Mark D. Davis v. Tonya D. Blackstock

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 07/19/2013 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2013 2111244 Mark D. Davis v. Tonya D. B l a c k s t o c k Appeal from Lauderdale C i r c u i t (DR-06-86.01) Court On R e t u r n t o Remand PER CURIAM. On A p r i l Lauderdale 15, 2 0 1 3 , t h i s c o u r t remanded t h i s c a u s e t o t h e C i r c u i t Court child-support ("the t r i a l court") o b l i g a t i o n o f Mark D. D a v i s t o determine t h e ("the f a t h e r " ) i n 2111244 compliance w i t h court i n s t r u c t i o n s i n a previous reversing, Blackstock, C i v . App. [Ms. in part, a 2006 judgment. 2111244, A p r i l 5, 2013] 2013) ("Davis I I I " ) . opinion See So. So. 3d 796 ( A l a . C i v . App. this Davis 3d v. (Ala. For a complete h i s t o r y of d i s p u t e s b e t w e e n t h e s e p a r t i e s , see a l s o D a v i s v. 47 of 2007) ("Davis I") the Blackstock, (reversing a judgment m o d i f y i n g a j o i n t - c u s t o d y a r r a n g e m e n t t o a w a r d t o t h e mother p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l custody parte Blackstock, I and 47 So. 3d 801 of the parties' ( A l a . 2009) child); (reversing remanding f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the o t h e r 816 (Ala. Civ. App. c h i l d - s u p p o r t a w a r d and award); and Ex 2011) (denying based on his parte the On A p r i l 19, ("Davis 82 So. father's petition that the 3d 695 the (Ala. Civ. App. f o r a w r i t o f mandamus courts lacked jurisdiction below). 2013, the t r i a l court entered remand i n w h i c h i t c o r r e c t e d t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n i n the the So. (reversing II") 47 remanding f o r a r e c a l c u l a t i o n of t h a t Davis, arguments over the a c t i o n 2010) Davis issues raised i n t h e f a t h e r ' s o r i g i n a l a p p e a l ) ; D a v i s v. B l a c k s t o c k , 3d Ex on of the f a t h e r ' s 2006 j u d g m e n t and father's child-support arrearage 2 a judgment calculated t h r o u g h t h e end of June 2111244 2012. was The S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s p r o v i d i n g c h i l d - s u p p o r t - e n f o r c e m e n t s e r v i c e s on b e h a l f o f T o n y a D. B l a c k s t o c k the ("the mother") and w h i c h had i n t e r v e n e d i n a c t i o n below, see Davis postjudgment motion arguing its ("DHR"), w h i c h III, So. 3d a t that the t r i a l 26, 2 0 1 3 , t h e t r i a l (hereinafter court arrearage. On entered an amended j u d g m e n t r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e A p r i l 26, 2 0 1 3 , c o r r e c t e d judgment") i n w h i c h i t s l i g h t l y the f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t modified i t s calculation of a r r e a r a g e and i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o t h e a c c r u a l o f i n t e r e s t on t h a t a r r e a r a g e . filed a court had e r r e d i n calculations of the father's child-support April , filed a timely postjudgment motion, as The f a t h e r a l s o which the t r i a l court denied. On r e t u r n t o remand, t h i s c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r allowing t h e p a r t i e s t o s u b m i t amended b r i e f s t o t h i s c o u r t i f t h e y s o desired, In a n d t h e f a t h e r a n d DHR e a c h d i d s o . h i s amended b r i e f a p p e a r i n g p r o se, c o n t i n u e s he made i n his brief submission i n Davis court lacks on r e t u r n t o remand, the father, t o r e a s s e r t many o f t h e a r g u m e n t s submitted to this court on I I I , i n c l u d i n g h i s arguments subject-matter jurisdiction 3 over original that this this matter. 2111244 This court opinions has already addressed i n D a v i s I I I a n d Ex p a r t e those Davis. arguments in i t s 1 The f a t h e r a s s e r t s one argument p u r p o r t e d l y c o n c e r n i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n t h a t he h a d n o t a s s e r t e d on o r i g i n a l s u b m i s s i o n . A s s u m i n g , o u t o f an abundance o f c a u t i o n b u t w i t h o u t so d e c i d i n g , t h a t t h e f a t h e r may r a i s e t h e i s s u e , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s argument l a c k s m e r i t . The f a t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e 2006 c u s t o d y d i s p u t e was r e n d e r e d "moot" b e c a u s e , i n t h e f a l l o f 2007, he moved f r o m D e c a t u r t o F l o r e n c e t o be c l o s e r t o t h e c h i l d ; he a l s o a s s e r t s t h a t o u r supreme c o u r t ' s 2009 decision i n Ex parte Blackstock was based on " s