t payments due p u r s u a n t t o h i s a g r e e m e n t and t h e o r d e r o f t h i s c o u r t . "5. The [ f a t h e r ' s ] f a i l u r e t o make t h e r e q u i r e d payments i s due t o h i s w i l l f u l n e g l e c t and i s NOT due t o i n a b i l i t y t o pay." (Capitalization in original.) motion, which the The j u v e n i l e court f a t h e r f i l e d a postjudgment denied. The father timely appealed. "CRSC" i s n o t i d e n t i f i e d by name i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l , but the r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s i t i s a r e t i r e m e n t account from which t h e f a t h e r r e c e i v e s a p p r o x i m a t e l y $250 p e r month i n i n c o m e . 1 4 2111034 The r e c o r d d o e s n o t i n d i c a t e w h e t h e r t h e m o t h e r a n d t h e f a t h e r were e v e r m a r r i e d o r t h e d a t e on w h i c h t h e f a t h e r f i r s t ordered t o pay c h i l d support. the father's child had most he h a d w i t h recent The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t child-support t h e m o t h e r was was obligation $224 p e r month. f o r the The child r e a c h e d t h e age o f m a j o r i t y a t t h e t i m e t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t entered t h e November 20, 2009, j u d g m e n t t h a t DHR i s s e e k i n g t o enforce. The father t e s t i f i e d that t h a t he i s no l o n g e r he i s a d i s a b l e d v e t e r a n a b l e t o work. he s u f f e r e d a t r a u m a t i c The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d b r a i n i n j u r y and t h a t h i s w i f e g u a r d i a n and manages h i s f i n a n c i a l a f f a i r s . The f a t h e r t h a t h i s w i f e was aware o f t h e $500-a-month payment by t h e November that is his stated required 20, 2009, j u d g m e n t . The e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d father's and net monthly income on a p p e a l i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e i s approximately $5,300; that amount i n c l u d e s $1,416 i n S o c i a l S e c u r i t y d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s . The father t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s monthly l i v i n g expenses a p p r o x i m a t e l y $5,000 p e r month. could total The f a t h e r i n s i s t e d t h a t he n o t a f f o r d t o p a y t h e $500 p e r month ordered i n the November 20, 2009, j u d g m e n t . We n o t e t h a t , a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f 5 2111034 t h e November 20, 2009, j u d g m e n t , DHR o b t a i n e d the f a t h e r ' s government r e t i r e m e n t that garnishment, i treceives a garnishment o f account, and, p u r s u a n t t o a $124 m o n t h l y payment the f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e . toward The f a t h e r i n c l u d e d t h e amount o f t h a t g a r n i s h m e n t i n h i s c a l c u l a t i o n o f h i s m o n t h l y expenses. DHR c r o s s - e x a m i n e d t h e f a t h e r claimed on h i s e s t i m a t e payments f o r five insurance, finance o f monthly expenses. policies the father The f a t h e r o f insurance, represented companies f o r v a r i o u s furniture. denied that wife's On DHR's q u e s t i o n i n g , t h e e x p e n s e s he In addition to including he h a s t o r e p a y loans, o f t e n , b u t DHR's c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n question. regarding life several i n c l u d i n g a purchase o f he a t e a t restaurants c a l l e d that testimony into the father admitted that h i s m o n t h l y income o f $900 i n S o c i a l Security disability b e n e f i t s i s u s e d , i n a d d i t i o n t o h i s own i n c o m e , t o meet t h e a p p r o x i m a t e l y $5,000 i n h o u s e h o l d m o n t h l y e x p e n s e s t o w h i c h he testified. The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t s i n c e t h e e n t r y o f t h e November 20, 2009, j u d g m e n t , he h a s s t a r t e d r e c e i v i n g r e t i r e m e n t o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y $250 a month. income Otherwise, the father admitted 6 2111034 that hisfinancial situation i s much t h e same as i t was i n November 2009, when he a g r e e d t o p a y $500 m o n t h l y t o w a r d t h e arrearage and t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t i n c o r p o r a t e d t h a t agreement i n t