Terri Willingham Thomas

The case involved EMD Solutions, Inc. filing a collection action against Pediatrics by the Bay (PBB) in district court for $7,269.64 in unpaid services, after which PBB asserted counterclaims for breach of contract and fraud; the case was transferred to circuit court, where a bench trial resulted in a February 2011 judgment for EMD on its claim and the counterclaims, followed by a separate award of $13,703.76 in attorney fees. PBB appealed both the merits judgment and the fee award. The appellate court dismissed the portion of the appeal challenging the February 2011 judgment on the counterclaims as untimely, because that judgment fully resolved the claims and was final despite the unresolved attorney-fee amount, and the notice of appeal was filed more than 42 days later. The court affirmed the attorney-fee award, holding that the trial court did not exceed its discretion given expert testimony that the fees were reasonable and necessary to the collection effort under the contract's broad "all cost of collection" provision, as the counterclaims were intertwined with the collection claim.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a mother appealing a juvenile court judgment that adjudicated J.S.F. as the biological father of her child, awarded him custody, and ordered the child's surname changed to his. The mother argued that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to change the child's surname, citing prior law that reserved such authority exclusively for probate courts. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that a 2009 amendment to the Alabama Uniform Parentage Act, specifically § 26-17-636(e), expressly grants juvenile courts the power to order a name change in paternity adjudication proceedings over which they have original jurisdiction. The decision rested on the statutory grant of authority and the fact that the juvenile court was properly exercising its paternity jurisdiction when issuing the order.

family law

Pace Reid sought a permit from the Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) to erect an outdoor advertising sign on his unzoned property adjacent to Interstate 65, but ALDOT denied the application on the ground that the proposed location was not within 600 feet of regularly used commercial activity as required by the Highway Beautification Act. An administrative law judge upheld the denial, but the trial court reversed after finding that portions of the property, including a concrete pad and south-entrance driveway used by the tenant moving company, qualified as commercial or processing areas. ALDOT appealed, arguing that the sign location did not meet the statutory distance requirement and that the concrete pad was not regularly used for commercial purposes. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment because ALDOT had failed to challenge one of the independent bases for reversal—that the driveway constituted a processing area—and therefore waived any argument on that ground.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, the maternal grandmother filed a dependency petition in juvenile court after the mother's death, seeking temporary custody of the child and adjudication of the father's paternity, alleging the father's past abuse, mental instability, and inability to provide stability. The father petitioned for a writ of mandamus to dismiss the action, arguing lack of jurisdiction because it was a custody dispute and that the grandmother lacked standing to seek paternity adjudication since he was a presumed father under Alabama law. The Court of Civil Appeals held that the petition's allegations of dependency were sufficient to invoke the juvenile court's jurisdiction and rejected the father's jurisdictional challenge, but concluded the grandmother lacked standing to pursue paternity adjudication. Accordingly, the court granted the petition in part by directing dismissal of the paternity claim and vacating the genetic testing order, while denying relief on the dependency aspects. The decision rested on the statutory definition of a dependent child and rules regarding standing and presumed paternity.

family lawprocedure

This case concerns post-divorce contempt petitions filed by Rosemary Posey Brown and James Earl Brown, each accusing the other of failing to comply with obligations under their 2006 divorce judgment, including payment of a property settlement, mortgage on the former marital home, credit-card debts, and transfer of a timeshare. After a trial, the circuit court ordered the ex-wife to transfer the timeshare, held her responsible for $45,530.17 in credit-card debt and $34,703.63 in mortgage and housing costs paid by the ex-husband, and entered a money judgment in his favor. On appeal, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed the credit-card portion of the judgment because the ex-husband failed to prove that the ex-wife had incurred those debts after separation, affirmed the remainder of the judgment because certain sufficiency challenges were not preserved by a post-judgment motion, and remanded for further proceedings.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case concerned a contract dispute between Mobile Attic, Inc. and its advertising agency TotalCom over whether Mobile Attic was obligated to pay annual talent-renewal fees for professional actors appearing in television commercials produced in 2005, after Mobile Attic had already paid the initial production costs of $196,000. The trial court found that the parties had agreed to the fees based on prior discussions, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed that ruling. The majority reasoned that evidence of conversations between the parties' representatives, combined with industry standards and the parties' conduct, demonstrated mutual assent to the ongoing fee obligation under an implied contract. The dissent argued that the record lacked sufficient proof of mutual assent to any such term.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a mother appealing a juvenile court's order in a child dependency proceeding that required her to complete a residential program at a women's shelter as part of efforts to regain custody of her child from the Department of Human Resources. The Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama considered whether the order was appealable as a final judgment and addressed the mother's claims that the requirement violated her due process rights by effectively amounting to a civil commitment. The court concluded that the appeal was not from a final judgment and that the mother's own testimony and lack of objection at the hearing invited the order, leading to dismissal of the appeal or denial of mandamus relief. A dissent argued that the constitutional issue should not be avoided and that the procedural vehicle was improper.

family lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved the paternal grandparents' attempt to enforce a South Carolina consent judgment granting them visitation with their grandchild in Alabama, after the child's mother obtained ex parte protection-from-abuse orders against the grandmother and aunt and refused visitation. The Alabama trial court consolidated the enforcement action with the PFA proceedings, found a pattern of abusive conduct by the paternal relatives, issued broad no-contact orders, and suspended the grandparents' visitation rights pending review by the South Carolina court. On appeal, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals dismissed the appeals from the PFA cases as moot or non-final but reversed the judgment in the enforcement action, holding that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to modify the out-of-state custody determination except on a temporary emergency basis and had failed to communicate with the South Carolina court as required. The court remanded for the trial court to initiate the mandated communication and to clarify the temporary nature of any suspension of visitation.

family lawprocedure

This case involves a workers' compensation dispute in which employee Carole Patterson claimed that a back injury she suffered while assisting a nursing home resident in April 2006 was compensable under Alabama law. The trial court ruled the injury compensable after a bifurcated hearing but issued an order with minimal findings of fact or conclusions of law; it later ordered the employer, El Reposo Nursing Home Group, to provide pain-management treatment despite conflicting medical opinions on whether the need for treatment stemmed from the work incident or a preexisting condition. The employer petitioned the Court of Civil Appeals for a writ of mandamus to set aside the treatment order. The appellate court denied the petition, holding that review was impossible without the detailed findings and conclusions required by Ala. Code § 25-5-88, and directed the trial court to issue an amended order before further mandamus review would be considered.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case Motley v. Motley was a divorce action between Brandy Lynn Motley and Gregory Alan Motley involving one minor child, in which the wife appealed the trial court's judgment. The trial court awarded the parties joint physical custody of the child with the husband paying child support and later ordered the wife to pay child support after a postjudgment correction. The appellate court affirmed the judgment in part but reversed the joint physical custody award and the wife's child support obligation, remanding for an order granting the wife sole physical custody and eliminating her support payments. The core reasoning was that the evidence of the parties' living situations, the child's need for stability, and the best interests of the child did not support joint physical custody.

family law

In Garrett v. Williams, the mother appealed an Alabama trial court's order registering and enforcing a Mississippi child-custody order that awarded custody and guardianship of the child to the paternal grandparents. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the grandparents' petition failed to comply with the registration requirements of Alabama's Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (§ 30-3B-305), which mandates two copies of the order (one certified), a perjury statement that the order has not been modified, and the complete order including referenced exhibits. The court reasoned that these defects prevented the trial court from obtaining jurisdiction to enforce the foreign order, rendering its judgments void and incapable of supporting an appeal.

family lawprocedure

The case involved John Hargett's challenge to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama's recalculation of his long-term-care insurance premium after he upgraded his policy benefits, which resulted in the loss of a preferred-health discount. Hargett filed a claim in district court seeking a premium reduction and reimbursement, and both the district court and circuit court ruled in favor of BCBS on the merits of the policy interpretation. The Court of Civil Appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that the action was in the nature of a declaratory judgment seeking interpretation of the insurance contract. Under Alabama law, district courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction over declaratory judgment actions, rendering the lower courts' judgments void and depriving the appellate court of jurisdiction.

procedurebusiness & regulatoryhealthcare

The case involved a dispute over whether a retail business located in an unincorporated area of Shelby County but within the Town of Westover's police jurisdiction owed sales taxes and business-license fees under the Town's ordinances dating back to 2005. The trial court ruled that the business had no actual or constructive notice of the obligations until December 2009 and thus owed taxes and fees only from that point forward. On de novo review of the stipulated facts, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding that the record contained no admissible evidence of lack of notice and that constructive notice of the ordinances applied from their adoption dates. The court reasoned that ignorance of the law is not a defense and that the ordinances, adopted pursuant to Alabama Code sections authorizing taxation within police jurisdictions, were enforceable against the business from 2005 onward, requiring payment of the full audited amount including interest and penalties.

