King v. King

Decision Date16 March 2001
PartiesSheila J. KING v. Billy KING.
CourtAlabama Court of Civil Appeals

Joan-Marie Kettell, Huntsville, for appellant.

James D. Walker, Albertville, for appellee.

MURDOCK, Judge.

Sheila J. King ("the mother") appeals from an amended judgment of the Marshall County Circuit Court awarding custody of the parties' minor child to Billy King ("the father").

The parties were married on October 19, 1989. One child, a daughter, was born of the marriage, on February 11, 1992. On October 30, 1998, the wife filed a complaint for divorce, seeking custody of the minor child. Along with the complaint, the mother filed an affidavit in which she alleged that the father had verbally abused her and that he had an alcohol-abuse problem. The court awarded temporary custody of the child to the mother. On December 16, 1998, the father filed a motion for an emergency custody order and filed an affidavit alleging that the mother had abused alcohol while the minor child was in her care; that the mother had operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, with the minor child in the vehicle; that she had allowed an unmarried man and his son to move in with her and the minor child; that she had denied the father visitation and telephone communication with the child; and that the conduct and behavior of the mother had endangered the child. The court denied the motion, stating that the father had failed to prove the allegations contained in the motion. Following an ore tenus proceeding, the trial court entered a judgment divorcing the parties and ordering that custody of the minor child remain with the mother.

Two days after the divorce judgment was entered, the father filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment, alleging that the mother had deceived the court when she withdrew $36,249.76, the balance available for withdrawal on the parties' home-equity-loan line of credit, 11 days before trial without informing the father or the trial court of her actions. The father requested that the court place custody of the minor child with him. On April 5, 2000, the court ordered the mother to deliver the funds that she had withdrawn to the clerk of the court. The trial court entered an interim order on April 26, 2000, directing that temporary custody of the child be placed with the father immediately. A hearing on the father's postjudgment motion was held the next day, at which time the mother deposited $18,200 with the clerk of the court. The mother testified at the postjudgment hearing that she had spent the remaining funds; however, she deposited an additional $18,049.79 with the court the next day. The trial court entered an amended judgment on May 4, 2000, finding that the mother had "falsely testified about her financial condition," that she had "concealed that she was in possession of [the $36,249.79]," and that the mother's actions "evidence[d] a moral corruptness on the part of the [mother] and mandate[d] against her having the custody and control of the minor child of the parties," and stating that the court disbelieved "much of the [mother's] former testimony upon which it [had] based its previous judgment."

The mother appeals, arguing (1) that the trial court erred in granting the father's postjudgment motion, and (2) that the trial court erred in not applying the provisions of the Custody and Domestic or Family Abuse Act as codified in § 30-3-130 et seq., Ala.Code 1975.

Each party testified that the other had abused alcohol. In his affidavit, the father testified that the mother had endangered the child by driving under the influence of alcohol with the child in the car. The mother testified that the father had physically abused her; she testified that he had struck her on her head before the parties were married, that he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Ex parte Fann
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 13 Julio 2001
    ...determinations for a failure to make such a finding. See, e.g., Jordan v. Jordan, 802 So.2d 238 (Ala.Civ.App.2001); King v. King, 794 So.2d 1165 (Ala.Civ.App.2001). In crafting the Fesmire "requirement," the Court of Civil Appeals stated that it was predicating its ruling upon the language ......
  • Hackney v. Hackney
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • 16 Marzo 2001
  • LaForce v. Owens (In re Raymond & Assocs.)
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • 29 Diciembre 2020

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT