Deal v. Deal
Citation | 587 So.2d 413 |
Parties | Billy E. DEAL v. Leona M. DEAL. 2900262. |
Decision Date | 30 August 1991 |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Timothy J. Magee, Troy, for appellant.
Larry C. Jarrell, Troy, for appellee.
This is a post-divorce modification case.
The parties were divorced in 1987. In two amended orders issued in 1988 and 1989, the court granted the father custody of the parties' two minor children, subject to the visitation rights of the mother. In the latter modification, the mother was also ordered to pay child support in the amount of $250.00 per month. In 1990, the mother filed a combined petition for rule nisi and petition to modify the final judgment of divorce in which she requested that 1) the trial court hold the father in contempt for interference with her court-ordered visitation with the parties' two minor children; 2) custody of the parties' two minor children be transferred to her; and 3) the father be ordered to pay child support in compliance with the child support guidelines. After receiving evidence ore tenus, the trial court ordered that custody of the parties' two minor children to remain with the father and that he not be held in contempt. The court also ordered the father to file a bond in the amount of $5,000.00 with the circuit clerk to ensure his compliance with the court-ordered visitation rights of the mother. Failure on the part of the father to file the bond would result in a change of custody of the minor children, and further interference with the mother's right of visitation would result in the father's forfeiture of the bond. A motion by the father to alter or amend the judgment with regard to the bond was denied, and the father appeals.
The father raises one issue for our review. The father contends that it was reversible error for the court to order the father to file the $5,000.00 bond where the mother's original petition to modify failed to comply with the requirements of the Code of Alabama 1975, § 30-3-6(b). Section 30-3-6(b) provides as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Thomas v. Campbell
- Rogers v. Rogers, 93-CA-00771-SCT
-
Hollen v. Hollen-Conley, 2010002
...to whether postminority-educational support should be awarded, but instead is a necessary restriction on such an award. See Kent, 587 So. 2d at 413. (FN4). The mother argues that the father failed to raise this issue in the trial court, which, she says, precludes this court from considering......
- Hollen v. Conley