Robert Daniel Leverett v. Debra Edmondson Leverett

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 3/22/2013 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 o f 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 , Alabama 36104-3741 ((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 2111042 Robert D a n i e l Leverett v. Debra Edmondson Leverett Appeal from D a l l a s C i r c u i t Court (DR-11-110) DONALDSON, Robert order its Judge. Daniel Leverett ("the husband") o fthe D a l l a s C i r c u i t Court judgment Leverett divorcing ("the w i f e " ) t h e husband andentering response t o the wife's divorce ("the t r i a l appeals from an court") altering a n d Debra a judgment motion t o a l t e r , Edmondson separation i n amend, o r v a c a t e t h e judgment. The divorced. husband and thewife The couple remarried were previously married and o n M a y 7, 1 9 9 3 . T h e w i f e filed 2111042 a complaint on June 1 6 , 2 0 1 1 , s e e k i n g of adultery, of the marriage. on t h e g r o u n d s i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y , and an i r r e t r i e v a b l e See § 3 0 - 2 - 1 , answered and counterclaimed denying a divorce adultery as a A l a . Code 1975. f o r a divorce ground for a breakdown The on A u g u s t divorce husband 2, 2 0 1 1 , but seeking a d i v o r c e on t h e g r o u n d s o f i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y a n d an i r r e t r i e v a b l e breakdown of the marriage. husband and t h e w i f e reached an ("the agreement, stipulation"), incorporated 7, 2 0 1 2 . After engaging voluntarily entitled which i n discovery, mediated their "Stipulations of the trial court i n t o i t s judgment of d i v o r c e , entered The s t i p u l a t i o n claims provides, i n pertinent and Agreement" adopted and on F e b r u a r y part: "The p a r t i e s agree that t h e Husband shall designate the Wife as h i s i r r e v o c a b l e spousal b e n e f i c i a r y f o rthe sole purpose of o b t a i n i n g health insurance b e n e f i t s through t h e Husband's m i l i a r y b e n e f i t a s i t a p p l i e s t o CHAMPUS/TRICARE a n d t h e H u s b a n d f u r t h e r a g r e e s t o p a y t h e sum o f $ 3 9 . 0 0 ...per month t o w a r d t h e c o s t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h i s b e n e f i t p e n d i n g a p p r o v a l b y CHAMPUS/TRICARE, w h i c h s h a l l be s u b j e c t t o a l l m i l i t a r y r u l e s , g u i d e l i n e s , exemptions, l i m i t a t i o n s , and r e g u l a t i o n s w i t h regard to the remarriage o f t h e Wife and/or the retirement of t h e Husband. F u r t h e r , t h e Husband s h a l l execute any and a l l documents, registration forms, c e r t i f i c a t e s , o r other documents n e c e s s a r y t o comply w i t h t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f s a i d b e n e f i t s , and t h e Wife s h a l l be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r making a p p l i c a t i o n t h r o u g h the [Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting 2 the 2111042 S y s t e m ] and coordinating with i n s t i t u t i o n of the b e n e f i t s . " The stipulation further the Husband for provides: " B o t h t h e l e g a l and p r a c t i c a l e f f e c t of this agreement in each and every respect and the financial s t a t u s of the p a r t i e s have been fully e x p l a i n e d t o b o t h p a r t i e s by l e g a l c o u n s e l of each party's independent choice, and both parties a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t t h e agreement i s f a i r and not the result of any fraud, duress or undue influence e x e r c i s e d by e i t h e r p a r t y upon the o t h e r or by any other person or persons upon e i t h e r , and they further agree that this agreement contains the entire understanding of the p a r t i e s , there being no r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s , promises, w a r r a n t i e s , covenants or undertakings other than those expressly set forth herein." On February pursuant to Rule v a c a t e the entry his of 28, 2012, 59(e), A l a . R. judgment i n p a r t . the judgment, the