William C. Thompson

This case involves a father who petitioned for writs of mandamus after the Lee Juvenile Court found him in civil and criminal contempt for violating a visitation order with the maternal grandmother, sentenced him to 50 days of incarceration (suspended), and later lifted the suspension and transferred a related action. The father argued the court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the contempt sanction without a new filing fee and that the case should be transferred to Coffee Juvenile Court due to adoption proceedings. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals denied both petitions, holding that the juvenile court retained jurisdiction to lift the suspension of the criminal contempt sanction as part of its prior order and that the father had not requested a venue transfer in the relevant action.

family lawcriminal lawprocedure

The case concerned petitions for writs of mandamus filed by C.G., the father, seeking to vacate two October 2023 orders from the Lee Juvenile Court in actions involving visitation rights of the maternal grandmother F.H. with the father's children. One order lifted the suspension of the father's 50-day incarceration sentence for criminal contempt arising from repeated violations of a prior visitation judgment, while the other denied dismissal and transferred a related action to Coffee Juvenile Court. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals denied both petitions, holding that the juvenile court retained jurisdiction to enforce its July 2023 judgment by lifting the suspension without requiring a new filing fee, as the matter was not a new cause of action, and noting that the father had not sought a transfer in the relevant action below.

family lawprocedurecriminal law

In K.L. v. M.W., M.W. filed a pro se petition in juvenile court alleging that K.L.'s child had been living in unsuitable conditions and seeking a dependency finding and custody. The juvenile court treated the petition as one for dependency, awarded M.W. pendente lite and then permanent custody, and suspended the mother's visitation. On appeal, the mother argued that the juvenile court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the petition failed to allege specific facts showing the child was dependent at the time of filing. The Court of Civil Appeals held that the original petition described only past events without asserting current dependency and that later filings could not cure the defect; therefore the juvenile court's orders were void and the appeal was dismissed.

family lawprocedure

In this divorce case, Mary Friend appealed a Jefferson Circuit Court judgment that divorced her from Floyd Lamar Friend and divided their property while denying her requests for alimony and attorney fees. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment regarding the alimony award, property division, and denial of attorney fees, remanding the case to the trial court. The core reasoning was that the trial court failed to make the express findings of fact required by Ala. Code § 30-2-57 when awarding or denying periodic or rehabilitative alimony, preventing proper appellate review. Because alimony and property division are interrelated, both required reconsideration together. The court also directed further consideration of attorney fees on remand based on the parties' undetermined financial circumstances.

family lawproperty

The case involved Shana Lane Ellison's appeal from the Chilton Circuit Court's dismissal of her complaint seeking a divorce from Donald Elbert Stokes on the ground that the parties had entered a common-law marriage in 2009. Ellison's complaint alleged that the parties had cohabited as husband and wife for over 13 years, held themselves out as married, jointly owned property, and that Stokes had referred to her as his wife. The trial court granted Stokes's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed, concluding that the complaint, when liberally construed, adequately pleaded facts that, if proven, could establish a valid common-law marriage and thus stated a claim for relief.

family lawprocedure

In W.W. v. H.W., the mother petitioned the Morgan Juvenile Court to terminate the father's parental rights to their child, alleging abandonment after a divorce judgment that awarded her sole custody and imposed supervised visitation and support obligations on the father. The juvenile court granted the petition following a hearing, finding that the father had abandoned the child. On appeal, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment, holding that while abandonment was established, the record lacked evidence addressing the child's best interests, such as the impact of the father's conduct or any plan for the child to have a new legal father. The court emphasized that termination of parental rights requires proof that it serves the child's best interests in addition to statutory grounds for termination.

family law

The case involved appeals by K.H., the mother of two children, from Madison Juvenile Court orders that found the children dependent and terminated her parental rights after the Madison County Department of Human Resources petitioned due to one child's positive test for opiates at birth and the mother's ongoing failure to comply with reunification services and maintain sobriety. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals dismissed the mother's appeals from the dependency findings and affirmed the termination judgments. The court concluded that no viable alternatives existed because the mother had not identified suitable placements, the boyfriend was not a relative under the applicable statute, and termination best served the children's interests given their bond with each other and the availability of an adoptive home.

