Hill v. Hill
| Decision Date | 14 March 1990 |
| Citation | 562 So.2d 255 |
| Parties | J.W. HILL v. Annie Sue HILL. Civ. 7347. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Grover S. McLeod, Birmingham, for appellant.
C.B. Caine, Jr., Moulton, for appellee.
This is an appeal from the trial court's finding the husband in contempt for failing to pay periodic alimony and its concomitant modification of that alimony.
The parties were divorced on April 19, 1988. Pursuant to that decree, the husband was ordered to pay periodic alimony in the amount of $525 per month. Because of his continued failure to pay this award, the wife filed a motion for rule nisi, seeking to have the husband held in contempt. In response, the husband filed a petition to modify the amount of periodic alimony, alleging his financial inability to pay due to a significant reduction in his income. He further sought an order holding the wife in contempt for her alleged refusal to allow him to retrieve property awarded to him by the original decree, from which he could satisfy his past-due obligation to her.
The trial court, in considering all of the motions before it, found the husband to be in contempt and ordered that he satisfy the total arrearage, as well as an attorney fee in the amount of $1,000, within forty-five days of the trial court's order or face confinement. Furthermore, the husband's petition for rule nisi was denied, but a reduction in the amount of periodic alimony was ordered, decreasing his monthly support obligation from $525 to $150 per month.
Upon the husband's subsequent failure to comply with the trial court's order, he was further ordered to be confined to jail; however, such confinement was stayed due to the trial court's finding that he lacked the present ability to purge himself of the contempt. This stay was conditioned upon the husband's diligent pursuit of his claim for Social Security benefits or, in the alternative, his obtaining full-time employment within thirty days of the date the stay was issued, which was January 12, 1990.
The husband appeals. We affirm.
The husband asserts several issues on appeal. He alleges that the trial court erred in finding him to be in contempt of court. The law clearly empowers a trial court to find a party in contempt for violating or failing to comply with an order of the court. Beavers v. Beavers, 359 So.2d 387 (Ala.Civ.App.1978). Additionally, we note that this court's review of a finding of contempt is limited to questions of law and that, if there is any evidence to support the trial court's finding, the judgment will not be disturbed. McKeever v. McKeever, 528 So.2d 856 (Ala.Civ.App.1988).
Our review of the evidence indicates that the trial court's judgment is supported by the evidence, and we, therefore, must affirm. The husband contends that he was financially unable to pay his support obligation and that, consequently, he could not be held in contempt. While inability to comply with a trial court's order is a defense to a contempt proceeding, Blankenship v. Blankenship, 420 So.2d 279 (Ala.Civ.App.1982), here, the evidence supports the trial court's apparent conclusion that the husband did possess the ability to pay, but, instead, willfully refused to do so.
He contends that, because he derived his income solely from workmen's compensation benefits, a portion of which has been terminated, he was financially unable to meet his monthly support obligations as they fell due. The record, however, reveals that the husband had been in arrears for a period of approximately five months before he suffered a decrease in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Snyder v. State
-
Ex parte J.R.W.
...S.C. We note initially that the inability of a party to obey a court order is ordinarily a defense to a charge of contempt. Hill v. Hill, 562 So.2d 255 (Ala.Civ.App.1990); Ex parte Jefferson County Dep't of Human Resources, 555 So.2d 1075 (Ala.Civ.App.1989), cert. denied, 555 So.2d 1077 (Al......
-
J.K.L.B. Farms, LLC v. Phillips
...See Gilbert v. Nicholson, 845 So.2d 785, 791 (Ala.2002); Ex parte Baker, 623 So.2d 304, 306 (Ala.Civ.App.1993); and Hill v. Hill, 562 So.2d 255, 257 (Ala.Civ. App.1990)." Stamm v. Stamm 922 So.2d 920, 924 None of the decisions upon which the main opinion relies for its holding that one may ......
-
Johnson v. Johnson
...correct. See Ex parte Ederer, 900 So.2d 424 (Ala.2004) ; Schiesz v. Schiesz, 941 So.2d 279 (Ala.Civ.App.2006) ; and Hill v. Hill, 562 So.2d 255, 257 (Ala.Civ.App.1990). ‘ "Furthermore, this court is not permitted to reweigh the evidence on appeal or to substitute its judgment for that of th......