Ex parte Parker
| Citation | 334 So.2d 911 |
| Parties | Ex parte Almeta Howell PARKER. Civ. 801. |
| Decision Date | 23 June 1976 |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Elliott, O'Rear & Robinson, Jasper, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
Review by writ of certiorari is sought here of an order holding petitioner, Almeta Howell Parker, in contempt of court.
Almeta Howell Parker and A. P. Howell were divorced by the Circuit Court of Walker County, Alabama on June 13, 1973. The divorce decree incorporated a prior settlement agreement which, among other things, provided that A. P. Howell would transfer his interest in the homeplace of the parties to petitioner for $5,500.00. In return, petitioner gave a note and mortgage to A. P. Howell. The terms of the note and mortgage required that petitioner pay to Howell not less than $100 per month until said indebtedness was paid.
Almeta Parker subsequently conveyed the property to her daughter, Sybil Ingram. The daughter testified that she agreed to assume the mortgage given to A. P. Howell by her mother, but Howell testified that he had no agreement with Sybil Ingram, and he wanted Almeta Parker to pay him.
After a hearing on the petition for a rule nisi filed by Howell, the trial court found Almeta Parker in contempt of court for failure to pay at least $100 per month to Howell on the indebtedness represented by the note and mortgage previously described. The trial court gave her one month to pay the arrears or be incarcerated in the Walker County jail until such time as she purged hereself of contempt by complying with said order.
Petition for the writ of certiorari was then filed here seeking a review of that contempt order.
Almeta Parker says that she has been found in contempt of court for failure to pay a debt, and such an order contravenes Section 20, Constitution of Alabama 1901, which provides:
'That no person shall be imprisoned for debt.'
The Supreme Court of Alabama has held that Section 20 is limited to contract liabilities. Bray v. State, 140 Ala. 172, 37 So. 250. The court has also said that Alimony is not a matter of contract within the meaning of Section 20, Supra. Ex parte Stephenson, 252 Ala. 316, 40 So.2d 716.
Petitioner contends in brief (respondent did not favor us with a brief) that her agreement with Howell, which was incorporated in the divorce decree, was a simple contract whereby she was to pay him $5,500 for his interest in some real estate that he conveyed to her. She says there was nothing in the agreement or the decree to suggest that alimony was involved in the arrangement.
Our examination of the agreement entered into by the parties hereto prior to the divorce decree and the testimony heard by the court at the rule nisi hearing convinces us that the transfer of property interest in exchange for the payment of a certain sum of money was either a simple business transaction, or, at most, a property settlement upon the dissolution of a marriage. Either view...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. Thomas
...which excludes alimony from the meaning of the word "debt." Thompson v. Thompson, 282 Ala. 248, 210 So.2d 808 (1968); Ex parte Parker, 334 So.2d 911 (Ala.Civ.App.1976). This principle, however, answers only the threshold question whether contempt is an available tool to coerce payment of In......
-
Johnson v. Johnson
...present value of the wife's inchoate marital rights—dower, homestead, quarantine, and distributive share."). In Ex parte Parker, 334 So.2d 911, 912–13 (Ala. Civ. App. 1976), in discussing whether an obligation could be enforced through the courts' contempt powers, this court explained the d......
-
Patterson v. Patterson
...in the consent judgment is a contractual property settlement obligation or a noncontractual alimony obligation. Ex parte Parker, 334 So.2d 911 (Ala.Civ.App.1976). The Florida judgment provided that the several provisions therein pertaining to the payment of money, in lieu of alimony, by the......
-
Gartman v. Gartman
...Le Maistre v. Baker, 268 Ala. 295, 105 So.2d 867 (1958); Gamble v. Gamble, 53 Ala.App. 168, 298 So.2d 254 (1974); Ex parte Parker, Ala.Civ.App., 334 So.2d 911 (1976). Consequently, a trial court has the discretion to order a division of property and enter an award of alimony in the same The......