Jul 19, 2013 - 3d 695 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011) (denying the father's petition for a writ of mandamus ... judgment") in whic
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 formal 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 , Alabama 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
2111244
Mark D. Davis v. Tonya D. B l a c k s t o c k Appeal from Lauderdale C i r c u i t (DR-06-86.01)
Court
On R e t u r n t o Remand PER CURIAM. On A p r i l Lauderdale
15, 2 0 1 3 , t h i s c o u r t remanded t h i s c a u s e t o t h e
C i r c u i t Court
child-support
("the t r i a l
court")
o b l i g a t i o n o f Mark D. D a v i s
t o determine t h e
("the f a t h e r " ) i n
2111244 compliance w i t h court
i n s t r u c t i o n s i n a previous
reversing,
Blackstock, C i v . App.
[Ms.
in part,
a
2006
judgment.
2111244, A p r i l 5, 2013]
2013)
("Davis I I I " ) .
opinion See So.
So.
3d 796
( A l a . C i v . App.
this
Davis
3d
v.
(Ala.
For a complete h i s t o r y of
d i s p u t e s b e t w e e n t h e s e p a r t i e s , see a l s o D a v i s v. 47
of
2007)
("Davis I")
the
Blackstock, (reversing a
judgment m o d i f y i n g a j o i n t - c u s t o d y a r r a n g e m e n t t o a w a r d t o t h e mother p r i m a r y
p h y s i c a l custody
parte Blackstock, I
and
47
So.
3d 801
of
the
parties'
( A l a . 2009)
child);
(reversing
remanding f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the o t h e r
816
(Ala. Civ.
App.
c h i l d - s u p p o r t a w a r d and award);
and
Ex
2011)
(denying
based
on
his
parte the
On A p r i l
19,
("Davis
II")
82
So.
father's petition that
the
3d
695
So.
(reversing
the
(Ala. Civ.
App.
f o r a w r i t o f mandamus
courts
lacked
jurisdiction
below). 2013,
the t r i a l
court entered
remand i n w h i c h i t c o r r e c t e d t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n i n the the
47
remanding f o r a r e c a l c u l a t i o n of t h a t
Davis,
arguments
over the a c t i o n
2010)
Davis
issues raised
i n t h e f a t h e r ' s o r i g i n a l a p p e a l ) ; D a v i s v. B l a c k s t o c k , 3d
Ex
on
of the f a t h e r ' s
2006 j u d g m e n t and
father's child-support arrearage
2
a judgment
calculated
t h r o u g h t h e end
of June
2111244 2012. was
The S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s
p r o v i d i n g c h i l d - s u p p o r t - e n f o r c e m e n t s e r v i c e s on b e h a l f o f
T o n y a D. B l a c k s t o c k the
("the
mother") and w h i c h had i n t e r v e n e d i n
a c t i o n below, see Davis
postjudgment motion arguing its
("DHR"), w h i c h
III,
So. 3d a t
that the t r i a l
26, 2 0 1 3 , t h e t r i a l
(hereinafter
court
arrearage.
On
entered
an amended j u d g m e n t
r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e A p r i l
26, 2 0 1 3 , c o r r e c t e d
judgment") i n w h i c h i t s l i g h t l y the f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t
modified
i t s calculation of
a r r e a r a g e and i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n
t o t h e a c c r u a l o f i n t e r e s t on t h a t a r r e a r a g e . filed
a
court had e r r e d i n
calculations of the father's child-support
April
, filed
a timely
postjudgment
motion,
as
The f a t h e r a l s o
which
the t r i a l
court
denied. On r e t u r n t o remand, t h i s c o u r t e n t e r e d
an o r d e r
allowing
t h e p a r t i e s t o s u b m i t amended b r i e f s t o t h i s c o u r t i f t h e y s o desired, In
a n d t h e f a t h e r a n d DHR e a c h d i d s o . h i s amended b r i e f
a p p e a r i n g p r o se, c o n t i n u e s he
made
i n his brief
submission court
lacks
i n Davis
on r e t u r n
t o remand,
the father,
t o r e a s s e r t many o f t h e a r g u m e n t s
submitted
to this
court
on
I I I , i n c l u d i n g h i s arguments
subject-matter
jurisdiction
3
over
original that
this
this
matter.
2111244 This
court
opinions
has
already
addressed
i n D a v i s I I I a n d Ex p a r t e
those Davis.
