Craig S. Pittman

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.

family lawprocedure

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.

propertyprocedure

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.

propertyprocedure

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.

family lawpropertyprocedure

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.

family lawprocedure

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.

family lawproperty

The case concerned Dr. Eldred Mattatha Brunson’s appeal from an order by the Alabama State Board of Medical Examiners revoking his Alabama Controlled Substances Certificate after a hearing found he had violated state law by excessively dispensing controlled substances. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Under the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act, which governs such reviews, Brunson was required to file a notice of appeal or review with the Board within 30 days of the February 17, 2010 revocation order and then a petition for judicial review in court within 30 days after that; the record showed he met neither deadline. The court further held that the specific statutory time limits controlled over any conflicting general appellate rules.

procedurehealthcarebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute over custody of a child born in 1998 to an unmarried mother who later married the stepfather, who was listed on the birth certificate and raised the child along with two half-siblings until the mother's death in 2008. After a guardian ad litem initiated a paternity action, genetic testing established the biological father's paternity in December 2009, leading to visitation for him; he then filed a separate petition in February 2010 seeking full custody. The juvenile court awarded physical custody to the biological father after a hearing focused on the child's best interests. The Court of Civil Appeals dismissed the stepfather's appeal, ruling that the juvenile court's March 2010 judgment was void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Alabama Juvenile Justice Act, which restricts such courts from deciding custody modifications unless the child is dependent, delinquent, or in need of supervision and requires the action to be filed in circuit court when filed after January 1, 2009.

family lawprocedure

This case involves a lawsuit filed by Bennie Gibbs against Hurbert and Melissa Maiers under Alabama's Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, Ala. Code 1975, § 35-9A-101 et seq. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Gibbs, which this court initially affirmed. However, following the Alabama Supreme Court's reversal of that affirmance in Ex parte Maiers, this court now reverses the summary judgment on remand and sends the case back for further proceedings.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a mother filing to terminate the parental rights of the father as to their child born in 1997, based on his inconsistent child support payments, prior convictions including for child abuse, and lack of contact or bond with the child. The juvenile court held an ore tenus hearing and terminated the father's rights, citing statutory grounds such as failure to support under Ala. Code § 12-15-319(a)(9), a felony child-abuse conviction under § 12-15-319(a)(4), and withholding of care and affection under § 12-15-301(1). The father appealed, raising issues including the lack of a guardian ad litem appointment and the availability of alternatives like visitation, but the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, concluding that the juvenile court's findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence and that the child's best interests warranted termination.

family law

The case involved Consolidated Pipe & Supply Company seeking payment for materials supplied for water and sewer lines in a private shopping center construction project near Visionland, where the City of Bessemer had agreed to advance up to $1 million in funds (treated as from future sales taxes) but the contractor and subcontractor handled the actual procurement via purchase orders. After partial payment and disputes over the remainder, Consolidated sued the City, contractor, and subcontractor for breach of contract. The trial court dismissed all claims, finding the underlying arrangement void under Alabama's competitive-bid laws applicable to public expenditures. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal as to the City, reasoning that public entities must comply with statutory bidding requirements for such contracts, but reversed as to the contractor and subcontractor because private parties are not bound by those laws and evidence supported potential direct contractual assent by them to Consolidated's role as supplier.

business & regulatory

The case involved a divorced father's appeal of a trial court's modification of his child-support payments and obligations for his adult children's college expenses, based on prior agreements between the parents. The trial court reduced the father's monthly support for the remaining minor child and ordered both parents to equally share reasonable living and transportation costs for the two college-aged children, while interpreting the requirement to maintain a "C" average as referring to a cumulative GPA. The appellate court affirmed, reasoning that the trial court had properly construed the parties' agreements and its own prior judgment to support the ongoing support obligations.

family law

This case involved a mother's appeal of a trial court judgment that modified the parties' 2001 divorce decree by changing custody of their son from the mother's primary physical custody (with the father having extensive visitation) to joint legal and physical custody shared by both parents. The father had counterclaimed for primary or joint custody, citing a material change in circumstances after the mother relocated with the child approximately 50 miles away, resulting in a lengthy daily commute to school that left the child tired. The appellate court affirmed the modification, holding that the increased travel time, the child's maturing needs for paternal guidance, and the potential for a more stable week-to-week schedule supported the trial court's finding that joint physical custody served the child's best interests; it also upheld the denial of child support in light of the joint custody arrangement.

