Mar 22, 2013 - or considered" by the trial court. Specifically, the husband says, the August 4, 2009, order violated §
REL: 3/22/2013
Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013
2120007
S t u a r t C. Dubose v. A l l i s o n T. Dubose Appeal from C l a r k e C i r c u i t Court (DR-08-30) PER CURIAM. S t u a r t C. Dubose divorcing
("the husband") a p p e a l s
him from A l l i s o n
T. Dubose
from a judgment
("the w i f e " ) .
Among
o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e judgment a l s o d i v i d e d t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y and ordered
t h e husband t o pay c h i l d
support.
The
2120007 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 ;
d i v i d i n g the m a r i t a l property; determining In t h i s
a March
5,
2010,
and an A u g u s t 1 7 , 2 0 1 2 , o r d e r
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,
order
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 , 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 or c o n s i d e r e d " by the t r i a l says,
court.
"without presented
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 § 3 0 - 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
Robert E a r l
Alimony & C h i l d
M c C u r l e y , J r . , Alabama
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).
The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h e f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n r e l e v a n t to 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
alleged
issue.
On M a r c h 25, 2008, t h e w i f e
for a divorce.
As g r o u n d s f o r t h e d i v o r c e ,
incompatibility
of
temperament
that
was
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 i r r e m e d i a b l e and i r r e c o n c i l a b l e . had
She a l s o a l l e g e d t h a t
b e e n an i r r e t r i e v a b l e b r e a k d o w n o f t h e m a r r i a g e .
the pendency o f t h e a c t i o n , t h e t r i a l possession
wife
of the m a r i t a l residence, custody
against
was
also
awarded
t h e husband.
from C l a r k e themselves
County, from t h i s
was a p p o i n t e d
marital estate.
of the c h i l d r e n ,
a n d an a t t o r n e y f e e .
temporary
restraining
order
The h u s b a n d i s a f o r m e r c i r c u i t a n d a number o f c i r c u i t matter.
to preside
a l s o was a p p o i n t e d
a
During
c o u r t awarded t h e w i f e
pendente l i t e a l i m o n y and c h i l d s u p p o r t , The
A Perry
over
this
judges
judge recused
County d i s t r i c t
case.
c o u r t n o t e d i n an o r d e r
judge
A s p e c i a l master
t o i n v e n t o r y and v a l u e t h e p r o p e r t y
Discovery
there
i nthe
was p r o p o u n d e d , b u t , as t h e t r i a l
dated
J u l y 9, 2009, d i s c o v e r y
issues
" p l a g u e d t h i s c a s e f r o m t h e g e t go a n d c o n t i n u e t o t h i s
date."
I n t h e J u l y 9, 2009, o r d e r , w h i c h t h e t r i a l was e n t e r e d court
a telephone
and t h e p a r t i e s '
among o t h e r to
after
conference
attorneys,
court
between
the t r i a l
court
t h i n g s , t h a t t h e w i f e and t h e husband
the
stated trial
ordered, "stipulate
the divorce l e a v i n g a l l other r e l a t i v e matters f o r t r i a l . "
One week l a t e r , order
on J u l y 16, 2009, t h e t r i a l
stating:
3
court entered
an
2120007 "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
s t i p u l a t i o n d i d not On
August
4,
to
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 . 2009,
d i v o r c i n g the p a r t i e s . that "[t]his
the
the
trial
court
I n the order,
c a u s e , c o m i n g on t o be
entered
the t r i a l
4
order
court
stated
h e a r d upon t h 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
an
pleadings
incarcerated
2120007 and
the s t i p u l a t i o n
c a u s e was s u b m i t t e d went
on
to
of
[the wife]
f o r f i n a l judgment."
divorce
the
parties
i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f temperament. the
trial
court
and
[the husband],
this
The t r i a l c o u r t t h e n on
the
ground
The o r d e r a l s o p r o v i d e d
was r e t a i n i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n
of that
as t o a l l o t h e r
m a t t e r s a t i s s u e and t h a t i t i n t e n d e d "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 n o t decided by d e f a u l t p r i o r t o then, as t o c h i l d 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 , a n d 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 . This court 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 a n y 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
h i s assertion that
enter
a divorce
That s t a t u t e
the t r i a l
judgment o n l y
court
could
not p r o p e r l y
on t h e p a r t i e s '
stipulations.
provides:
"No j u d g m e n t c a n 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 b y e i t h e r , w i t h t h e c o n s e n t of t h e o t h e r , 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 a d u l t e r y by t h e admission o f t h e o f f e n d i n g p a r t y t o c o n j u g a l embraces a f t e r knowledge o f t h e commission of t h e crime, o r when t h e h u s b a n d knew o f o r connived a t the a d u l t e r y of the w i f e . "
5
2120007 The
p r o h i b i t i o n of
l e g i s l a t u r e ' s enactment new s t a t u t o r y g r o u n d s existing
grounds.
divorces
survived
o f " n o - f a u l t " d i v o r c e s i n 1971,
the when
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
See
" n o - f a u l t " grounds
consensual
§ 3 0 - 2 - 1 , A l a . Code 1975.
authorized 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 matrimony, 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 : II
" ( 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 the t e s t i m o n y i n the 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 can no l o n g e r l i v e t o g e t h e r [ ; o r ] II
"(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 b r e a k d o w n 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 b e s t 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 . " § 30-2-1(a)(7) In
and ( 9 ) .
Phillips
So. 2d 71, 77
v.