arguments
in
i t s
1
The f a t h e r a s s e r t s one argument p u r p o r t e d l y c o n c e r n i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n t h a t he h a d n o t a s s e r t e d on o r i g i n a l s u b m i s s i o n . A s s u m i n g , o u t o f an abundance o f c a u t i o n b u t w i t h o u t so d e c i d i n g , t h a t t h e f a t h e r may r a i s e t h e i s s u e , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s argument l a c k s m e r i t . The f a t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e 2006 c u s t o d y d i s p u t e was r e n d e r e d "moot" b e c a u s e , i n t h e f a l l o f 2007, he moved f r o m D e c a t u r t o F l o r e n c e t o be c l o s e r t o t h e c h i l d ; he a l s o a s s e r t s t h a t o u r supreme c o u r t ' s 2009 decision i n Ex parte Blackstock was based on " s p e c u l a t i o n " t h a t he w o u l d n o t r e l o c a t e . The f a t h e r e x p l a i n s t h o s e a r g u m e n t s b y a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e supreme c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n Ex p a r t e B l a c k s t o c k a f f i r m i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s c u s t o d y m o d i f i c a t i o n was b a s e d on t h e m o t h e r ' s s p e c u l a t i o n t h a t t h e f a t h e r w o u l d n o t move t o F l o r e n c e t o be c l o s e r t o t h e c h i l d so t h a t the p r e v i o u s l y o r d e r e d j o i n t p h y s i c a l and l e g a l custody w o u l d be s u s t a i n a b l e . The f a t h e r s t a t e s t h a t he d i d , i n f a c t , move t o F l o r e n c e i n t h e f a l l o f 2007. The f a t h e r a p p e a r s t o a r g u e t h a t h i s r e l o c a t i o n t o be c l o s e r t o t h e c h i l d meant t h a t t h e p r e v i o u s j o i n t - c u s t o d y a r r a n g e m e n t was t h e n w o r k a b l e a n d , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e r e was no b a s i s f o r t h e 2006 c u s t o d y m o d i f i c a t i o n judgment. Our supreme c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n i n Ex parte Blackstock determined that the t r i a l court properly m o d i f i e d c u s t o d y t o award t h e mother p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y f o r a number o f r e a s o n s . As o n l y one o f t h o s e r e a s o n s , t h e supreme c o u r t n o t e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d r e p e a t e d l y p r o m i s e d t o r e l o c a t e t o be c l o s e r t o t h e c h i l d b u t h a d c o n s i s t e n t l y f a i l e d t o do s o . The c o u r t s t a t e d : 1
" A l s o , i n r e g a r d t o t h e f a t h e r ' s moving t o Florence, there was t e s t i m o n y that the father c o m m i t t e d t o move i n 2004 a n d a g a i n i n 2005 a n d t h a t he committed t o b e g i n moving h i s b u s i n e s s t o F l o r e n c e as w e l l ; t h e t e s t i m o n y w o u l d s u p p o r t t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e f a t h e r c o u l d e a s i l y have moved his photography business t o Florence. The f a t h e r ' s most r e c e n t commitment was t h a t he w o u l d move t o F l o r e n c e i n t h e summer o f 2006. I t i s undisputed, 4
2111244 I n h i s amended b r i e f on r e t u r n t o remand, t h e f a t h e r asserts
several
determination obligation corrected
arguments on
remand
u n d e r t h e 2006
pertaining of
his
judgment.
judgment, t h e t r i a l
court
to the t r i a l
corrected
also
court's
child-support
In i t s A p r i l
26, 2013,
stated:
"The f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n due u n d e r t h e S e p t e m b e r 1, 2006, judgment i s d e t e r m i n e d t o be $506 p e r month. T h i s c a l c u l a t i o n i s b a s e d on t h e
h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e f a t h e r d i d n o t f o l l o w t h r o u g h on h i s commitments t o r e l o c a t e t o F l o r e n c e . Instead, he t h r e a t e n e d t h e m o t h e r t h a t he w o u l d a t t e m p t t o o b t a i n p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l custody i n s t e a d of moving, even b e f o r e the mother f i l e d h e r p e t i t i o n i n the Lauderdale C i r c u i t Court seeking primary p h y s i c a l custody. B a s e d on t h e t e n o r of the testimony c o n c e r n i n g t h e f a t h e r ' s commitments t o move, o t h e r t e s t i m o n y , and t h e f a c t t h a t t h e f a t h e r f i l e d a c o u n t e r p e t i t i o n seeking sole custody of the c h i l d s h o r t l y before the f i n a l hearing i n the present c a s e , t h e c i r c u i t 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 f a t h e r h a d no i n t e n t i o n o f m o v i n g o r t h a t he h a d f a i l e d t o a c t i n good f a i t h r e g a r d i n g m o v i n g a n d that, i n that regard, he h a d p l a c e d h i s own s e l f - i n t e r e s t above t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t . " Ex p a r t e
