Chamberlin v. Chamberlin

• Decision Date: 03 October 2014
• Docket Number: 2130155.
• Citation: Chamberlin v. Chamberlin, 184 So.3d 1016 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014)
• Parties: Eric J. CHAMBERLIN v. Amanda J. CHAMBERLIN.
• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

184 So.3d 1016

Eric J. CHAMBERLIN

v.Amanda J. CHAMBERLIN.

2130155.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

Oct. 3, 2014.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 5, 2014.

Connie Cooper, Phenix City, for appellant.

Richard M. Kemmer III of Kemmer Law, P.C., Columbus, Georgia, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Eric J. Chamberlin("the husband") appeals following the denial of his postjudgment motion.The husband filed the motion after the Russell Circuit Court("the trial court") entered a judgment divorcing Amanda J. Chamberlin("the wife") and him.

The record indicates the following.The parties married in 2004.Three children were born of the marriage.At the time of the divorce hearing in this matter, the children were 6 years old, 3 years old, and 18 months old.The wife, the primary wage-earner in the family, was a captain in the United States Army, serving full-time as a veterinarian.She testified that her gross monthly income was $7,200.

The husband, an ordained minister, was a captain in the United States Army Reserve, serving as a chaplain.As a reservist, the husband's job was part-time, and he earned $800 a month.He also drove a school bus for a church-affiliated private school.In lieu of payment for that job, the husband said, the parties were able to send their oldest child to the private school without having to pay tuition.The husband testified that he held master's degrees in religion and in religious education.He testified that he had been the children's primary caregiver, especially while the wife was deployed to Kosovo in 2008 and to Afghanistan from July 2011 to July 2012.

The parties agreed that they did not have much in the way of marital assets.They purchased the marital residence in May 2010 using a loan the wife was able to receive through the Department of Veterans Affairs("VA").Both the husband and the wife testified that they had little to no equity in the house at the time of the hearing.Also, by the time of the hearing, the husband and the wife had already divided the personal property between them.

At the hearing, the husband made accusations of adultery against the wife.He testified that he believed that she had had numerous affairs during their marriage.The record includes e-mail correspondence that the husband had with members of the wife's chain of command in which he accused the wife of "harlotry."The husband claimed that the wife had had affairs both with civilians, including two women, and with military members, including members of her unit.The husband also accused members of the army of helping the wife to "cover up" her alleged affairs.In the e-mails to the wife's superior officers, the husband demanded that members of the wife's unit be kept away from the parties' children.If the children were "exposed" to those soldiers "or any other suspected lover," the husband wrote, he would "go to the press and use this as a wedge issue to show how commanders are covering up affairs of their own officers."

The wife denied the husband's allegations of adultery.The wife testified that among the people the husband had accused her of sleeping with were a husband and wife who were allowing her to stay with them during the pendency of the divorce, her childhood friend, a soldier in her unit, and a male friend.The wife also testified that the husband had told the children that divorce is a sin and that the wife was "a whore,""a liar and an adulterer," that she did not love Jesus, and that she wanted to sin.

On September 5, 2013, the day after the hearing, the trial court entered a judgment divorcing the parties.In the judgment, the trial court wrote:

"No probative evidence was produced to link a physical relationship between [the wife] and others during the marriage.[The wife] testified that she had no sexual relations with other persons during the marriage of the parties.There is no proof, even circumstantial, that there was physical relationship between [the wife] and any other person as alleged by [the husband]."

The wife was awarded primary physical and legal custody of the children subject to the husband's "liberal visitation rights."In ordering the husband to pay child support, the trial court found that the husband was voluntarily underemployed based on his income and training, and it imputed income of $2,000 a month to the husband.Relying on child-support forms completed by the wife's attorney, the trial court ordered the husband to pay $418 a month in child support.

The trial court awarded the wife the marital residence and made her responsible for all indebtedness on the residence.She was also made responsible for the indebtedness on the vehicle she had leased in her name.The trial court also awarded the husband and the wife the property they had previously divided between themselves.