p e c u l a t i o n " t h a t he w o u l d n o t r e l o c a t e . The f a t h e r e x p l a i n s t h o s e a r g u m e n t s b y a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e supreme c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n Ex p a r t e B l a c k s t o c k a f f i r m i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s c u s t o d y m o d i f i c a t i o n was b a s e d on t h e m o t h e r ' s s p e c u l a t i o n t h a t t h e f a t h e r w o u l d n o t move t o F l o r e n c e t o be c l o s e r t o t h e c h i l d so t h a t the p r e v i o u s l y o r d e r e d j o i n t p h y s i c a l and l e g a l custody w o u l d be s u s t a i n a b l e . The f a t h e r s t a t e s t h a t he d i d , i n f a c t , move t o F l o r e n c e i n t h e f a l l o f 2007. The f a t h e r a p p e a r s t o a r g u e t h a t h i s r e l o c a t i o n t o be c l o s e r t o t h e c h i l d meant t h a t t h e p r e v i o u s j o i n t - c u s t o d y a r r a n g e m e n t was t h e n w o r k a b l e a n d , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e r e was no b a s i s f o r t h e 2006 c u s t o d y m o d i f i c a t i o n judgment. Our supreme c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n i n Ex parte Blackstock determined that the t r i a l court properly m o d i f i e d c u s t o d y t o award t h e mother p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y f o r a number o f r e a s o n s . As o n l y one o f t h o s e r e a s o n s , t h e supreme c o u r t n o t e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d r e p e a t e d l y p r o m i s e d t o r e l o c a t e t o be c l o s e r t o t h e c h i l d b u t h a d c o n s i s t e n t l y f a i l e d t o do s o . The c o u r t s t a t e d : 1 " A l s o , i n r e g a r d t o t h e f a t h e r ' s moving t o Florence, there was t e s t i m o n y that the father c o m m i t t e d t o move i n 2004 a n d a g a i n i n 2005 a n d t h a t he committed t o b e g i n moving h i s b u s i n e s s t o F l o r e n c e as w e l l ; t h e t e s t i m o n y w o u l d s u p p o r t t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e f a t h e r c o u l d e a s i l y have moved his photography business t o Florence. The f a t h e r ' s most r e c e n t commitment was t h a t he w o u l d move t o F l o r e n c e i n t h e summer o f 2006. I t i s undisputed, 4 2111244 I n h i s amended b r i e f on r e t u r n t o remand, t h e f a t h e r asserts several determination obligation corrected arguments on remand u n d e r t h e 2006 pertaining of his judgment. judgment, t h e t r i a l court to the t r i a l corrected also court's child-support In i t s A p r i l 26, 2013, stated: "The f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n due u n d e r t h e S e p t e m b e r 1, 2006, judgment i s d e t e r m i n e d t o be $506 p e r month. T h i s c a l c u l a t i o n i s b a s e d on t h e h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e f a t h e r d i d n o t f o l l o w t h r o u g h on h i s commitments t o r e l o c a t e t o F l o r e n c e . Instead, he t h r e a t e n e d t h e m o t h e r t h a t he w o u l d a t t e m p t t o o b t a i n p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l custody i n s t e a d of moving, even b e f o r e the mother f i l e d h e r p e t i t i o n i n the Lauderdale C i r c u i t Court seeking primary p h y s i c a l custody. B a s e d on t h e t e n o r of the testimony c o n c e r n i n g t h e f a t h e r ' s commitments t o move, o t h e r t e s t i m o n y , and t h e f a c t t h a t t h e f a t h e r f i l e d a c o u n t e r p e t i t i o n seeking sole custody of the c h i l d s h o r t l y before the f i n a l hearing i n the present c a s e , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t c o u l d have c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d no i n t e n t i o n o f m o v i n g o r t h a t he h a d f a i l e d t o a c t i n good f a i t h r e g a r d i n g m o v i n g a n d that, i n that regard, he h a d p l a c e d h i s own s e l f - i n t e r e s t above t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t . " Ex p a r t e Blackstock, 47 So. 3d a t 812-13. I n r e a d i n g Ex p a r t e B l a c k s t o c k i n i t s e n t i r e t y , i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h repeated p r o m i s e s t o r e l o c a t e was o n l y a p a r t o f t h e b a s i s o f t h e supreme c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y modified custody of the c h i l d . Further, the father's r e l o c a t i o n t o F l o r e n c e a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e 2006 j u d g m e n t c a n n o t be s a i d t o have r e n d e r e d moot t h e 2006 c u s t o d y d i s p u t e r e s o l v e d i n t h a t judgment. 