family law

In this case, James Allen petitioned the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals for a writ of mandamus after the trial court amended a divorce judgment in response to his ex-wife's postjudgment motion. The divorce judgment was entered on August 19, 2022; the wife filed her motion on September 1, 2022; the trial court signed the amended judgment on November 29, 2022 (within the 90-day period under Rule 59.1); but the amended judgment was not entered into the State Judicial Information System until December 2, 2022. Allen argued that the amended judgment was void because entry occurred after the deadline. The court denied the petition, holding that the timely rendition of the order on November 29 satisfied Rule 59.1 and prevented automatic denial of the motion, even though entry into the system occurred later.

family lawprocedure

In this case from the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, the father appealed a trial court judgment denying his request to modify the postsecondary-education expense provisions of the parties' 2002 divorce judgment, holding him in contempt for nonpayment of those expenses, and awarding the mother $16,324.62 plus $4,500 in attorney fees. The underlying divorce agreement required the parents to share equally the costs of the child's college tuition, room and board, and living expenses until the child earned an undergraduate degree or turned 21. The appellate court affirmed the contempt finding and fee award but reversed the specific expense award, reasoning that the record did not allow the court to determine how the trial court calculated the amount owed because it was unclear which expenses qualified or which payments had already been made. The case was remanded for the trial court to explain its calculations.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a father's appeal from the denial of his Rule 60(b)(4) motion seeking relief from a 2015 judgment that awarded custody of his two children to their maternal great-grandparents pursuant to an agreement among the father, mother, and great-grandparents. The underlying action began as the father's 2011 petition to modify the 2010 divorce judgment's custody and visitation provisions, after which the great-grandparents moved to intervene. The father argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the 2015 judgment because the great-grandparents' intervention did not properly commence a dependency proceeding. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the denial of relief, holding that the action remained a custody-modification proceeding within the trial court's jurisdiction, the great-grandparents were properly treated as intervenors, and the court had authority to enter a judgment incorporating the parties' agreement regarding custody and visitation.

family law

This case involved an appeal from the Jefferson Probate Court's denial of a mother's Rule 60(b) motion to set aside a 2019 adoption judgment granted to the child's maternal great-aunt and great-uncle. The mother argued she had not received proper notice of the adoption proceedings. The probate court denied the motion in June 2022 after an evidentiary hearing. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals dismissed the mother's appeal because her notice of appeal was filed on August 12, 2022, one day after the 42-day deadline under Rule 4(a)(1), Ala. R. App. P., and the probate court's attempted extension of time was invalid under Rule 77(d) since the mother had learned of the judgment in time to appeal. The court held that the appeal deadline is jurisdictional and must be strictly followed.

family lawprocedure

This case involves a dispute over paternity, custody, and visitation of a child born in 2016 between the mother and father. The mother appealed a trial court judgment that established the father's paternity, granted joint legal custody to both parents, sole physical custody to the mother, visitation to the father, and child support, including a provision allowing a third-party psychologist to modify the visitation type and schedule. After the mother filed a postjudgment motion requesting a hearing on issues such as the delegation of judicial authority and other custody matters, the trial judge recused herself and the motion was denied by operation of law without a hearing. The appellate court reversed the denial and remanded for a hearing, reasoning that postjudgment motions must provide parties an opportunity to be heard and that the mother's motion had merit because visitation determinations are nondelegable judicial functions.

family lawprocedure

This case involves a divorced couple where the mother sought to modify visitation and child-support terms from a Georgia divorce judgment in an Alabama trial court, along with contempt claims and emergency relief suspending the father's visitation due to alleged drug use. The father petitioned for a writ of mandamus, arguing the Alabama court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA because the Georgia judgment had not been registered. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals determined that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the visitation provisions without registration of the foreign judgment and granted mandamus relief directing dismissal of that claim. It dismissed as moot the challenge to the temporary emergency jurisdiction order, which had expired by its own terms after 60 days, and denied the request to prevent the trial court from ordering registration of the judgment. The court noted no arguments were made regarding related claims under the UEFJA or UIFSA.