o t h e November 20, 2009, j u d g m e n t . The f a t h e r f i r s t a r g u e s on a p p e a l t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t c o u l d n o t i s s u e an IWO t o c o l l e c t a child-support b e c a u s e t h e c h i l d h a s r e a c h e d t h e age o f m a j o r i t y . cites W.L.S. v . K.S.S.V., 810 So. 2d 777 arrearage The f a t h e r ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) , a n d S h e e l e y v . Chapman, 953 So. 2 d 1252 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006), i n support o f h i s argument on a p p e a l . c a s e s have been s u p e r s e d e d b y s t a t u t e . -71, A l a . Code 1975. As t h i s Both o f those See § 30-3-60 through court recently explained: " A t one t i m e , A l a b a m a l a w d i d n o t a l l o w t h e u s e o f an IWO a s a t o o l t o c o l l e c t u n p a i d c h i l d - s u p p o r t obligations from nonpaying obligors after the c h i l d r e n who h a d been t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e u n d e r l y i n g child-support awards had a t t a i n e d t h e age o f majority. See W.L.S. v . K.S.S.V., 810 So. 2d 777, 780 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) , a n d S h e e l e y v . Chapman, 953 So. 2d 1252, 1259 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 6 ) . However, t h e s t a t u t e r e l i e d upon i n b o t h W.L.S. a n d S h e e l e y , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , § 30-3-60, was amended i n 2009 s o as t o a l l o w f o r t h e i s s u a n c e o f IWOs f o r 'enforcement p o s t - m a j o r i t y o f a r r e a r a g e s accrued d u r i n g m i n o r i t y ' a s w e l l as a c c r u e d i n t e r e s t . See A l a . Code 1975, § 3 0 - 3 - 6 0 ( 1 0 ) c . " R o b b i n s v . S t a t e ex r e l . P r i d d y , So. 3d , [Ms. 2110294, O c t . 26, 2012] n.1 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) . 7 S e c t i o n 30-3- 2111034 60 now allows support the issuance arrearage majority. after Therefore, The father also IWO the c h i l d we demonstrated e r r o r with o f an cannot regard has reached say that to this contends to collect that a child- t h e age o f the father has issue. t h e IWO was not valid b e c a u s e , he s a y s , an IWO may be i s s u e d o n l y t o an " e m p l o y e r " and, the S o c i a l Security Administration his he c o n t e n d s , employer. However, argument b e f o r e for 1210, the f i r s t 1214 the father the j u v e n i l e court, t i m e on a p p e a l . ( A l a . 1992) t h a t were b e f o r e must h a v e f i r s t failed i s not to assert that and i t c a n n o t be r a i s e d Norman v. Bozeman, 605 So. 2d ("Our r e v i e w i s l i m i t e d t o t h e i s s u e s the t r i a l court--an issue r a i s e d on a p p e a l b e e n p r e s e n t e d t o a n d r u l e d on b y t h e t r i a l court."). The f a t h e r n e x t a r g u e s t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t could not i s s u e an IWO i n t h e amount o f $500 a month a g a i n s t h i s i n c o m e f r o m t h e S o c i a l S e c u r i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n b e c a u s e t h a t amount i s greater t h a n 25% o f t h e amount o f h i s m o n t h l y S o c i a l S e c u r i t y benefits. I n m a k i n g t h a t a r g u m e n t , t h e f a t h e r c i t e s § 6-10-7, Ala. 1975, w h i c h p r o v i d e s Code s o u r c e o f i n c o m e may be s u b j e c t 8 that no more t o garnishment. than 25% o f a I n McNabb v. 2111034 S t a t e ex r e l . Rhodes, 890 So. 2d 1038 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003), t h i s c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d t h e i n t e r p l a y b e t w e e n § 6-10-7 and § 3-67, which provides g a r n i s h m e n t s and that IWOs t h a t up t o 50% have priority 2 subject t h e amount o f t h e 2 I n McNabb, c o u r t h e l d t h a t an o b l i g o r ' s w o r k e r s ' a w a r d c o u l d be other o f an o b l i g o r ' s income may s u b j e c t t o w i t h h o l d i n g p u r s u a n t t o an IWO. the t r i a l over proceeds. S e c t i o n 30-3-67, A l a . Code 1975, This compensation court of affirmed, provides: "Any o r d e r t o w i t h h o l d income i s s u e d and s e r v e d upon any e m p l o y e r o f t h e o b l i g o r p u r s u a n t t o t h i s article shall have p r i o r i t y over any writ of g a r n i s h m e n t o r any o t h e r s t a t e l e g a l p r