5 2111244 e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d p r i o r t o t h e September 1, 2006, order. The m o t h e r ' s g r o s s m o n t h l y income was $2,048 and t h e f a t h e r ' s g r o s s m o n t h l y income was $1,900. T h e r e was no e v i d e n c e o f p r e e x i s t i n g c h i l d - s u p p o r t or p e r i o d i c - a l i m o n y payments; t h e r e f o r e the monthly a d j u s t e d g r o s s income was $3,948. The father's p e r c e n t a g e s h a r e o f income was, t h e r e f o r e , 48.13%. The b a s i c c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n b a s e d on t h e t h e n - e x i s t i n g g u i d e l i n e s was $540. Work-related c h i l d - c a r e c o s t s were $364 p e r month and h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e c o s t s were $147.12 p e r month f o r a t o t a l c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n o f $1,051.12 p e r month. The f a t h e r ' s 48.13% o f t h a t o b l i g a t i o n i s $506." We n o t e t h a t , i n a s s e r t i n g h i s a r g u m e n t s on r e t u r n t o remand, the father does n o t c o n t e n d t h a t comply w i t h in Davis t h i s court's 11. "mandate" Rather, in o b l i g a t i o n was Davis a recent contribute insurance the father contends that I I I pertaining change to to his this court's child-support the f a t h e r contends t h a t , because i n t h e l a w , any t o t h e payment order a d o p t e d i n December 2012. r e q u i r i n g him t o of m e d i c a l expenses or f o r h e a l t h f o r the c h i l d i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . or r u l e failed inequitable. A r t i c l e I , § 36.04, A l a . C o n s t . 1901 law court remand i n s t r u c t i o n s i n D a v i s I I I o r I n h i s amended b r i e f , of the t r i a l Article from r e q u i r i n g cites ( o f f . Recomp.), w h i c h was I , § 36.04, p r o h i b i t s any a person 6 The f a t h e r t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n any 2111244 health-care adopted and system. ratified countermeasure to the Act o f 2010, That 2 Pub. by constitutional provision the L. No. 111-148, 124 the p r o v i s i o n of h e a l t h A l a . R. Jud. insurance p a r t i c i p a t e i n a health-care The t e x t of A r t . Recomp.), p r o v i d e s : I, § as Affordable S t a t . 119 Care payment child-support Admin., t o c o n t r i b u t e f o r the c h i l d or t o 36.04, Ala. in contravention Const. 1901 him of (off. "(a) I n o r d e r t o p r e s e r v e t h e f r e e d o m o f a l l r e s i d e n t s o f A l a b a m a t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e i r own h e a l t h c a r e , a law o r r u l e s h a l l n o t c o m p e l , d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y , any p e r s o n , e m p l o y e r , o r h e a l t h care p r o v i d e r t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n any h e a l t h c a r e s y s t e m . "(b) A p e r s o n o r e m p l o y e r may pay d i r e c t l y f o r h e a l t h c a r e s e r v i c e s and s h a l l n o t be r e q u i r e d t o pay p e n a l t i e s or f i n e s f o r p a y i n g d i r e c t l y for l a w f u l h e a l t h care s e r v i c e s . A h e a l t h care p r o v i d e r may a c c e p t d i r e c t payment f o r l a w f u l h e a l t h care s e r v i c e s and s h a l l n o t be r e q u i r e d t o pay p e n a l t i e s o r f i n e s f o r a c c e p t i n g d i r e c t payment f r o m a p e r s o n or employer f o r l a w f u l h e a l t h care s e r v i c e s . " ( c ) The p u r c h a s e o r s a l e o f h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e i n p r i v a t e h e a l t h c a r e s y s t e m s s h a l l n o t be p r o h i b i t e d by l a w o r r u l e . " 7 to defray to the s t a t e ' s f o r c i n g system a (2010). f a t h e r s t a t e s t h a t any her m e d i c a l expenses i s e q u i v a l e n t 2 Alabama o b l i g a t i o n imposed under the g u i d e l i n e s o f R u l e 32, to in P a t i e n t P r o t e c t i o n and I n h i s amended b r i e f , t h e he makes u n d e r an voters was 2111244 A r t i c l e I , § 36.04. In support of t h a t c o n t e n t i o n , the father c i t e s only i n a p p l i c a b l e a u t h o r i t y f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t p a r e n t has a fundamental r i g h t to d i r e c t h i s or her upbringing and a case generally discussing child's the Equal P r o t e c t i o n C l a u s e of the U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n . See o f C l e b u r n e , T e x a s v. C l e b u r n e L i v i n g C t r . , 473 432, ( 1 9 8 5 ) ; and Ex p a r t e f a t h e r makes no to the facts Article I, of § of determination obligations So. attempt to apply this case 36.04, interpretation. purpose E.R.G., 73 father I, § to the also cost of not the function the to was of a c h i l d ' s p a r e n t s ' of those rules fails 439 to cases of statutory assert that the from remove health The language of respective providing City (Ala. 2011). a r g u e how 36.04, the 634 the h o l d i n g s to relates The Article or 3d U.S. a the child-support insurance for the courts to child. It is develop, research, Jimmy Day Plumbing & Heating, (Ala. 2003). and 2 0 0 7 ) ; B u t l e r v. The father's of support the an I n c . v. Town o f A r g o , appellate appellant's Smith, 871 So. 964 2d arguments. So. 1, 2d 20 1, (Ala. a r g u m e n t i n h i s amended b r i e f t h a t requirement t h a t a p a r e n t c o n t r i b u t e to the 8 9 the health-insurance 2111244 and medical costs of h i s or her insufficient to Spradlin Spradlin, v. Accordingly, The we warrant will review 601 not child is unconstitutional is an 2d So. by 76, appellate court. 79 (Ala. 1992) . cost of health- address i t . f a t h e r a l s o b r i e f l y a s s e r t s t h a t the insurance c o v e r a g e s h o u l d n o t be i n c l u d e d i n t h e determination o f h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n u n d e r t h e 2006 j u d g m e n t i n t h e April 26, 2013, corrected judgment i n d i c a t e d t h a t the h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e the 2006 judgment, mother's husband. pay for that to that hearing The the to from the 28(a)(10), his of the and, the therefore, n o t be that included forth facts pertaining coverage. argument A l a . R. App. of paycheck The to the cost father presented the P. in Therefore, dedicates the 2006 payment for that no contravention citations he fails of Rule i n order to address i s s u e as f r a m e d by t h e f a t h e r i n h i s amended b r i e f , t h i s 9 child at father provides further, of i n determining c a s e l a w t h a t m i g h t s u p p o r t h i s a r g u m e n t , and develop time not sets merits evidence f a t h e r a l l e g e s t h a t the mother d i d should "argument" on deducted the premiums, a t the remainder of the paragraph the health-insurance t o any The coverage health insurance support. were because the court 2111244 would be father required t o d e v e l o p t h e a r g u m e n t on b e h a l f and t o r e s e a r c h a u t h o r i t y with which to support a r g u m e n t , w h i c h t h i s c o u r t w i l l n o t do. Heating, of I n c . v. S m i t h , s u p r a ; the that Jimmy Day P l u m b i n g & B u t l e r v. Town o f A r g o , supra. S i m i l a r l y , i n a two-sentence "argument," the f a t h e r urges this court Fuller, "to o v e r r u l e the l i n e of cases found i n F u l l e r 93 So. 3d 961 not e x p l a i n Fuller v. reversed. ( A l a . C i v . App. i n h i s amended b r i e f Fuller That and case i n c l u s i o n of the t o t a l the 2012)." The f a t h e r does on what b a s i s cases i t relies discusses, among v. he on other believes should things, cost of a h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e be the premium i n a c h i l d - s u p p o r t d e t e r m i n a t i o n when t h e h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e policy provides child. coverage f o r persons other than the p a r t i e s ' However, t h e f a t h e r has made no argument w i t h r e g a r d i s s u e , and he has n o t r e l a t e d t h e h o l d i n g i n F u l l e r v. to his argument, required discussed to contribute above, that he to the h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e his child i f t h e premium f o r t h a t coverage the s a l a r y of the c u s t o d i a l parent's f a i l e d to demonstrate t h a t the t r i a l 10 spouse. should to that Fuller not be coverage f o r i s deducted The father from has court erred i n i n c l u d i n g 2111244 the c o s t of h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e i n the d e t e r m i n a t i o n on remand o f t h e f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n u n d e r t h e 2006 j u d g m e n t . The father also argues that the trial court erred on remand i n i n c l u d i n g $364 p e r month i n c h i l d - c a r e c o s t s i n i t s determination of his correct 2006 j u d g m e n t . its 2006 j u d g m e n t , w h i c h t h e f a t h e r a p p e a l e d . issue of child trial support court o b l i g a t i o n under the the The child-support in included that t h a t amount i n With regard appeal, the materials b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t demonstrate t h a t the f a t h e r argued o n l y the trial court erred by transposing o b l i g a t i o n f o r t h a t of the mother. 817 ("[T]he t r i a l pay the amount court child-support D a v i s I I , 47 So. i n a d v e r t e n t l y ordered father to had the the primary that, at c a l c u l a t i o n s , t h e m o t h e r w o u l d have b e e n o b l i g a t e d t o pay awarded support the 3d its been child that to father of See his to according physical custody of child."). In h i s a p p e a l of assert that child-care Issues that (i.e., the the trial costs could in the 2006 j u d g m e n t , t h e court erred father did i n i n c l u d i n g the the determination have b e e n raised of i n the child previous amount o f c h i l d - c a r e c o s t s i n c l u d e d i n t h e 11 not $364 i n support. appeal child- 2111244 support determination) See b u t were n o t r a i s e d a r e deemed w a i v e d . B o s h e l l v. K e i t h , 418 appellant So. 2d 89, 92 ( A l a . 1982) f a i l s t o a r g u e an i s s u e i n i t s b r i e f , waived."). Further, under the ("When an that issue i s law-of-the-case doctrine, i s s u e s t h a t c o u l d have b e e n r a i s e d i n t h e p r e v i o u s n o t be r e l i t i g a t e d i n a s u b s e q u e n t a p p e a l . 70 So. Inc., 3d 60 289, So. Williams, 303-04 3d 91 236, So. 3d ( A l a . 2010); 56, law-of-the-case litigation an 62 doctrine over Accordingly, his the issue has failure to with child-support raise his Express, 2012) avoid v. (The repeated been decided."). this argument i n our c o n s i d e r a t i o n of appeal. regard to the calculation o b l i g a t i o n under the argues t h a t the t r i a l on App. to already Cash may Tucker, also Williams Civ. "designed that v. see a p p e a l o f t h e 2006 j u d g m e n t p r e c l u d e s Also due (Ala. is father's that issue i n this S c r u s h y v. ( A l a . 2011); M a r t i n 251 appeal on remand 2006 j u d g m e n t , t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n c a l c u l a t i n g the child-support arrearage. of 3 The version his father interest of § 8-8- The f a t h e r a l s o argues t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n a l l o w i n g " t h e m o t h e r , " a c t u a l l y DHR, to submit a proposed c a l c u l a t i o n of 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 w i t h the i n t e r e s t due on t h a t a r r e a r a g e . DHR s u b m i t t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t a c o m p u t e r s p r e a d s h e e t d e t a i l i n g t h e months i n w h i c h t h e 3 12 2111244 10, A l a . Code 1975, i n e f f e c t i n 2006 s p e c i f i e d t h a t i n t e r e s t on j u d g m e n t s be c a l c u l a t e d a t a r a t e s t a t u t e was amended t o p r o v i d e 2011, that, o f 12 p e r c e n t . That e f f e c t i v e September 1, t h e i n t e r e s t r a t e t o a c c r u e on j u d g m e n t s i s t o be 7.5 percent. In determining t h e amount o f i n t e r e s t due on t h e father's past-due c h i l d support, the t r i a l court stated: " T h i s c o u r t h e a r d t e s t i m o n y on J u l y 9, 2012, c o n c e r n i n g t h e f a t h e r ' s payment h i s t o r y . Through t h e e n d o f June 2012, t h e f a t h e r s h o u l d have made 70 m o n t h l y c h i l d - s u p p o r t p a y m e n t s o f $506 f o r a t o t a l of $35,420. He h a d p a i d only $7,504 f o r an a r r e a r a g e as o f t h e e n d o f June 2012 o f $27,916. I n t e r e s t a c c u m u l a t e d on t h e a r r e a r a g e a t t h e r a t e o f 12% p e r annum f o r t h e p e r i o d o f September 2006 t o A u g u s t 2011 a n d a t t h e r a t e o f 7.5% f o r t h e p e r i o d of September 2011 t o June 2012 f o r a total c u m u l a t i v e i n t e r e s t as o f t h e e n d o f June 2012 o f $7,603.97. The f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n p l u s i n t e r e s t as o f J u l y 9, 2012, t h e l a s t t i m e t h i s f a t h e r h a d f a i l e d t o p a y c h i l d s u p p o r t a n d t h e i n t e r e s t due on t h o s e amounts. The o n l y e r r o r p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e c a l c u l a t i o n of t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e t h a t t h e f a t h e r a l l e g e s i s i n the d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f i n t e r e s t , and t h i s c o u r t addresses t h a t argument i n t h e b o d y o f t h i s o p i n i o n . The f a t h e r a l s o maintains, however, t h a t t h e s u b m i s s i o n b y DHR o f i t s c a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e f a t h e r ' s a r r e a r a g e amounted t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s v e r b a t i m a d o p t i o n o f f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s made b y DHR. E v e n a s s u m i n g t h a t t o be t r u e , h o w e v e r , t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s have a p p r o v e d t h e p r a c t i c e o f a l l o w i n g a p a r t y t o d r a f t an o r d e r o r judgment f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o c o n s i d e r and adopt i n p a r t o r i n i t s e n t i r e t y . See, e . g . , S t o l l e n w e r c k v . T a l l a d e g a C n t y . Bd. o f E d u c . , 420 So. 2d 2 1 , 24 ( A l a . 