Blackstock,
47 So. 3d a t 812-13.
I n r e a d i n g Ex p a r t e B l a c k s t o c k i n i t s e n t i r e t y , i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h repeated p r o m i s e s t o r e l o c a t e was o n l y a p a r t o f t h e b a s i s o f t h e supreme c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y modified custody of the c h i l d . Further, the father's r e l o c a t i o n t o F l o r e n c e a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e 2006 j u d g m e n t c a n n o t be s a i d t o have r e n d e r e d moot t h e 2006 c u s t o d y d i s p u t e r e s o l v e d i n t h a t judgment. 5
2111244 e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d p r i o r t o t h e September 1, 2006, order. The m o t h e r ' s g r o s s m o n t h l y income was $2,048 and t h e f a t h e r ' s g r o s s m o n t h l y income was $1,900. T h e r e was no e v i d e n c e o f p r e e x i s t i n g c h i l d - s u p p o r t or p e r i o d i c - a l i m o n y payments; t h e r e f o r e the monthly a d j u s t e d g r o s s income was $3,948. The father's p e r c e n t a g e s h a r e o f income was, t h e r e f o r e , 48.13%. The b a s i c c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n b a s e d on t h e t h e n - e x i s t i n g g u i d e l i n e s was $540. Work-related c h i l d - c a r e c o s t s were $364 p e r month and h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e c o s t s were $147.12 p e r month f o r a t o t a l c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n o f $1,051.12 p e r month. The f a t h e r ' s 48.13% o f t h a t o b l i g a t i o n i s $506." We n o t e t h a t , i n a s s e r t i n g h i s a r g u m e n t s on r e t u r n t o remand, the
father
does n o t c o n t e n d t h a t
comply w i t h in
Davis
t h i s court's
11.
"mandate"
Rather,
in
o b l i g a t i o n was
Davis
a recent
contribute insurance
the father
contends that
I I I pertaining
change
to
to
his
this
court's
child-support
the f a t h e r contends t h a t , because
i n t h e l a w , any
t o t h e payment
order
a d o p t e d i n December
2012.
r e q u i r i n g him t o
of m e d i c a l expenses or f o r h e a l t h
f o r the c h i l d i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l .
or r u l e
failed
inequitable.
A r t i c l e I , § 36.04, A l a . C o n s t . 1901
law
court
remand i n s t r u c t i o n s i n D a v i s I I I o r
I n h i s amended b r i e f , of
the t r i a l
Article
from r e q u i r i n g
cites
( o f f . Recomp.), w h i c h was I , § 36.04, p r o h i b i t s any
a person
6
The f a t h e r
t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n any
2111244 health-care adopted
and
system.
ratified
countermeasure to the Act
o f 2010,
That
2
Pub.
by
constitutional provision the
L. No.
111-148, 124
the p r o v i s i o n of h e a l t h
A l a . R.
Jud.
insurance
p a r t i c i p a t e i n a health-care
The t e x t of A r t . Recomp.), p r o v i d e s :
I,
§
as
Affordable
S t a t . 119
Care
payment
child-support
Admin., t o c o n t r i b u t e
f o r the
c h i l d or t o
36.04,
Ala.
in
contravention
Const.
1901
him of
(off.
"(a) I n o r d e r t o p r e s e r v e t h e f r e e d o m o f a l l r e s i d e n t s o f A l a b a m a t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e i r own h e a l t h c a r e , a law o r r u l e s h a l l n o t c o m p e l , d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y , any p e r s o n , e m p l o y e r , o r h e a l t h care p r o v i d e r t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n any h e a l t h c a r e s y s t e m . "(b) A p e r s o n o r e m p l o y e r may pay d i r e c t l y f o r h e a l t h c a r e s e r v i c e s and s h a l l n o t be r e q u i r e d t o pay p e n a l t i e s or f i n e s f o r p a y i n g d i r e c t l y for l a w f u l h e a l t h care s e r v i c e s . A h e a l t h care p r o v i d e r may a c c e p t d i r e c t payment f o r l a w f u l h e a l t h care s e r v i c e s and s h a l l n o t be r e q u i r e d t o pay p e n a l t i e s o r f i n e s f o r a c c e p t i n g d i r e c t payment f r o m a p e r s o n or employer f o r l a w f u l h e a l t h care s e r v i c e s . " ( c ) The p u r c h a s e o r s a l e o f h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e i n p r i v a t e h e a l t h c a r e s y s t e m s s h a l l n o t be p r o h i b i t e d by l a w o r r u l e . " 7
to
defray
to the s t a t e ' s f o r c i n g system
a
(2010).
f a t h e r s t a t e s t h a t any
her m e d i c a l expenses i s e q u i v a l e n t
2
Alabama
o b l i g a t i o n imposed under the
g u i d e l i n e s o f R u l e 32,
to
in
P a t i e n t P r o t e c t i o n and
I n h i s amended b r i e f , t h e he makes u n d e r an
voters
was
2111244 A r t i c l e I , § 36.04.
In support of t h a t c o n t e n t i o n ,
the
father
c i t e s only
i n a p p l i c a b l e a u t h o r i t y f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t
p a r e n t has
a fundamental r i g h t to d i r e c t h i s or her
upbringing
and
a
case
generally
discussing
child's
the
Equal
P r o t e c t i o n C l a u s e of the U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n .
See
o f C l e b u r n e , T e x a s v. C l e b u r n e L i v i n g C t r . , 473
432,
( 1 9 8 5 ) ; and
Ex p a r t e
f a t h e r makes no to
the
facts
Article
I,
of §
of
determination obligations
So.
attempt to apply this
case
36.04,
interpretation. purpose
E.R.G., 73
father I,
§
to
the
also
cost
of
not
the
function
the
to
was
of a c h i l d ' s p a r e n t s '
of those
rules
fails
439
to
cases of
statutory
assert remove
health
The
language of
respective
providing
City
(Ala. 2011).
a r g u e how
36.04,
the
634
the h o l d i n g s
to
relates
The
Article
or
3d
U.S.
a
that
the
from
the
child-support
insurance
for
the
courts
to
child. It
is
develop,
research,
Jimmy Day
Plumbing & Heating,
(Ala. 2003).
and
2 0 0 7 ) ; B u t l e r v. The
father's
of
support
the an
I n c . v.
