Heller v. Heller
| Decision Date | 31 January 1990 |
| Citation | 558 So.2d 961 |
| Parties | Kenneth HELLER v. Sharon D. HELLER. Civ. 7024. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
John R. Hollingsworth, Enterprise, for appellant.
Mark Chattin of Legal Services Corporation of Alabama, Inc., Tuscaloosa, for appellee.
This is a divorce case.
Following an ore tenus proceeding, the trial court divorced the parties. A subsequent hearing was held on the husband's motion to vacate judgment, which was denied. This appeal followed. We affirm.
Initially, we find it important to note that prior to the rendering of a final judgment, this action remained pending for approximately two years, during which it was repeatedly set for trial and ultimately continued. On October 18, 1988, the attorneys for both parties were notified of the trial court's order setting the case for trial on November 3, 1988. On October 26, 1988, the husband filed a motion for a pretrial conference.
This motion was denied, and a final judgment granting the wife's petition for divorce was entered on November 4, 1988, divorcing the parties; granting the wife custody of the minor child, Elizabeth Joan Heller, without disturbing the juvenile court's order of custody of Kenneth David Heller in the wife's parents; deferring visitation rights of the husband; and awarding child support in the amount of $50 per week.
The husband first asserts that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for pretrial conference. In support of this position, he cites Rule 16, Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, which states:
"In any action the court may of its own motion, or shall on timely written notice by any party to the cause, direct and require the attorneys for the parties to appear before it, at least 20 days before the case is set for trial, for a conference...." (Emphasis supplied.)
Here, the husband's request for a pretrial conference was not filed until after the order setting the date for trial. In order for the trial court to have complied with the time provision set forth in Rule 16, A.R. Civ.P., it would have been faced with once again continuing this case. We do not find the court's refusal to do so an abuse of its broad discretion to grant or deny such motions. Madison v. Weldon, 446 So.2d 21 (Ala.1984).
Furthermore, we recognize that prior to other continuances, the husband filed numerous motions for pretrial conferences, which were not granted. However, even assuming arguendo that the trial court erred in failing to grant those motions, we do not find that such error would have presented any impediment to the husband's defense; thus, it would have constituted harmless error. Walls v. Bank of Prattville, 554 So.2d 381 (Ala.1989).
The husband next raises several issues regarding the trial court's failure to comply with standing orders of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit governing child support and visitation. As regards the issue of child support, guidelines for such an award are set forth in Rule 32 of the Alabama Rules of Judicial Administration. Such guidelines, however, were not made mandatory until October 9, 1989, and prior to that date served only as guidance in setting the amounts of such awards, rather than mandating those amounts. Davis v. Davis, 535 So.2d 183 (Ala.Civ.App.1988).
Moreover, the amount of child support awarded is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be set aside absent a manifest abuse of that discretion. Hall v. Hall, 391 So.2d 122 (Ala.Civ.App.1...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
T.V. v. B.S.
...based upon a material change of circumstances affecting the best interests of the child. See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-15-32; Heller v. Heller, 558 So.2d 961 (Ala.Civ.App.1990); and A.D.B.H., In 2004, the mother filed a petition to modify visitation and custody. In response, B.S. filed a counterc......
-
M.L. v. Jefferson Cnty. Dep't of Human Res.
... ... Dep't of Hum. Res., 504 So.2d 310, 311 (Ala. Civ ... App. 1987), to the exclusion of other courts. See, ... e.g., Heller v. Heller, 558 So.2d 961, 963 ... (Ala. Civ. App. 1990). This court also recognized that, under ... former § 12-15-32, once the ... ...
-
W.B.G.M. v. P.S.T.
...case until the child reaches the age of 21 years or until the court, by its own order, terminates that jurisdiction. In Heller v. Heller, 558 So.2d 961 (Ala.Civ.App.1990), this court, relying on § 12-15-32, held that a circuit court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over a custody di......
-
MU v. KW
...We note further that cases applying § 12-15-32 have recognized no exception to the plain language of the statute. See Heller v. Heller, 558 So.2d 961 (Ala.Civ.App.1990); Rowe v. Hill, 365 So.2d 1247 (Ala.Civ.App. 1979). We therefore conclude that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction.......