1 9 8 2 ) ; B o o t h e v. J i m W a l t e r R e s . , I n c . , 660 So. 2d 604 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 5 ) . 13 2111244 c o u r t h e a r d t e s t i m o n y on t h i s d e t e r m i n e d t o be $35,519.97. issue, i s hereby "The c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s t h e f a t h e r i s due no c r e d i t f o r any amounts t h e f a t h e r c l a i m e d t o have p a i d f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e c h i l d such as f o r extraordinary activities, summer camps, school lunches, braces, e t c . " Thus, i n c a l c u l a t i n g t h e i n t e r e s t due on t h e f a t h e r ' s child-support arrearage d a t i n g back t o t h e e n t r y o f t h e 2006 j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t a p p l i e d t h e 12 p e r c e n t i n t e r e s t r a t e t o a l l p a s t - d u e c h i l d - s u p p o r t payments t h a t had a c c r u e d S e p t e m b e r 1, 2 0 1 1 . F o r t h o s e p a s t - d u e c h i l d - s u p p o r t before payments t h a t a c c r u e d a f t e r September 1, 2 0 1 1 , i . e . , t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e of t h e new i n t e r e s t r a t e trial court on j u d g m e n t s under § 8-8-10, t h e a p p l i e d t h e 7.5 p e r c e n t i n t e r e s t r a t e . 4 The f a t h e r a l s o contends t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t f a i l e d t o a p p l y s i m p l e i n t e r e s t t o t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e judgment. The f a t h e r r e f e r s t o DHR's e x h i b i t l i s t i n g t h e " c u m u l a t i v e i n t e r e s t " on t h e 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 , a n d he equates t h e term "cumulative i n t e r e s t " with "compound interest." I n h i s amended b r i e f a f t e r remand, t h e f a t h e r f a i l s t o demonstrate that the "cumulative i n t e r e s t " t h a t continued t o a c c r u e on e a c h p a s t - d u e i n s t a l l m e n t o f c h i l d s u p p o r t was n o t an a c c r u a l o v e r t i m e o f s i m p l e i n t e r e s t on e a c h o f t h o s e p a s t - d u e p a y m e n t s a n d t h a t t h a t i n t e r e s t was i n s t e a d an a w a r d o f compound i n t e r e s t . See S t a t e e x r e l . S t a t e Dep't o f Human R e s . v. O r r , 635 So. 2d a t 1, 3 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1994) ( i n t e r e s t a c c r u e s a s o f t h e due d a t e o f e a c h past-due c h i l d - s u p p o r t payment); see a l s o Walnut Equip. L e a s i n g Co. v. Graham, 532 So. 2d 655, 655 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1988) ("A p a r t y who c o m p l a i n s o f e r r o r b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t must 4 14 2111244 I n h i s amended b r i e f s u b m i t t e d t o t h i s c o u r t , t h e c o n t e n d s t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e A p r i l 26, 2013, was e n t e r e d a f t e r t h e S e p t e m b e r 1, 2011, 8-8-10, as amended, t h e 7.5 father c o r r e c t e d judgment e f f e c t i v e date of § percent rate should apply to h i s entire child-support arrearage. However, as DHR p o i n t s out, c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n s become money j u d g m e n t s on t h e d a t e e a c h payment i s due, i n t h e same manner t h a t any S t a t e ex r e l . v. Walker, and be o t h e r j u d g m e n t may Lamon, 702 828 t h e y may So. 2d be So. 2d 449, 943, 944 collected collected. 451 ( A l a . 1997); (Ala. Civ. " ' [ A ] c c r u e d c h i l d s u p p o r t payments become f i n a l o f t h e d a t e due such judgments and may Ex p a r t e App. Walker 2002) . judgments be c o l l e c t e d as o t h e r j u d g m e n t s , would bear i n t e r e s t f r o m due d a t e . ' " S t a t e as ... ex rel. S t a t e Dep't o f Human Res. v. O r r , 635 So. 2d 1, 3 ( A l a . Civ. App. (Ala. 1994) C i v . App. (quoting Argo 1985)) v. A r g o , (emphasis added). 