Beatty v. Beatty
Decision Date | 11 April 2008 |
Docket Number | 2060993. |
Citation | 991 So.2d 761 |
Parties | John J. BEATTY v. Gloria N. BEATTY. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
v.
Gloria N. BEATTY.
[991 So.2d 762]
Joshua J. Lane, Anniston, for appellant.
Sheila C. Field of Field & Field, LLC, Anniston, for appellee.
[991 So.2d 763]
BRYAN, Judge.
John J. Beatty ("the husband") appeals a judgment finding him $25,230.14 in arrears regarding his obligation to pay Gloria N. Beatty ("the wife") $600 in monthly periodic alimony and denying his petition seeking a reduction in that obligation. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.
The wife petitioned the trial court seeking, among other things, to hold the husband in contempt for his alleged accrual of an arrearage regarding his obligation to pay her periodic alimony in the amount of $600 per month. The trial court then entered an order requiring the husband to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. The husband answered, denying that he had accrued an arrearage, and filed a petition seeking a reduction in his monthly periodic-alimony obligation.
On May 7, 2007, the trial court held an ore tenus proceeding on the parties' petitions. On May 8, 2007, the trial court entered a judgment denying the wife's petition insofar as she sought to find the husband in contempt and denying the husband's petition seeking a reduction in his periodic-alimony obligation. It found that the husband accrued an arrearage, plus interest, totaling $25,230.14.
The husband then moved the trial court to alter, amend, or vacate its judgment. The trial court denied that postjudgment motion. The husband timely appealed.
The following facts are pertinent to this appeal. The evidence established that the parties divorced in 1998. The divorce judgment ordered the husband to pay the wife periodic alimony in the amount of $600 per month.
It is undisputed that a 2001 judgment incorporating the terms of an agreement entered into by the parties ordered the wife to apply to receive a portion of the husband's Social Security benefits. The 2001 judgment is not included in the record on appeal. The parties do not dispute that the 2001 judgment provided that the husband's periodic-alimony obligation would be reduced in an amount equal to the amount of the husband's Social Security benefits that the wife received. Additionally, it is undisputed that the 2001 judgment ordered the wife to notify the trial court and the husband when she received those benefits. The wife applied for those benefits, but her claim was denied.
At trial, the wife contended that the 2001 judgment required the husband to continue to pay her $600 per month in periodic alimony until she receives a portion of the husband's Social Security benefits. She testified that the judgment provided that the husband would continue to pay her $600 per month if she were unable to receive those benefits. The husband denied that he was required to continue to pay the wife $600 per month if she were denied a portion of his Social Security benefits. The husband testified that the judgment provided that the amount of any Social Security benefits the wife received would be credited against the $600 he owed her in monthly periodic alimony. He also testified that the judgment ordered him to pay the wife $300 per month until the wife informed the husband and the trial court of the receipt of those benefits.
Debbie Snow, an employee of the wife's previous attorney, stated that she had drafted a letter dated January 2, 2002, addressed to the husband's attorney stating that the wife had informed her that she had been denied a portion of the husband's Social Security benefits. Snow testified that she did not remember whether the wife's previous attorney had informed the trial court that the wife had been denied those benefits. The husband denied receiving that letter and testified that he was
unaware that the wife had been denied a portion of his Social Security benefits.
The wife introduced into evidence a document reflecting the amount of the husband's alleged arrearage. That document indicates the following. The husband had paid the wife $400 per month from December 2001 to February 2003. From March 2003 until March 2006, the husband had paid $300 per month. The husband then failed to pay any alimony from March 2006 until January 2007 except in April 2006, when he paid $300. The husband then paid $3,000 in February 2007. The wife's document also indicates that the husband allegedly accrued an arrearage, plus accrued interest, totaling $24,030.14 from December 2001 to February 2007. The wife testified that the husband had paid her $300 in March, April, and May 2007. She alleged that the husband owed her an additional $900 for those months. According to the evidence the wife introduced at trial, the husband's arrearage, plus accrued interest, totals $24,930.14.
On appeal, the husband first argues that the trial court erred by finding him in arrears regarding his obligation to pay monthly periodic alimony.
"Alimony arrearage is a final judgment as of the date due and is not subject to modification. Harris v. Harris, 553 So.2d 129 (Ala.Civ.App.1989). In some instances alimony obligations can be satisfied by means other than direct payment from the husband to the wife. See, Swindle v. Swindle, 429 So.2d 601 (Ala.Civ.App.1983) (holding that obligation to pay mortgage on home was satisfied by payment of fire insurance proceeds where husband maintained fire insurance policy); Frazier v. Frazier, 455 So.2d 883 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984) (holding that alimony obligation was discharged by Social Security payments received by the wife)."
Anderson v. Anderson, 686 So.2d 320, 323 (Ala.Civ.App.1996).
In its judgment, the trial court stated, in pertinent part:
"Testimony was presented by both parties, as well as stipulations of facts, and the same having been heard and considered, the Court hereby finds as follows:
"1. That the [husband] was ordered to pay $600.00 per month [as] Alimony in the original divorce.
