Jeremy L. Tanner v. Erica D. Tanner (Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court: DR-12-500871)

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 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, A l a b a m a 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 2120047 and 2120303 Jeremy L. Tanner v. E r i c a D. Tanner Appeals from Mobile C i r c u i t Court (DR-12-500871 and DR-12-500871.01) MOORE, J u d g e . I n a p p e a l no. 2120047, appeals from the denial Jeremy T. T a n n e r o f h i s motion ("the husband") to "set aside" a j u d g m e n t o f d i v o r c e , e n t e r e d b y t h e M o b i l e C i r c u i t C o u r t ("the trial court"), divorcing him from Erica D. T a n n e r ("the 2 1 2 0 0 4 7 ; 2120303 wife"). In appeal no. 2120303, the husband appeals from a j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e n y i n g h i s o b j e c t i o n the w i f e ' s r e l o c a t i o n w i t h the p a r t i e s ' c h i l d r e n . no. 2120047, we d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l . to In appeal 1 I n a p p e a l no. 2120303, we affirm. Background On May 21, 2012, t h e w i f e , who was r e p r e s e n t e d by legal c o u n s e l , f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t s e e k i n g a d i v o r c e from the husband; t h a t a c t i o n was a s s i g n e d c a s e no. DR-12-500871. d a t e , t h e h u s b a n d , who waiver, trial agreeing court, Although was a c t i n g p r o s e , f i l e d an a n s w e r t h a t the without cause c o u l d be testimony, t h e h u s b a n d was On t h a t same for unrepresented a by submitted final legal c o u l d have o b t a i n e d a l a w y e r had h u s b a n d ' s p l e a d i n g was notarized. he w i s h e d the judgment. counsel, a c k n o w l e d g e d i n h i s a n s w e r and w a i v e r t h a t he was he to and he aware t h a t t o do The p a r t i e s a l s o s o ; the submitted to the t r i a l c o u r t a n o t a r i z e d " S e t t l e m e n t Agreement" i n which they s p e c i f i e d t h a t they would share two m i n o r c h i l d r e n , legal custody t h a t t h e w i f e w o u l d s e r v e as t h e p h y s i c a l c u s t o d i a n , and t h a t t h e h u s b a n d w o u l d have 1 T h i s c o u r t has of their primary specified c o n s o l i d a t e d t h e a p p e a l s e x mero motu. 2 2 1 2 0 0 4 7 ; 2120303 visitation rights. to divide support their The p a r t i e s a l s o s p e c i f i e d how t h e y w i s h e d marital property and minor c h i l d r e n . The p a r t i e s f i l e d of child f o r the b e n e f i t of t o be p a i d by t h e h u s b a n d the their with n e c e s s a r y R u l e 3 2 , A l a . R. J u d . Admin., Although the trial court amount the t r i a l court child-support signed the p a r t i e s ' forms. divorce j u d g m e n t on June 26, 2012, t h a t j u d g m e n t was n o t e n t e r e d the S t a t e 2012. request Mobile Judicial Information By t h a t d a t e , for a System the w i f e had f i l e d , protection-from-abuse Juvenile Court, represented the on July by c o u n s e l , 3, ("PFA") J u l y 9, order i n the the husband had 2 2012, the f i l e d a motion seeking p a r t i e s ' settlement into on June 29, 2012, a after reporting that a s s a u l t e d h e r i n t h e m a r i t a l home. Additionally, ("SJIS") u n t i l the husband, now to "set aside" a g r e e m e n t and t h e d i v o r c e judgment. The h u s b a n d a s s e r t e d t h a t he h a d s i g n e d t h e d i v o r c e documents without wife had documents, and the benefit of fraudulently induced him legal counsel, into signing that those the t h a t h i s a g r e e m e n t t o t h o s e documents s h o u l d be r e s c i n d e d f o r On A u g u s t 3, 2012, t h e w i f e ' s PFA a c t i o n was t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t and c o n s o l i d a t e d w i t h t h e d i v o r c e a c t i o n . 