h e a l t h care the p r o v i s i o n s of the the clear interruption currently moved C i v . P., The wife the to a l t e r , court, amend, alleged that after, the The terminated, wife claimed parties health-care d i s a b l e d and trial provider b e n e f i t s of t h e i r d i v o r c e , stipulation. of the notified b e n e f i t s t o be intent i n the wife husband military health-insurance caused her was the h e a l t h b e n e f i t a s a s p o u s e . " The 3 the of which contrary to that " [ i ] t be no c o v e r a g e o f t h e [ w i f e ] who is completely that or [there] dependent upon her wife a l l e g e d t h a t the current husband 2111042 had not complied with health insurance relief separated services and the entered to [husband] insurance States Air Force, t h a t he had her had that responded the military attempted he had contact so but done communicate and had take failed to the the Further, provide documentation i n d i c a t i n g benefits. May 17, 25, 2012. 2012, motion, The trial her that the wife court held a hearing which the p a r t i e s continued B e c a u s e t h e h u s b a n d was f i l e d a motion f o r the t r i a l to t h a t she being by United averring to contact benefits, and to would too, steps to that the wife continue her had had on have failed been to denied the motion on agreement to June deployed to Kuwait, c o u r t t o p r o c e e d t o r u l i n g on 4 the communicate to agency, but necessary noted wife she, benefits. any he the that cooperate with any i s i n the wife's to health c o n t e m p l a t e d by agency to continue to are indeed military-based h u s b a n d , who to parties t o a l l o w and [ w i f e ] as The these i n f a c t made a r r a n g e m e n t s f o r t h e w i f e appropriate he that continue f o r the their mediator." that provide rather than divorced p a r t i e s and the regarding court " r e t a i n [ e d ] j u r i s d i c t i o n to grant judgment that stipulation argued from require the motion, the wife trial legally terms of f o r the w i f e . I n her that "the the the he the 2111042 wife's motion further i n h i s absence. averred that desired military marriage years to meet o f a 20 y e a r of military accumulates 20 was ineligible that during as an e x h i b i t t o t h a t the the United States motion A i r Force. of overlaps of her e l i g i b i l i t y b r i e f l y explained to receive The the twenty the m i l i t a r y spouse a letter service The l e t t e r The addressed t o representative was d a t e d states, April the wife f o r b e n e f i t s were u n s u c c e s s f u l court held a hearing p a r t i e s ' attorneys order husband and the twenty-year requirements f o r q u a l i f y i n g on that made b r i e f the case, documents were a d m i t t e d an their benefits. trial positions the Defense's 2, 2 0 1 2 , a n d s t a t e d t h a t m u l t i p l e a t t e m p t s t o c o n t a c t regarding husband with service." from Edna T a l l e y , a customer with the length which of " c r e d i t a b l e the to receive Department marriage service years the attached wife motion, h e a l t h b e n e f i t s because failed requirement the wife In that b u t no on J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 1 2 , a t w h i c h statements testimony i n t o evidence. day, a l t e r i n g regarding their was taken and The t r i a l court entered i t s prior judgment; that in its entirety: " T h i s m a t t e r came o n t o b e h e a r d o n m o t i o n o f t h e [ w i f e ] t o ' a l t e r , amend, o r [ v ] a c a t e t h e D e c r e e i n 5 no order 2111042 p a r t ' and t h i s C o u r t c o n s i d e r i n g t h e a r g u m e n t s o f c o u n s e l , t h e o r i g i n a l D e c r e e i n t h i s c a s e s i g n e d on t h e 6 t h day of F e b r u a r y , 2012 a n d f i l e d f o r r e c o r d on t h e 7 t h d a y o f F e b r u a r y , 2012 a n d t h e n o t a t i o n s of the mediator attached to the Decree, f i n d s t h a t there i s reason to a l t e r the form of r e l i e f granted to the [ w i f e ] to accomplish the o r i g i n a l i n t e n t of t h e p a r t i e s h e r e t o and t h e r e f o r e t h e p r i o r D e c r e e o f t h e C o u r t i s amended h e r e b y and s h a l l become and t h e same i s a D e c r e e o f L e g a l S e p a r a t i o n . " The husband t i m e l y The standard filed of this review appeal. of 1 a postjudgment motion is well settled: "The t r i a l c o u r t has b r o a d d i s c r e t i o n i n d i s p o s i n g o f s u c h m o t i o n s , and i t s e x e r c i s e o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n i s p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t . S m i t h v . S m i t h , 656 So. 2d 814 (Ala. C i v . App. 1 994). 'Abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n by a t r i a l c o u r t i n g r a n t i n g a R u l e 5 9 ( e ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] m o t i o n c a n be f o u n d o n l y w h e r e a l e g a l right was a b u s e d a n d t h e r e c o r d p l a i n l y a n d p a l p a b l y s h o w s t h e t r i a l c o u r t was i n e r r o r . ' L o c k h a r t v. Phenix C i t y I n v e s t m e n t Co., 488 So. 2d 1353 (Ala. 1986)." Covington v. Covington, 675 So. 2d 436, 438 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). The court h u s b a n d r a i s e s one exceeded legal i s s u e on i t s discretion separation for the in a p p e a l : whether the trial s u b s t i t u t i n g a judgment previously entered judgment of of F o l l o w i n g the e n t r y of the judgment of l e g a l s e p a r a t i o n , the w i f e ' s counsel f i l e d a motion to withdraw, which the t r i a l court granted. The w i f e has n o t r e t a i n e d c o u n s e l d u r i n g t h i s a p p e a l , n o r has she s u b m i t t e d an a p p e l l e e b r i e f . 1 6 2111042 a b s o l u t e d i v o r c e . The that in husband argues, " n e i t h e r of the p a r t i e s fact, both of D i v o r c e t h e [ w i f e ] and in their and requested the r e c o r d a legal supports, separation the [husband] requested individual pleadings I t was and a Decree only after the e n t r y of the f i n a l decree of d i v o r c e t h a t the [ w i f e ] f i l e d her post-judgment Legal motion to Court previously e n t e r i n g a judgment of l e g a l absolute (Ala. and therein ask[ed] for a Separation." This of amend divorce C i v . App. addressed the legal basis for s e p a r a t i o n i n p l a c e of a judgment i n Lockridge v. Lockridge, 77 So. 3d 2011). " F i r s t , the husband argues t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g a judgment of l e g a l separation i n s t e a d o f an a b s o l u t e d i v o r c e . The h u s b a n d c o n t e n d s t h a t b e c a u s e the w i f e had o b t a i n e d employment and h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e c o v e r a g e by t h e t i m e o f t h e May 2 0 1 0 h e a r i n g , a n d b e c a u s e he h a d l o s t h i s j o b and his a b i l i t y to maintain h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e coverage f o r t h e w i f e b e y o n d w h a t COBRA w o u l d a l l o w , t h e r e was no longer any justification for a legal s e p a r a t i o n r a t h e r t h a n an a b s o l u t e d i v o r c e . "'Legal separations i n Alabama are g o v e r n e d by § 3 0 - 2 - 4 0 , A l a . Code 1975. T h a t s e c t i o n o f t h e A l a b a m a C o d e was a d o p t e d b y t h e A l a b a m a L e g i s l a t u r e w i t h an e f f e c t i v e d a t e o f J a n u a r y 1, 1 9 9 9 . Pursuant to that statute, a legal separation i s a "court determination of the rights and responsibilities of a husband and wife a r i s i n g out of the m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , " 7 148 2111042 and a " l e g a l s e p a r a t i o n does n o t terminate t h e m a r i t a l s t a t u s o f t h e p a r t i e s . " See § 3 0 - 2 - 4 0 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . ' " D . L . J . v. B . R . J . , App. 2 0 0 3 ) . 