Blount v. Blount - Alabama Appellate Watch

0 downloads 267 Views 421KB Size Report
Jul 19, 2013 - before the opinion i s printed i n Southern Reporter. ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS. SPECIAL TERM, 2013.
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 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

2111194

Nancy W. Blount v. W i l l i a m B. Blount Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t Court (DR-97-28.04 and DR-97-28.05) THOMAS, J u d g e . Nancy W. B l o u n t

("the f o r m e r w i f e " ) a n d W i l l i a m B. B l o u n t

("the f o r m e r husband") were d i v o r c e d b y t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t Court

i n 1998.

Among o t h e r

things

not pertinent to this

a p p e a l , t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d was o r d e r e d t o p a y p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y

2111194 in

the monthly

modified

amount o f $ 4 , 0 0 0 .

several

The

at a l l

t i m e s remained o b l i g a t e d t o pay a l i m o n y i n the monthly

amount

It

I n May

i s undisputed

partial January

the

former

was

husband

of $ 4 , 0 0 0 .

t i m e s ; however,

d i v o r c e judgment

2010,

t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d was

that

the

former

husband

incarcerated.

began

a l i m o n y payment o f $ 2 , 0 0 0 p e r month i n June 2010. 26,

2011,

the

former

wife

filed

a petition

c i r c u i t c o u r t s e e k i n g an o r d e r o f c o n t e m p t b e c a u s e husband had " f a i l e d the

paying

former

or r e f u s e d " t o pay a l i m o n y .

h u s b a n d was

i n arrears

($2,000 p e r month f o r 8 m o n t h s ) . husband f i l e d

a On

i n the

the

former

At that

time

i n t h e amount o f $ 1 6 , 0 0 0

On June 27, 2011, t h e f o r m e r

an answer t o t h e f o r m e r w i f e ' s p e t i t i o n

and

a

c o u n t e r p e t i t i o n f o r a m o d i f i c a t i o n , s e e k i n g the t e r m i n a t i o n of his

alimony o b l i g a t i o n because,

pay

alimony

i n any

amount.

A

he a l l e g e d , he was c o n t e m p t h e a r i n g was

November 28, 2011; t h e j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d on A p r i l The

circuit

unable to

c o u r t found the

held 25,

on

2012.

former husband i n contempt

for

his failure

t o p a y $4,000 p e r month i n a l i m o n y ; h o w e v e r ,

it

suspended

the

former

husband's

alimony

obligation

r e t r o a c t i v e t o J u l y 2011, w h i c h was t h e month a f t e r t h e f o r m e r husband f i l e d

his counterpetition

2

for a modification

of h i s

2111194 alimony o b l i g a t i o n .

However, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e j u d g m e n t ,

1

the

amount o f $4,000 p e r month i n a l i m o n y w o u l d c o n t i n u e t o a c c r u e and t h e f u l l was

amount w o u l d become due when t h e f o r m e r

released

from

prison

and

employed.

The

husband

circuit

court

f o u n d t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d h a d p a i d t h e f o r m e r w i f e $10,000 from

2011

($2,000

months) and t h a t t h e p a r t i e s

had

stipulated

husband

an a r r e a r a g e o f $ 3 6 , 0 0 0 ,

was

July

was

2011

to

November

o b l i g a t e d t o pay

per

month

for 5

that the

former

"$2,000 p e r month f o r e a c h month f r o m June

November 2011"

($2,000 p e r month f o r 18 m o n t h s ) .

court

calculated

total

award On

alter,

May

interest

of $38,920.12. 3,

2012,

the

2010

through

The

circuit

i n t h e amount o f $2,920.12

for a

2

former

husband

amend, o r v a c a t e t h e c i r c u i t

other t h i n g s not p e r t i n e n t t o t h i s a l l e g e d t h a t he had

which

filed

a motion

to

c o u r t ' s judgment.

Among

appeal, the former

husband

c o n t i n u e d t o pay

the former w i f e

$2,000

If a trial c o u r t m o d i f i e s o r t e r m i n a t e s an a l i m o n y o b l i g a t i o n , i t has t h e d i s c r e t i o n t o m o d i f y o r t o t e r m i n a t e t h a t o b l i g a t i o n r e t r o a c t i v e t o a date not e a r l i e r than the date the p a r t y f i l e d a p e t i t i o n to modify. See H i n d s v. H i n d s , 887 So. 2d 267, 273 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) . 1

The c i r c u i t c o u r t c a l c u l a t e d the i n t e r e s t " a t a r a t e of 1 2 % p e r annum t h r o u g h A u g u s t 2011 and a t a r a t e o f 7.5% p e r annum b e g i n n i n g S e p t e m b e r 1, 2011." 2

3

2111194 per

month

i n alimony

contempt

hearing

due

and

to

the

the

entry

lapse of time of

suspended h i s alimony o b l i g a t i o n . partial 2011

the

between

judgment

the

that

had

The f o r m e r h u s b a n d h a d made

a l i m o n y payments i n t h e amount o f $22,000 f r o m

t h r o u g h May

pursuant

to

2012

the

($2,000 p e r month f o r 11 months)

judgment

suspended.

