Graham v. Graham
| Decision Date | 11 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | 2180856 |
| Citation | 326 So.3d 1046 |
| Parties | Barry A. GRAHAM v. Joy Vick GRAHAM |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Robert E. Gibney, Mobile, for appellant.
Jene W. Owens, Jr., Mobile, for appellee.
Barry A. Graham ("the former husband") appeals from a judgment of the Mobile Circuit Court ("the trial court") to the extent it interprets and enforces certain provisions of a November 17, 2017, judgment divorcing the former husband from Joy Vick Graham ("the former wife"). We affirm the trial court's judgment.
On November 17, 2017, Judge Rosemary Chambers entered a judgment ("the divorce judgment") divorcing the parties. In the divorce judgment, the former wife was awarded, among other things, GTM Timber Management, LLC ("GTM"), a business created by the parties to manage certain property owned by the parties, which property included timberland and a cabin, as well as the real property managed by GTM ("the GTM property"). The parties agreed that the value of the GTM property was approximately $3,000,000 and that the balance owed on the GTM property was approximately $371,000. Additionally, the former wife was awarded 30% of the shares of Barry Graham Oil Services, LLC ("BGOS"), a company owned primarily by the former husband. With regard to the division of BGOS, the divorce judgment states:
The last paragraph quoted above spoke to the former husband's decision to move BGOS's banking business from Regions Bank to ServisFirst Bank, including paying off a loan of approximately $18 million that had been held by Regions Bank and had been secured by 5 vessels owned by BGOS by acquiring a new $18 million loan from ServisFirst Bank that was secured by all of BGOS's 19 vessels and other financial assets.
Notably, the divorce judgment did not award the former wife any properties that were encumbered by a lien other than the GTM property and the 30% of the shares of BGOS. The divorce judgment also stated:
Following the entry of the divorce judgment, the former husband filed a postjudgment motion requesting, among other things, clarification of the trial court's judgment with regard to paragraph 21. The former wife also filed a postjudgment motion. At the December 19, 2017, hearing on the parties’ postjudgment motions, the following colloquy occurred between the former husband's attorney and Judge Chambers, who rendered the divorce judgment, with regard to paragraph 21:
The trial court entered an order on the parties’ postjudgment motions on December 20, 2017, addressing the parties’ arguments but declining to modify or otherwise amend paragraph 21 of the divorce judgment. Both parties appealed from the divorce judgment, and this court affirmed that judgment. See Graham v. Graham, No. 2170443, 292 So. 3d 331 (Ala. Civ. App. 2019) (table), and Graham v. Graham, No. 2170451, 292 So. 3d 332 (Ala. Civ. App. 2019) (table).
On October 22, 2018, the former husband filed in the trial court a "motion for rule nisi and related instanter relief," in which he asserted that the former wife had failed to comply with certain aspects of the divorce judgment. The former husband asserted, among other things, that the outstanding mortgage and associated debt owing on the GTM property had been paid and that, as a result, he was entitled to full ownership of the life-insurance policy referenced in paragraph 21 of the divorce judgment. He further asserted in his motion that the former wife had denied that the former husband was entitled to full ownership of the life-insurance policy and requested, among other things, an order directing the former wife to execute an assignment of ownership of the policy to the former husband. On February 11, 2019, the former wife filed a response to the former husband's motion, as well as a motion for a rule nisi and a finding of contempt against the former husband.
Judge Chambers had retired by the time the former husband filed his October 22, 2018, motion; thus, the hearing on the former husband's motion was conducted by Judge Michael Sherman on March 19, 2019. At that hearing, Alex Arendall, the senior vice president of commercial banking at ServisFirst Bank in Mobile, testified that ServisFirst Bank was not claiming any lien on or security interest in the former wife's membership interest in BGOS and that the various items of collateral and security in which ServisFirst Bank was claiming an interest were in the name of BGOS. The former wife testified that there was no mortgage or other indebtedness owed with regard to GTM or the GTM property. On April 10, 2019, Judge Sherman entered a judgment disposing of all the claims presented by both parties and finding, in pertinent part:
The former husband filed a "motion to amend, modify, alter and clarify order of court and related relief" on May 10, 2019; the trial court denied that motion on June 14, 2019.
On June 19, 2019, the former husband filed a "request for entry of specific findings of fact and conclusions of law," requesting that the trial court elaborate on its April 10, 2019, judgment with regard to the life-insurance policy. Specifically, the former husband requested the trial court "to factually identify (1) which ‘conditions’ have not been met, as set forth in the Court's referenced Order and particularly paragraph #3 thereof; (2) what ‘bank liens’ or ‘liens’ presently legally encumber the [former wife's] membership interest in [BGOS]; [and] (3) which person or entity holds a security interest in or upon the [former wife's] membership interest in [BGOS]." The trial court denied the former husband's June 19, 2019, motion on July 1, 2019. The former husband timely filed his notice of appeal to this court on July 22, 2019.
The former husband first argues on appeal that the trial court erred by denying him full ownership of the life-insurance policy. He asserts that, because the evidence presented indicates that there was no mortgage or other lien on the GTM property, because ServisFirst Bank did not claim any lien on or security interest in the former wife's membership interest in BGOS, and because the remaining property awarded to the former wife in the divorce judgment was not encumbered by a lien, the former husband is entitled to full ownership of the insurance policy. We disagree.
Our supreme court has stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peake v. Wyatt (Ex parte Peake)
...conceived before the entry of the divorce judgment; the parties allegedly had separated in January 2018. See Graham v. Graham, 326 So.3d 1046, 1048 n.1 (Ala. Civ. App. 2020) (discussing this court's authority to take judicial notice of its own records relating to a previous proceeding in th......
-
Briargrove Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. DMIH, LLC (Ex parte Hall)
... ... Lyon, Jr., of Lyon Law Firm, P.C., Mobile, for respondents DMIH, LLC, Briargrove II Homeowners Association, Inc., and Ruffin Graham.Judge James T. Patterson, Mobile, as respondent. MITCHELL, Justice.Attorney W. Perry Hall petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the ... ...