Stuart C. Dubose v. Allison T. Dubose

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 6/07/2013 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2120007 S t u a r t C. Dubose v. Allison T. Dubose Appeal from C l a r k e C i r c u i t (DR-08-30) Court On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g PER CURIAM. T h i s c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n o f M a r c h 22, 2 0 1 3 , i s w i t h d r a w n , a n d the following i s substituted therefor. 2120007 S t u a r t C. Dubose ( " t h e h u s b a n d " ) a p p e a l s divorcing him from A l l i s o n T. from a judgment Dubose ( " t h e wife"). Among o t h e r t h i n g s , the judgment a l s o d i v i d e d the p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l property and o r d e r e d the husband t o pay c h i l d support. The j u d g m e n t i n t h i s c a s e c o m p r i s e s t h r e e d o c u m e n t s : an A u g u s t 4, 2009, order d i v o r c i n g the p a r t i e s ; determining In t h i s 2010, order and an A u g u s t 17, 2012, d i v i d i n g the m a r i t a l property; a March 5, order the husband's c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n . appeal, 1 t h e h u s b a n d c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e A u g u s t 4, 2009, o r d e r d i v o r c i n g t h e p a r t i e s v i o l a t e d A l a b a m a l a w b e c a u s e i t was b a s e d o n l y on t h e s t i p u l a t i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s , "without any p r o o f o f t h e g r o u n d s f o r t h e d i v o r c e e v e r b e i n g presented or c o n s i d e r e d " by the t r i a l says, court. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the husband t h e A u g u s t 4, 2009, o r d e r v i o l a t e d § 30-2-3, A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h " f o r b i d [ s ] d i v o r c e b y c o n s e n t . " Penny A. D a v i s R o b e r t E a r l M c C u r l e y , J r . , Alabama Alimony & C h i l d C u s t o d y H o r n b o o k § 9-8 a t 116 Divorce, & ( 4 t h ed. 2005). On J a n u a r y 28, 2011, t h i s c o u r t d i s m i s s e d t h e h u s b a n d ' s a p p e a l f r o m t h e M a r c h 5, 2010, o r d e r on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e r e was a " l a c k o f c o n c l u s i v e n e s s and c e r t a i n t y i n t h e o r d e r as t o t h e i s s u e o f c h i l d s u p p o r t , [ a n d t h e r e f o r e ] t h e o r d e r was n o t a f i n a l j u d g m e n t and t h i s c o u r t [ d i d ] n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e h u s b a n d ' s a p p e a l . " Dubose v. Dubose, 72 So. 3d 1210, 1212 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) . 1 2 2120007 The to r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s the a d i s p o s i t i o n of t h i s f i l e d a complaint the wife and issue. for a divorce. alleged irremediable following information On M a r c h 25, irreconcilable and temperament that i r r e t r i e v a b l e breakdown of the m a r r i a g e . of the a c t i o n , the t r i a l also c h i l d support, awarded husband. a The there During wife divorce, that had was been an the pendency c o u r t awarded the w i f e p o s s e s s i o n the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e , custody a l i m o n y and 2008, t h e As g r o u n d s f o r t h e i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y of relevant of the c h i l d r e n , pendente and an a t t o r n e y f e e . temporary restraining The order husband i s a former c i r c u i t of lite wife was against judge from the Clarke C o u n t y , and a number o f c i r c u i t j u d g e s r e c u s e d t h e m s e l v e s f r o m t h i s matter. A P e r r y C o u n t y d i s t r i c t j u d g e was p r e s i d e over t h i s case. to value inventory and D i s c o v e r y was order dated A s p e c i a l m a s t e r a l s o