The

requesting

that

$38,920.12

award,

$16,920.12

($38,920.12 -

On May

former

husband

the c i r c u i t thus

4, 2012,

entered

in

sought

April

an

July that,

2012,

amended

were

judgment,

c o u r t s u b t r a c t $22,000 f r o m

r e d u c i n g the

former

w i f e ' s award

the to

$22,000).

the former w i f e f i l e d a motion to a l t e r ,

amend, o r v a c a t e t h e c i r c u i t

c o u r t ' s judgment.

She

requested

t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t vacate i t s order suspending the husband's a l i m o n y o b l i g a t i o n .

Furthermore,

former

a c c o r d i n g to the

former w i f e , i f the c i r c u i t c o u r t v a c a t e d i t s o r d e r , then the f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s a r r e a r a g e and t h e i n t e r e s t on t h a t a r r e a r a g e w o u l d i n c r e a s e and t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d w o u l d owe $52,997.04. motions,

After

a

h e a r i n g on

an amended j u d g m e n t was

the

parties'

t h e amount o f postjudgment

e n t e r e d on A u g u s t

1,

2012.

The c i r c u i t c o u r t , among o t h e r t h i n g s , s u b t r a c t e d $22,000 f r o m

4

2111194 its

judgment

awarding

the

former

wife

$38,920.12,

thus

r e d u c i n g t h e f o r m e r w i f e ' s a w a r d t o $16,920.12. The

former w i f e f i l e d

a t i m e l y n o t i c e of appeal s e e k i n g

t h i s c o u r t ' s r e v i e w o f two

i s s u e s : whether,

by

applying

the

f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s p a r t i a l payments o f $2,000 t o t h e $38,920.12 a r r e a r a g e r a t h e r t h a n t h e f u l l amount due,

the former husband

received

the

a "double

credit"

3

and

whether

circuit

e r r e d by s u s p e n d i n g t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s a l i m o n y The paid

following

alimony

2010,

facts

i n the

are undisputed.

amount o f

and he p a i d p a r t i a l

The

court

obligation.

former

husband

$4,000 p e r month t h r o u g h

May

a l i m o n y p a y m e n t s i n t h e amount o f

$2,000 p e r month f r o m J u n e 2010

t h r o u g h May

2012.

However,

the c i r c u i t c o u r t suspended the former husband's o b l i g a t i o n t o p a y any amount o f a l i m o n y as o f J u l y 2011.

Due

to the

five-

month l a p s e o f t i m e b e t w e e n t h e c o n t e m p t h e a r i n g and t h e e n t r y of

the

judgment,

the

former

husband

made

$2,000

partial

The former w i f e d i d not r a i s e the "double-credit" argument i n h e r p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , n o r d i d she c i t e r e l e v a n t a u t h o r i t y i n h e r b r i e f on a p p e a l . However, as t h e f o r m e r w i f e c l a i m s i n h e r b r i e f , h e r f i r s t i s s u e i s " e s s e n t i a l l y a math p r o b l e m " ; we a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t r e l e v a n t a u t h o r i t y may not exist. 3

5

2111194 a l i m o n y payments f r o m J u n e 2010 t h r o u g h May 2012 i n t h e amount o f $48,000

total

($2,000 p e r month f o r 24 m o n t h s ) .

I n i t s amended j u d g m e n t , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t began w i t h t h e parties'

stipulated

interest

due

subtracted

arrearage

($36,000

$22,000

--

+ the

figure

o f $36,000,

$2,920.12

=

amount

the

of

$38,920.12), partial

payments

t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d h a d made f r o m J u l y

May 2012

($2,000 p e r month f o r 11 m o n t h s ) .

the

former husband

$16,920.12 that,

owed

the

The

alimony

November 2011

payments

against

he

paid

t h e $38,920.12

through

arrearage

between

c r e d i t f o r the July

arrearage,

s o , she c o n t e n d s , b e c a u s e t h e c i r c u i t

credited

court

the former husband f o r the p a r t i a l

2011

the

had

alimony

arrearage.

