Boykin v. Drake
Decision Date | 27 June 1997 |
Citation | 699 So.2d 233 |
Parties | Richard A. BOYKIN, Jr., and Trust Company of Texas v. Ross K. DRAKE, Jr., executor of the estate of Margaret M. Boykin. 2960220. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Daniel G. Blackburn, Bay Minette, for Trust Company of Texas.
Thomas Allen Deas, Mobile, for appellee.
On November 3, 1995, the executor of the estate of Margaret M. Boykin filed a garnishment action in the Mobile Circuit Court against Trust Company of Texas ("Trust Company"), seeking to collect $33,726, which represented moneys allegedly owed by Richard A. Boykin, Jr., the sole income beneficiary of the "Dickie Trust." On October 10, 1996, the trial court entered a $33,726 judgment against the Dickie Trust for the support and college expenses of Helen Elizabeth Boykin, the child of Richard A. Boykin, Jr. The Trust Company appeals.
Richard A. Boykin, Jr., was divorced from Margaret M. Boykin in 1979. Margaret M. Boykin is now deceased. The garnishment action was pursued by Ross K. Drake, Jr., her executor. The Dickie Trust has previously been the subject of an appeal before this court concerning certain obligations claimed to be due from the trust for child support and alimony involving a later marriage of Richard A. Boykin, Jr. See Ex Parte Boykin, 656 So.2d 821 (Ala.Civ.App.1994) ( ). In Boykin I, this court determined that the Dickie Trust was a spendthrift trust. Ex parte Boykin, at 827.
On this present appeal, the Trust Company claims that the corpus of the spendthrift trust should not be subject to a judgment for unpaid child support and that the trial court's order is overly broad in that the judgment is for obligations other than child support.
As an appellate court, we cannot consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. Our review is restricted to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mullis v. Mullis
...another way, this court is restricted in its review to the evidence and the arguments considered by the trial court. Boykin v. Drake, 699 So.2d 233 (Ala.Civ.App.1997). "The record on appeal cannot be supplemented or enlarged by the attachment of an appendix to an appellant's brief." Goree v......
-
Goree v. Shirley
...as an appendix.2 This court is restricted in its review to the evidence and arguments considered by the trial court. Boykin v. Drake, 699 So.2d 233 (Ala.Civ.App.1997). Further, it is well settled that the appellant has the burden of ensuring that the record on appeal contains sufficient evi......
-
Ross v. Ferrell
...Alabama Supreme Court 1981575. THOMPSON, Judge. AFFIRMED. NO OPINION. See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(E), Ala. R.App.P.; Boykin v. Drake, 699 So.2d 233 (Ala.Civ.App.1997); and Legal Systems, Inc. v. Hoover, 619 So.2d 930 (Ala.Civ.App. The Supreme Court of Alabama transferred the appeal to this......