Fields v. Fields
| Decision Date | 20 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | 2180594 |
| Citation | 304 So.3d 1185 |
| Parties | Daniel R. FIELDS v. Laura FIELDS |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Floyd C. Enfinger, Jr., and Margaret Enfinger Pace of Law Office of Floyd C. Enfinger, Jr., P.C., Montrose, for appellant.
D. Robert Stankoski, Jr., and Joshua P. Myrick of Stankoski Myrick, LLC, Fairhope, for appellee.
In January 2017, Daniel R. Fields ("the husband") commenced in the Baldwin Circuit Court ("the trial court") an action seeking a divorce from Laura Fields ("the wife"); that action was assigned case number DR-17-900019 ("the divorce action"). The husband filed contemporaneously with the complaint in the divorce action a motion for temporary custody of the parties' child and a request for a restraining order relating to certain financial issues. The wife answered the husband's complaint in the divorce action and asserted a counterclaim for a divorce; she, too, requested temporary custody of the parties' child and certain financial relief. The wife had previously commenced in the trial court a protection-from-abuse action pursuant to the Protection from Abuse Act, Ala. Code 1975, § 30-5-1 et seq. ; that action was assigned case number DR-17-900004 ("the PFA action"). The wife also filed a motion in the divorce action seeking to have the husband held in contempt of a "status quo order," which, we assume, is the January 27, 2017, temporary order entered in both the PFA action and the divorce action, a copy of which does not appear in the record of the divorce action. The PFA action and the divorce action were assigned to the same trial judge.
After a hearing in February 2017, the trial court entered a pendente lite order in the divorce action addressing pendente lite custody of the parties' child and various other issues, including payment of the expenses of the wife and the child pendente lite, access by the husband or his employees to items required for his business that were located on the property surrounding the marital residence, and the prohibition of contact between the husband and the wife and the child. The February 2017 pendente lite order in the divorce action, like the January 27, 2017, temporary order, also required the husband to pay certain household bills, to pay the wife $1,000 per week as pendente lite support and maintenance, to continue to submit to color-code testing for drugs and alcohol, and to visit with the child once per week at "the parenting center." After the wife filed a motion to dismiss the PFA action, the trial court amended the January 2017 temporary order in April 2017 to allow the parties to have contact with one another to attempt a reconciliation; the amended PFA order required the husband to refrain from the consumption of alcohol.
During the next few months, the parties attempted a reconciliation. In September 2017, the wife, acting pro se, mailed a letter to the trial court indicating that the reconciliation had failed and requesting assistance; that letter was filed in both the PFA action and the divorce action. On October 4, 2017, the trial court entered in the PFA action a temporary amended PFA order that again prohibited contact between the husband and the wife and child. In February 2018, the wife filed another motion in the divorce action seeking to hold the husband in contempt for testing positive for the presence of alcohol on two color-code tests in December 2017, for failing to submit to several color-code tests, for failing to pay certain household bills in violation of the February 2017 pendente lite order, and for failing to ready the parties' Orange Beach house for rent; she also sought to have the husband held in contempt for violating the no-contact provisions of the October 2017 temporary PFA order entered in the PFA action. The husband responded to the wife's motion and, in March 2018, filed a motion seeking to hold the wife in contempt for failing to allow him to retrieve certain tools and business equipment from a barn or outbuilding located on the land surrounding the marital residence; the wife then responded to the husband's contempt motion.
The trial court held a hearing on the pending contempt motions in May 2018. After that hearing, the trial court entered an order in July 2018 holding the husband in criminal contempt for failing to appear for color-code testing and/or for testing positive for alcohol on those tests on nine separate occasions. The trial court sentenced the husband to 45 days in the county jail, but ordered him to serve 5 days and suspended the remaining "40 days ... for a term of probation to terminate on final judgment in this matter." The trial court expressly stated that the terms of the husband's probation required him to comply with all previous court orders relating to color-code testing. The trial court also found the husband in criminal contempt for violating the no-contact order by contacting the wife and the child via text message on a total of 23 occasions. The trial court sentenced the husband to 90 days' incarceration for those instances of contempt, required him to serve 5 days, and suspended the remaining 85 days "for a term of probation to terminate on final judgment in this matter." The order stated that the terms of probation relating to the contempt originating from the no-contact order included that the husband have no contact with the wife. The trial court further required that the two five-day sentences run consecutively. The trial court also found the husband in civil contempt based upon his failure to ready the Orange Beach house for rent. The husband did not appeal the contempt judgment. See Rule 70A(g), Ala. R. Civ. P. (); Gladden v. Gladden, 942 So. 2d 362, 369 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005) ().
The PFA action and the divorce action were ultimately consolidated in August 2018; the trial court directed the parties to thereafter file all pleadings in the divorce action. The trial court set the consolidated actions for a trial to be held in October 2018. Before the trial, the husband filed a motion in limine objecting to the admission of any testimony or other evidence relating to the wife's reasonable and necessary monthly expenses. The husband argued in that motion that, despite an interrogatory request asking for a detailed budget, the wife had refused to provide any itemized budget or list of expenses during the discovery process, stating only that she required $10,000 per month upon which to live. The trial court granted the husband's motion in limine "in part," stating in its order that the wife "shall not [be] allowed to introduce at trial any detail of monthly expenses related to her request for $10,000 per month in alimony; however, the Court has heard and may consider testimony related to those expenses from prior hearings."
The trial took place on October 17, 2018. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court requested that the parties file posttrial briefs addressing the issues raised at trial. The wife filed a motion seeking to hold the husband in contempt after the trial but before the entry of a judgment in the divorce action. The record does not indicate that a hearing was held on the wife's contempt motion.
On February 4, 2019, the trial court entered a judgment in the divorce action divorcing the parties ("the divorce judgment"). Among other things not pertinent to this appeal, the divorce judgment awarded sole legal and physical custody of the parties' two children (one of whom was born during the pendency of the divorce action) to the wife and ordered the husband to pay $1,582 per month in child support. The trial court awarded the husband supervised visitation "up to two times per week" at "the Family Center" and allowed him telephone visitation three times per week at 7:00 p.m. for up to 10 minutes. The divorce judgment further required that the older child remain in counseling and that the husband pay the cost of that counseling. The child's counselor was authorized to determine when the husband's visitation could progress to being unsupervised. Furthermore, the trial court ordered that, once the husband's visitation became unsupervised, his visitation would be "predicated on his staying clear of alcohol for two full years"; the divorce judgment required the husband to remain on color-code testing for drugs and alcohol and, among other things, to provide the wife with the test results on the day following each unsupervised visit with the children.
The divorce judgment awarded the husband all interest in his plumbing business, DanielFields Plumbing Repair, LLC ("the business"). All of the parties' real-estate interests, which included the marital residence and the four acres on which it sits, the Orange Beach house, a rental house in Loxley, and a vacant lot beside the...
To continue reading
Request your trial