Phillips,
49 A l a . App.
514,
520-21,
274
( C i v . 1973), t h i s c o u r t d i s c u s s e d the e f f e c t of
" 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 , writing: " [ 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 to 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 by one o r b o t h 6
2120007 parties, or that, o f temperament i s solely because opposition to i t s
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 shown, a d i v o r c e may n o t be d e n i e d the defending spouse voices 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 d i v o r c e 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 this
does n o t s a n c t i o n
w o u l d be c o n t r a r y
forbidding Child
statutory
divorce
Custody
Phillips,
§
stipulation
complete
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
55 A l a . App. 112, 313 So. 2d 540
1975), t h e p l a i n t i f f
incompatibility. a
divorce
supra.
I n 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
sought a d i v o r c e
The c a s e was s u b m i t t e d
of facts,
55 A l a .
t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t on
i n c l u d i n g the s t i p u l a t i o n
i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f temperament
parties.'"
on t h e g r o u n d o f
t h a t "'a
e x i s t s between t h e
App. a t 113, 313 So. 2d a t 541.
7
The
2120007 judgment,
which
granted
incompatibility, testimony
on
a
s t a t e d " t h a t the
the
pleadings
a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s and This
divorce
court
reversed
and
on
c a s e was
the
their the
the
ground
submitted
stipulation
of
attorneys." trial
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 § 30-2-3] 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 217
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
and t h e
In t h a t before division
r e g a r d i n g grounds f o r the
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.
v.
had
In r e v e r s i n g the judgment, t h i s c o u r t h e l d :
8
2120007 "Such procedure would be contrary to the requirements 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 jurisdiction of a c o u r t 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 not e x i s t independent 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 affirmatively 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 c o u r t h a v i n g e x p r e s s l y 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 t e s t i m o n y 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 jurisdiction of the c o u r t . The d e c r e e must be reversed." Johns,
49 A l a . App.
Helms v. (Civ.
Helms, 50
1973) "The
a t 320,
217
A l a . App.
So.
453,
2d a t 515-16. 455,
280
So.
See
2d
159,
only
& McCurley, 7-2
at
requirement
for obtaining a
Alabama D i v o r c e , A l i m o n y
70.
In t h i s
case,
r e c o r d t h a t , when t h e t r i a l order
divorcing
regarding
161
(same). divorce
on
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 . "
§
also
the
grounds
parties,
f o r the
made
to
the
i s no
i t had
divorce.
indication
heard
9
any
Instead,
stipulations. trial
Davis
& C h i l d Custody Hornbook in
c o u r t e n t e r e d t h e A u g u s t 4,
b a s e d s o l e l y on t h e p a r t i e s ' stipulations
there
the
court
the
We in
the
2009,
evidence order
note
Wright,
was
t h a t the supra,
2120007 included
a
stipulation
of
fact
that
"'a
complete
i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f temperament e x i s t s b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s . ' " I d . , 55 A l a . App. a t 113, 313 So. 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 o f consensual parties'
divorce
found
stipulations
divorce the p a r t i e s ;
in §
30-2-3.
In t h i s
s t a t e d only that the t r i a l they
case, court
the could
i n c l u d e d no s t i p u l a t i o n o f f a c t as
t o g r o u n d s f o r a d i v o r c e and, i n f a c t , c o n t r a r y t o a l l e g a t i o n s i n the wife's were
complaint,
incompatible
breakdown o f t h e
d i d not even s t a t e t h a t the p a r t i e s
or t h a t
there
have no c h o i c e
order
parties
were
irretrievable
and
but to conclude
not
on
any
incompatible breakdown
at
320,
the j u r i s d i c t i o n 217
jurisdictional
So.
2d
at
that
irretrievable
or
t h e A u g u s t 4,
based only
evidence that
requirements."
that
the
there
been
an
Accordingly,
the
had
This
J o h n s , 49 A l a . App. court
"cannot
Helms, 50 A l a . App.
10
parties'
s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y and t h u s
of the court." 516.
on t h e
2009,
indicating
of the marriage.
j u d g m e n t o f d i v o r c e "was w i t h o u t without
an
us and t h e a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d ,
d i v o r c i n g t h e p a r t i e s was
stipulations
been
marriage.
B a s e d on t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e we
had
supply
455,
280
2120007 So.
2d
at
161.
case--in
which
stipulate evidence
to as
Therefore,
under
the
court
the to
trial
divorce
grounds
reverse
the order
The
husband
and
for
the
ordered
was
a
not
the
of the
trial
also
raises
number
are
to any
required
to
parties.
other
issues
and p o s t m i n o r i t y
support
However, as o u r
supreme
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 .
of
this
with
c o u r t d i v o r c i n g the a
of
parties
presented
divorce--we
r e g a r d i n g the award of c h i l d s u p p o r t
court explained,
circumstances
" 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 award of a l i m o n y nor a p r o p e r t y of the marriage. [(1964)]." also
J o h n s , 4 9 A l a . App.
support
in
this
this
the
trial
court
trial
court
reasons
set
i s reversed, for
further
a t 32 0, 217
point,
case
d i s s o l u t i o n of the p a r t i e s ' For
due
to
Mason v. Mason, 276 A l a . 265,
f o l l o w s t h a t , at
child
settlement
based
can
on
2d
881
2d a t 516.
It
be
the
So.
no
award
of
"consensual"
marriage.
forth and
there
dissolution
160
So.
no
above,
this
cause
proceedings
opinion.
11
the
judgment
of
the
i s remanded t o
the
consistent
with
this
2120007 REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d Thomas, Moore, a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , concur. Pittman,
J . , recuses
himself.
12