o c e s s a g a i n s t t h e same income o f t h e o b l i g o r w h e t h e r t h e w r i t o f g a r n i s h m e n t o r o t h e r p r o c e s s was served p r i o r or s u b s e q u e n t t o t h e o r d e r o f income w i t h h o l d i n g . Any o r d e r f o r income w i t h h o l d i n g i s s u e d p u r s u a n t t o t h i s a r t i c l e may e x c e e d t h e s t a t u t o r y maximum amounts prescribed in Section 6-10-7 for garnishment proceedings i n Alabama, but such o r d e r , i n c l u d i n g amounts t a x e d a g a i n s t t h e o b l i g o r as c o u r t c o s t s , may not exceed the maximum statutory amounts p r e s c r i b e d u n d e r f e d e r a l law f o r g a r n i s h m e n t s i s s u e d to enforce support o b l i g a t i o n s . P r o v i d e d , i f an obligor's income i s s u b j e c t t o more t h a n one w i t h h o l d i n g order or a c u r r e n t w r i t of garnishment f o r c h i l d s u p p o r t and a w i t h h o l d i n g o r d e r , t h e t o t a l amounts w i t h h e l d may not exceed the statutory maximums h e r e i n p r e s c r i b e d and t h e c u r r e n t month's support payments s h a l l be s a t i s f i e d before any arrearages are s a t i s f i e d . " 9 be supra, t o m u l t i p l e IWOs t h a t t o t a l e d 50% settlement 30¬ 2111034 h o l d i n g t h a t IWOs f o r c h i l d s u p p o r t a r e n o t s u b j e c t t o t h e l i m i t a t i o n on a g a r n i s h m e n t s e t f o r t h i n § 6-10-7. then This 25% court explained: "To be c l e a r , the f e d e r a l Consumer Credit P r o t e c t i o n A c t p r o v i d e s t h a t an o r d e r f o r s u p p o r t s h a l l n o t e x c e e d 50% o f an i n d i v i d u a l ' s d i s p o s a b l e earnings i f that i n d i v i d u a l i s c u r r e n t l y supporting a s p o u s e o r d e p e n d e n t c h i l d and t h a t t h e o r d e r o f s u p p o r t s h a l l n o t e x c e e d 60% o f an i n d i v i d u a l ' s disposable earnings i f that individual is not c u r r e n t l y s u p p o r t i n g a spouse or dependent c h i l d . 15 U.S.C. § 1 6 7 3 ( b ) ( 2 ) . S e c t i o n 30-3-67, A l a . Code 1975, provides that '[a]ny order for income withholding issued pursuant to t h i s a r t i c l e may e x c e e d t h e s t a t u t o r y maximum amounts p r e s c r i b e d i n Section 6-10-7 for garnishment proceedings in Alabama, but such o r d e r ... may not exceed the maximum s t a t u t o r y amounts p r e s c r i b e d u n d e r f e d e r a l law f o r garnishments issued to enforce support obligations.' T h e r e f o r e , the t r i a l c o u r t c o r r e c t l y c o n c l u d e d t h a t 50% o f McNabb's w o r k e r ' s c o m p e n s a t i o n settlement proceeds were subject to the c h i l d - s u p p o r t w i t h h o l d i n g o r d e r s , and we a f f i r m t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment. 1 II " T h e s e amounts a r e i n c r e a s e d t o 55% and 65%, r e s p e c t i v e l y , w i t h r e s p e c t t o s u p p o r t more t h a n 12 weeks i n a r r e a r s . 15 U.S.C. § 1 6 7 3 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( B ) . " 1 McNabb v. The S t a t e ex r e l . Rhodes, 890 father receives disability benefits. The $1,416 p e r IWO at So. 2d a t 1042-43. month i n S o c i a l S e c u r i t y issue in this case $500 a month, an amount t h a t c o n s t i t u t e s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 10 i s for 35% of 2111034 the father's Accordingly, c o u r t had monthly Social Security u n d e r § 30-3-67 and disability McNabb, s u p r a , t h e a u t h o r i t y t o i s s u e t h e IWO The erred father next argues i n denying h i s motion t h a t the regard that to the the The to t h i s father issue. judge Initially, note recuse. be So. 2d 196 (Ala. 1996). The we reviewed at t i m e o f an a p p e a l o f a f i n a l j u d g m e n t on t h e m e r i t s . 686 Ex a c t i o n as a j u v e n i l e - c o u r t j u d g e and f a t h e r based as In s u p p o r t of h i s argument, the cites of Judicial Ethics--"A Appearance of 3.c.