8 87 So. 2d 242, 246 (Ala. Civ. " B e f o r e J a n u a r y 1, 1 9 9 9 , Alabama r e c o g n i z e d a d i v o r c e a m e n s a e t t h o r o , a l s o known as a d i v o r c e from bed and board, which was the common-law predecessor to a l e g a l separation. I d . See also Drummond v . Drummond, 466 So. 2 d 974, 976 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1985) ( ' D i v o r c e a mensa e t t h o r o , a d i v o r c e f r o m bed and b o a r d , i s a l e g a l s e p a r a t i o n a l l o w i n g the marriage to continue as to everything not w i t h d r a w n by t h e d e c r e e . ' ) . In D.L.J., t h i s court c o n s i d e r e d Alabama precedent concerning a d i v o r c e a mensa e t t h o r o i n d e c i d i n g , i n the a f f i r m a t i v e , w h e t h e r the t r i a l c o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o m o d i f y judgments of l e g a l s e p a r a t i o n under § 30-2-40. I d . a t 247. However, t h i s c o u r t r e j e c t e d the argument t h a t § 3 0 - 2 - 4 0 c o d i f i e d a l l p r e e x i s t i n g common l a w t h a t r e l a t e d t o a d i v o r c e a mensa e t t h o r o . I d . a t 248. " B e f o r e t h e e n a c t m e n t o f § 30-2-40, w h i c h became e f f e c t i v e on J a n u a r y 1, 1 9 9 9 , t h i s c o u r t had held ' t h a t when a t r i a l c o u r t h a s b e f o r e i t a r e q u e s t f o r a d i v o r c e f r o m bed and b o a r d and a d i v o r c e f r o m t h e bonds of matrimony, the court can exercise i t s d i s c r e t i o n and d e t e r m i n e w h i c h t y p e o f d i v o r c e i s best f o r the p a r t i e s under the f a c t s of t h e i r case.' Drummond, 4 66 So. 2 d a t 976. Section 30-2-40(c), Ala. Code 1975, p r o v i d e s t h a t ' [ i ] f a p a r t y f i l e s a complaint f o r a decree of l e g a l s e p a r a t i o n r a t h e r than a decree of d i s s o l u t i o n of m a r r i a g e , the c o u r t may g r a n t the l e g a l s e p a r a t i o n . ' (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, the enactment of § 30-2-40(c) i s a codification of the common-law rule that the d e c i s i o n w h e t h e r t o g r a n t a l e g a l s e p a r a t i o n o r an a b s o l u t e d i v o r c e l i e s w i t h i n the sound d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t . ' [ T ] h i s c o u r t w i l l not r e v e r s e a 8 2111042 p a r t of a t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment t h a t i s l e f t to i t s d i s c r e t i o n u n l e s s i t i s shown t h a t t h e t r i a l court exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n or t h a t the judgment i s p l a i n l y o r p a l p a b l y w r o n g . ' B . R . F . v . A . V . F . , 70 So. 3d 4 1 2 , 419 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) ( c i t i n g Romano v . Romano, 703 So. 2d 374, 375 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1997)). "The h u s b a n d a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a d no legal basis for continuing the legal separation because the w i f e c o u l d e l e c t to continue healthi n s u r a n c e c o v e r a g e t h r o u g h COBRA w h e t h e r t h e p a r t i e s were divorced or operating under the legal s e p a r a t i o n . S e e , g e n e r a l l y , 29 U.S.C. § 1162 and § 1163. I t was undisputed t h a t , under the f a c t s as t h e y were p r e s e n t e d t o the t r i a l c o u r t , even i f the p a r t i e s remained o n l y l e g a l l y separated, the w i f e ' s (and the husband's) health-insurance coverage through COBRA would end 18 months after the husband's employment with Ventura Foods was terminated. 3 " A t t r i a l i n May 2009, the w i f e unequivocally s t a t e d t h a t the o n l y r e a s o n she desired a legal separation was in order to maintain health i n s u r a n c e . A t t h a t t i m e s h e was u n e m p l o y e d a n d d i d not have a c c e s s to h e a l t h insurance through an e m p l o y e r . A t t r i a l i n May 2010, the w i f e d i d not i n d i c a t e t h a t she thought a l e g a l separation was s t i l l necessary; she o n l y s t a t e d t h a t , i f she was r e q u i r e d to u t i l i z e her employer's health-insurance c o v e r a g e , she w o u l d n e e d a s s i s t a n c e f r o m t h e h u s b a n d i n f i n a n c i n g the monthly cost of her m e d i c a t i o n . The w i f e s t a t e d t h a t s h e h a d e n o u g h s a v i n g s so t h a t s h e d i d not need