Town o f A r g o ,
appellate appellant's Smith, 871
So.
964 2d
arguments. So. 1,
2d 20
1,
(Ala.
a r g u m e n t i n h i s amended b r i e f t h a t
requirement t h a t a p a r e n t c o n t r i b u t e to the
8
9
the
health-insurance
2111244 and
medical costs
of h i s or her
insufficient
to
Spradlin
Spradlin,
v.
Accordingly, The
we
warrant
will
review 601
not
child is unconstitutional is
So.
by 2d
an 76,
appellate
court.
79
(Ala.
1992) .
cost of
health-
address i t .
f a t h e r a l s o b r i e f l y a s s e r t s t h a t the
insurance
c o v e r a g e s h o u l d n o t be i n c l u d e d i n t h e
determination
o f 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 u n d e r t h e 2006 j u d g m e n t i n t h e April
26,
2013,
corrected
judgment
i n d i c a t e d t h a t the h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e the
2006
judgment,
mother's husband. pay
for that
to
that
hearing
The
the
to
from
the
28(a)(10),
his
of
the
and,
the
therefore,
n o t be
that
included
forth
facts
pertaining
coverage.
argument
A l a . R. App.
of
paycheck
The
to
the
cost
father
presented the
P.
in
Therefore,
dedicates the
2006
payment
for
that
no
contravention
citations he
fails
of
Rule
i n order to address
i s s u e as f r a m e d by t h e f a t h e r i n h i s amended b r i e f , t h i s
9
child
at
father provides
further,
of
i n determining
c a s e l a w t h a t m i g h t s u p p o r t h i s a r g u m e n t , and
develop
time
not
sets
merits
evidence
f a t h e r a l l e g e s t h a t the mother d i d
should
"argument" on
deducted
the
premiums, a t the
remainder of the paragraph the
health-insurance t o any
The
coverage
health insurance support.
were
because
the
court
2111244 would
be
father
required
t o d e v e l o p t h e a r g u m e n t on b e h a l f
and t o r e s e a r c h
a u t h o r i t y with which to support
a r g u m e n t , w h i c h t h i s c o u r t w i l l n o t do. Heating,
of
I n c . v. S m i t h , s u p r a ;
the that
Jimmy Day P l u m b i n g &
B u t l e r v. Town o f A r g o ,
supra.
S i m i l a r l y , i n a two-sentence "argument," the f a t h e r urges this
court
Fuller,
"to o v e r r u l e the l i n e of cases found i n F u l l e r
93 So. 3d 961
not e x p l a i n Fuller
v.
reversed.
( A l a . C i v . App.
i n h i s amended b r i e f Fuller That
and case
i n c l u s i o n of the t o t a l
the
2012)."
The f a t h e r does
on what b a s i s
cases
i t relies
discusses,
among
v.
he
on
other
believes
should things,
cost of a h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e
be the
premium i n
a c h i l d - s u p p o r t d e t e r m i n a t i o n when t h e h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e
policy
provides
child.
coverage f o r persons other
than the p a r t i e s '
However, t h e f a t h e r has made no argument w i t h r e g a r d i s s u e , and he has n o t r e l a t e d t h e h o l d i n g i n F u l l e r v. to
his
argument,
required
discussed
to contribute
above,
that
he
to the h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e
his
child
i f t h e premium f o r t h a t
coverage
the
s a l a r y of the c u s t o d i a l parent's
f a i l e d to demonstrate t h a t the t r i a l
10
spouse.
should
to that Fuller not
be
coverage f o r
i s deducted The
father
from has
court erred i n i n c l u d i n g
2111244 the c o s t of h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e
i n the d e t e r m i n a t i o n
on remand o f
t h e f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n u n d e r t h e 2006 j u d g m e n t . The
father
also
argues
that
the
trial
court
erred
on
remand i n i n c l u d i n g $364 p e r month i n c h i l d - c a r e c o s t s i n i t s determination
of
his
correct
2006 j u d g m e n t .
its
2006 j u d g m e n t , w h i c h t h e f a t h e r a p p e a l e d . issue
of
child
trial
support
court
o b l i g a t i o n under
the
the
The
child-support
in
included
that
t h a t amount i n With regard
appeal,
the
materials
b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t demonstrate t h a t the f a t h e r argued o n l y the
trial
court
erred
by
transposing
o b l i g a t i o n f o r t h a t of the mother. 817
("[T]he t r i a l
pay
the
amount
court
child-support
D a v i s I I , 47 So.
i n a d v e r t e n t l y ordered
father
to
had
the
the
primary
that,
at
c a l c u l a t i o n s , t h e m o t h e r w o u l d have b e e n o b l i g a t e d t o pay awarded
support
the
3d
its
been
child
that
to
father
of
See
his
to
according
physical
custody
of
child."). In h i s a p p e a l of assert
that
child-care Issues
that
(i.e.,
the
the
trial
costs could
in
the
2006 j u d g m e n t , t h e
court the
erred
i n i n c l u d i n g the
determination
have b e e n
father did
raised
of
i n the
child previous
amount o f c h i l d - c a r e c o s t s i n c l u d e d i n t h e
11
not
$364 i n support. appeal child-
2111244 support determination) See
b u t were n o t r a i s e d a r e deemed w a i v e d .
