Gore v. White
Decision Date | 04 May 2012 |
Docket Number | 2100636. |
Citation | 96 So.3d 834 |
Parties | Curtis GORE v. Patricia (Gore) WHITE. Patricia (Gore) White v. Curtis Gore. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Nicholas A. Jones of Blanchard Law Offices, Montgomery, for appellant/cross-appellee Curtis Gore.
Terrie S. Biggs of Capell & Howard, P.C., Montgomery, for appellee/cross-appellant Patricia (Gore) White.
Curtis Gore (“the former husband”) appeals from a judgment of the Montgomery Circuit Court (“the trial court”) that ordered him to pay postminority-educational-support arrears and that modified his postminority-educational-support obligation. Patricia White (“the former wife”) cross-appeals from the same judgment insofar as the trial court modified the former husband's postminority-educational-support obligation and failed to award her a greater amount of attorney fees.
The parties were divorced by the trial court in January 2004, and their divorce judgment incorporated an agreement of the parties. Pursuant to that agreement, the former wife was awarded primary physical custody of the parties' daughter (“the child”), the only remaining minor child of the parties. The pertinent parts of the parties' agreement provided as follows:
“....
On May 2, 2007, the former husband filed a petition to modify his child-support obligation based on an alleged decrease in his income. The former wife filed an answer and a counterclaim requesting modification of certain terms of the divorce judgment. The former wife also requested that the former husband pay a pro rata share of expenses incurred by the child for summer college courses that she had taken before she graduated from high school. The parties entered into a second agreement that provided, in pertinent part:
(Emphasis added.)
The parties' agreement was incorporated into a judgment modifying the parties' divorce judgment (“the modification judgment”) on November 20, 2007.
The record indicates that the child began attending the University of Texas in fall 2009. On September 18, 2009, the former wife filed a show-cause petition seeking to hold the former husband in contempt for his failure to pay his pro rata share of the child's college expenses, among other alleged violations of the divorcejudgment and the modification judgment. The former wife sought an award of attorney fees based on paragraph 10 of the divorce judgment. 1
On January 19, 2010, the former husband filed an answer to the former wife's contempt petition and a counterclaim to modify the divorce judgment and the modification judgment. He alleged that there had been a material change in circumstances since the entry of the last judgment because the child had chosen to attend an out-of-state college. He alleged that the cost of attending the out-of-state college was “exponentially higher than any in-state public institution and was otherwise not contemplated by the former husband when he signed the previous agreements.” The former husband further alleged that he did not have the funds necessary to contribute to the child's out-of-state college expenses, and he asked the trial court to modify the terms of the previous judgments to “reflect a more appropriate postminority support payment.”
The trial court conducted an ore tenus hearing on May 3, 2010, and August 27, 2010. On September 7, 2010, the trial court entered an order that stated, in pertinent part, “that [paragraph] number five ... in the [modification judgment] is vague and overly broad, and further, that it contains a latent ambiguity and is therefore due to be modified.”
On November 23, 2010, the trial court conducted a hearing on the former husband's petition to modify based on a material change in circumstances regarding his ability to pay the child's out-of-state college expenses. On December 21, 2010, the trial court entered a judgment that made the following specific findings of fact and legal conclusions:
s decision. [The] former wife contends that throughout [the child]'s senior year in high school, she and [the child] consulted with [the] former husband regarding college applications and the selection process. Further, [the child] notified her father[, the former husband,] well in advance of her high school graduation of her selection of a college choice of the University of Texas. The former wife requested in writing that the former husband seek his legal remedy pursuant to the modification [judgment] if he disagreed with [the child]'s college choice. Rather than seek his legal remedy, the former husband simply refused to pay his pro rata [share] (87%) of [the child]'s college expenses and limited his contribution to that of his pro rata share (87%) of in-state college tuition costs.....
“...
“In its September 7, 2010, order, this Court found a latent ambiguity existed in the modification agreement, and therefore, will modify former husband's pro rata share of the ... child's college tuition and expenses....
“The remaining issues [for] the Court to decide were the issue of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mun. Workers Comp. Fund, Inc. v. Morgan Keegan & Co.
...; Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. University of Alabama Health Servs. Found., 881 So.2d 1013, 1020 (Ala.2003) ; Gore v. White, 96 So.3d 834, 844 (Ala.Civ.App.2012) ; and Gartman v. Hill, 874 So.2d 555, 559 (Ala.Civ.App.2003).1 MAM and Morgan Keegan specifically excluded from their objection ......
-
Zucaro v. Anand Patel, Raman Patel, & Gulf Coast Mgmt. Co.
...law reads into every agreement allowing for the recovery of attorney's fees a reasonableness limitation.' " Gore v. White, 96 So. 3d 834, 846 n.3 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012) (quoting Willow Lake Residential Ass'n, Inc. v. Juliano, 80 So. 3d 226, 241 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010)). Where, as here, attorne......
-
Ex parte Peake
... ... Yarbrough , 144 So.3d ... 386, 392 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014); Holston v. Holston , ... 128 So.3d 736, 743 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013); Gore v ... White , 96 So.3d 834, 841 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012); ... Egres v. Egres , 85 So.3d 1026, 1031 (Ala. Civ. App ... 2011); Hood ... ...
-
King v. King
...because the August 8, 2011, order settled the issues the wife had raised without holding the husband in contempt. Gore v. White, 96 So.3d 834, 840 (Ala.Civ.App.2012) (concluding that the absence of a specific ruling on a pending petition does not render a judgment nonfinal if the trial cour......