Garris v. Garris
Decision Date | 03 June 1994 |
Citation | 643 So.2d 993 |
Parties | Lynda B. GARRIS v. James Gary GARRIS. AV92000758. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Arthur F. Fite III of Merrill, Porch, Dillon & Fite, P.A., Anniston, for appellant.
Thomas W. Harmon of Williams, Harmon and Hardegree, Anniston, for appellee.
Lynda B. Garris and James Gary Garris were divorced by a judgment entered on February 11, 1992. That judgment recognized the wife's interest in certain IRA investments accumulated by the husband during the marriage, and ordered, inter alia, that the remaining liquid assets be divided equally after the payment of certain debts. The judgment did not specifically address the tax and penalty consequences of an early withdrawal of such funds. Upon withdrawing the funds, a ten percent penalty and tax liability in excess of fourteen thousand dollars was incurred.
In January 1993, the husband filed a petition for modification, seeking relief from the payment of periodic alimony and relief from the requirement to furnish medical insurance for the wife. He thereafter amended his petition, seeking also an order requiring the wife to be responsible for one-half of the tax consequences incurred as a result of the court-ordered early withdrawals.
Following ore tenus proceedings, the trial court reduced the husband's alimony obligation and ordered the wife to pay the husband $7,180 as reimbursement for the tax liability incurred as a result of the early withdrawals from the retirement accounts. Thereafter, the wife filed a timely post-judgment motion, seeking to vacate that part of the order with regard to the tax liability reimbursement; she contended that the order was an impermissible modification of an existing judgment. The court thereafter entered an order that stated as follows:
The court thereafter again awarded a judgment in favor of the husband and against the wife in the amount of one-half the tax liability. The wife appeals, contending that the trial court was without jurisdiction to amend or modify the judgment, because the petition to modify was filed 14 months after the entry of the original judgment, and s...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
IN RE MARRIAGE OF WASHINGTON v. Washington, 98-1234.
...order regarding division of "antiques" was clarification of ambiguous provision and not impermissible modification); Garris v. Garris, 643 So. 2d 993 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999) (court's failure to provide for tax consequences of IRA investments left original divorce order ambiguous and subject t......
-
M.B. v. R.P.
...them custody of the child "in order to protect the well being of the child." Based on the relief requested, see Garris v. Garris, 643 So.2d 993, 995 (Ala. Civ.App.1994) ("The relief sought within the pleading governs, and the nomenclature of the pleading is not controlling."), the maternal ......
-
In Re the Marrage of Washington
...order regarding division of "antiques" was clarification of ambiguous provision and not impermissible modification); Garris v. Garris, 643 So.2d 993 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999) (court's failure to provide for tax consequences of IRA investments left original divorce order ambiguous and subject to......
-
Jardine v. Jardine
...of the home that resulted in proceeds of the sale being less than contemplated by the judgment. See also, e.g., Garris v. Garris, 643 So.2d 993, 995 (Ala.Civ.App.1994)(holding that the trial court could clarify and enforce its judgment as necessary to effect the unspoken intent of that judg......