2 3 2 1 2 0 0 4 7 ; 2120303 v a r i o u s reasons. relocated or The h u s b a n d a l s o a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e w i f e h a d intended to relocate with the p a r t i e s ' minor c h i l d r e n t o the s t a t e of G e o r g i a ; the husband requested the t r i a l that c o u r t o r d e r h e r t o r e t u r n t h e c h i l d r e n t o Alabama. The h u s b a n d f i l e d an amended m o t i o n on J u l y 10, 2013, again s e e k i n g t o s e t a s i d e t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t and o b j e c t i n g t o t h e wife's relocation. The hearing trial court and o r d e r e d scheduled t h e husband's motion f o r a t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were n o t t o be removed from the t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n pending t h a t h e a r i n g . trial the court c h i l d r e n ' s best On the also appointed a guardian ad l i t e m represent interests. J u l y 22, 2012, t h e h u s b a n d a g a i n filed, pursuant to "Alabama P a r e n t - C h i l d R e l a t i o n s h i p P r o t e c t i o n A c t , " A l a . Code 1975, § 30-3-160 e t s e q . , an objection to the p r o p o s e d r e l o c a t i o n ; t h a t o b j e c t i o n was a s s i g n e d 12-500871.01. had to The wife's c a s e no. DR- The h u s b a n d a s s e r t e d t h a t , on J u l y 11, 2012, he r e c e i v e d w r i t t e n n o t i c e f r o m t h e w i f e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t she intended 2012. to r e l o c a t e with the c h i l d r e n to Georgia The husband f u r t h e r a s s e r t e d that on J u l y 27, the wife's notice f a i l e d t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e 45-day n o t i c e p r o v i s i o n o f A l a . Code 4 2120047; 2120303 1975, § 30-3-165(a), t h a t t h e w i f e had no proper basis for f a i l i n g t o p r o v i d e l e s s t h a n t h e s t a t u t o r i l y m a n d a t e d 45 notice, to and t h a t i t was not i n the c h i l d r e n ' s best relocate to Georgia. The days' interests husband a l s o r e q u e s t e d t h a t the trial court issue a p r e l i m i n a r y injunction, restraining the wife from to or, relocating alternatively, to the award minor him children custody of the trial c o u r t s c h e d u l e d the husband's motions 2012, "office Georgia children. The f o r an A u g u s t 2, conference." On A u g u s t 1, 2012, t h a t t h e w i f e had, the husband f i l e d a motion asserting i n f a c t , r e l o c a t e d the c h i l d r e n to G e o r g i a d e s p i t e the t r i a l c o u r t ' s p r e v i o u s order. The husband sought an o r d e r c o m p e l l i n g t h e c h i l d r e n ' s i m m e d i a t e r e t u r n t o A l a b a m a and an a w a r d o f p e n d e n t e l i t e custody. it the previously had scheduled Despite the f a c t t h a t husband's objection w i f e ' s r e l o c a t i o n f o r an A u g u s t 2, 2012, " o f f i c e the t r i a l A u g u s t 22, On August indicating "office 2, that, 2012, after the conference," c o u r t scheduled the above-described motions 2012, to f o r an conference." the trial hearing court arguments entered of order counsel, h u s b a n d ' s m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t was 5 an the denied. 2120047; 2120303 The to t r i a l court also ordered w i t h the husband f o r h i s " b e l a t e d summer v i s i t a t i o n p e r i o d and [ t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n ] s h a l l s t a r t school in remain i n Mobile t h a t t h e p a r t i e s ' c h i l d r e n were Mobile County." The t r i a l court scheduled the remaining m a t t e r s f o r a h e a r i n g on A u g u s t 20, 2012. On A u g u s t 59, 7, 2012, t h e h u s b a n d filed, A l a . R. C i v . P., a m o t i o n t o a l t e r , trial court's aside the d i v o r c e judgment. parties August and t h e i r hearing, hearing the t r i a l f o r August pursuant t o Rule amend, o r v a c a t e t h e 2, 2012, d e n i a l o f h i s m o t i o n legal On A u g u s t counsel court 20, 2012, a f t e r t h e appeared entered an to set f o r the order scheduled r e s e t t i n g the 29, 2012, "due t o t h e p e n d i n g criminal charges." On A u g u s t 30, 2012, t h e t r i a l court entered an order i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e h u s b a n d ' s m o t i o n s h a d been t h e s u b j e c t o f sworn t e s t i m o n y court alter, a t an A u g u s t 29, 2012, h e a r i n g . 