Jardine v. Jardine
Decision Date | 30 June 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 2030454.,2030454. |
Citation | 918 So.2d 127 |
Parties | Deborah B. JARDINE v. James Q. JARDINE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Grady R. Edmondson, Mobile, for appellant.
Leslie T. Fields and Camille R. Ford of Davis & Fields, P.C., Daphne, for appellee.
Deborah B. Jardine ("the wife") and James Q. Jardine ("the husband") were divorced by a judgment entered on July 20, 2001. The wife appeals from a subsequent trial-court order implementing a provision of the judgment that had divided the parties' retirement accounts.
The judgment of divorce incorporated an agreement of the parties that was entered into after an extensive mediation.1 Among other things, the judgment of divorce provided for the distribution of the parties' retirement accounts as follows:
For reasons not fully explained in the record, the wife did not send to the husband's attorney the statements from her retirement accounts that were necessary for preparation of the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ("QDROs") needed to effect the distribution of funds to the wife. In December 2001, the husband's attorney sent a letter requesting the statements, but the statements were never sent to him. The husband's attorney never followed up; neither did the wife or her attorney. The investments in the parties' retirement accounts declined significantly in value after June 30, 2001, apparently as a result of market conditions.2
For a period of approximately two and one-half years following the entry of the divorce judgment, the parties vigorously litigated a large number of issues relating to and arising out of their divorce. The first filing by either party in this regard was some seven months after the divorce judgment was entered. On February 20, 2002, the wife filed a motion for a rule nisi seeking to hold the husband in contempt for nonpayment of alimony and child support. During the next two years, the parties filed numerous pleadings and related motions, and responses to those pleadings and motions, that sought, among other things, to change custody of the parties' minor children, both pendente lite and permanently; to obtain psychiatric and medical testing of one party or the other; to enforce the husband's obligation to pay child support; to increase and/or redirect the amount of child support payable by the husband; to require the husband to pay additional amounts toward the private-school education of one of the parties' daughters; to terminate alimony because of the wife's alleged cohabitation; and to hold the husband in contempt. As part of this litigation, discovery, including interrogatories, depositions, and subpoenas to third parties, was pursued or attempted, and in some instances met with motions to quash or for protective orders. During this period, the court entered orders addressing some of the matters raised by the parties.
On September 30, 2002, the wife filed an amendment to her motion for a rule nisi in which she sought to enforce provisions of the divorce judgment obligating the husband to pay private-school tuition, to maintain a life insurance policy securing his obligation to pay rehabilitative alimony, and to maintain a $200,000 life insurance policy securing his child-support obligations. This motion also included a request for implementation of paragraph 18 of the divorce judgment.
Hearings were scheduled from time-to-time on all outstanding issues, including those raised by the wife's September 30, 2002, motion. Those hearings were postponed at the request of the wife on one occasion, at the request of the husband on at least one occasion, and with the mutual agreement of the parties on several other occasions.
On October 21, 2003, the trial court heard testimony from the parties and others, and arguments of counsel, relating to a number of issues raised by the above-described pleadings and motions. Among other things, the trial court addressed the wife's request for implementation of paragraph 18. The court explained on the record at the hearing that it construed paragraph 18 to require each party to bear a pro rata share of the fluctuations in the market value of the retirement accounts after the date of the judgment of divorce. On November 3, 2003, the trial court entered a written order addressing the issues raised in the October 21, 2003, hearing; as to the issue of the retirement accounts, the court stated:
Both parties filed postjudgment motions. On January 27, 2004, the trial court entered an amended order that determined that the valuation of the retirement accounts as of December 31, 2003, minus any postdivorce contributions, accurately reflected the postdivorce earnings and losses of the retirement accounts; the trial court ordered that a QDRO reflecting that valuation be prepared and submitted to the court by January 31, 2004. The wife filed a timely appeal.
The wife contends that the trial court modified the judgment of divorce more than 30 days after its entry. The wife argues that paragraph 18 of the divorce judgment was unambiguous and clearly required the wife to receive a sum certain based on the valuation of the retirement balances as of June 30, 2001. The husband, on the other hand, contends that the provision was ambiguous and that the trial court's order was necessary to effect the intent of the parties.
Ex parte Littlepage, 796 So.2d 298, 301 (Ala.2001) (emphasis added; citations omitted).
Consistent with the foregoing principles, our cases hold that a trial court has the inherent authority to interpret, implement, or enforce its own judgments. E.g., Hallman v. Hallman, 802 So.2d 1095, 1098 (Ala.Civ.App.2001). In Filer v. Filer, 502 So.2d 698, 700-01 (Ala.1987), the trial court was held to have the inherent authority to interpret, implement, and enforce its order providing for the sale and division of a marital home, in light of postjudgment changes in the valuation of the home that resulted in proceeds of the sale being less than contemplated by the judgment. See also, e.g., Garris v. Garris, 643 So.2d 993, 995 (Ala.Civ.App.1994)(the trial court could clarify and enforce its judgment as necessary to effect the unspoken intent of that judgment) that . The trial court's authority is not, however, "so broad as to allow substantive modification of an otherwise effective and unambiguous final order." George v. Sims, 888 So.2d 1224, 1227 (Ala.2004).
Whether a settlement agreement or a resulting divorce judgment is ambiguous is a question of law for the trial court. Wimpee v. Wimpee, 641 So.2d 287, 288 (Ala.Civ.App.1994) ( ).
In Mayhan v. Mayhan, 395 So.2d 1022 (Ala.Civ.App.1981), the Court of Civil Appeals stated:
Mayhan, 395 So.2d at 1023 (citations omitted). As the court further explained: "For the purposes of appeal, the 1979 divorce judgment was final; yet, it was also interlocutory in nature `insofar as...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Williams v. Williams
...to assure that the substantive award is paid as intended. See Filer v. Filer, 502 So. 2d 698, 699 (Ala. 1987); Jardine v. Jardine, 918 So. 2d 127, 136 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005) ("Clearly, in situations where a trial court's judgment is not susceptible to performance as written, courts have the ......
-
Graham v. Graham
...recognized that "a trial court has the inherent authority to interpret, implement, or enforce its own judgments," Jardine v. Jardine, 918 So. 2d 127, 131 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005), "[t]he trial court's authority is not, however, ‘so broad as to allow substantive modification of an otherwise eff......
-
Graham v. Graham
...recognized that "a trial court has the inherent authority to interpret, implement, or enforce its own judgments," Jardine v. Jardine, 918 So. 2d 127, 131 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005), "[t]he trial court's authority is not, however, 'so broad as to allow substantive modification of an otherwise eff......
-
Downs v. Downs
...cases hold that a trial court has the inherent authority to interpret, implement, or enforce its own judgments." Jardine v. Jardine, 918 So.2d 127, 131 (Ala.Civ.App.2005). In determining that the relevant provision of the divorce judgment was unambiguous, the trial court "[T]he court first ......