Bragg v. Roche (Ex parte Bragg)
Decision Date | 28 April 2017 |
Docket Number | 2160420 |
Citation | 237 So.3d 235 |
Parties | EX PARTE Carrie Suzanne BRAGG (In re: Carrie Suzanne Bragg v. Walter Alexander Roche, Jr.) |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Jerry M. Blevins, Montgomery, for petitioner.
Bill Speaks of Speaks & Speaks Attorneys at Law, P.C., Clanton, for respondent.
Carrie Suzanne Bragg ("the mother") asks this court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Chilton Circuit Court ("the trial court") to vacate judgments awarding custody of the mother's children ("the children") to their father, Walter Alexander Roche, Jr. ("the father"), and relieving the father of his child-support obligation. We grant the mother's petition and issue the writ.
In August 2013, the mother filed a petition requesting the trial court to domesticate a Tennessee judgment divorcing the mother and the father. She also requested the trial court to modify provisions of that judgment relating to the father's visitation with the children. The mother's action was assigned case number DR–13–900186. In response to the mother's petition, the trial court entered a judgment domesticating the divorce judgment and modifying that judgment so as to establish a new location where the parties were to exchange the children before and after the father's visitation periods.
In May 2014, the mother filed a petition requesting the trial court to increase the father's child-support obligation. That action was assigned case number DR–13–900186.01, but eventually was dismissed.
In July 2014, the father filed a petition requesting the trial court to hold the mother in contempt of court, to award the father joint legal custody of the children, to modify the father's visitation rights, and to decrease the father's child-support obligation. The father's action was assigned case number DR–13–900186.02 ("the father's modification action"). Shortly thereafter, the trial court entered an order in the father's modification action appointing a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of the children.
In May 2016, the trial court, in the father's modification action, entered a judgment entitled "order on show cause and modification," which stated:
Both the mother and the father filed postjudgment motions requesting the trial court to amend or clarify its judgment. Those motions were not ruled upon within 90 days of their filing and were, the mother asserts, denied by operation of law. See Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P.
Thereafter, in January 2017, the father filed a motion in the father's modification action requesting the trial court to hold a hearing in order to "make a proper determination as to why [one of the children] is not attending school." The father did not request any specific relief in his motion. In February 2017, the guardian ad litem filed a motion in the father's modification action requesting "emergency transfer of custody pending hearing." Among other things, the guardian ad litem alleged in her filing that one of the children had missed excessive amounts of school, that the mother had exaggerated that child's physical and mental-health problems, that the mother had failed to take that child to counseling sessions, and that the guardian ad litem had become "increasingly concerned about the [mother's] decision making." In her prayer for relief, the guardian ad litem requested the trial court to enter an order transferring custody of the children to the father "pending the child's further evaluation, the [m]other's psychosocial evaluation, and further hearings by [the trial court]."
The same day the guardian ad litem filed her motion, the trial court entered a judgment, which has been described as "ex parte," awarding the father "primary physical custody" of the children, giving the father final decision-making authority regarding the children, directing the mother to undergo a psychological evaluation, awarding the mother supervised visitation, and setting the matter for further hearing in 15 days. The next day, the mother filed a motion requesting the trial court to order the father to undergo a psychological evaluation, which the trial court granted. Approximately one week later, the trial court entered an additional order granting the father's motion to "temporarily suspend [his] child support until a final hearing."
The day before the scheduled hearing, the mother filed a response to the guardian ad litem's motion, arguing that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because, the mother asserted, all matters in the father's modification action had been resolved upon the denial of the parties' postjudgment motions, no new filing fees had been paid, and no new custody-modification action had been commenced.
On March 10, 2017, the trial court entered a judgment stating that it had held a hearing, at which the mother and the father had appeared. The trial court stated further that it had received testimony from the mother, the father, and the children's counselor, that the trial court was "continu[ing] the effect of the Ex Parte Order [granting the father temporary custody]," and that "the children [were] to remain in the custody of their father." Thereafter, the mother filed a mandamus petition requesting this court to direct the trial court to vacate its order terminating the father's child-support obligation, to vacate the judgment temporarily awarding the father custody of the children, and to vacate the judgment "continu...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
N.T.C. v. M.S.C.
... ... filed his modification petition, the trial court entered an ex parte order awarding him sole physical custody of the children and awarding the ... See Ex parte Bragg , 237 So. 3d 235, 238 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017). For example, on July 13, ... ...
-
J.G. v. B.G. (Ex parte J.G.)
... ... In Ex parte Bragg , 237 So.3d 235 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017), the mother, in August 2013, filed a petition requesting that ... ...
-
S.L. v. J.L.C.
... ... See Ex parte Dowling , 477 So.2d 400, 404 (Ala. 1985). Nevertheless, the maternal ... See Ex parte Bragg , 237 So.3d 235, 238 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017) ; see also Ex parte Davidson ... ...
-
Rowland v. Tucker
... ... " Ex parte Deramus , 882 So.2d 875, 876 (Ala. 2002) (quoting King Mines Resort, Inc ... Civ. App. 2002) ; see also Ex parte Bragg , 237 So.3d 235, 238 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017) (holding that a new case ... ...