was the property propounded, but, i n the as t h e t r i a l and continue 2009, o r d e r , w h i c h t h e t r i a l conference marital estate. c o u r t n o t e d i n an a t t o r n e y s , the trial to t h i s date." c o u r t s t a t e d was between the t r i a l court ordered, 3 to appointed J u l y 9, 2009, d i s c o v e r y i s s u e s " p l a g u e d t h i s f r o m t h e g e t go telephone appointed case In the J u l y 9, entered a f t e r a c o u r t and t h e among o t h e r parties' things, that 2120007 t h e w i f e and t h e h u s b a n d " s t i p u l a t e other 16, to the d i v o r c e l e a v i n g a l l r e l a t i v e matters f o r t r i a l . " 2009, t h e t r i a l court entered One week l a t e r , on an o r d e r July stating: "The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t f o r c l a r i t y o f t h e r e c o r d i n t h e c a s e and b a s e d upon t h e s t i p u l a t i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s to being divorced through t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e l e g a l counsel, s a i d counsel f o r both p a r t i e s s h a l l f i l e a s t i p u l a t i o n to divorce w i t h i n fourteen (14) days o f t h i s o r d e r . " On in J u l y 18, 2009, t h e w i f e f i l e d a s t i p u l a t i o n t o d i v o r c e which she stated that she did "hereby completely and t o t a l l y s t i p u l a t e t o t h e c o u r t g r a n t i n g a d i v o r c e i n t h e above action. July I 16, grounds am filing this 2009, c o u r t for husband's a order." divorce. attorney t h a t he had had statement pursuant The stipulation Likewise, filed a a telephone to on stipulation court's d i d not July to the 24, state 2009, divorce, stating c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h the husband t h a t t h e h u s b a n d had a g r e e d t o a s t i p u l a t i o n t o d i v o r c e . stipulation reserving s t a t e d t h a t " t h e C o u r t may jurisdiction issues." Like the stipulation d i d not to the try wife's the enter a divorce property stipulation, and the 2 and The while support husband's s t a t e grounds f o r a d i v o r c e . T h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was i n the f e d e r a l p r i s o n system at the time. 2 4 incarcerated 2120007 On August 4, 2009, d i v o r c i n g the p a r t i e s . that "[t]his and the c a u s e was went on the trial I n the order, c a u s e , c o m i n g on t o be stipulation of [the wife] to divorce the trial court was m a t t e r s a t i s s u e and entered the t r i a l an order court stated h e a r d upon t h e and submitted f o r f i n a l judgment." parties i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f temperament. the court The [the The on pleadings husband], t r i a l court then the ground order a l s o provided retaining jurisdiction this as to of that a l l other that i t intended "to a l l o w e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l , i f t h i s m a t t e r i s not d e c i d e d by d e f a u l t p r i o r t o t h e n , as t o child custody, c h i l d s u p p o r t , permanent alimony, a t t o r n e y s f e e s , and o t h e r m a t t e r s as s t a t e d i n t h e [ w i f e ' s ] c o m p l a i n t and t h e a s s e t s o f t h e p a r t i e s . T h i s c o u r t s h a l l n o t h e a r e v i d e n c e as t o t h e g r o u n d s f o r d i v o r c e as t h i s i s b e i n g d e c r e e d h e r e i n e x c e p t as t h a t e v i d e n c e w h i c h may be r e l e v a n t t o any r e m a i n i n g issues." As m e n t i o n e d , t h e h u s b a n d r e l i e s on § 30-2-3 as t h e b a s i s for his enter assertion that the trial a d i v o r c e judgment o n l y That s t a t u t e on court the could parties' not properly stipulations. provides: "No j u d g m e n t can be e n t e r e d on t h e c o n f e s s i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s , o r e i t h e r o f them, o r i f i t a p p e a r t h a t a d u l t e r y was c o m m i t t e d by e i t h e r , w i t h t h e c o n s e n t of the other, f o r the purpose of o b t a i n i n g a divorce, o r where b o t h p a r t i e s have committed a d u l t e r y , o r where t h e r e has b e e n a c o n d o n a t i o n o f 5 2120007 adultery conjugal of the connived The by t h e a d m i s s i o n o f t h e o f f e n d i n g p a r t y t o embraces a f t e r knowledge o f t h e commission crime, o r when t h e h u s b a n d knew o f o r at the adultery of the w i f e . " p r o h i b i t i o n of consensual divorces survived the l e g i s l a t u r e ' s e n a c t m e n t o f " n o - f a u l t " d i v o r c e s i n 1 9 7 1 , when new s t a t u t o r y g r o u n d s f o r g r a n t i n g a d i v o r c e were a d d e d t o t h e existing grounds. See § 3 0 - 2 - 1 , A l a . Code 1975. " n o - f a u l t " grounds a u t h o r i z e d a c i r c u i t The new, court " t o d i v o r c e p e r s o n s f r o m t h e bonds o f m a t r i m o n y , upon a c o m p l a i n t f i l e d b y one o f t h e p a r t i e s : " " ( 7 ) Upon a p p l i c a t i o n o f e i t h e r t h e h u s b a n d o r w i f e , when t h e c o u r t i s s a t i s f i e d from a l l t h e testimony i n t h e case t h a t t h e r e e x i s t s such a c o m p l e t e i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f temperament t h a t t h e p a r t i e s c a n no l o n g e r l i v e t o g e t h e r [ ; o r ] " " ( 9 ) Upon a p p l i c a t i o n o f e i t h e r p a r t y , when t h e court finds there has been an irretrievable breakdown o f t h e m a r r i a g e and t h a t f u r t h e r a t t e m p t s a t r e c o n c i l i a t i o n a r e i m p r a c t i c a l o r f u t i l e and n o t i n the best i n t e r e s t s of the p a r t i e s or f a m i l y . " § 3 0 - 2 - 1 ( a ) ( 7 ) and ( 9 ) . In So. Phillips v. P h i l l i p s , 49 A l a . App. 514, 520-21, 274 2d 71, 77 ( C i v . 1 9 7 3 ) , t h i s c o u r t d i s c u s s e d t h e e f f e c t o f 6 2120007 " n o - f a u l t " d i v o r c e s on t h e p r o h i b i t i o n o f c o n s e n s u a l d i v o r c e s , stating: " [ T ] h e s t a t u t o r y g r o u n d o f i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y does n o t permit the court t o d i s s o l v e a marriage merely b e c a u s e i t s t e r m i n a t i o n i s d e s i r e d b y one o r b o t h p a r t i e s , o r t h a t , c o n v e r s e l y , when i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f temperament i s shown, a d i v o r c e may n o t be d e n i e d solely because the defending spouse voices opposition to i t s granting. "A c o n t r a r y h o l d i n g w o u l d make i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y d e p e n d e n t i n i t s a p p l i c a t i o n upon an a g r e e m e n t o r a s t i p u l a t i o n between t h e p a r t i e s , and t h u s f u r n i s h a v e h i c l e f o r a consensual divorce which the s t a t u t e did n o t i n t e n d t o s a n c t i o n a n d w h i c h w o u l d be c o n t r a r y t o T i t . 34, § 26, Code o f A l a b a m a 1940 [ a p r e d e c e s s o r s t a t u t e t o § 3 0 - 2 - 3 ] . The c o n d i t i o n o r s t a t e o f a f f a i r s c o n s t i t u t i n g i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y must e x i s t as a f a c t a n d p r o o f t h e r e o f must be s u b m i t t e d by t h e p r o p o n e n t . " As on P r o f e s s o r s D a v i s and M c C u r l e y n o t e d i n t h e i r divorce, "[t]he incompatibility does n o t s a n c t i o n t h i s w o u l d be c o n t r a r y forbidding Child divorce Custody Phillips, statutory § divorce consensual divorce, 9-8 Alabama D i v o r c e , a t 116, c i t i n g of since statute Alimony & § 30-2-3 a n d supra. In W r i g h t v. W r i g h t , (Civ. for t o t h e i n t e n t o f t h e Alabama by c o n s e n t . " Hornbook ground treatise 1975), t h e p l a i n t i f f incompatibility. 