David Anson Havron v. Donna Parker Havron

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 08/16/2013 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 R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , 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 2120116 David Anson Havron v. Donna Parker Havron Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court, Bessemer (DR-10-900096) Division MOORE, J u d g e . David judgment Court Anson Havron ("the husband") o f t h e Bessemer D i v i s i o n ("the t r i a l court"), appeals of the Jefferson divorcing him from Donna from a Circuit Parker 2120116 H a v r o n ("the w i f e " ) . The h u s b a n d c h a l l e n g e s t h e t r i a l court's a w a r d o f c u s t o d y o f t h e p a r t i e s ' c h i l d t o t h e w i f e , t h e amount of 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 , t h e d i v i s i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s ' p r o p e r t y and t h e m a r i t a l wife, debts, t h e award o f a l i m o n y and t h e d e n i a l o f h i s motion to the t o reopen the evidence. Procedural History On August 4, 2010, t h e w i f e d i v o r c e from t h e husband. filed filed a complaint On S e p t e m b e r 9, 2010, t h e h u s b a n d an a n s w e r a n d a c o u n t e r c l a i m f o r a d i v o r c e . was t r i e d divorce on F e b r u a r y 21, 2012. j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d , reopen the evidence for a On A p r i l case 5, 2012, b e f o r e a t h e husband f i l e d and t o a l l o w t h e c h i l d The a motion to testify. to He a l l e g e d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e w i f e h a d d e c i d e d t o move to a h i g h - c r i m e area i n t h e " S o u t h s i d e " area o f Birmingham and t h a t t h e c h i l d h a d i n d i c a t e d t h a t he w a n t e d t o l i v e w i t h t h e husband. The t r i a l divorcing custody awarding c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t on June 5, 2012, the p a r t i e s ; of the c h i l d the husband awarding the p a r t i e s and t h e w i f e p r i m a r y specified joint physical visitation; i n child husband private-school tuition 2 custody; ordering h u s b a n d t o p a y $408 m o n t h l y t o pay t h e c h i l d ' s support; legal the ordering the f o r the 2120116 2011-2012 s c h o o l y e a r a n d t h e r e a f t e r i f t h e h u s b a n d c h o o s e s t o send t h e c h i l d to a private school; ordering pay f o r m e d i c a l i n s u r a n c e f o r t h e c h i l d ; the m a r i t a l home a n d o r d e r i n g for the debt a s s o c i a t e d w i t h husband a beach t h e husband t o awarding t h e husband t h e h u s b a n d t o be responsible t h e m a r i t a l home; a w a r d i n g t h e condominium; dividing t h e p a r t i e s ' motor v e h i c l e s and o r d e r i n g t h e husband t o pay t h e debt a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a l l those v e h i c l e s ; o r d e r i n g t h e husband t o pay t h e w i f e $136,000, representing one-half the equity home, t h e b e a c h c o n d o m i n i u m , t h e r e t i r e m e n t i n the m a r i t a l a c c o u n t s , and t h e b u s i n e s s a s s e t s , l e s s t h e amount o f t h e w i f e ' s p o r t i o n o f t h e marital debt; ordering t h e h u s b a n d t o p a y $700 p e r month i n periodic alimony f o r 60 periodic alimony after personal property; and months; 60 reserving months; ordering the issue dividing t h e husband of the p a r t i e s ' t o pay t h e remainder of the m a r i t a l debts. On June 26, 2012, t h e h u s b a n d f i l e d a motion t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e t h e f i n a l j u d g m e n t ; t h a t m o t i o n was d e n i e d b y operation R. C i v . P. o f l a w on September 24, 2012. See R u l e 5 9 . 1 , A l a . The h u s b a n d f i l e d h i s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l on November 1, 2012. 3 2120116 Discussion I. Child Custody On a p p e a l , t h e h u s b a n d f i r s t a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n awarding custody of the court parties' c h i l d to the w i f e . "The s t a n d a r d by w h i c h t h i s c o u r t r e v i e w s an i n i t i a l award o f c u s t o d y f o l l o w i n g the p r e s e n t a t i o n o f ore tenus evidence i s w e l l s e t t l e d : "'Alabama l a w g i v e s n e i t h e r p a r e n t priority in an initial custody d e t e r m i n a t i o n . Ex p a r t e C o u c h , 521 So. 2d 987 (Ala. 1988) . The controlling c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n such a case i s the b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e c h i l d . I d . I n any c a s e i n w h i c h t h e c o u r t makes f i n d i n g s o f f a c t b a s e d on e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d o r e t e n u s , an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t w i l l presume t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t b a s e d on t h o s e f i n d i n g s i s c o r r e c t , and i t w i l l r e v e r s e t h a t j u d g m e n t o n l y i f i t i s f o u n d t o be p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y w r o n g . Ex p a r t e P e r k i n s , 646 So. 2d 46 ( A l a . 