family lawprocedure

In this case, the maternal grandparents petitioned the Lee Juvenile Court for visitation rights with two children who had been adjudicated dependent and placed in the custody of their paternal aunt following the father's death. The aunt moved to dismiss the petitions, arguing that the Grandparent Visitation Act did not authorize such claims against a third-party custodian. The juvenile court denied the motions to dismiss but continued the proceedings. The aunt then filed petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking review of those denials. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals denied the mandamus petitions, holding that the denial of a motion to dismiss is not reviewable by mandamus because an adequate remedy exists through appeal, distinguishing the matter from a prior case that also involved a pendente lite visitation order.

family lawprocedure

This case involved the Madison County Department of Human Resources filing a petition in juvenile court to terminate the parental rights of A.R.H.B. (the mother) to her child, who had been placed in foster care in 2020 due to the mother's unstable housing and drug use. The juvenile court granted the petition after a hearing, finding grounds for termination. On appeal, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment, holding that DHR failed to present clear and convincing evidence that it had properly investigated viable relative placement alternatives before seeking termination.

family law

This case arose from a dispute between D.C.S. (the father) and L.B. (the mother) concerning modification of a child-support obligation, contempt allegations related to violations of parenting clauses in a prior judgment, and requests for attorney fees. After a prior appeal affirming the original custody and support orders, the father petitioned the juvenile court to reduce his support payments and hold the mother in contempt; the mother counterclaimed for contempt based on nonpayment. The juvenile court denied modification after again finding the father voluntarily underemployed, awarded the mother an arrearage, and rejected both parties' contempt claims. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals examined the juvenile court's subject-matter jurisdiction under the Alabama Juvenile Justice Act, concluding that the court lacked continuing jurisdiction to modify or enforce its orders in a non-dependency case except for specific monetary obligations like fines or restitution.

family lawprocedure

The McDaniels sued their home builder, Brian Homes, for construction defects and obtained an $82,000 judgment; they then filed a direct action against Harleysville Mutual Insurance Company under Alabama Code § 27-23-2 to apply the builder's liability policy to satisfy the judgment. Harleysville moved to dismiss, relying on a prior federal-court default judgment declaring no coverage for the claims, which the trial court granted. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding that the federal declaratory judgment did not bind the McDaniels because they were not parties to that action and therefore could not be collaterally estopped. The court further held that dismissal for failure to prosecute was an abuse of discretion absent any showing of willful conduct or prejudice by the McDaniels.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves post-divorce disputes between Lori Hood and Scott Hood regarding enforcement of their 2001 divorce judgment. The mother appealed after the trial court declined to hold the father in contempt for failing to increase payments to her under paragraph five of the judgment, which required him to pay her a portion of income from a trust fund and to adjust the amount upward if trust benefits increased. The appeals court affirmed the judgment in part but reversed in part, holding that the father was in contempt for noncompliance with the payment obligation because the divorce judgment clearly mandated the increases and evidence showed he had not made them despite receiving higher trust benefits. The core reasoning centered on interpreting the divorce judgment's plain language as creating an ongoing enforceable duty, distinguishing it from modifiable alimony, and finding sufficient proof of violation without needing to relitigate prior issues.

family law

The case involved a divorced father's appeal from a trial court judgment requiring him to pay half of his adult child's postminority educational expenses at a local community college, where the child lived at home. The trial court had found that both parents would have supported the child's college education if they had remained married and ordered each to cover half the actual costs after grants and scholarships, including a room-and-board component calculated from the websites of Auburn University and the University of Alabama. The father argued on appeal that the evidence did not support the room-and-board award and that the obligation created undue hardship. The appellate court affirmed the equal division of proven actual expenses but reversed the room-and-board portion because no evidence established that the child would incur comparable costs while living at home, and it concluded the remaining obligation did not impose undue hardship.

family law

Ellis Isbell sued Aztecas Mexican Grill alleging negligence and wantonness after a booth seat collapsed under him during a meal, causing back and leg injuries. The trial court granted Aztecas's motion for summary judgment. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded, reasoning that under Alabama precedent the booth seat qualified as a fixture that was part of the premises, so the question of whether Aztecas had actual or constructive notice of any defect was for the jury even without a prima facie showing of notice by Isbell.

torts & liabilityprocedure