B o s h e l l v. K e i t h , 418
appellant
So.
2d 89,
92
( A l a . 1982)
f a i l s t o a r g u e an i s s u e i n i t s b r i e f ,
waived.").
Further,
under
the
("When an
that issue i s
law-of-the-case
doctrine,
i s s u e s t h a t c o u l d have b e e n r a i s e d i n t h e p r e v i o u s n o t be r e l i t i g a t e d i n a s u b s e q u e n t a p p e a l . 70
So.
Inc.,
3d 60
289, So.
Williams,
303-04
3d
91
236,
So.
3d
doctrine
litigation
an
Accordingly, his
the
62
(Ala.
is
issue
has
failure
a p p e a l o f t h e 2006 j u d g m e n t p r e c l u d e s
Also
with
child-support
his
Express,
2012)
avoid
v. (The
repeated
been
decided.").
this
argument i n
our c o n s i d e r a t i o n
of
appeal.
regard
to
the
calculation
o b l i g a t i o n under the
argues t h a t the t r i a l on
App.
to
raise
Cash
may
Tucker,
also Williams
Civ.
already to
v.
see
"designed
that
father's
that issue i n this
due
( A l a . 2010);
56,
law-of-the-case over
S c r u s h y v.
( A l a . 2011); M a r t i n 251
appeal
on
remand
2006 j u d g m e n t , t h e
c o u r t e r r e d i n c a l c u l a t i n g the
child-support
arrearage.
of
3
The
version
his
father
interest of
§
8-8-
The f a t h e r a l s o argues t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n a l l o w i n g " t h e m o t h e r , " a c t u a l l y DHR, to submit a proposed c a l c u l a t i o n of the f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e w i t h the i n t e r e s t due on t h a t a r r e a r a g e . DHR s u b m i t t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t a c o m p u t e r s p r e a d s h e e t d e t a i l i n g t h e months i n w h i c h t h e 3
12
2111244 10, A l a . Code 1975, i n e f f e c t i n 2006 s p e c i f i e d t h a t i n t e r e s t on
j u d g m e n t s be c a l c u l a t e d a t a r a t e
s t a t u t e was amended t o p r o v i d e 2011,
that,
o f 12 p e r c e n t .
That
e f f e c t i v e September 1,
t h e i n t e r e s t r a t e t o a c c r u e on j u d g m e n t s i s t o be 7.5
percent.
In determining
t h e amount o f i n t e r e s t due on t h e
father's past-due c h i l d support, the t r i a l
court
stated:
" T h i s c o u r t h e a r d t e s t i m o n y on J u l y 9, 2012, c o n c e r n i n g t h e f a t h e r ' s payment h i s t o r y . Through t h e e n d o f June 2012, t h e f a t h e r s h o u l d have made 70 m o n t h l y c h i l d - s u p p o r t p a y m e n t s o f $506 f o r a t o t a l of $35,420. He h a d p a i d only $7,504 f o r an a r r e a r a g e as o f t h e e n d o f June 2012 o f $27,916. I n t e r e s t a c c u m u l a t e d on t h e a r r e a r a g e a t t h e r a t e o f 12% p e r annum f o r t h e p e r i o d o f September 2006 t o A u g u s t 2011 a n d a t t h e r a t e o f 7.5% f o r t h e p e r i o d of September 2011 t o June 2012 f o r a total c u m u l a t i v e i n t e r e s t as o f t h e e n d o f June 2012 o f $7,603.97. The f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n p l u s i n t e r e s t as o f J u l y 9, 2012, t h e l a s t t i m e t h i s
f a t h e r h a d f a i l e d t o p a y c h i l d s u p p o r t a n d t h e i n t e r e s t due on t h o s e amounts. The o n l y e r r o r p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e c a l c u l a t i o n of t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e t h a t t h e f a t h e r a l l e g e s i s i n the d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f i n t e r e s t , and t h i s c o u r t addresses t h a t argument i n t h e b o d y o f t h i s o p i n i o n . The f a t h e r a l s o maintains, however, t h a t t h e s u b m i s s i o n b y DHR o f i t s c a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e f a t h e r ' s a r r e a r a g e amounted t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s v e r b a t i m a d o p t i o n o f f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s made b y DHR. E v e n a s s u m i n g t h a t t o be t r u e , h o w e v e r , t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s have a p p r o v e d t h e p r a c t i c e o f a l l o w i n g a p a r t y t o d r a f t an o r d e r o r judgment f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o c o n s i d e r and adopt i n p a r t o r i n i t s e n t i r e t y . See, e . g . , S t o l l e n w e r c k v . T a l l a d e g a C n t y . Bd. o f E d u c . , 420 So. 2d 2 1 , 24 ( A l a . 1 9 8 2 ) ; B o o t h e v. J i m W a l t e r R e s . , I n c . , 660 So. 2d 604 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 5 ) . 13
2111244 c o u r t h e a r d t e s t i m o n y on t h i s d e t e r m i n e d t o be $35,519.97.