3 The trial i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t was d e n y i n g t h e h u s b a n d ' s m o t i o n t o amend, o r v a c a t e t h e d i v o r c e judgment, t h a t t h e w i f e T h e p a r t i e s were sworn i n a t t h a t h e a r i n g , b u t t h e y d i d n o t t e s t i f y ; t h e p a r t i e s ' l a w y e r s , h o w e v e r , s t i p u l a t e d t o some o f t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t w o u l d have been p r e s e n t e d h a d t h e p a r t i e s taken the witness stand. 3 6 2120047; 2120303 was a l l o w e d to r e l o c a t e w i t h the c h i l d r e n to Georgia, t h e h u s b a n d ' s v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n was f o r t h i n that order. a notice of judgment. appeal On O c t o b e r 10, from the trial That n o t i c e of appeal 2012, court's was and that m o d i f i e d as the husband August d o c k e t e d as set filed 30, 2012, appeal no. "Motion to 2120047. On September 7, C o r r e c t A u g u s t 30, c o u r t had that 2012, 2012, the husband Order." He filed a s s e r t e d t h a t the i n c o r r e c t l y i n d i c a t e d i n i t s A u g u s t 30, sworn t e s t i m o n y had been t a k e n order a t t h e A u g u s t 29, 2012, On S e p t e m b e r 12, 2012, the t r i a l motion. A 2012, entry September 27, court granted i n SJIS f o l l o w i n g : "Memo t o A t t y : Need O r d e r t o M a t c h An O c t o b e r 30, 2012, both sent a notice; n o t i c e are not i n d i c a t e d i n the r e c o r d . the t r i a l A u g u s t 30, Also court entered 2012, on the the Motion/Corr." contents counsel of On December 11, that 2012, an o r d e r p u r p o r t i n g t o s e t a s i d e j u d g m e n t b a s e d upon a c l e r i c a l December that reflects entry i n SJIS r e f l e c t s that legal p a r t i e s were trial 2012, hearing. for a 11, 2012, the j u d g m e n t i n c a s e no. DR-12-500871.01. 7 trial the error. court entered T h a t December 11, a 2012, 2120047; 2120303 j u d g m e n t was i d e n t i c a l to the t r i a l j u d g m e n t t h a t h a d been e n t e r e d c o u r t ' s A u g u s t 30, i n c a s e no. On J a n u a r y 9, 2013, t h e h u s b a n d f i l e d appeal. This 2120303. On trial court judgment. order court January a another n o t i c e of that 10, the husband motion to correct On F e b r u a r y 7, 2013, clarifying DR-12-500871. docketed 2013, i t s December appeal the as appeal filed court no. with December the t r i a l 11, 2012, 2012, 11, 2012, entered judgment. the In an that o r d e r , t h e t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e husband's m o t i o n t o c o r r e c t t h e December 11, 2012, j u d g m e n t and s t a t e d : "1. The C o u r t does n o t e f o r t h e r e c o r d t h a t on A u g u s t 29, 2012, t h e p a r t i e s d i d a p p e a r i n c o u r t w i t h c o u n s e l and t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m and t h e p a r t i e s were sworn i n b u t d i d n o t t e s t i f y . The i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h t h e c o u r t r e l i e d upon i n m a k i n g t h e d e c i s i o n t o n o t s e t a s i d e t h e a g r e e m e n t came o n l y from the arguments of c o u n s e l w i t h r e s p e c t t o what t h e y w o u l d e x p e c t t h e e v i d e n c e t o be. "2. The C o u r t does a t t a c h h e r e t o a c o p y o f t h e transcript ... r e g a r d i n g what was s a i d at the hearing. The C o u r t does n o t e f u r t h e r t h a t t h e A u g u s t 30, 2012, o r d e r was s e t a s i d e by t h e c l e r k due t o i t b e i n g f i l e d i n t h e wrong p o i n t number. The o r d e r o f December 11, 2012, s i m p l y c h a n g e s t h e c a s e p o i n t number and f i l e s t h e o r d e r i n t h e c o r r e c t c a s e p o i n t number. "3. T h i s o r d e r d o e s make i t c l e a r t h a t t h e c o u r t b a s e d i t s r u l i n g s t r i c t l y on t h e argument presented i n the record (which i s attached hereto), a l o n g w i t h o t h e r a r g u m e n t s made i n c h a m b e r s . " 8 2120047; 2120303 On a p p e a l , in failing t h e husband a s s e r t s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t to set aside t h e judgment of divorce; erred erred i n f a i l i n g t o c o n d u c t an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g on h i s m o t i o n t o s e t aside t h e judgment o f d i v o r c e ; e r r e d i n f a i l i n g hearing on h i s m o t i o n t o a l t e r , t o conduct a amend, o r v a c a t e t h e j u d g