1994) . The p r e s u m p t i o n of correctness accorded the t r i a l court's j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d a f t e r t h e c o u r t has h e a r d evidence p r e s e n t e d ore tenus i s e s p e c i a l l y strong i n a c h i l d - c u s t o d y case. I d . ' "Ex p a r t e B y a r s , 794 So. 2d 345, 347 ( A l a . 2001). "'"This presumption [accorded to the trial court's findings of f a c t b a s e d on o r e t e n u s e v i d e n c e ] i s b a s e d on t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s unique position to directly observe the w i t n e s s e s and to assess their demeanor and 4 2120116 c r e d i b i l i t y . This opportunity to observe witnesses i s e s p e c i a l l y important i n c h i l d - c u s t o d y cases. 'In child custody cases e s p e c i a l l y , t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f an a t t e n t i v e t r i a l judge i s of g r e a t importance.' Williams v. W i l l i a m s , 402 So. 2d 1029, 1032 (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 8 1 ) . I n r e g a r d to c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n s , this C o u r t has also stated: 'It i s a l s o w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t i n the absence of s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s of fact, appellate courts will assume t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t made those findings necessary to s u p p o r t i t s judgment, u n l e s s such findings would be clearly erroneous.' Ex p a r t e Bryowsky, 676 So. 2d 1322, 1324 (Ala. 1996)." "'Ex (Ala. p a r t e Fann, 2001). 810 So. 2d 631, 632-33 "'In a d i v o r c e a c t i o n b e t w e e n two f i t p a r e n t s , where t h e r e has b e e n no prior c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n and n e i t h e r p a r e n t has v o l u n t a r i l y r e l i n q u i s h e d c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d , the "best i n t e r e s t " of the c h i l d i s c o n t r o l l i n g ; t h e p a r t i e s s t a n d on "equal footing" and no presumption inures to either parent. "'"The trial court's o v e r r i d i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s the c h i l d r e n ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t and w e l f a r e . " ' " S m i t h v. S m i t h , 727 So. 2d 113, 114 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998) ( q u o t i n g C o l l i e r v. C o l l i e r , 698 So. 2d 150, 151 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n Graham v. Graham, 640 So. 2d 963, 964 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1994)). 5 2120116 "'In considering the b e s t i n t e r e s t s and w e l f a r e o f t h e c h i l d , t h e c o u r t must c o n s i d e r the i n d i v i d u a l f a c t s of each case: "'"The sex and age of the children are indeed very i mpo r t a n t c o n s i de r a t i o ns ; h o w e v e r , t h e c o u r t must go b e y o n d these to c ons i d e r the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and needs o f e a c h c h i l d , including t h e i r emotional, social, moral, material and e d u c a t i o n a l needs; the respective home e n v i r o n m e n t s o f f e r e d by t h e p a r t i e s ; the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of those seeking custody, i n c l u d i n g age, c h a r a c t e r , s t a b i l i t y , m e n t a l and p h y s i c a l h e a l t h ; t h e capacity and i n t e r e s t of each p a r e n t t o provide for the emotional, social, moral, material and educational needs of the children; the interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p between each c h i l d a nd each pa r e n t ; t he i n t e r p e r s ona l r e l a t i ons h i p between the c h i l d r e n ; the e f f e c t on the c h i l d of d i s r u p t i n g or c o n t i n u i n g an e x i s t i n g c u s t o d i a l status; the p r e f e r e n c e of each child, if the child is of s u f f i c i e n t age and m a t u r i t y ; t h e r e p o r t and r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f any expert witnesses or other i n d e pe n d e n t i n ve s t i ga t o r ; a v a i l a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s ; and any other relevant matter the e v i d e n c e may disclose." "'Ex parte Devine, (Ala. 1981).' 