Dunn v. Dunn
Decision Date | 31 December 2008 |
Docket Number | 2070591. |
Citation | 12 So.3d 704 |
Parties | Anthony Wayne DUNN v. Cynthia A. DUNN. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Charles A. Langley of Holder, Moore, Lawrence & Langley, P.C., Fayette, for appellant.
Clatus Junkin and Charles E. Harrison of Junkin, Pearson, Harrison & Junkin, LLC, Tuscaloosa, for appellee.
This is the second time these parties have been before this court. In Dunn v. Dunn, 972 So.2d 810, 811-12 (Ala.Civ.App. 2007) ("Dunn v. Dunn I"), this court set forth the procedural history of the parties' divorce action as follows:
In Dunn v. Dunn I, supra, this court affirmed the custody and property-division provisions of the trial court's divorce judgment.
Thereafter, on October 12, 2007, Cynthia A. Dunn ("the wife") filed a motion to interplead funds and a motion to enforce the trial court's divorce judgment. The wife paid $28,976.80 into the court; that amount represented the proceeds from the sale of the parties' marital home. In her October 12, 2007, motion to enforce the divorce judgment, the wife alleged that a dispute had arisen between the parties regarding the manner in which the trial courts January 3, 2006, and May 18, 2006, order which were part of the final divorce judgment, provided for the disbursement of the proceeds from the sale of the marital home. The wife set forth an argument supporting her position in that dispute. On November 20, 2007, Anthony Wayne Dunn ("the husband") filed a motion for a judgment on the pleadings, arguing that his interpretation of the divorce judgment supported that motion. The wife filed an opposition to the arguments the husband had asserted in his motion for a judgment on the pleadings, and the husband responded to that opposition.
With regard to the division of the parties' property, the divorce judgment ordered, among other things, that the husband pay the wife $12,272.34, representing her portion of his interest in a limited-liability company ("the LLC"), from the proceeds of the sale of the marital home. The trial court's divorce judgment also ordered that the proceeds from the sale of the marital home be used to repay the parties' marital debt. In this action, the parties dispute whether the proceeds from the sale of the marital home should first be applied to pay the wife her interest in the LLC or whether the proceeds from the sale of the marital home should first be applied to the repayment of marital debt. The confusion arises from the different treatment of those issues in the January 3, 2006, order and the May 18, 2006, order and from this court's characterization of the property division, which did not address whether the interest in the LLC awarded to the wife was to be paid from the proceeds of the marital home. See Dunn v. Dunn I, 972 So.2d at 816-17.
The trial court's January 3, 2006, order in the divorce action provided, in relevant part:
The trial court's May 18, 2006, order, which resolved the issues that remained pending in the divorce action, provided, in relevant part:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stender v. Stender
...its orders and judgments. Granger v. Granger, supra; Patterson v. Patterson, 518 So.2d 739, 742 (Ala.Civ.App.1987).’“Dunn v. Dunn, 12 So.3d 704, 709 (Ala.Civ.App.2008).”Barnes v. Barnes, 28 So.3d 800, 801–02 (Ala.Civ.App.2009). In Hudson v. Hudson, 701 So.2d 13, 15 (Ala.Civ.App.1997), this ......
-
Stroeker v. Harold
...as the plaintiffs argue, the trial court would have lost jurisdiction to modify that provision after 30 days. Dunn v. Dunn, 12 So. 3d 704, 709 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). Additionally, "parties to a divorce decree may not change or modify the decree merely by an agreement between themselves." Ho......
-
D.S.H. v. E.B.H.
...Blackstock, 159 So.3d 708, 732 (Ala.Civ.App.2013) ; Kreitzberg v. Kreitzberg, 80 So.3d 925, 932–33 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) ; Dunn v. Dunn, 12 So.3d 704, 709 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) ; T.K.T. v. F.P.T., 716 So.2d 1235, 1238–39 (Ala.Civ.App.1998) ; Figures v. Figures, 624 So.2d 188, 191 (Ala.Civ.App.199......
-
Taylor Peake, Wyatt Props., LLC v. Spencer Wyatt ) Grey First, LLC (In re Wyatt Props., LLC)
...clarification, or enforcement of its own judgment, a jurisdiction that all respective courts inherently possess. See Dunn v. Dunn, 12 So. 3d 704, 709 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) ("[A] trial court has the inherent power to interpret, clarify, and enforce its orders and judgments."). The fact that ......