the husband to pay the u p - f r o n t c o s t of $2,000 a month f o r h e r m e d i c a t i o n . T h e r e was some indication during the May 2010 trial that the p a r t i e s t h o u g h t t h a t i t w o u l d be m o r e e c o n o m i c a l f o r the husband t o c o n t i n u e t o pay h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e f o r t h e f a m i l y t h r o u g h COBRA r a t h e r t h a n p a y f o r s i n g l e c o v e r a g e f o r h i m s e l f t h r o u g h COBRA a n d a l s o p a y the wife's $400-a-month medication expense. We understand that such reasoning may have been the 9 2111042 t r i a l court's j u s t i f i c a t i o n for continuing the legal s e p a r a t i o n ; however, there i s no i n d i c a t i o n that t h i s a r r a n g e m e n t -- t h e h u s b a n d ' s p a y i n g f o r f a m i l y coverage through COBRA w h i l e that coverage was a v a i l a b l e -- c o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n u t i l i z e d i f t h e p a r t i e s were d i v o r c e d r a t h e r t h a n o p e r a t i n g under a legal separation. " B a s e d o n t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d , we a g r e e w i t h t h e h u s b a n d t h a t , a t t h e t i m e o f t h e May 2 0 1 0 t r i a l , t h e r e no l o n g e r e x i s t e d a n y b a s i s t o s u p p o r t t h e l e g a l s e p a r a t i o n and t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t exceeded its discretion by f a i l i n g to enter a judgment d i s s o l v i n g the marriage of the p a r t i e s . Accordingly, we r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r i t f a i l e d t o e n t e r an a b s o l u t e j u d g m e n t o f d i v o r c e , a n d we r e m a n d t h e cause w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h e t r i a l court t o enter a judgment d i v o r c i n g t h e p a r t i e s . " It i s p o s s i b l e that, i fthe p a r t i e s divorced, the w i f e w o u l d be e n t i t l e d t o a n a d d i t i o n a l 18 months of COBRA coverage. See 29 U.S.C. § 1162(2)(A)(ii) (special rule for multiple qualifying e v e n t s ) . However, because n e i t h e r p a r t y presented the t r i a l c o u r t w i t h t h i s a r g u m e n t , we w i l l n o t consider i t i n determining whether the t r i a l court exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n by f a i l i n g to grant the h u s b a n d an a b s o l u t e d i v o r c e . " 3 77 So. 3d a t 154-56. sole than reason a continue are As i n L o c k r i d g e , f o rthe wife's judgment of seeking absolute significant this court time that made distinctions came to trial, i s so coverage. that 10 rather she can However, on t h e f a c t whether stated separation between t h e cases. i t s d e c i s i o n based matter a legal divorce receiving health-insurance the e x p l i c i t l y there In Lockridge, that, by t h e the couple was 2111042 divorced or wife's ability Therefore, basis legally this f o r not separated to maintain court held entering Further, in would the i n w h i c h the w i f e had 2008 in his and, answer, not want a d i v o r c e The wife then and, and separation after Subsequently, of legal the this the court of court absolute court filed was had had complaint, court husband a filed requested the entered trial an that husband's motion, he did separation. a legal of legal the review absolute a i n October judgment on to legal with requesting a a motion no presented stated also the divorce. for a divorce husband conducting denied trial on coverage. i n s t e a d , asked f o r a l e g a l trial and impact matter. the order divorce. After he appealed to court. In legal the separation trial the amended h e r separation, the a judgment situation no health-insurance that Lockridge, have this case, separation. neither party Section filed a 30-2-40(c), complaint Ala. seeking Code provides: " I f a p a r t y f i l e s a complaint f o r a decree of l e g a l s e p a r a t i o n r a t h e r than a decree of d i s s o l u t i o n of m a r r i a g e , t h e c o u r t may g r a n t t h e l e g a l s e p a r a t i o n . The t e r m s o f a l e g a l s e p a r a t i o n c a n be