The c i r c u i t

We

and

circuit This

already payments

he p a i d b e t w e e n J u l y 2011 and November 2011 i n d e t e r m i n i n g $38,920.12

of

former w i f e contends

c o u r t awarded a " d o u b l e c r e d i t " t o the f o r m e r husband. is

and

alimony

2011

an

by a w a r d i n g t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d a $10,000

partial

the

I t determined that

former wife

($38,920.12 - $ 2 2 , 0 0 0 ) .

added

the

disagree.

court's calculation

of the arrearage

t h e f o r m e r w i f e began w i t h a d e t e r m i n a t i o n

of the t o t a l

due t o h e r f r o m J u n e 2010 t h o u g h November 2011.

6

owed t o amount

T h a t amount

2111194 was

$72,000

($4,000 p e r

month

f o r 18

months).

The

former

h u s b a n d h a d p a i d $36,000 d u r i n g t h o s e months ($2,000 p e r month for

18 m o n t h s ) .

Thus, t h e amount o f u n p a i d a l i m o n y owed b y

t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d i n November 2011 was May

However, b y

2012, t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d h a d p a i d an a d d i t i o n a l $22,000 i n

a l i m o n y t h a t he was 11

$36,000.

months)

judgment alimony

not r e q u i r e d t o pay

because

had

the

circuit

retroactively

obligation

as

of

court's

suspended July

($2,000 p e r month f o r April

the

2011.

25,

former

The

husband's

circuit

p r o p e r l y s u b t r a c t e d $22,000 f r o m t h e f o r m e r w i f e ' s award.

2012,

court

$38,920.12

T h e r e f o r e , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d d i d n o t

receive a "double

credit."

Next, the former w i f e argues t h a t the c i r c u i t court

erred

by s u s p e n d i n g t h e former husband's o b l i g a t i o n t o pay a l i m o n y . The

former

conflicting t o pay

wife

concedes

that

evidence regarding

alimony while

he

the the

circuit

court

former husband's

i s i n p r i s o n , b u t she

resolved ability

contends

that

t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g o f c o n t e m p t and i t s s u s p e n s i o n o f the

former

husband's

"inconsistent."

We

do

obligation not

judgment r e a d s , i n p e r t i n e n t

agree. part:

7

to The

pay

alimony

circuit

is

court's

2111194 " T h i s c o u r t i s f a c e d w i t h a f o r m e r H u s b a n d who i s u n a b l e t o p a y h i s m o n t h l y a l i m o n y payment due t o h i s b e i n g i n c a r c e r a t e d and h a v i n g no income and a f o r m e r W i f e who i s w o r k i n g and e a r n i n g an income, b u t who i s e n t i t l e d t o m o n t h l y a l i m o n y p u r s u a n t t o the F i n a l Decree of D i v o r c e d e n t e r e d i n t h i s matter. "

"The former Husband i s a g r a d u a t e of the U n i v e r s i t y Of A l a b a m a S c h o o l Of Law and was a l i c e n s e d a t t o r n e y i n the S t a t e of Alabama p r i o r t o h i s i n c a r c e r a t i o n . The former Husband certainly s h o u l d have b e e n aware o f t h e f a c t t h a t o n l y a c o u r t o f c o m p e t e n t j u r i s d i c t i o n , s u c h as t h i s one, may m o d i f y an a w a r d o f a l i m o n y . The former Husband f a i l e d to b r i n g t h i s matter to t h i s Court p r i o r to d e c i d i n g t o p a y o n l y o n e - h a l f (^) o f h i s C o u r t O r d e r e d a l i m o n y t o t h e f o r m e r W i f e . ... B a s e d upon t h e above f a c t s t h e f o r m e r W i f e i s a l s o a w a r d e d A t t o r n e y ' s Fees i n t h e amount o f T h r e e T h o u s a n d Two Hundred D o l l a r s ($3,200.00).

