Chappel v. Esty
| Decision Date | 06 January 1995 |
| Citation | 655 So.2d 1011 |
| Parties | Terri Joyce Esty CHAPPEL v. Harold Seward ESTY III. AV93000725. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Dave Beuoy of Burke & Beuoy, Arab, for appellant.
Clyde D. Baker, Guntersville, for appellee.
The parties were divorced on June 28, 1993. Pursuant to an agreement of the parties that was incorporated into the divorce judgment, the wife was to have custody of the two minor daughters; the husband was to pay to the wife "$3,950.00 in full settlement of all marital claims and child support due prior to June 1, 1993, ... to be paid in full on or before February 15, 1994"; the wife was to "receive an immediate written assignment of such sum from the Husband's pension fund"; and, further, the husband was to pay $420 per month child support beginning June 1993.
On March 16, 1994, the wife petitioned the court, asking, among other things, that the husband be held in contempt, claiming that he had failed to pay to her, pursuant to the divorce judgment, the $3,950. The court, after taking the matter under advisement on letter briefs of the parties, found that "the judgment of divorce does not order the parties to abide by the agreement" and dismissed the petition.
The wife appeals, arguing (1) that the trial court can hold a party in contempt for failure to comply with a previous order or judgment of the court that adopted an agreement of the parties relating to child support and settlement of marital claims; and (2) that the judgment of the trial court in ratifying, confirming, and approving a separation agreement constitutes an order to the parties to comply with its terms. The husband contends that the trial court, in the divorce judgment, did not "order" him to comply with the terms of the separation agreement and that, therefore, he cannot be held in contempt.
We conclude that the trial court erroneously applied the reasoning in Price v. McAllister, 537 So.2d 43 (Ala.Civ.App.1988), to dismiss the petition. In Price, this court held that a person could not be held in contempt for disobeying an order that was never issued; Price is not analogous to this case.
The divorce judgment provides: "That the Separation Agreement of the parties dated the 28th day of June, 1993, be and the same is hereby ratified, confirmed, and approved and made a part hereof as if set out here verbatim." In Kaleta v. Kaleta, 452 So.2d 1338, 1339 (Ala.Civ.App.1984), this court stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patterson v. Patterson
...in holding Patterson in contempt and imposing sanctions against him. Todd v. Todd, 659 So.2d 631 (Ala.Civ.App.1995); Chappel v. Esty, 655 So.2d 1011 (Ala.Civ.App.1995); Stack v. Stack, 646 So.2d 51 (Ala.Civ.App.1994); Anonymous v. Anonymous, 620 So.2d 43 (Ala.Civ.App.1993); Wright v. Wright......
-
Dolberry v. Dolberry
...At that point, "`the judgment, and not the agreement itself, became the controlling enforceable instrument.'" Chappel v. Esty, 655 So.2d 1011, 1012 (Ala.Civ.App.1995)(quoting Kaleta v. Kaleta, 452 So.2d 1338, 1339 (Ala.Civ.App.1984)). Furthermore, the husband's obligations later became the ......
-
Smith v. Smith
...At that point, " 'the judgment, and not the agreement itself, became the controlling enforceable instrument.' " Chappel v. Esty, 655 So.2d 1011, 1012 (Ala.Civ.App.1995) (quoting Kaleta v. Kaleta, 452 So.2d 1338, 1339 (Ala.Civ.App.1984)). Furthermore, the husband's obligations later became t......