398 6 So. 2d 686, 697 2120116 " F e l l v. F e l l , App. 2 0 0 3 ) . " 869 So. 2d 486, 494-95 (Ala. Civ. Long v. L o n g , 109 So. 3d 633, 645 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2012) . In t h e p r e s e n t the c a s e , t h e w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e h a d been primary caretaker of the c h i l d and t h a t t h e husband had s t e p p e d up t o p l a y an a c t i v e r o l e i n c h i l d - r e a r i n g o n l y t h e d i v o r c e a c t i o n h a d been f i l e d . The h u s b a n d , on t h e o t h e r hand, t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d a l w a y s been an a c t i v e p a r e n t . husband admitted expressed t h a t t h e w i f e i s a good m o t h e r . concerns, however, since about the wife's The The h u s b a n d lifestyle, s p e c i f i c a l l y , h e r d r i n k i n g , smoking, p a r t y i n g , and s o c i a l i z i n g with l e s b i a n women. He a d m i t t e d , however, t h a t t h e w i f e had n e v e r been c o n v i c t e d o f d r i v i n g u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f a l c o h o l o r p u b l i c i n t o x i c a t i o n , a n d he d i d n o t p r o v i d e how t h e w i f e ' s any e v i d e n c e o f conduct had a f f e c t e d the c h i l d other than by s e t t i n g a b a d example and t h e f a c t t h a t t h e c h i l d d i d n o t l i k e the w i f e smoking. The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e does n o t smoke a r o u n d t h e c h i l d a n d t h a t s h e does n o t d r i n k t o t h e p o i n t o f intoxication. F u r t h e r , t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the c h i l d had w i t n e s s e d any homosexual b e h a v i o r . t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d w i t n e s s e d one woman s i t t i n g The h u s b a n d on a n o t h e r woman's l a p a n d t h a t t h e y h a d a p p e a r e d t o have b e e n 7 kissing; 2120116 according but, t o t h e h u s b a n d , t h e c h i l d h a d b e e n home a t t h e t i m e , he s a i d , he d i d n o t know i f t h e c h i l d h a d b e e n on t h e d e c k when a n d where t h e a c t i v i t y h a d o c c u r r e d . foregoing evidence, and c o n s i d e r i n g c o n f l i c t i n g and t h a t t h e t r i a l to resolve the c o n f l i c t s that the t r i a l that B a s e d on t h e the evidence was c o u r t was i n t h e b e s t p o s i t i o n i n the evidence, we c a n n o t conclude court exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n awarding the wife primary p h y s i c a l custody of the c h i l d . II. Inherited Property The h u s b a n d n e x t a r g u e s t h a t c e r t a i n i n h e r i t e d f u n d s were impermissibly property. considered by the t r i a l court as marital S e c t i o n § 3 0 - 2 - 5 1 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s , i n pertinent part: " [ T ] h e j u d g e may n o t t a k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n any property acquired p r i o r t o the marriage of the p a r t i e s o r by i n h e r i t a n c e o r g i f t u n l e s s t h e judge f i n d s f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y , o r income p r o d u c e d by t h e p r o p e r t y , has been u s e d r e g u l a r l y f o r t h e common b e n e f i t o f t h e p a r t i e s d u r i n g t h e i r marriage." "The trial judge i s granted broad d i s c r e t i o n i n determining whether p r o p e r t y purchased before the p a r t i e s ' marriage or r e c e i v e d by g i f t o r i n h e r i t a n c e was u s e d 'regularly f o r the common b e n e f i t o f t h e p a r t i e s d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e . ' " 8 Nichols 2120116 v. N i c h o l s , 824 So. 2d 797, 802 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2001) ( q u o t i n g § 30-2-51(a)). The his husband t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d i n h e r i t e d funds from p a r e n t s a n d t h a t he h a d d e p o s i t e d t h o s e f u n d s i n t o v a r i o u s financial accounts. evidence, one Two showing exhibits where were those introduced funds were initially d e p o s i t e d a n d t h e o t h e r s h o w i n g what t h e f u n d s h a d b e e n for and i n which The notes inherited on a c c o u n t s any r e m a i n i n g f u n d s were those funds exhibits had been indicated used that to obtain Explorer s p o r t - u t i l i t y vehicle, tile into used located. some of the a mower, f o r t h e "den," a Ford a truck, a bed, a m a t t r e s s f o r t h e c h i l d ' s bed, a l o a n f o r t h e beach c o n d o m i n i u m , a l o a n t o t h e w i f e ' s s o n , a Honda a u t o m o b i l e , a n d a swimming p o o l . could have determined r e g u l a r l y used on t h o s e e x h i b i t s , that the i n h e r i t e d f o r t h e common b e n e f i t t h e i r marriage. not Based the t r i a l funds been of the p a r t i e s during Thus, we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l e r r i f i t did, i n fact, had court consider those court d i d funds marital property. III. The not Child husband a l s o argues supported Support that the child-support order i s by t h e e v i d e n c e . 