Aug 16, 2013 - Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama .... hand, t e s t i f i e d that he had
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
"Child-Support
the
record
Obligation
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
judgment t o the e x t e n t and
awarded
proceedings
alimony,
appeal
husband's
childcourt's
t h a t i t d i v i d e d the p a r t i e s '
property
we
remand
the
requests
the
monthly
trial
trial
and
reverse
consistent with this opinion.
parties' are
the
also
c o u r t ' s judgment i n a l l o t h e r The
r e v e r s e t h a t p a r t of the
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
IN
PART; REVERSED
IN
PART; AND
REMANDED WITH
INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . ,
and
Pittman,
concur. 12
Thomas, and
Donaldson, J J . ,