m e n t of d i v o r c e ; and e r r e d i n d e n y i n g h i s o b j e c t i o n t o t h e w i f e ' s and the children's evidentiary We relocation address t h e husband's court's denial divorce and t h e d e n i a l that of h i s motion judgment. i . e . , before challenge to set aside of h i s motion The h u s b a n d a s i d e t h e d i v o r c e judgment b e f o r e SJIS, the b e n e f i t of an hearing. first vacate without the divorce to the t h e judgment o f to alter, filed trial amend, h i s motion or to set e n t r y o f t h a t judgment j u d g m e n t became f i n a l . into Upon e n t r y o f t h a t j u d g m e n t i n t o S J I S , h o w e v e r , t h e j u d g m e n t became a f i n a l one. A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e h u s b a n d i m m e d i a t e l y t h e r e a f t e r filed an amended motion seeking to set aside the divorce judgment. The trial court considered t h e husband's motion as a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , and 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 d i d not object t o the t r i a l court's treatment of h i s motion t o 9 2120047; 2120303 s e t a s i d e t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t as a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . See, e.g., M c I n t y r e Civ. App. v. S a t c h R e a l t y , 2006) ( d e f e n d a n t ' s I n c . , 961 So. 2d 135 ( A l a . motion t o s e t aside j u d g m e n t was d i r e c t e d t o t h e f i n a l nonfinal judgment r a t h e r t h a n t h e n o n f i n a l j u d g m e n t once t h e f i n a l j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d ) . although t h e husband's judgment was filed divorce motion to set aside when t h e d i v o r c e t h a t m o t i o n was p r o p e r l y postjudgment motion considered addressed the j u d g m e n t was by t h e t r i a l to the t r i a l Thus, divorce nonfinal, court court's as a final judgment. The t r i a l c o u r t i n i t i a l l y d e n i e d t h e husband's m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t on A u g u s t 2, 2012. B e c a u s e t h e trial c o u r t h a d r u l e d on h i s m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e , o r v a c a t e , t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t , t h e h u s b a n d h a d 42 d a y s i n w h i c h t o s e e k appellate review. See R u l e 4, A l a . R. App. P. Thus, t h e h u s b a n d h a d u n t i l September 13, 2012, t o a p p e a l f r o m t h e t r i a l court's denial of h i s motion to set aside the divorce judgment. Rather than f i l i n g a n o t i c e of appeal, another postjudgment motion, vacate the t r i a l court's seeking denial 10 t h e husband to alter, filed amend, or of the motion t o vacate the 2120047; 2120303 d i v o r c e judgment. A party i s not e n t i t l e d postjudgment motions. [Ms. (recognizing successive See W a l l a c e v. B e l l e v i e w P r o p s . 1100902, Dec. 2 1 , 2012] 2012) to f i l e that a So. 3d trial court , may n.3 ( A l a . not e n t e r t a i n successive postjudgment motions and t h a t t h e f i l i n g successive motions notice does of appeal). Thus, a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e to n o t suspend the time t h e husband's Corp., of such for filing motion seeking a to the t r i a l court's d e n i a l of h i s motion s e t a s i d e t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t was a n u l l i t y . A d d i t i o n a l l y , because t h e husband d i d n o t f i l e h i s n o t i c e of appeal motion w i t h i n 42 d a y s o f t h e t r i a l t o s e t aside untimely. "The f i l i n g jurisdictional 987 So. 2d dismissed invoke the divorce act." court's judgment, of a timely notice ( A l a . 2007) . i f the notice of appeal the j u r i s d i c t i o n of "An h i s appeal of appeal P a i n t e r v. McWane C a s t 522, 529 denial of h i s Iron is a P i p e Co., appeal shall was n o t t i m e l y the appellate is be filed to court." Rule 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. App. P. See a l s o Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a Dep't o f Human 8 9 1 , 895 R e s . , 999 So. 2d ( A l a . 2008) obligated to dismiss an a p p e a l matter] j u r i s d i c t i o n does n o t e x i s t . " ) . 