9 Rule 3 2 ( E ) , A l a . R. J u d . 2120116 Admin., filed specifically i n each action o b l i g a t i o n s and does contain provides to that a CS-42 e s t a b l i s h or modify s h a l l be o f r e c o r d Form CS-41 form " "shall child-support Although record Obligation "Child-Support the Income Statement/Affidavits" f i l e d by b o t h p a r t i e s , the not form the trial trial court contain r e q u i r e d by its a CS-42 Rule 32(E). prepared Although by the r e c o r d does judgment t h a t i t s c h i l d - s u p p o r t award " i s i n with the unable Child to Support determine Guidelines from the under record how Rule reverse the trial court's as states i n 32," the child-support court compliance we trial c a l c u l a t e d 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 . we be are court Therefore, award, and we remand t h i s c a u s e f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o e n t e r a c h i l d - s u p p o r t award i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h R u l e IV. The D i v i s i o n of Property husband inequitable cripple 32(E). him argues because, he considering that says, his and the support award among o t h e r other c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n . B e c a u s e we c o u r t ' s judgment w i t h r e g a r d Award of A l i m o n y of alimony things, expenses, is i t would including his are r e v e r s i n g the t o the husband's monthly trial child- o b l i g a t i o n , t h e amount o f w h i c h i s a c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n 10 2120116 d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e husband's expenses exceed h i s income, we a l s o r e v e r s e t h e a w a r d o f a l i m o n y f o r the t r i a l court to r e c o n s i d e r i t i n l i g h t o f t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e husband's c h i l d - s u p p o r t a w a r d on remand. 978 See, e . g . , F l o r e s v. F l o r e s , So. 2d 791 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) ( n o t i n g t h a t an a w a r d o f c h i l d s u p p o r t h a s b e a r i n g on t h e amount an o b l i g o r c a n a f f o r d t o p a y as p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y ) . F u r t h e r , because the d i v i s i o n of p r o p e r t y a n d t h e a w a r d o f a l i m o n y a r e i n t e r r e l a t e d , we r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i v i s i o n o f p r o p e r t y as w e l l . A.B.A., Civ. [Ms. 2100907, M a r c h 15, 2013] See J.D.A. v. So. 3d (Ala. App. 2 0 1 3 ) . V. Motion t o Reopen t h e E v i d e n c e F i n a l l y , t h e husband argues t h a t t h e t r i a l d e c l i n i n g t o reopen the evidence. court erred i n "The c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n i n g r a n t i n g o r r e f u s i n g t o g r a n t a motion t o reopen t h e cause f o r f u r t h e r t e s t i m o n y i s n o t r e v i e w a b l e except f o r abuse." Sutton v. S u t t o n , 55 A l a . App. 254, 258, 314 So. 2d 707, 710-11 ( C i v . App. after 1975). The h u s b a n d a s s e r t s t h a t , b e c a u s e he f o u n d o u t the t r i a l allegedly that high-crime the wife area, was the t r i a l going t o move court exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n by denying h i s motion t o reopen t h e case. 11 t o an We note, 2120116 however, t h a t the w i f e t e s t i f i e d a t the t r i a l she was c o n s i d e r i n g m o v i n g t o one made a f i n a l d e c i s i o n . his m o t i o n any on the although o f t h r e e a r e a s , she had not F u r t h e r , the husband d i d not a t t a c h to evidence i n support of h i s a s s e r t i o n t h a t a r e a where t h e w i f e p l a n n e d t o move was, Based that, foregoing, we cannot in fact, conclude the undesirable. that the trial c o u r t exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n g the husband's motion to reopen the evidence. Conclusion B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , we court's judgment support obligation. determining We awarded proceedings alimony, appeal husband's property remand the consistent with this opinion. parties' requests are IN cause for further We a f f i r m t h e trial respects. f o r the award of a t t o r n e y fees on denied. AFFIRMED the childcourt's we reverse monthly trial and also c o u r t ' s judgment i n a l l o t h e r The the trial t h a t i t d i v i d e d the p a r t i e s ' judgment t o the e x t e n t and r e v e r s e t h a t p a r t of the PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman, concur. 12 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.