issue,
i s hereby
"The c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s t h e f a t h e r i s due no c r e d i t f o r any amounts t h e f a t h e r c l a i m e d t o have p a i d f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e c h i l d such as f o r extraordinary activities, summer camps, school lunches, braces, e t c . " Thus,
i n c a l c u l a t i n g t h e i n t e r e s t due on t h e f a t h e r ' s
child-support
arrearage d a t i n g back t o t h e e n t r y
o f t h e 2006
j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t a p p l i e d t h e 12 p e r c e n t i n t e r e s t r a t e t o a l l p a s t - d u e c h i l d - s u p p o r t payments t h a t had a c c r u e d S e p t e m b e r 1, 2 0 1 1 . F o r t h o s e p a s t - d u e c h i l d - s u p p o r t
before
payments
t h a t a c c r u e d a f t e r September 1, 2 0 1 1 , i . e . , t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e of
t h e new i n t e r e s t r a t e
trial
court
on j u d g m e n t s
under
§ 8-8-10, t h e
a p p l i e d t h e 7.5 p e r c e n t i n t e r e s t r a t e .
4
The f a t h e r a l s o contends t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t f a i l e d t o a p p l y s i m p l e i n t e r e s t t o t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e judgment. The f a t h e r r e f e r s t o DHR's e x h i b i t l i s t i n g t h e " c u m u l a t i v e i n t e r e s t " on t h e f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e , a n d he equates t h e term "cumulative i n t e r e s t " with "compound interest." I n h i s amended b r i e f a f t e r remand, t h e f a t h e r f a i l s t o demonstrate that the "cumulative i n t e r e s t " t h a t continued t o a c c r u e on e a c h p a s t - d u e i n s t a l l m e n t o f c h i l d s u p p o r t was n o t an a c c r u a l o v e r t i m e o f s i m p l e i n t e r e s t on e a c h o f t h o s e p a s t - d u e p a y m e n t s a n d t h a t t h a t i n t e r e s t was i n s t e a d an a w a r d o f compound i n t e r e s t . See S t a t e e x r e l . S t a t e Dep't o f Human R e s . v. O r r , 635 So. 2d a t 1, 3 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1994) ( i n t e r e s t a c c r u e s a s o f t h e due d a t e o f e a c h past-due c h i l d - s u p p o r t payment); see a l s o Walnut Equip. L e a s i n g Co. v. Graham, 532 So. 2d 655, 655 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1988) ("A p a r t y who c o m p l a i n s o f e r r o r b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t must 4
14
2111244 I n h i s amended b r i e f s u b m i t t e d t o t h i s c o u r t , t h e c o n t e n d s t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e A p r i l 26, 2013, was
e n t e r e d a f t e r t h e S e p t e m b e r 1, 2011,
8-8-10, as amended, t h e 7.5
father
c o r r e c t e d judgment e f f e c t i v e date of §
percent rate should apply to h i s
entire child-support arrearage.
However, as DHR
p o i n t s out,
c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n s become money j u d g m e n t s
on t h e d a t e
e a c h payment i s due,
i n t h e same
manner t h a t
any
S t a t e ex r e l . v.
Walker,
and
be
o t h e r j u d g m e n t may
Lamon, 702 828
t h e y may
So.
2d
be
So. 2d 449, 943,
944
collected
collected.
451
( A l a . 1997);
(Ala. Civ.
" ' [ A ] c c r u e d c h i l d s u p p o r t payments become f i n a l o f t h e d a t e due such judgments
and may
Ex p a r t e
App.
Walker 2002) .
judgments
be c o l l e c t e d as o t h e r j u d g m e n t s ,
would bear i n t e r e s t
f r o m due d a t e . ' " S t a t e
as ... ex
rel.
S t a t e Dep't o f Human Res. v. O r r , 635 So. 2d 1, 3 ( A l a .
Civ.
App.
(Ala.
1994)
C i v . App.
(quoting Argo 1985))
v. A r g o ,
(emphasis
added).
467
So.
2d 258,
Thus, e a c h
259
of the
f a t h e r ' s u n p a i d c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n s became e n f o r c e a b l e judgments
on
their
statutory
interest
due
d a t e s , and
interest
rate
applicable
t o each
accrued at
of the separate
a f f i r m a t i v e l y show f r o m t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l t h a t s u c h was i n f a c t c o m m i t t e d . " ) . 15
the
error
2111244 past-due payments. the
trial
The f a t h e r has f a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t
c o u r t e r r e d i n c a l c u l a t i n g t h e i n t e r e s t due on h i s
child-support
arrearage.
