Hathcock v. Hathcock
Citation | 685 So.2d 736 |
Parties | Randall K. HATHCOCK v. Jeanice M. HATHCOCK. 2950707. |
Decision Date | 25 October 1996 |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Dave Beuoy of Burke & Beuoy, Arab, for Appellant.
No brief filed for Appellee.
This post-divorce modification case presents a single issue: whether the trial court erred by ordering the noncustodial parent to pay the custodial parent $20 for each day the noncustodial parent failed to exercise visitation with the parties' children.
The parties were divorced in 1994. The mother was awarded custody of the two children born of the marriage, ages seven and eight, and the father was awarded visitation with the children every other weekend and for one month in the summer.
In 1995, the mother filed an action to modify the divorce judgment, requesting, among other things, a change in that portion of the judgment requiring each party to "provide half of the transportation" for the father's visitation with the children. At trial, the mother presented evidence that the parties had lived in the same town at the time of the divorce. Later, however, the father moved to Birmingham, and the mother moved to Huntsville. The mother testified that she had experienced inconvenience and expense because of her five-hour round trips twice a month to deliver the children to their father's residence. She asked the trial court to modify the divorce judgment to require the father to provide for the children's transportation during visitation periods.
In testifying about the inconvenience and expense caused by the visitation provision in the divorce judgment, the mother mentioned that, during the year the parties had been divorced, the father had failed to exercise his visitation rights on eight or nine occasions. The father testified that he had failed to exercise his visitation rights only six times, and each time, he stated, he had given the mother advance notice. The father explained that he had missed four visitation periods because he had been required by his employer to attend a training school in Texas and that he had missed one visitation period because he had to work during the Christmas holidays. The mother agreed that the father had given her advance notice each time he had been unable to exercise his visitation rights.
The trial court's modification order provided, in pertinent part, the following:
The father appeals, arguing that the trial court had no authority to impose a monetary penalty for missed visitation because (1) the mother did not request such relief in her complaint, (2) the issue was not tried by the express or implied consent of the parties, and (3) the penalty violates the mandate of Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-6(b). The mother has not filed a brief on appeal.
Section 30-3-6 provides, in pertinent part, the following:
(Emphasis added.) In Deal v. Deal, 587 So.2d 413 (Ala.Civ.App.1991), this court held that the father was not required to post a bond to ensure his compliance with visitation orders, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-6(b), because the mother's pleading failed to give him notice that she was requesting such relief.
We agree with the father that the mother's complaint did not seek sanctions against him for failing to visit the children. We also agree that the issue of sanctioning the father for his failure to visit the children was not tried by the express or implied consent of the parties. The determination of whether an issue has been tried by the express or implied consent of the parties within the meaning of Rule 15(b), Ala.R.Civ.P., is a matter that lies within the discretion of the trial court. McCollum v. Reeves, 521 So.2d 13 (Ala.1987). That determination will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Id. We...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
DC v. Co.
...because "`[i]n the absence of a legal duty, the breach of a moral duty does not suffice to invest ... liability.'" Hathcock v. Hathcock, 685 So.2d 736, 738 (Ala.Civ.App.1996) (quoting Handley v. Richards, 518 So.2d 682, 686 (Ala.1987) (Maddox, J., concurring specially)). Certainly, parents ......
-
Johnson v. Johnson
...521 So.2d 13 (Ala.1987). That determination will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Id. " Hathcock v. Hathcock, 685 So.2d 736, 738 (Ala.Civ.App.1996) ). Based on the testimony, the trial court could have determined that this issue was tried by the implied consent of th......
-
Bridges v. Bridges
...of the parties within the meaning of Rule 15(b) is a matter that lies within the discretion of the trial court. Hathcock v. Hathcock, 685 So.2d 736, 738 (Ala.Civ.App.1996) (citing McCollum v. Reeves, 521 So.2d 13 (Ala.1987)). The trial court's determination as to whether an issue has been t......
-
T.L.H. v. R.A.R.
...the meaning of Rule 15(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., is a matter that lies within the discretion of the trial court." Hathcock v. Hathcock, 685 So.2d 736, 738 (Ala.Civ.App.1996) (citing McCollum v. Reeves, 521 So.2d 13 (Ala. 1987)). The trial court's determination will not be reversed on appeal abse......