467 So. 2d 258, Thus, e a c h 259 of the f a t h e r ' s u n p a i d c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n s became e n f o r c e a b l e judgments on their statutory interest due d a t e s , and interest rate applicable t o each accrued at of the separate a f f i r m a t i v e l y show f r o m t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l t h a t s u c h was i n f a c t c o m m i t t e d . " ) . 15 the error 2111244 past-due payments. the trial The f a t h e r has f a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t c o u r t e r r e d i n c a l c u l a t i n g t h e i n t e r e s t due on h i s child-support arrearage. Given the foregoing, to demonstrate calculating that we h o l d t h a t t h e f a t h e r has the the f a t h e r ' s trial court corrected erred child-support u n d e r t h e 2006 j u d g m e n t o r i n d e t e r m i n i n g support arrearage. Accordingly, on remand asserted in this court his brief turns on in obligation the f a t h e r ' s child- because the f a t h e r ' s child- s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n u n d e r t h e 2006 j u d g m e n t h a s b e e n determined, failed to the original father's properly arguments, submission, m o d i f i c a t i o n o f h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n was that the erroneous. I n i t s A u g u s t 3, 2012, j u d g m e n t i n t h e 2010 m o d i f i c a t i o n a c t i o n f i l e d b y t h e f a t h e r , see Ex p a r t e 699; D a v i s I I I , the father's child-support Thus, t h e t r i a l father's So. 3d a t Davis, , the t r i a l o b l i g a t i o n t o be 82 So. 3d a t court determined $460 p e r c o u r t ' s A u g u s t 3, 2012, d e t e r m i n a t i o n child-support obligation father's child-support judgment (as d e t e r m i n e d b y judgment) t o $460. actually o b l i g a t i o n f r o m $506 the A p r i l In general, 16 26, month. of the lowered under 2013, the the 2006 corrected when a j u d g m e n t i s w h o l l y i n 2111244 a party's favor, that party may not J e f f e r s o n C n t y . S h e r i f f ' s D e p ' t , 13 So. App. 200 9 ) ; see [Ms. 2110366, May 2013) appeal. 3d 993, a l s o H u n t s v i l l e C i t y Bd. 3, 2013] ("Typically, a So. party original brief take determination of pertaining his modified to parte (Ala. Civ. o f E d u c . v. the Sharp, (Ala. Civ. an d e c i s i o n that i s wholly favorable to him."). his 996 , not may 3d Ex appeal App. from a In t h i s case, i n August child-support 3, 2012, o b l i g a t i o n , the f a t h e r a r g u e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n was computed i n e r r o r and amount. we Therefore, t h a t h i s o b l i g a t i o n s h o u l d be f o r the purposes of r e s o l v i n g t h i s assume t h a t t h e A u g u s t 3, c h i l d s u p p o r t was The not one 3, August a lesser 2012, 2012, wholly j u d g m e n t on the i n f a v o r of the judgment did appeal, issue of father. not explicitly i n c o r p o r a t e c h i l d - s u p p o r t - g u i d e l i n e s f o r m s as r e q u i r e d by R u l e 32(E), Ala. reaching relied R. that on an reached that exhibit as purpose of Jud. Admin. child-support exhibit Rule The as into trial 17 clear the and that trial "Plaintiff's determination, incorporated 32(E). i t is determination designated child-support being However, we in court 2" that deem that the judgment for the court included $230 per 2111244 month i n w o r k - r e l a t e d child-care costs of in health insurance its and $130 calculation f o r the of the cost parties' r e s p e c t i v e c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n s i n r e a c h i n g i t s A u g u s t 3, 2 012, judgment. In his argument pertaining to the August 3, 2012, judgment, the f a t h e r p r i m a r i l y r a i s e s s u b s t a n t i v e i s s u e s about w h e t h e r he s h o u l d be r e q u i r e d t o pay R u l e 32, A l a . R. Jud. already addressed A d m i n . , and, most makes some g e n e r a l of those statements court has attempted statements to d i s c e r n the The as stated, this issues. concerning his child-support obligation. this c h i l d support pursuant to Out to The 5 the father's and The f a t h e r has c h i l d a f t e r s c h o o l e a c h day caution, clarify those The the child in his relationship a r g u e d t h a t he instead. next c a l c u l a t i o n of f a t h e r m a i n t a i n s t h a t the mother p l a c e s child. has arguments. a f t e r - s c h o o l c a r e as a method o f " t h w a r t i n g " w i t h the father o f an abundance o f interpret court c o u l d keep f a t h e r appears to the be T h i s c o u r t a d d r e s s e d the main p a r t of the argument a s s e r t e d by t h e f a t h e r on t h e i s s u e o f c h i l d s u p p o r t i n t h e i s s u e of r e c u s a l i n Davis I I I , So. 3d a t . The f a t h e r a l s o a r g u e d t h a t t h e i n t e r e s t on h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e had b e e n i m p r o p e r l y c a l c u l a t e d , an i s s u e t h i s c o u r t has already analyzed i n t h i s opinion. 