"2. That in December 2001, the parties agreed that the [wife] should be due Social Security benefits from the [husband's] work history and that Alimony would reduce dollar-for-dollar as to the amount, which was estimated to be around $300.00. The [husband] was ordered to pay $300.00 per month as Alimony along with $100.00 per month on an arrearage of $1,500.00.
"3. That the [wife] was to apply for Social Security benefits and notify all parties and the Court in writing with the exact amount of benefits.
"4. That while the [wife] did apply, she, nor the attorney, notified the Court or the [husband], in writing. Thereafter, the [husband] paid the $300.00 per month and $100.00 per month for (15) fifteen months as Ordered.
"5. That the [husband] was not aware of the fact that the [wife] was not eligible for Social Security until after the [wife] had filed the Petition for Contempt, at which time, he filed to modify and paid the balance due based on the $300.00 per month figure.
"6. That the [husband] failed to show a change in circumstances that would warrant a modification of Periodic Alimony.
"7. That the [husband] is not found to be in wilful and contumacious Contempt for failure to pay Alimony.
"It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED as follows:
"A. The [wife] ... is awarded a Judgment against the [husband] ... in the amount of $24,030.14 thru February, 2007, plus $1,200.00 for the months of March and April, 2007, for a total Judgment of $25,230.14 (Twenty-five Thousand, Two Hundred, Thirty and 14/100— Dollars), for which let execution issue."
(Emphasis omitted.)
The husband argues that the trial court's findings of fact are inconsistent with its judgment. Particularly, he contends that the trial court found that the 2001 judgment reduced his periodic-alimony obligation to $300 per month; that he had paid $300 per month pursuant to that judgment; and that, nonetheless, the trial court found him to be $25,230.14 in arrears.1
Our supreme court has stated:
"We construe the trial court's judgment like other written instruments: the rules of construction for contracts are applicable for construing judgments. Hanson v. Hearn, 521 So.2d 953, 954 (Ala.1988); Moore v. Graham, 590 So.2d 293, 295 (Ala.Civ.App.1991). We are free to review `all the relevant circumstances surrounding the judgment,' and `the entire judgment ... should be read as a whole in the light of all the circumstances as well as of the conduct of the parties.' Hanson, 521 So.2d at 955."
Boykin v. Law, 946 So.2d 838, 848 (Ala. 2006).
Reading the trial court's judgment as a whole and reviewing the circumstances surrounding the entry of the judgment, we conclude that the trial court found that the 2001 judgment reduced the husband's obligation to pay $600 in monthly periodic alimony only if the wife were to receive a portion of the husband's Social Security benefits; in other words, the husband remained obligated to pay the wife $600 per month in the event she were denied those benefits.
Additionally,
"[t]his court does not presume error. In order for this court to consider an error asserted on appeal, that error must be affirmatively demonstrated by the record. Liberty Loan Corp. of Gadsden v. Williams, 406 So.2d 988 (Ala.Civ.App. 1981). [The appellant] must `bear the burden of ensuring that the record on appeal contains sufficient evidence to warrant reversal.' Gotlieb v. Collat, 567 So.2d 1302, 1304 (Ala.1990)."
Elliott v. Bud's Truck & Auto Repair, 656 So.2d 837, 838 (Ala.Civ.App.1995). The husband contends that the trial court's judgment finding him in arrears does not reflect the 2001 judgment modifying his periodic-alimony obligation to $300 per month. However, the husband failed to include the 2001 judgment in the record on appeal. Therefore, the husband failed to meet his burden to ensure that the record on appeal demonstrates error. Based on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. Johnson
...is due is not impacted by this opinion. See, e.g., McDaniel v. McDaniel, 171 So.3d 38 (Ala.Civ.App.2015) ; Beatty v. Beatty, 991 So.2d 761, 764 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) ; Anderson v. Anderson, 686 So.2d 320, 323 (Ala.Civ.App.1996) ; Glenn v. Glenn, 626 So.2d 638, 640 (Ala.Civ.App.1993) ; Frazier ......
-
Wilson v. Wilson, 2150259
...Miller, 47 So.3d 262, 263 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) ; Stanford v. Stanford, 34 So.3d 677, 681 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) ; Beatty v. Beatty, 991 So.2d 761, 767 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) ; Schiesz v. Schiesz, 941 So.2d 279, 289 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006) ; Sexton v. Sexton, 935 So.2d 454, 461 (Ala. Civ. App. ......
-
Z.W.E. v. L.B.
...this court to consider an error asserted on appeal, thaterror must be affirmatively demonstrated by the record."' Beatty v. Beatty, 991 So. 2d 761, 765 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) (quoting Elliott v. Bud's Truck & Auto Repair, 656 So. 2d 837, 838 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995))."Cockrell v. Cockrell, 40 S......
-
A.B v. J.B
...and we will not reverse the trial court's judgment ordering the parties to equally share the cost of that debt. See Beatty v. Beatty, 991 So.2d 761, 765 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (“ ‘In order for this court to consider an error asserted on appeal, that error must be affirmatively demonstrated by t......