m o d i f i e d or d i s s o l v e d o n l y by w r i t t e n c o n s e n t of b o t h p a r t i e s and r a t i f i c a t i o n by t h e c o u r t o r by c o u r t o r d e r upon 11 a 1975, 2111042 proof o f a m a t e r i a l change o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s . A proceeding o r judgment f o r l e g a l s e p a r a t i o n shall not bar either party from l a t e r instituting an action f o r d i s s o l u t i o n of the marriage." (Emphasis that added.) either seeking legal the husband a legal separation enter purpose health by a the record or the wife In f a c t , came b y way o f a p o s t i n which the wife judgment of legal s e r v i c e s and i n s u r a n c e trial c o u r t may e n t e r indication that ever filed the only a complaint request for a judgment motion, rather requested the t r i a l f o r the to "continue f o r the [wife] t h e p a r t i e s and t h e i r m e d i a t o r . " satisfy does n o t i n d i c a t e separation of r e q u i r i n g the husband case otherwise no case, separation. than a complaint, to In this Although court express military-based as contemplated the facts of this the s t a t u t o r y c o n d i t i o n s under which a a judgment of l e g a l either party separation, there i s "file[d] a complaint for a decree of l e g a l separation rather than a decree of d i s s o l u t i o n of marriage," before or after judgment, or the f i l i n g or vacate. for granting original of the wife's § 30-2-40(c); Further, the mediation, See a l s o § the entry of the motion to a l t e r , amend, 30-2-40(a). t h e s t a t e d r a t i o n a l e o f f e r e d by t h e t r i a l a intent legal of separation the parties 12 was "to hereto," court accomplish presumably the as 2111042 evidenced by agreement. basis in have the supplement There the was record considered no c o n t a i n i n g the in which on trial the granting either judgment of l e g a l s e p a r a t i o n was the In stipulation. reviewing parties c l e a r l y intended accomplish wife, any there part were continued of i s no the stipulation d i v o r c e or t h a t the the stipulation legal one separation. could of the legally contained although health-care with either the o f any in coverage party rather than maintain bare into they absolute of the agreed p r o v i s i o n s i n the entry of absence of a complaint court to f r u s t r a t e the military health-care benefits. allegations amend, o r v a c a t e , before the t r i a l the of the wife a judgment from at in her i n t e n t of motion only court r e g a r d i n g the a v a i l a b i l i t y of to of least no the desire In f a c t , a s i d e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t the 13 to that an in the entered understanding a the for p a r t i e s t o be d i v o r c e d s i m p l y t o a c c o m m o d a t e t h e w i f e ' s the or o f t h e p a r t i e s r e q u e s t i n g a l e g a l s e p a r a t i o n , t h e r e was l e g a l b a s i s f o r the t r i a l to only divorce stipulation, that result In the court information separation failure would and judgment the the military legal matter, trial a mediated to execute a l l documents n e c e s s a r y indication negotiating a this parties' from alter, evidence continued 2111042 coverage for maintained Although post the or wife demonstrated responded to the t r i a l judgment that the communication with wife the had Air not Force. court's d i s c r e t i o n i s broad with respect matters, that discretion does not extend to to r e w r i t i n g the p a r t i e s ' mediated agreement to c r a f t r e l i e f that neither and that f r u s t r a t e s the fundamental i n t e n t of the agreement to enter into a a party properly divorce provision -- i n the in p a r t i e s was unavailable, judgment upon to complaint a prevent to complaint frustrating provide the allow the p a r t i e s to mediate set the matter trial, relief. seeking court granting a legal this case for the could for have vacated separation i s no we or parties a legal further the 14 agreed- to has the other filed entry for of the separation, and we consistent of a a granting order proceedings opinion. prior