"The f o r m e r Husband's m o n t h l y a l i m o n y payments s h a l l be s u s p e n d e d [ ; ] h o w e v e r , t h e y s h a l l c o n t i n u e t o a c c r u e a t a r a t e o f $4,000.00 p e r month and t h e f o r m e r Husband s h a l l be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e payment o f same i n amount t o be d e t e r m i n e d once t h e f o r m e r Husband i s r e l e a s e d f r o m p r i s o n and has found f u l l - t i m e employment." The

circuit

court held

the

former husband i n

contempt,

a w a r d e d t h e f o r m e r w i f e a t t o r n e y f e e s , and r e q u i r e d t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d t o r e m a i n o b l i g a t e d f o r t h e e n t i r e amount o f a l i m o n y due

to the

former

wife

former w i f e a f t e r argues

that

his release

the 8

circuit

from p r i s o n .

court

exceeded

The its

2111194 discretion failing

by

t o pay

finding

the

former

husband

a l l the ordered alimony

in

contempt

t h a t was

due

for

before

J u l y 2011 b u t by s u s p e n d i n g t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s o b l i g a t i o n t o p a y a l i m o n y f r o m J u l y 2011 When e v i d e n c e

until

he i s r e l e a s e d f r o m

i s presented to a t r i a l

prison.

c o u r t i n an

ore

tenus p r o c e e d i n g , the t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g r e g a r d i n g contempt is

presumed c o r r e c t .

V a r n e r v. V a r n e r ,

(Ala.

C i v . App.

1994)

(Ala.

C i v . App.

1994)).

or So.

(citing

1989)).

(citing

So.

2d 273,

P i e r c e v. H e l k a , 634 So. 2d

277 1031

C i v i l contempt i s i n t e n d e d t o c o e r c e

compel c o m p l i a n c e w i t h 2d a t 277

662

orders of the c o u r t .

S t a t e v. Thomas, 550

Varner,

So. 2d 1067

(Ala.

Furthermore, " ' [ t ] h e o b l i g a t i o n t o pay periodic a l i m o n y may be m o d i f i e d when t h e r e has b e e n a m a t e r i a l change i n t h e f i n a n c i a l or e c o n o m i c needs o f t h e p a y e e s p o u s e and t h e a b i l i t y of the payor spouse t o respond t o t h o s e n e e d s . M c K e n z i e v. M c K e n z i e , 568 So. 2d 819 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1990) . The b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a m a t e r i a l change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s i s upon t h e m o v i n g p a r t y . McKenzie. A d e c i s i o n to modify p e r i o d i c alimony l i e s w i t h i n the d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t and w i l l n o t be s e t a s i d e on a p p e a l u n l e s s a p a l p a b l e abuse o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n i s shown.'

"Maddox v. Maddox, 612 So. 2d 1222, 1223 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1992) . See a l s o T a y l o r v. T a y l o r , 640 So. 2d

9

662

2111194 971 So.

( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 4 ) , and O y l e r v. O y l e r , 2d 650 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 4 ) . "

H i n d s v. H i n d s , 887 So. 2d 267, 272 this

( A l a . C i v . App.

446

2003) .

In

c a s e , t h e f i n d i n g o f c o n t e m p t and t h e s u s p e n s i o n o f t h e

former

husband's

alimony

obligation

are

d i s c r e t i o n of the c i r c u i t

c o u r t , and we

discretion.

the

Furthermore

former husband u n i l a t e r a l l y before

he

sought

Thus, t h e c i r c u i t

t o have

judgment

well

within

the

f i n d no abuse o f t h a t i s consistent.

The

r e d u c e d h i s a l i m o n y payment w e l l h i s alimony

obligation

modified.

c o u r t c o u l d have c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e

former

h u s b a n d ' s f a i l u r e t o pay h i s e n t i r e a l i m o n y o b l i g a t i o n b e f o r e July

2011

was

terminate,

or

contemptuous but suspend

his

that

h i s request to

alimony

obligation

modify,

was

well

supported. In a r e l a t e d a r g u m e n t , t h e f o r m e r w i f e c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t i m p r o p e r l y r e s t r i c t e d her a b i l i t y to c o l l e c t the a r r e a r a g e due by r e t r o a c t i v e l y s u s p e n d i n g t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s alimony o b l i g a t i o n .

The

former w i f e i s c o r r e c t t h a t

a l i m o n y payments a r e f i n a l j u d g m e n t s any

o t h e r judgment.

So.

2d

320,

323

be c o l l e c t e d

See M o t l e y v. M o t l e y , 505

1228-29 ( A l a . C i v . App. 686

and may

10

App.

as

So.

2d

v.

Anderson,

1 9 8 6 ) ; see a l s o A n d e r s o n (Ala. Civ.

accrued

1996)(an

1228,

"[a]limony

2111194 arrearage

i s a final

j u d g m e n t as o f t h e d a t e due a n d i s n o t

subject to modification," c i t i n g

H a r r i s v . H a r r i s , 553 So. 2d

129, 130 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 9 ) ) .