family law

This case involved a divorce action between Wendell Keith Alexander and Charlene J. Alexander after an 18-year marriage, in which the husband sought joint custody of their minor child while the wife sought sole custody, alimony, child support, and attorney's fees. The trial court granted the divorce on grounds of incompatibility, awarded the wife primary physical and legal custody with visitation to the husband, ordered the husband to pay child support and $1,000 monthly alimony, divided the marital vehicles and other assets, and required the husband to maintain life insurance policies to secure support obligations. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals reviewed the evidence from the ore tenus hearing, including testimony about the parties' incomes, the wife's health condition, and the husband's military retirement benefits, and affirmed the custody, support, alimony, and property-division rulings as supported by the record and within the trial court's discretion. The court addressed the life-insurance requirement by noting that such an order must be supported by specific findings under Rule 32 when it deviates from guidelines, directing remand for reconsideration on that limited issue.

family law

This case involved homeowners in a subdivision who sought to enforce recorded restrictive covenants against neighbors building a garage that would violate a 15-foot side-lot setback requirement. The trial court denied injunctive relief after an ore tenus hearing, finding enforcement unjust and inequitable due to alleged inconsistencies in subdivision practices and other neighborhood conditions. On appeal, the court held that the trial court had misapplied the law regarding changed conditions in the neighborhood, noting that changes outside the restricted area and isolated encroachments within it did not meet the standard of fundamentally neutralizing the covenant's benefits. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded for entry of a judgment enforcing the covenant.

property

The case A.K. v. N.B. involved an appeal from orders and judgments issued by the Houston Juvenile Court. The Alabama Supreme Court had previously quashed its writ of certiorari after concluding that no justiciable controversy existed in the juvenile court proceedings. Following the Supreme Court's mandate, the Court of Civil Appeals vacated its prior judgment in the appeal and dismissed the case. The court further instructed the juvenile court to vacate the underlying orders and judgments that had formed the basis of the appeal.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a lawsuit filed by Wesley Hal Livingston against Med-Call, Inc., an Alabama corporation, seeking damages and attorney fees stemming from an alleged worthless check. After Livingston obtained a default judgment following attempted service of process on Med-Call's registered agent at a residence, Med-Call moved to set aside the judgment more than 30 days later, arguing that service was improper and the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction. The appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of relief from the default judgment, holding that service of process on the corporation was invalid because Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(6) governing corporate service does not permit the more liberal methods allowed for service on individuals under Rule 4(c)(1), and strict compliance with service rules is required.

procedure

In Whited v. Whited, the former wife petitioned to modify the 2007 divorce judgment, which had reserved the issue of periodic alimony, after the former husband failed to pay court-ordered debts, mortgage, and a vehicle note. The trial court awarded her $750 in monthly alimony plus attorney fees and costs. The appellate court reversed, holding that the former wife had not shown a current need for alimony given her own income sources and that the former husband lacked the ability to pay due to his $973 monthly Social Security income and health issues.

family law

The case involved a dispute among the Wenzel family members, Baldwin County, and the Nelson defendants over whether a gravel and dirt pathway crossing the Wenzels' property in Baldwin County was a public road by prescription, and if so, the proper boundaries and width of that road. After an initial September 2009 order declaring the path a public road and directing a survey, the trial court later granted the Wenzels' motion to require a new survey adhering to the historical width. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals dismissed the Nelson defendants' appeal from the November 2009 order, concluding it was not a final judgment because it left further surveying and resolution of the road's extent to be completed. The court reasoned that appeals generally require a final judgment deciding all claims and liabilities of the parties, with no Rule 54(b) certification present here, citing similar precedent where unresolved surveys rendered an order nonfinal.

propertyprocedure

In Poh v. Poh, a divorced father appealed the denial of his petition to modify primary physical custody of their child or to reduce his child-support obligation after being laid off from his job in the petroleum industry; the mother had initially sought to suspend visitation based on claims of inappropriate behavior but later withdrew that request while seeking attorney fees. The Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama affirmed the trial court's denial of the custody modification and contempt claims against the mother, finding insufficient evidence of a material change affecting the child's best interests, but reversed in part on the support issue and remanded. The core reasoning was that the father's unemployment constituted a material change in circumstances warranting potential support modification, while custody changes require a stronger showing and the four-month period post-layoff did not yet establish a sufficiently continuing basis for altering the existing orders.

family law