On October 1, 2013, the husband timely filed a postjudgment motion, which he titled as a motion for a new trial, pursuant to Rule 59, Ala. R. Civ. P.Also after the divorce judgment was entered, the wife initiated contempt proceedings and filed a motion for a restraining order.At the October 7, 2013, hearing on the motion for a restraining order, the wife testified that, after the divorce judgment was entered, the husband had engaged in conduct that had made her fear for her safety and for the safety of the children.She testified regarding an incident that occurred on September 17, 2013, in which she took the parties' oldest child to soccer practice at Fort Benning, Georgia, where she was stationed.The husband was the soccer coach.The child mentioned to the husband that he might be going to a new school.The wife said that, in response, the husband "became enraged, started telling the children that [she] was evil and a harlot."The husband then yelled in front of the parents and children at the soccer field that the wife was evil, a harlot, and slept with soldiers.The wife said that she asked the husband to walk away and that she reminded him that he would be violating a previously entered court order if he continued to make those comments.One of the other coaches pulled the husband aside, the wife said, and she and the children left the field in her vehicle.

As she was driving, the wife testified, she noticed the husband pursuing her "very quickly" in his vehicle.She drove to the parking lot of her office, and the husband "aggressively forced his car next to hers and was swerving toward her."The wife said that she was scared and called the military police ("the MPs").She also saw someone she knew and asked him to help her.When the husband saw that the wife was not going to exit her vehicle, she said, he turned his attention to soldiers in the parking lot, pointing her out and yelling that she was a harlot and slept with soldiers.The wife said that she remained in her vehicle until the MPs arrived.The husband left the military post before he could be detained.The wife described the children as being "very upset" by the incident.The man from whom the wife had sought help also testified at the hearing and corroborated the wife's account.

A few days after the events that occurred at the soccer field, the wife said, she took her oldest child to school at the private school where the husband worked as a bus driver.As she was sitting in the vehicle, the wife said, the husband opened both the driver's door and the passenger-side door and told the wife that he believed that taking the oldest child out of the private school would harm "the children, and he would do anything to protect the children, even if it meant killing us both."The oldest child, who was seven years old at the time, was sitting in the vehicle at the time.That evening, the wife said, she received an e-mail from the husband in which he said, among other things, that he was "still trying to decide how to approach this so-called liberal visitation," adding that he was

"not desirous to split the kids in half.[He] would demonstrate [his] love to them by sincerely letting them go into the hands of God.While they may not understand it today, [his] hope is that one day God would help them to understand that [he] did it out of love."

The wife testified that she interpreted the husband's comments, both at the school and in the e-mail, "as a threat to the children, that [the husband] was willing to protect them by any means."

The wife testified that the husband let her know he was watching her.He sent the wife numerous text messages telling the wife where she was and who was with her.The wife also submitted a recording of voice messages the husband had left for the children.In the voice messages, the husband can be heard making negative comments about the wife and telling the oldest child to let his younger siblings know.The husband also told the oldest child he was sorry that child had to attend a new school, even though the child told the husband he was excited about going to the new school.The husband urged the child to wear his old school's uniform to the new school to "protest" having to attend that school.

The wife also testified to an incident that occurred on October 6, 2014—the day before the hearing on the wife's motion for a restraining order, when the parties were exchanging the children at the Russell County Sheriff's Department.The wife said that, as the husband was exiting his car, he asked her if she was wearing her boyfriend's shirt.The wife said that the shirt was hers, but the husband became visibly upset.The husband threatened to kill the wife's boyfriend.The wife testified that the husband whispered: " 'I'm going to cut him open in front of you and make you watch, and I'm going to kill all of us and leave you alive.And all of us, he gestured to the children in the car and to himself.' "An audio recording of the incident was submitted into evidence.Because the husband is whispering, it is difficult to discern all of his words.

Against the advice of his attorney, the husband testified at the hearing on the wife's request for...