This case involves post-divorce proceedings between Sean G. Casey and Jonice Dorriety Casey concerning enforcement of child-support obligations, modification of visitation with their child, and related requests. The former husband challenged a 2008 default judgment finding him in arrears on child support and sought to modify visitation and other terms, while the former wife sought supervised visitation and other restrictions. The trial court upheld the default judgment, modified visitation to require supervision and counseling for the former husband, and awarded attorney fees to the former wife. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that the former husband had not properly preserved or appealed certain claims regarding notice of the default proceedings and that the trial court's visitation and fee determinations were supported by the record. The court also addressed procedural issues arising from consolidated cases and the finality of the judgment.
This case involved consolidated civil actions in Baldwin Circuit Court between Elliott Builders, Chris Elliott, and other property owners on one side and the Timbercreek Property Owners Association, its board, and architectural review board on the other, arising from disputes over approval of construction improvements like a retaining wall and related contract, tort, and declaratory claims in a residential subdivision. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants in November 2009 but the orders were not final as to all claims and parties; after an appeal was filed, the trial court later attempted to certify the judgment as final under Rule 54(b). The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that the certification order was void because the trial court had lost jurisdiction once the appeal was taken from the non-final summary-judgment ruling. The court reasoned that jurisdiction over the November 2009 orders rested exclusively with the appellate court during the pendency of the first appeal, preventing any retroactive finality certification.
This case concerned a property dispute among owners of lots in a residential subdivision adjacent to Wilson Lake in Alabama, where the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had constructed a pier and walkway on land below the 509.34-foot contour line to which the plaintiffs claimed record title. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants after reviewing chains of title, flood easements granted to the United States in 1920, and affidavits from TVA officials regarding regulatory approvals and boundaries. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment, holding that genuine issues of material fact remained as to the precise extent of the parties' ownership rights below the contour line and whether the defendants' predecessors had conveyed or reserved those rights. The decision emphasized that the plaintiffs could not be required to rest on their pleadings and that the record was silent on key details such as the subdivision plat boundaries, while pretermitting any ruling on accretion. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
This case involves a dispute between former spouses over an undivided marital asset, specifically a patronage equity account from the former husband's poultry farm operations that originated before their 1993 divorce. The former wife filed an action in 2009 seeking a share of the account's value, claiming the former husband had concealed it during the original divorce and a later modification proceeding. The trial court denied her claim, but the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding that under Alabama precedent, assets not divided in a divorce judgment remain subject to claims as they existed pre-divorce and that the action was not barred by res judicata, laches, or rules against modifying property settlements. The court remanded for the former wife to prove the value of her interest in the account at the time of the 1993 judgment.
The case involved the State of Alabama attempting to garnish the father's Social Security benefits to collect child support arrears claimed under a 1987 Alabama divorce judgment ordering $80 weekly support. The trial court had suspended the garnishment after concluding that a 1992 Florida URESA judgment had modified the obligation to $54 weekly and that full payment under the Florida judgment eliminated any arrears. On appeal, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed, ruling that the Florida URESA judgment did not modify the Alabama support order and that the State could proceed with enforcement. The court based its decision on URESA statutes in both states providing that a responding state's support order does not supersede a prior order from the initiating state, along with supporting Florida precedent.
This case concerned a post-divorce dispute in which the former husband unilaterally stopped paying his ex-wife a share of his military retirement benefits as required by the 1993 divorce judgment, prompting her petition for contempt and arrearages; he counterclaimed to modify or terminate the award on the ground that it constituted periodic alimony rather than a property division. The trial court classified the award as an unmodifiable division of marital property and held the former husband in contempt. On appeal the court held that the award was periodic alimony because it was contingent on the former wife's remarriage or death, making it subject to modification or termination under Ala. Code § 30-2-55 when she cohabited with a member of the opposite sex; the court therefore reversed the classification and terminated the payments but affirmed the contempt finding because the former husband should have sought judicial relief before stopping payments.