55 A l a . App. 112, 313 So. 2d 540 sought a d i v o r c e The c a s e was s u b m i t t e d 7 on t h e g r o u n d o f t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t on 2120007 a stipulation complete of facts, i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y of parties.'" 55 judgment, which Ala. incompatibility, testimony i n c l u d i n g the on the App. 113, 313 So. on s t a t e d " t h a t the pleadings court reversed and c a s e was the their the 2d "'a the at the 541. The ground submitted stipulation of attorneys." trial that between exists divorce a a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s and This temperament at granted stipulation of without facts by Id. court's judgment, explaining: " T i t l e 34, S e c t i o n 26 o f t h e Code o f A l a b a m a (1940) [ a p r e d e c e s s o r s t a t u t e t o § 3 0 - 2 - 3 ] p r o h i b i t s t h e s e c u r i n g o f a d i v o r c e upon t h e c o n f e s s i o n o f t h e parties. The e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f g r o u n d s f o r a d i v o r c e by t e s t i m o n y o r e v i d e n c e o t h e r t h a n by a g r e e m e n t i s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l t o t h e g r a n t i n g o f t h e d i v o r c e and c a n n o t be w a i v e d by t h e p a r t i e s . M e a r e s v. M e a r e s , 256 A l a . 596, 56 So. 2d 661 [ ( 1 9 5 2 ) ] ; J o h n s v. J o h n s , 49 A l a . App. 317, 271 So. 2d 514 [(Civ. 1 9 7 3 ) ] ; Helms v. Helms, 50 A l a . App. 453, 280 So. 2d 159 [ ( C i v . 1 9 7 3 ) ] . " W r i g h t , 55 A l a . App. This court reached J o h n s , 49 A l a . App. case, as i n t h e a t 114, 317, a 271 case at bar, 313 So. similar So. 2d a t 541-42. conclusion 2d 514 T h e r e was Johns (Civ. 1973). the e v i d e n t i a r y hearings t h e c o u r t were l i m i t e d t o m a t t e r s o f s u p p o r t of p r o p e r t y . in no t e s t i m o n y 8 and the v. In t h a t before division r e g a r d i n g grounds f o r the 2120007 d i v o r c e , because, a c c o r d i n g to the t r i a l c o u r t , t h a t i s s u e b e e n a g r e e d upon. In r e v e r s i n g the judgment, t h i s c o u r t had held: "Such procedure would be contrary to the r e q u i r e m e n t s o f T i t l e 34[,] § 26 o f t h e Code [a p r e d e c e s s o r s t a t u t e t o § 30-2-3] e v e n i f a p p e l l a n t had n o t j o i n e d i s s u e on t h e a v e r m e n t s o f c r u e l t y i n the complaint. 'The j u r i s d i c t i o n of a court of e q u i t y t o g r a n t a d i v o r c e a v i n c u l o m a t r i m o n i i does n o t e x i s t i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e s t a t u t e , and i t i s essential that j u r i s d i c t i o n a l facts a f f i r m a t i v e l y a p p e a r f r o m t h e r e c o r d . ' M e a r e s v. M e a r e s , 256 A l a . 596, 56 So. 2d 661 [ ( 1 9 5 2 ) ] . "The t r i a l court having expressly p r o h i b i t e d t e s t i m o n y as t o t h e g r o u n d s f o r d i v o r c e a l l e g e d i n t h e c o m p l a i n t and h a v i n g r e n d e r e d a d e c r e e w i t h o u t testimony to such grounds, s a i d decree of d i v o r c e was w i t h o u t s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y and t h u s w i t h o u t t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of the c o u r t . The d e c r e e must be reversed." J o h n s , 49 A l a . App. Helms v. (Civ. Helms, 50 1973) "The a t 320, 271 A l a . App. So. 453, 2d 455, a t 515-16. 280 So. See 2d also 159, 161 on the (same). only requirement for obtaining a divorce ground of i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y i s proof of i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y . " Davis & M c C u r l e y , Alabama D i v o r c e , A l i m o n y & C h i l d Custody Hornbook § 7-2 at 70. In this case, r e c o r d t h a t , when t h e t r i a l order divorcing regarding grounds the there court entered parties, f o r the i s no i t divorce. 