business & regulatorytaxesprocedure

This case involved unmarried parents disputing child-support obligations after a paternity and joint-custody determination for their child born in 2008. The trial court applied Alabama Rule 32 guidelines to set the father's monthly payment at $32 (the net difference after income and expense calculations), required him to cover daycare costs, and imposed retroactive arrearages. The mother appealed, contending the court miscalculated the obligations and failed to include the required Child Support Guidelines form (CS-42) in the record. The appellate court reversed, holding that the record did not demonstrate compliance with Rule 32(E) and that the trial court had neither followed the guidelines nor made required findings to justify any deviation, and remanded for proper recalculation.

family lawprocedure

In this divorce case, Phyllis Johnson and Rodney Johnson each sought custody of their two children after separating, with the trial court awarding the parties joint legal custody but splitting physical custody so that the mother received the daughter and the father received the son. The mother appealed, arguing that the siblings should not have been separated. The Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama reversed the custody judgment, holding that the record contained insufficient evidence about the children's relationships with each other and their parents to support a conclusion that separating the siblings served their best interests. The court noted factors like the parents' work schedules and living arrangements but found no basis in the sparse testimony for the split custody arrangement.

family law

The case involved Milton Mitchell's effort to redeem property sold for delinquent taxes and purchased by Leviene S. Curry, who received a tax deed; Mitchell claimed he received no notice of the tax sale, rendering the deed void, and sought rents Curry had collected while possessing the property. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to Mitchell, declaring the deed void and ordering Curry to pay over $16,000 in rents, but then granted Curry's postjudgment motion and ruled that Curry was not liable for the rents under Alabama Code § 40-10-131. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding that because the tax sale was void for lack of proper notice, the statutory protection against accounting for rents did not apply to Curry's possession under the invalid deed, and remanded the case. The core reasoning centered on the distinction between valid and void tax sales in determining liability for rents upon redemption.

propertytaxesprocedure

This case involves post-divorce proceedings between Carl Allen Goetsch and Joyce P. Goetsch concerning postminority educational support for their son Chris, who began college in 2008. The mother petitioned for support, and the trial court ordered the father to pay 80% of Chris's college expenses after considering the Bayliss factors, rejecting the father's claim that an existing trust should relieve him of responsibility because the trust instrument indicated it should not defray parental obligations. The father appealed, arguing the trust funds were available and that any retroactive award needed to specify exact amounts based on evidence. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the support obligation but remanded for the trial court to determine and specify the exact recoverable expenses since the petition filing date and the father's portion not covered by the trust.

family lawprocedure

In this case, a father appealed a juvenile court judgment terminating his parental rights to his child after the Limestone County Department of Human Resources petitioned for termination, arguing that a statute excusing reasonable reunification efforts should not have applied to him based on his prior manslaughter conviction involving another child. This was the second appeal in the matter, following an earlier decision that upheld the juvenile court's determination relieving DHR of reunification obligations under Ala. Code § 12-15-312(c)(2). The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the termination, applying the law of the case doctrine to bar relitigation of the reasonable efforts issue that had already been decided in the prior appeal.

family lawcriminal law

The case involved Steve and Frances Sexton suing Bass Comfort Control, Inc. and Waterfurnace International, Inc. after repeated problems with geothermal HVAC units installed in their new home, alleging that the defendants had misrepresented the warranty as providing ten years of parts and labor coverage for repairs or replacements. The Sextons asserted claims including fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent suppression, negligent and wanton misrepresentation, conspiracy, breach of contract, and improper installation. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. On appeal, the court affirmed summary judgment on the breach-of-contract, installation, and conspiracy claims but reversed on the fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent suppression, and negligent/wanton misrepresentation claims, holding that the Sextons had standing to sue and that defenses such as the statute of limitations and statute of frauds did not bar those claims, then remanded for further proceedings.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case was a divorce action between Rhonda Sue Stewart and Marlon Luke Stewart concerning the division of marital and separate property, joint legal and physical custody of their minor daughter with specified custodial periods for the husband, and child support. The trial court entered a judgment dividing the property (including awarding the husband most remaining assets while assigning debts to the wife), granting joint custody, and ordering support based on the husband's reported income. The appellate court affirmed the custody and support rulings, finding no error in declining to impute higher income to the husband due to insufficient evidence of voluntary underemployment. However, it reversed the property division as inequitable and remanded for a more appropriate division and consideration of alimony.

family lawproperty