Given the foregoing, to
demonstrate
calculating
that
we h o l d t h a t t h e f a t h e r has
the
the f a t h e r ' s
trial
court
corrected
erred
child-support
u n d e r t h e 2006 j u d g m e n t o r i n d e t e r m i n i n g support arrearage.
Accordingly,
on
remand
asserted
in
this
court
his brief
turns on
in
obligation
the f a t h e r ' s
child-
because the f a t h e r ' s
child-
s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n u n d e r t h e 2006 j u d g m e n t h a s b e e n determined,
failed
to
the
original
father's
properly
arguments,
submission,
m o d i f i c a t i o n o f 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 was
that
the
erroneous.
I n i t s A u g u s t 3, 2012, j u d g m e n t i n t h e 2010 m o d i f i c a t i o n a c t i o n f i l e d b y t h e f a t h e r , see Ex p a r t e 699; D a v i s I I I , the
father's
child-support
Thus, t h e t r i a l father's father's judgment
So. 3d a t
Davis,
, the t r i a l
o b l i g a t i o n t o be
82 So. 3d a t
court determined $460 p e r
c o u r t ' s A u g u s t 3, 2012, d e t e r m i n a t i o n
child-support child-support
obligation
o b l i g a t i o n f r o m $506
(as d e t e r m i n e d b y
judgment) t o $460.
actually
the A p r i l
In general,
16
26,
month. of the
lowered
under 2013,
the
the 2006
corrected
when a j u d g m e n t i s w h o l l y i n
2111244 a
party's
favor,
that
party
may
not
J e f f e r s o n C n t y . S h e r i f f ' s D e p ' t , 13 So. App.
200 9 ) ; see
[Ms.
2110366, May
2013)
appeal. 3d 993,
a l s o H u n t s v i l l e C i t y Bd. 3,
2013]
("Typically,
a
So.
party
may
3d
,
not
take
original
brief
determination
of
pertaining
his modified
to
996
parte
(Ala. Civ.
o f E d u c . v.
the
Sharp,
(Ala. Civ. an
d e c i s i o n that i s wholly favorable to him."). his
Ex
appeal
App.
from
a
In t h i s case, i n August
child-support
3,
2012,
o b l i g a t i o n , the
f a t h e r a r g u e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t 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 was computed i n e r r o r and amount. we
Therefore,
t h a t h i s o b l i g a t i o n s h o u l d be
f o r the purposes of r e s o l v i n g t h i s
assume t h a t t h e A u g u s t 3,
c h i l d s u p p o r t was The
August
a lesser
not
one
3,
2012,
2012,
wholly
j u d g m e n t on
the
i n f a v o r of the
judgment
did
appeal, issue
of
father.
not
explicitly
i n c o r p o r a t e c h i l d - s u p p o r t - g u i d e l i n e s f o r m s as r e q u i r e d by R u l e 32(E),
Ala.
reaching relied
R.
that on
an
reached
that
exhibit
as
purpose
of
Jud.
Admin.
child-support exhibit
Rule
The
as
into
trial
17
clear
the
the
court
and
that
trial
"Plaintiff's
determination,
incorporated 32(E).
i t is
determination
designated
child-support being
However,
we
in
court
2" deem
that that
judgment
for
the
included
$230
per
2111244 month i n w o r k - r e l a t e d
child-care costs
of
in
health
insurance
its
and
$130
calculation
f o r the
of
the
cost
parties'
r e s p e c t i v e c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n s i n r e a c h i n g i t s A u g u s t 3, 2 012,
judgment. In
his
argument
pertaining
to
the
August
3,
2012,
judgment, the f a t h e r p r i m a r i l y r a i s e s s u b s t a n t i v e i s s u e s about w h e t h e r he s h o u l d be r e q u i r e d t o pay R u l e 32, already
A l a . R.
Jud.
addressed
A d m i n . , and,
most
makes some g e n e r a l
of
those
statements
court
has
attempted
statements to d i s c e r n the The
as
stated, this
issues.
concerning
his child-support obligation. this
c h i l d support pursuant to
Out
to
The
5
the
father's
and
The
f a t h e r has
c h i l d a f t e r s c h o o l e a c h day
caution,
clarify
those
The
the
child in
his relationship
a r g u e d t h a t he
instead.
next
c a l c u l a t i o n of
f a t h e r m a i n t a i n s t h a t the mother p l a c e s
child.
has
arguments.
a f t e r - s c h o o l c a r e as a method o f " t h w a r t i n g " w i t h the
father
o f an abundance o f
interpret
court
c o u l d keep
f a t h e r appears to
the be
T h i s c o u r t a d d r e s s e d the main p a r t of the argument a s s e r t e d by t h e f a t h e r on t h e i s s u e o f c h i l d s u p p o r t i n t h e i s s u e of r e c u s a l i n Davis I I I , So. 3d a t . The f a t h e r a l s o a r g u e d t h a t t h e i n t e r e s t on h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e had b e e n i m p r o p e r l y c a l c u l a t e d , an i s s u e t h i s c o u r t has already analyzed i n t h i s opinion. 5
18
2111244 arguing
t h a t the cost of w o r k - r e l a t e d
included
i n the
b e c a u s e he cost.
has
The
calculation offered
f a t h e r has
to
not
d e v e l o p t h a t argument. t h e c h i l d e v e r y day child
support
visitation.
court The
Further,
is
father
takes
that
the
child-support
Admin.
required
to
the
support
month c o m p l i e d w i t h
Jud.