(1), himself required title Judge Impropriety which provides, in by questioned a proceeding law or his Canon 2 of the Should Avoid i n A l l His over transferred to the c i r c u i t c o u r t . the his a circuit-court j u d g e d u r i n g t h e b r i e f p e r i o d t h a t t h e a c t i o n was only the parte m o t i o n t o r e c u s e on t h e f a c t t h a t t h e same j u d g e p r e s i d e d this has juvenile-court d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n t o r e c u s e may Crawford, juvenile i n t h e amount o f $500 a month t o t h e S o c i a l S e c u r i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . f a i l e d to demonstrate e r r o r with income. father Alabama Canons of Impropriety and the A c t i v i t i e s " a n d Canon i n p a r t : "A j u d g e s h o u l d d i s q u a l i f y in which his impartiality " 11 disqualification might reasonably is be 2111034 As DHR however, contends the father "common s e n s e , " ethical i n i t s b r i e f submitted canons. circuit-court fails to explain, to this other how t h e j u v e n i l e - c o u r t j u d g e Various judges provisions t o serve than citing v i o l a t e d those o f Alabama i n juvenile court, law allow or allow courts d i s t r i c t - c o u r t j u d g e s t o be a p p o i n t e d t o s e r v e i n t h e c i r c u i t court. See, e . g . , § 12-17-70, A l a . Code 1975, a n d § 12-15¬ 103, A l a . Code 1975. to recuse The f a t h e r h a s n o t a l l e g e d i n h i s m o t i o n or i n h i s b r i e f on a p p e a l any f a c t s tending to i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e - c o u r t judge v i o l a t e d e i t h e r o f t h e Canons o f E t h i c s c i t e d i n t h e f a t h e r ' s b r i e f on a p p e a l . the argument s e t f o r t h i n t h e f a t h e r ' s b r i e f , t h a t t h e f a t h e r has demonstrated to t h e d e n i a l o f h i s motion The f a t h e r next argues we c a n n o t s a y e r r o r on a p p e a l w i t h that the j u v e n i l e court erred i n The f a t h e r m a i n t a i n s he p r e s e n t e d " u n c o n t r o v e r t e d e v i d e n c e " d e m o n s t r a t i n g unable t o p a y t h e $500 m o n t h l y November 20, 2009, j u d g m e n t . he made s u c h demonstrate a showing, beyond a regard t o recuse. f i n d i n g him i n contempt o f c o u r t . was Given t h e burden reasonable 12 t h a t he payment r e q u i r e d The f a t h e r c o n t e n d s then doubt that that by the after s h i f t e d t o DHR t o that he had the 2111034 financial (Ala. ability C i v . App. t o pay. T.L.D. v. C.G., 849 So. 2d 200, 205 2002). With regard to reviewing a determination that a parent i s in contempt and the r e s p e c t i v e burdens of the p a r t i e s i n a contempt a c t i o n , this c o u r t has for failure to pay child support stated: "Whether a p a r t y i s i n c o n t e m p t o f c o u r t i s a d e t e r m i n a t i o n committed to the d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t . See Coleman v. Coleman, 628 So. 2d 698 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) . To h o l d a p a r t y i n c o n t e m p t u n d e r e i t h e r R u l e 7 0 A ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C ) ( i i ) o r (D), A l a . R. C i v . P., t h e t r i a l c o u r t must f i n d t h a t t h e p a r t y w i l l f u l l y f a i l e d or r e f u s e d t o comply w i t h a c o u r t order. See C a r r v. B r o y l e s , 652 So. 2d 299 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 4 ) . I n a b i l i t y t o pay i s a d e f e n s e t o a contempt a c t i o n i n a c h i l d - s u p p o r t - a r r e a r a g e case. Id. "'When a p a r e n t i s o r d e r e d t o pay child s u p p o r t and f a i l s t o do s o , a l a c k o f a b i l i t y t o pay a d e l i n q u e n t amount i s a complete defense to a civil contempt p r o c e e d i n g r e g a r d i n g the d e l i n q u e n t c h i l d support. In such a case, i f the o b l i g a t e d parent presents evidence that [his] f a i l u r e t o pay t h e d e l i n q u e n c y i s due t o f i n a n c i a l inability, the burden then s h i f t s to the p a r e n t t o whom c h i l d s u p p o r t i s due to prove beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt t h a t the o b l i g a t e d p a r e n t i s f i n a n c i a l l y a b l e t o pay t h e amount o f c h i l d s u p p o r t o r d e r e d . If a p e r s o n i s found i n c i v i l contempt because o f [ h i s ] f a i l u r e t o pay a c e r t a i n amount o f money, and [he] shows t h a t [he] i s u n a b l e t o pay t h a t amount, t h e n t h e c o n t e m p t o r d e r must be s e t a s i d e . ' 13 2111034 " C a r r v. B r o y l e s , 652 So. 2d [299,] 301-02 [ ( A l a . C i v . App. 1994)] ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) ( q u