prior fashioned statutory basis reverse its a mutually However, where n e i t h e r p a r t y Therefore, court continued d e l i b e r a t e l y f r u s t r a t e d or a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l y trial relief. wife single c o v e r a g e . Upon f i n d i n g t h a t t h e i n t e n t o f judgment of d i v o r c e , t h e r e that to in the result, appropriate order agreement military health-care the requested with trial remand this 2111042 The husband's request f o r attorney fees on appeal denied. R E V E R S E D AND Thompson, REMANDED. P . J . , and Pittman, Thomas, J . , c o n c u r s Moore, J . , concurs J . , concur. i n the result, i n the result, 15 without with writing writing. i s 2111042 MOORE, J u d g e , I agree concurring that reversed; however, from t h a t of the the my main i n the trial result. court's reasoning for judgment reversing is is due to different opinion. " U n d e r t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f R u l e 54 (c) o f the Alabama Rules of C i v i l Procedure i t i s the duty of the court to grant relief to which a party is entitled irrespective of the request for relief c o n t a i n e d i n t h e p l e a d i n g s . P e n n e y v. C a r d e n , [356 So. 2 d 1188 (Ala. 1978)]. See 6 Moore's Federal P r a c t i c e § 54.62 (1976). However, R u l e 54(c) does not s a n c t i o n the g r a n t i n g of r e l i e f not requested i n the pleadings where i t appears that a party's failure to ask for particular relief has substantially prejudiced the opposing party. A l b e m a r l e P a p e r Co. v . M o o d y , 422 U.S. 4 0 5 , 95 S.Ct. 2 3 6 2 , 45 L . E d . 2 d 280 (1975); Rental Development C o r p o r a t i o n o f A m e r i c a v . L a v e r y , 304 F . 2 d 839 (9th Cir. 1962); Penney v. C a r d e n , s u p r a . M o r e o v e r , i f t h e r e l i e f g r a n t e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 54 (c) i s n o t justified by the p r o o f or i s j u s t i f i e d by proof w h i c h t h e o p p o s i n g p a r t y h a s n o t h a d an o p p o r t u n i t y to challenge, the relief granted should not be s u s t a i n e d on a p p e a l . See 10 W r i g h t & M i l l e r , F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e and P r o c e d u r e § 2662 ( 1 9 7 3 ) . Accordingly, l o g i c d i c t a t e s t h a t i n those s i t u a t i o n s w h e r e aann opposing party has no n o t i c e , by pleadings o or o t h e r w i s e , r e g a r d i n g the c l a i m upon w h i c h r e l i e f i s i g r a n t e d by means o f R u l e 5 4 ( c ) a n d i s t h e r e b y denied an opportunity to have challenged or defended against such a claim, the opposing party has suffered substantial prejudice and the judgment g r a n t i n g r e l i e f m u s t be r e v e r s e d . See U n i t e d S t a t e s v . H a r d y , 368 F.2d 191 ( 1 0 t h C i r . 1966) . I n d e e d , s u c h a r u l e i s f u n d a m e n t a l t o t h e e s s e n t i a l s o f due p r o c e s s and f a i r p l a y . S y l v a n B e a c h , I n c . v. K o c h , 140 F . 2 d 852 (8th C i r . 1944)." 16 be 2111042 Carden v. Penney, 362 So. 2d 266, 268-69 (Ala. Civ. Robert Daniel App. Leverett 1978). In the present case, husband") does not a r g u e t h a t he had to defend against an opportunity Edmondson L e v e r e t t correctly to argue support that the e.g., App. by support absolute a that for a legal Debra wife"). the court's the Lockridge 2011) having ("the wife p r e j u d i c e d by the The request husband does, failed to present the judgment of l e g a l s e p a r a t i o n . trial supported not i n the p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n f i l e d by separation set forth was judgment evidence (holding that divorce); j u d g m e n t m u s t be and v. L o c k r i d g e , judgment ("the of 77 legal reversed legal i s due to Thus, I c o n c l u d e be 3d 148, insufficient i f not So. 2d was not reversed. was 362 evidence separation separation 17 any So. there Carden, of however, 155-56 as at 269 justified by See, (Ala. Civ. evidence opposed to (holding proof). to an that

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.