5 18 2111244 arguing t h a t the cost of w o r k - r e l a t e d included i n the b e c a u s e he cost. has The calculation offered f a t h e r has to not d e v e l o p t h a t argument. t h e c h i l d e v e r y day child support visitation. court The Further, is father takes that the child-support Admin. required to the support month c o m p l i e d w i t h Jud. DHR those with limits on provide care from See shall trial Without A l a . R. citing App. testified that licensed on the per set the source P., $230 the exceed 3, forth Ala. R. amount for the a s c h e d u l e o f g u i d e l i n e s d e v e l o p e d by the 19 a court's Rule 32(B)(8), not the claims. c h i l d - c a r e costs guidelines. costs verify modification i n the August e m p l o y e e who not and therefore, the o f R u l e 28, could ("Child-care c h i l d r e n , b a s e d on that custody for a $230 i n c h i l d - c a r e c o s t s . father i n the to determination the child related issue authority, i n contravention of for f a t h e r ' s r e q u e s t t o have a r u l i n g on any issue necessity i n t h i s a c t i o n , and, enter also judgment of obligation a u t h o r i t y i n an a t t e m p t t o father waived h i s claims d i d not says the the instead inclusion in i t s child-support 2012, child-support eliminate c i t e d any of custody or v i s i t a t i o n trial of h i s be a f t e r s c h o o l i s n o t an i s s u e p e r t a i n i n g t o but The c h i l d care s h o u l d not 2111244 A l a b a m a D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s . " ) . testified, however, costs c o r r e c t l y determined, were that she b e l i e v e d The DHR e m p l o y e e that although the child-care s h e was n o t t h e p e r s o n who h a d c a l c u l a t e d t h e amount DHR c o n t e n d e d t h e f a t h e r owed i n c h i l d The support. father states in his brief that a "correct c a l c u l a t i o n " o f h i s c h i l d s u p p o r t i s $335 p e r month. He c i t e s t o no p o r t i o n o f t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l i n w h i c h he s u b m i t t e d a c a l c u l a t i o n of c h i l d support t o the t r i a l court containing the f i g u r e s he a d v a n c e s i n h i s b r i e f on a p p e a l . Also, i n making t h a t a r g u m e n t , t h e f a t h e r u s e s $150 as t h e f i g u r e he c o n t e n d s i s t h e p r o p e r amount o f w o r k - r e l a t e d c h i l d - c a r e e x p e n s e s t o be used i n the c a l c u l a t i o n of h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t father provides figure. to DHR's no e x p l a n a t i o n obligation. o f how he a r r i v e d The at that The f a t h e r does c i t e e x h i b i t s he s u b m i t t e d p e r t a i n i n g limits on work-related child-care costs; those e x h i b i t s were f i r s t s u b m i t t e d a t t h e November 8, 2012, h e a r i n g on the father's August 3 1 , 2012, p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . The f a t h e r f a i l s t o e x p l a i n w h i c h o f DHR's r a t e s he c o n t e n d s w o u l d be not a p p l i c a b l e under t h e facts of this case. Further, i ti s c l e a r f r o m t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l t h a t t h e f a t h e r made t h i s 20 2111244 argument t o t h e t r i a l court. 612 ( A l a . 1992) So. 2d 409, 410 consider issues Given the argument a s s e r t e d we cannot say presented that See (an for the Andrews v. M e r r i t t O i l the i n the trial obligation. 24, 39 Alabama court erred in P a v i l i o n Dev., ( A l a . 2007); Coastal Bank, N.A., 424 So. first who time had on cannot appeal). the appeal, burden of t h a t b u r d e n and showed t h a t determining L.L.C. v. Realty 2d court f a t h e r ' s b r i e f on father, d e m o n s t r a t i n g e r r o r on a p p e a l , met the appellate Co., his child-support JBJ P'ship, & Mortg., 1315, 1317 Inc. 979 So. v. 2d First (Ala. Civ. App. 1982). The f a t h e r has t h e A u g u s t 3, 2012, judgment are 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 , j u d g m e n t and t h e A p r i l 26, therefore 2013, and corrected affirmed. AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman Thomas, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e Moore, J . , r e c u s e s himself. 21 and Donaldson, J J . , concur. result, without writing.

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.