o t e d i n Seay v. Seay, 678 So. 2d 1189, 1190 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996))." T.L.D. v . C.G., In this court's that 849 So. 2d a t 205. case, paragraphs judgment, quoted the j u v e n i l e court four earlier and f i v e i n this d i d not agree of the j u v e n i l e opinion, that indicate the father had d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t he was f i n a n c i a l l y u n a b l e t o meet t h e $500 monthly obligation judgment. The set forth juvenile i n the court noted November that conceded t h a t , a t the time o f the h e a r i n g 20, 2009, the father had i n t h i s m a t t e r , he was i n t h e same f i n a n c i a l s i t u a t i o n as i n November 2009, when he agreed t o pay t h a t found t h a t , although money used amount. Further, the father claimed t o meet t h o s e claimed the j u v e n i l e court c e r t a i n expenses, the expenses could and should have b e e n u s e d t o p a y t h e amount r e q u i r e d i n t h e November 20, 2009, j u d g m e n t . failure The j u v e n i l e c o u r t found t h a t t o p a y was due t o h i s own " n e g l e c t , " the father's i . e . , that the f a t h e r chose t o i n c u r c e r t a i n a d d i t i o n a l expenses r a t h e r than first meeting judgment. the requirements Thus, the record father f a i l e d to present o f t h e November supports a conclusion 20, 2009, that the e v i d e n c e d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t he l a c k e d 14 2111034 the financial ability t o pay the $500 monthly r e q u i r e d by t h e November 20, 2009, j u d g m e n t . burden d i d not s h i f t i n a b i l i t y t o pay. t o DHR j u d g m e n t on t h i s i s s u e . has finding t o rebut h i s c l a i m of Accordingly, i n contempt m o n t h l y payment the juvenile for his failure court t o pay 20, erred the in $500 s e t f o r t h i n t h e November 20, 2009, j u d g m e n t . h i s February November financial we c a n n o t s a y t h a t t h e The f a t h e r l a s t a r g u e s t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t denying the s e t f o r t h i n the j u v e n i l e court's demonstrated that him Accordingly, Our r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l s u p p o r t s t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s father obligation 2009, argued that seeking to enforce 23, 2012, judgment. t h e November "motion t o In that 20, 2009, erred i n set aside" motion, the judgment that the father DHR was i n t h e p e n d i n g c o n t e m p t a c t i o n was v o i d f o r want o f s u b j e c t - m a t t e r jurisdiction. The f a t h e r l a t e r amended t h a t m o t i o n t o a r g u e t h a t t h e November 20, 2009, j u d g m e n t was void 20, because 2009, the a c t i o n judgment judgment. h a d been that resulted dismissed i n t h e November before the entry The f a t h e r m a i n t a i n e d t h a t d u r i n g of that the pendency of the a c t i o n t h a t r e s u l t e d i n t h e November 20, 2009, judgment, the juvenile that court had entered 15 an order finding the 2111034 c o n t e m p t a l l e g a t i o n s made i n t h a t a c t i o n were moot b e c a u s e o f the f a t h e r ' s recent compliance w i t h previous orders; i n that order, however, the juvenile court action f o r a l a t e r review hearing. set aside" f i l e d order finding i n this that the pending I n h i s amended " m o t i o n t o case, the f a t h e r contended the previous "moot" h a d , i n e f f e c t , scheduled contempt that the allegations were constituted a dismissal of the action, w h i c h , he s a y s , n u l l i f i e d the juvenile court's subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h a t a c t i o n . I n b o t h t h e F e b r u a r y 23, 2012, m o t i o n a n d t h e amended m o t i o n , t h e f a t h e r s o u g h t t o i n v a l i d a t e the November 20, 2009, j u d g m e n t a n d t h e r e b y d e f e a t DHR's c l a i m t h a t he was i n c o n t e m p t f o r h i s f a i l u r e purportedly i n v a l i d The father's t o comply with that judgment. February 23, 2012, m o t i o n a n d h i s amended m o t i o n were f i l e d w e l l o u t s i d e t h e t i m e a l l o w e d f o r f i l i n g a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59, A l a . R. C i v . P., f r o m the November 20, 2009, j u d g m e n t , a n d b o t h m o t i o n s c i t e seeking r e l i e f R. C i v . P. from a judgment p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) , A l a . A motion must be i n t e r p r e t e d r a t h e r than by i t s s t y l e . 