However, t h i s c o u r t h a s h e l d

t h a t o n l y t h o s e a l i m o n y payments t h a t have m a t u r e d b e f o r e t h e filing v.

o f a p e t i t i o n t o m o d i f y a r e immune f r o m c h a n g e .

Taylor,

640

1994)(explaining

So. that

2d

971,

"payments

975

Taylor

(Ala. Civ.

of alimony

...

App.

constitute

f i n a l j u d g m e n t s f r o m t h e d a t e t h a t t h e y become due, a n d t h o s e payments

that

mature

before

the f i l i n g

immune f r o m c h a n g e " ) .

That i s , a t r i a l

modify,

or

terminate,

suspend

of a p e t i t i o n

are

c o u r t h a s t h e power t o

an

alimony

obligation

r e t r o a c t i v e t o t h e d a t e t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n was

filed.

See H i n d s , 887 So. 2d a t 273 ( d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t a t r i a l

court,

considering alimony

petition

obligation,

terminate than

a

t o modify

has

that obligation

the date

or terminate

"the d i s c r e t i o n retroactive

t h e [spouse]

filed

a

spouse's

t o modify

t o a date

or to

not e a r l i e r

h i s [or her] p e t i t i o n

to

modify"). The court's

former

wife

authority

relies

on c a s e l a w

to prevent

relating

or r e s t r i c t

j u d g m e n t f o r an a r r e a r a g e when t h e t r i a l

11

to a

trial

enforcement

of a

c o u r t h a s o r d e r e d an

2111194 arrearage

to

be

Indeed, a t r i a l a

spouse

to

paid

installments.

c o u r t may

enforce

a

However, t h e c i r c u i t former w i f e

in

not r e s t r i c t

judgment

c o u r t has

judgment i t awarded h e r . power

to

suspend

retroactive Although

to the

the

former

date

he

alimony.

husband's

of Id.

attempted to r e s t r i c t

$16,920.12

filed

supra.

or i m p a i r the r i g h t

the

alimony-arrearage

I n s t e a d , the c i r c u i t

the

circuit

Motley,

f o r past-due

not

from e n f o r c i n g the

See

court used i t s

alimony

payments

his modification petition.

c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n to suspend the

former

h u s b a n d ' s a l i m o n y payments d u r i n g h i s i n c a r c e r a t i o n i m p a c t t h e alimony

a c t u a l l y due

to the

former w i f e , the

circuit

court's

e x e r c i s e o f i t s power does n o t i m p a c t t h e f o r m e r w i f e ' s to

enforce

Therefore,

the we

alimony-arrearage reject

the

former

judgment wife's

in

her

argument

judgment.

favor.

that

c i r c u i t c o u r t i m p e r m i s s i b l y i n f r i n g e d on h e r r i g h t t o the alimony-arrearage

right

the

enforce

4

T h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d has n o t f i l e d an a p p e a l , and we have r e s o l v e d t h i s appeal u s i n g the s t i p u l a t e d - a r r e a r a g e f i g u r e the p a r t i e s p r e s e n t e d t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t . An a g r e e m e n t r e a c h e d i n s e t t l e m e n t o f l i t i g a t i o n i s as b i n d i n g on t h e p a r t i e s as any o t h e r c o n t r a c t . M i l l e r v. M i l l e r , 10 So. 3d 570, 571 n.1 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . However, we have n o t o v e r l o o k e d t h e f a c t t h a t t h e s t i p u l a t e d - a r r e a r a g e f i g u r e o f $36,000, and t h e i n t e r e s t c a l c u l a t e d thereon, i s incorrect. The p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t o an a r r e a r a g e o f $36,000 ($2,000 p e r month f o r 18 4

12

2111194 AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n , Moore,

and Donaldson, J J . ,

concur.

months). The c i r c u i t c o u r t s u s p e n d e d t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s a l i m o n y o b l i g a t i o n f o r 5 o f t h e 18 months i n c l u d e d i n t h e p e r i o d upon w h i c h t h e s t i p u l a t i o n was c a l c u l a t e d . Thus, t h e a c t u a l a r r e a r a g e p e r i o d was 13 months. The a r r e a r a g e f o r t h e p e r i o d o f June 2010 t h r o u g h June 2011 was $26,000 ($2,000 p e r month f o r 13 m o n t h s ) . To have p r o p e r l y c a l c u l a t e d t h e a r r e a r a g e due, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t s h o u l d have r e c a l c u l a t e d t h e i n t e r e s t due on $26,000 and s u b t r a c t e d t h e p a r t i a l a l i m o n y payments o f $22,000 ($2,000 p e r month f o r 11 m o n t h s ) . 13