9 had indication in t h e A u g u s t 4, heard Instead, any the the 2009, evidence order was 2120007 b a s e d s o l e l y on stipulations included the p a r t i e s ' made a the trial stipulation Wright, supra, parties.'" 313 So. that the complete a t 113, fact in note t h a t "'a 55 A l a . App. of court We o f temperament e x i s t s b e t w e e n t h e incompatibility Id., to stipulations. 2d a t 541. Nonetheless, the s t i p u l a t i o n s were n o t a d e q u a t e t o overcome t h e p r o h i b i t i o n consensual parties' divorce divorce found stipulations the p a r t i e s ; in the w i f e ' s were t h e y i n c l u d e d no complaint, incompatible breakdown of the 30-2-3. or d i d not that have no order choice parties and were irretrievable but the court there the could s t i p u l a t i o n of f a c t had been an as allegations even s t a t e t h a t the not us and to conclude parties was on any incompatible breakdown j u d g m e n t o f d i v o r c e "was without trial case, parties irretrievable marriage. d i v o r c i n g the stipulations this i n f a c t , contrary to B a s e d on t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e we In s t a t e d o n l y t h a t the t o g r o u n d s f o r a d i v o r c e and, in § of of the a u t h o r i t i e s that based evidence or the without j u r i s d i c t i o n of the 10 that the cited, August on only 4, parties' the 2009, indicating that the there been an marriage. had Accordingly, the s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y and thus court." App. J o h n s , 49 A l a . 2120007 at 320, 271 So. jurisdictional So. 2d evidence to as 516. the the to trial divorce grounds husband also court "cannot Helms, 50 A l a . App. court and for a r e v e r s e the order of the t r i a l The This T h e r e f o r e , under which stipulate at requirements." a t 161. case--in 2d raises the was not the are of this with to any required to c o u r t d i v o r c i n g the number of 280 parties presented divorce--we a 455, circumstances ordered supply parties. other issues r e g a r d i n g t h e a w a r d o f c h i l d s u p p o r t and p o s t m i n o r i t y s u p p o r t and t h e d i v i s i o n o f m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y . However, as o u r supreme court e x p l a i n e d , " t h i s Court having determined that there was no a u t h o r i t y i n t h e c o u r t t o g r a n t a d i v o r c e , t h e r e can be no a w a r d o f a l i m o n y n o r a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t due t o d i s s o l u t i o n of the marriage. [(1964)]." also Mason v. Mason, 276 A l a . 265, Johns, follows 4 9 A l a . App. that, at t h i s 160 So. 2d 881 a t 32 0, 271 So. 2d a t 516. It point, t h e r e can be no award of c h i l d support nor a d i v i s i o n of the m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y i n t h i s case based marriage. 2d 881, 883 on the "consensual" dissolution See Mason v. Mason, 276 A l a . 265, (1964). 11 of the parties' 267-68, 160 So. 2120007 For the reasons s e t f o r t h trial court trial court. evidentiary i s reversed, On above, and t h i s t h e judgment of the c a u s e i s remanded to the remand, t h e t r i a l hearing only on court the issue i s t o c o n d u c t an of t h e grounds f o r d i v o r c e a n d t o e n t e r a judgment e n c o m p a s s i n g a l l t h e i s s u e s i n t h i s matter. APPLICATION OVERRULED; WITHDRAWN; OPINION OPINION SUBSTITUTED; OF MARCH REVERSED AND 22, 2013, REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , a n d Thomas, Moore, concur. Pittman, J . , recuses himself. 12 and Donaldson, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.