684 grounds So. 2d 1281, by i t s substance Ex p a r t e A l f a Mut. Gen. I n s . Co., 1282 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) . 16 A c c o r d i n g l y , we c o n c l u d e 2111034 t h a t , i n s u b s t a n c e , t h e f a t h e r ' s F e b r u a r y 23, 2012, m o t i o n his and amended m o t i o n were f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 60(b) ( 4 ) , w h i c h allows for relief Weaver, 4 So. from 3d 1171, a judgment t h a t 1172 i s void. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) Weaver ("A v. motion s e e k i n g r e l i e f f r o m a j u d g m e n t o r o r d e r on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e judgment or order 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) , A l a . R. The i s void one d e n i a l o f a R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n 235 3d a t 1172; ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) . t h e f a t h e r ' s R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n on May 14 d a y s , filed o r u n t i l May Rule 60(b) June 12, motion. 2012, pursuant to Rule Civ. P."). Weaver v. Weaver, 4 So. 2d 228, is 3 and, 23, The 2012, i s r e v i e w e d by a p p e a l . Ex p a r t e R.S.C., 853 The juvenile court denied 9, 2012. The f a t h e r had to appeal the d e n i a l of h i s f a t h e r ' s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was therefore, So. we conclude that the f a i l e d t o t i m e l y a p p e a l t h e i s s u e s he r a i s e d i n h i s R u l e filed father 60(b) T h e t i m e f o r f i l i n g an a p p e a l o f t h e d e n i a l o f a R u l e 60(b) motion may n o t be extended by the filing of a postjudgment motion. Ex p a r t e K e i t h , 771 So. 2d 1018, 1022 (Ala. 1998) ( " A f t e r a t r i a l c o u r t has d e n i e d a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , t h a t c o u r t does n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r t a i n a s u c c e s s i v e postjudgment motion t o ' r e c o n s i d e r ' or o t h e r w i s e review i t s order denying the Rule 60(b) m o t i o n , and s u c h a s u c c e s s i v e p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n does not suspend the r u n n i n g of the time f o r f i l i n g a n o t i c e of appeal."). 3 17 2111034 motion. Accordingly, as t o t h i s i s s u e , t h e f a t h e r ' s a p p e a l i s dismissed. We n o t e t h a t o u r r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l i n d i c a t e s that the issue of the v a l i d i t y o f t h e November 20, 2009, j u d g m e n t was n o t an i s s u e t r i e d b y t h e i m p l i e d c o n s e n t o f t h e parties Ala. during the hearing i n this matter. See R u l e 15(b), R. C i v . P. ("When i s s u e s n o t r a i s e d b y t h e p l e a d i n g s a r e t r i e d by express o r i m p l i e d consent o f the p a r t i e s , they shall be t r e a t e d i n a l l r e s p e c t s as i f t h e y had been r a i s e d i n t h e pleadings."). d i dassert, postjudgment The f a t h e r i n h i s May 29, 2012, m o t i o n , an argument t h a t t h e November 20, 2009, j u d g m e n t was v o i d . However, t h e May 9, 2012, d e n i a l o f t h e f a t h e r ' s R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n h a d r e j e c t e d t h a t a r g u m e n t , a n d t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t c o u l d n o t have i n v a l i d a t e d t h a t j u d g m e n t b a s e d on an argument asserted i n t h e May 29, 2 0 1 2 , p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n t a k e n f r o m t h e May 17, 2012, f i n a l j u d g m e n t as t o DHR's contempt a c t i o n . 29, 2012, m o t i o n The f a t h e r ' s constitutes a t t a c k on t h e e a r l i e r , argument a s s e r t e d an impermissible i n t h e May collateral November 20, 2009, j u d g m e n t . 18 2111034 The f a t h e r h a s f a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e e r r o r on a p p e a l . therefore as a f f i r m the j u v e n i l e court's May 17, 2012, j u d g m e n t t o DHR's c o n t e m p t a c t i o n . APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED. P i t t m a n , B r y a n , Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . 19 We

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.