Henning v. Henning
| Decision Date | 09 May 2008 |
| Docket Number | 2060530. |
| Citation | 999 So.2d 523 |
| Parties | Doris L. HENNING v. Terry L. HENNING. Terry L. Henning v. Doris L. Henning. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Claude D. Boone, Mobile, for appellant/cross-appellee Doris L. Henning.
Donald M. Briskman, Mobile, for appellee/cross-appellant Terry L. Henning.
Doris L. Henning ("the former wife") and Terry L. Henning ("the former husband") were divorced in May 2003. The judgment of divorce required the former husband to pay the former wife monthly alimony in the amount of $3,500, to maintain health-insurance coverage on the former wife through COBRA as long as permitted by law, and to maintain the former wife as an irrevocable beneficiary of one-half of the proceeds of any life-insurance policy he currently had in existence and, in the event that the existing policy was terminated for any reason, to maintain the former wife as a beneficiary of a policy of equal value. In July 2005, the former husband moved to terminate, suspend, or reduce his alimony, health-insurance, and life-insurance obligations under the divorce judgment because he was being dismissed from his employment effective August 1, 2005. The former husband later amended his motion to report that he could continue to make the monthly alimony payment through December 2005 but that he had lost his health insurance and life insurance when he was dismissed from his employment. The former wife objected to the former husband's request that his obligations under the divorce judgment be terminated and moved to hold the former husband in contempt for failing to pay alimony during the pendency of his motion.
After a trial, the trial court entered a judgment that reduced the former husband's alimony obligation to $1,750 per month and held the former husband in contempt for failing to pay alimony as requested by the former wife; the trial court permitted the former husband to purge himself of contempt by complying with all orders of the court. In addition, the trial court awarded the wife a $17,500 alimony arrearage and awarded the former wife's attorney $1,000 to be applied to his fee. The judgment did not address the former husband's obligation to maintain a life-insurance policy naming the former wife as a beneficiary or his obligation to maintain health insurance on the former wife pursuant to COBRA. However, the former husband testified, and the former wife did not refute, that the former husband had paid the COBRA premiums for 36 months, the amount of time that the former wife was eligible for coverage pursuant to COBRA; thus, the former husband's health-insurance obligation expired pursuant to the terms of the divorce judgment. Both parties filed timely postjudgment motions. The former wife argued in her postjudgment motion that the trial court had failed to rule on whether the former husband would continue to be required to maintain a life-insurance policy naming the former wife as a beneficiary; the former husband argued in his postjudgment motion that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ruffin v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp.
...trial court directs the entry of a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. Bean, 557 So.2d at 1253.”Henning v. Henning, 999 So.2d 523, 525 (Ala.Civ.App.2008). In the case now before us, the September 21 order did not adjudicate the claims of all the parties or the rights and ......
-
Ruffin v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp.
...court directs the entry of a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. Bean, 557 So. 2d at 1253."Henning v. Henning, 999 So. 2d 523, 525 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). In the case now before us, the September 21 order did not adjudicate the claims of all the parties or the rights and l......
-
Henning v. Henning
...P.C., Mobile, for appellee. THOMAS, Judge. This is the second time these parties have been before this court. See Henning v. Henning, 999 So.2d 523 (Ala.Civ.App. 2008). The pertinent procedural history was summarized in "Doris L. Henning ('the former wife') and Terry L. Henning ('the former......
-
NOLL v. NOLL
...rights or liabilities of all parties, have been decided. Ex parte Harris, 506 So.2d 1003, 1004 (Ala.Civ.App.1987).” Henning v. Henning, 999 So.2d 523, 525 (Ala.Civ.App.2008). Accordingly, we must dismiss the appeal. Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the father's Rule ......