11 i f , f o r any r e a s o n , Therefore, ("[W]e a r e [subjectthe t r i a l 2 1 2 0 0 4 7 ; 2120303 court's judgment jurisdiction The of divorce is to review the m e r i t s husband, however, filed final, of t h a t two and we have no judgment. notices of appeal t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g on h i s o b j e c t i o n t o t h e w i f e ' s from notice of i n t e n t to r e l o c a t e w i t h the p a r t i e s ' minor c h i l d r e n . husband f i l e d a n o t i c e of appeal from the t r i a l c o u r t ' s 30, 2012, notice judgment, e n t e r e d of appeal judgment, entered timely filed procedural from the in i n c a s e no. trial case from t h e i r no. court's August DR-12-500871, and December judgments. 11, 2012, were B a s e d on c h i l d r e n as t h e s u b j e c t o f c a s e no. no. 2120303. the trial We In t h a t appeal, court before erred by failing overruling his required to appeal to conduct an evidentiary objection. resolve § 30-3-169.7, p r o v i d e s the the husband's s o l e i s s u e i s t h a t parent's i n t e n t to r e l o c a t e with 1975, DR-12-500871.01 and a g r e e w i t h t h e h u s b a n d t h a t an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g generally the p o s t u r e o f t h e a c t i o n s b e l o w , we e l e c t t o t r e a t t h e husband's o b j e c t i o n t o the w i f e ' s p r o p o s e d r e l o c a t i o n w i t h hearing a Both DR-12-500871.01. respective The as an objection the to children. a custodial A l a b a m a Code follows: " I f t h e i s s u e o f change o f p r i n c i p a l r e s i d e n c e of a c h i l d i s p r e s e n t e d i n a p e t i t i o n f o r d i v o r c e or 12 is 2 1 2 0 0 4 7 ; 2120303 d i s s o l u t i o n of a marriage or other p e t i t i o n to determine custody of or v i s i t a t i o n w i t h a c h i l d , the c o u r t s h a l l c o n s i d e r , among o t h e r e v i d e n c e , the f a c t o r s s e t f o r t h i n S e c t i o n s 30-3-169.2 and 30-31 6 9 . 3 [ , A l a . Code 1975,] i n m a k i n g i t s i n i t i a l determination." Additionally, Civ. App. i n A n d e r s o n v. A n d e r s o n , 65 So. 3d, 2010), t h i s court recognized that a t r i a l required to an hearing determine whether residence of 435 custody We of conduct a proposed a minor of t h a t c h i l d . conclude, which present, he evidentiary child or a c t u a l change (Ala. court i s in order to of principal i s a g r o u n d f o r a change i n Id. at the 441-42. however, t h a t the husband i n v i t e d the e r r o r now complains. sworn i n , and Although prepared both parties were to t e s t i f y at the h e a r i n g t h e h u s b a n d ' s o b j e c t i o n , n e i t h e r p a r t y was c a l l e d to t e s t i f y . C o u n s e l f o r b o t h p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t o what t h e y e x p e c t e d e v i d e n c e w o u l d show i f t h e p a r t i e s t o o k t h e w i t n e s s no point did the husband's counsel attempt to to testify. sworn t e s t i m o n y failure Thus, t h e husband a t t h e h e a r i n g , and, as r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . 13 failed stand. call t e s t i f y o r o b j e c t on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e h u s b a n d had allowed on to him not offer the At to been any on a p p e a l , he r a i s e s t h a t 2 1 2 0 0 4 7 ; 2120303 A error 680 party and So. "'"cannot his then seek t o p r o f i t 2d 879, S t a t e , 385 by So. 892 2d own voluntary ( A l a . C r i m . App. 993, 1002 So. 2d 1005 State, 154 ( A l a . 1988) . reverse So. the 2d trial of t h a t judgment. the t r i a l We, (quoting C o l l i n s (Ala. 1980)); court's A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e h u s b a n d has State, ( A l a . C r i m . App. o t h e r g r o u n d s , 385 527 1995) invite S l a t o n v. thereby."'" conduct As judgment v. 1979), r e v ' d on and v. Phillips a result, on we this n o t c h a l l e n g e d any other cannot basis. aspect t h e r e f o r e , f i n d no r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r i n c o u r t ' s judgment a l l o w i n g the w i f e t o r e l o c a t e w i t h the c h i l d r e n . 2120047 -- APPEAL DISMISSED. 2120303 -- AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman, concur. 14 Thomas, 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.