DHR
those
with
limits
on
provide
care
from
See shall
trial
Without A l a . R.
citing
App.
testified that
the
exceed
licensed
P.,
on
the
$230
per
set
the
source
3,
forth
Ala.
R.
amount for
the
a s c h e d u l e o f g u i d e l i n e s d e v e l o p e d by
the
19
a
court's
Rule 32(B)(8), not
the
claims.
c h i l d - c a r e costs
guidelines. costs
verify
modification
i n the August
e m p l o y e e who not
and
therefore,
the
o f R u l e 28,
could
("Child-care
c h i l d r e n , b a s e d on
that
custody
for a
$230 i n c h i l d - c a r e c o s t s .
father
i n the
to
determination
the
child
related
issue
authority, i n contravention
of
for
f a t h e r ' s r e q u e s t t o have
a r u l i n g on
any
issue
necessity
i n t h i s a c t i o n , and,
enter
also
judgment of
obligation
a u t h o r i t y i n an a t t e m p t t o
father waived h i s claims
d i d not
says
the
the
instead
inclusion in i t s child-support 2012,
child-support
eliminate
c i t e d any
of custody or v i s i t a t i o n trial
of h i s
be
a f t e r s c h o o l i s n o t an i s s u e p e r t a i n i n g t o
but
The
c h i l d care s h o u l d not
2111244 A l a b a m a D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s . " ) . testified,
however,
costs
c o r r e c t l y determined,
were
that
she b e l i e v e d
The DHR e m p l o y e e
that
although
the child-care s h e was n o t t h e
p e r s o n who h a d c a l c u l a t e d t h e amount DHR c o n t e n d e d t h e f a t h e r owed i n c h i l d The
support.
father
states
in
his brief
that
a
"correct
c a l c u l a t i o n " o f h i s c h i l d s u p p o r t i s $335 p e r month.
He c i t e s
t o no p o r t i o n o f t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l i n w h i c h he s u b m i t t e d a c a l c u l a t i o n of c h i l d support t o the t r i a l court containing the f i g u r e s he a d v a n c e s i n h i s b r i e f on a p p e a l .
Also,
i n making
t h a t a r g u m e n t , t h e f a t h e r u s e s $150 as t h e f i g u r e he c o n t e n d s i s t h e p r o p e r amount o f w o r k - r e l a t e d
c h i l d - c a r e e x p e n s e s t o be
used i n the c a l c u l a t i o n of h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t father
provides
figure. to
DHR's
no e x p l a n a t i o n
obligation.
o f how he a r r i v e d
The
at that
The f a t h e r does c i t e e x h i b i t s he s u b m i t t e d p e r t a i n i n g limits
on
work-related
child-care
costs;
those
e x h i b i t s were f i r s t s u b m i t t e d a t t h e November 8, 2012, h e a r i n g on
the father's
August
3 1 , 2012, p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n .
The
f a t h e r f a i l s t o e x p l a i n w h i c h o f DHR's r a t e s he c o n t e n d s w o u l d be not
a p p l i c a b l e under t h e
facts of this
case.
Further,
i ti s
c l e a r f r o m t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l t h a t t h e f a t h e r made t h i s
20
2111244 argument t o t h e t r i a l
court.
612
( A l a . 1992)
So.
2d
consider
issues
Given the we
409,
410
presented
say
that
the
Andrews v. M e r r i t t O i l (an
for
argument a s s e r t e d
cannot
See
the
i n the
trial
obligation. 24,
39
Alabama
court
erred
in
P a v i l i o n Dev.,
( A l a . 2007); Bank, N.A.,
Coastal 424
So.
first
who
time
had
on
cannot appeal).
the
appeal,
burden
of
t h a t b u r d e n and showed t h a t
determining L.L.C. v. Realty 2d
court
f a t h e r ' s b r i e f on
father,
d e m o n s t r a t i n g e r r o r on a p p e a l , met the
appellate
Co.,
his
child-support
JBJ P'ship,
& Mortg.,
1315,
1317
Inc.
979
So.
v.
2d
First
(Ala. Civ.
App.
1982). The
f a t h e r has
t h e A u g u s t 3, 2012, judgment are
f a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e e r r o r on a p p e a l , j u d g m e n t and t h e A p r i l 26,
therefore
2013,
and
corrected
affirmed.
AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . ,
and
Pittman
Thomas, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e Moore, J . , r e c u s e s
himself.
21
and
Donaldson, J J . , concur.
result,
without
writing.
