Moore v. Moore
| Decision Date | 28 April 1976 |
| Parties | Don G. MOORE, Sr. v. Isabell Templeman MOORE. Civ. 705. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Frank W. Riggs, Montgomery, for appellant.
John S. Bowman, Montgomery, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a modification decree in a domestic relations case.
The parties were divorced by a decree dated November 11, 1974. There were two minor dependent children. Custody of the children was given to the mother with specific weekend visitation rights to the father. The father was ordered to provide support for the wife and children in the sum of $350.00 per month. Other provisions such as attorney fees and the maintaining of hospital and medical insurance were ordered paid by the husband. The wife was given use and possession of the jointly-owned home until the youngest child reached majority or became self-supporting. After such time the home was directed to be sold and the net proceeds divided equally between the parties.
As a result of the divorce, husband lost his job. He had difficulty obtaining other remunerative employment. In less than a month after the decree, the husband was cited for contempt for failure to comply with the divorce decree. He was permitted to purge himself of contempt by paying $500.00 upon the amount owed.
On December 30, 1974, the husband filed a petition to modify, alleging that he was financially unable to comply with the decree and that the wife had failed to comply with the decree in respect to visitation rights and delivery to him of personal property. The petition to modify was heard orally by the court on February 17, 1975.
The evidence tended to show that the husband was only earning about $500.00 per month in gross wages; that he was obligated to pay considerably more in support, notes, debts and living expenses than he made; at the time of the hearing he was delinquent in payments under the decree of $1,181.00; and that he had no assets other than his undivided half interest in the home. The wife earned nearly $9,000.00 per year and had been supporting herself, the children and paying mortgage payments on the home since the divorce.
After hearing the evidence, the court entered judgment finding the husband in arrears in payments due under the decree in the amount of $1,181.00; that he had failed to maintain health insurance on the children; and that the testimony showed the former husband and father was unable to support his family. The court then ordered that the interest of the husband in the home be conveyed to the wife in consideration of the cancellation of the arrearage and the elimination of obligation to pay future support to the wife and children. It was further ordered that the right of visitation with the children be dependent upon the expressed desires of the children.
The father appeals presenting two issues of error in the judgment.
The first is: Did the original decree contain a property division which could not be modified? We consider that the order in the original decree might be questioned as to whether it constituted a property division.
However, even if the decree were to be determined to be a property division, it would not prevent the action of the court in its last decree under the facts of this case.
It is well settled that the estate of a husband and father may be subjected to the payment of past and future obligations for support and alimony. Osborne v. Osborne, 57 Ala.App. 204, 326 So.2d 766.
The father in this case subjected himself to the jurisdiction of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan v. Morgan
...the father, and the mother, not upon the child. To so place it is to probably destroy it, not protect it.’" Moore v. Moore, 57 Ala.App. 735, 331 So.2d 742, 744 (Ala.Civ.App.1976) ; see also Parker v. Parker, 269 Ala. 299, 303, 112 So.2d 467, 471 (1959) (reversing a judgment placing visitati......
-
Ex parte Tabor
...So.2d 6 (Ala.Civ.App.1986)); Martin v. Martin, 494 So.2d 97 (Ala. Civ. App.1986); Tucker, 403 So.2d at 264 (citing Moore v. Moore, 57 Ala.App. 735, 331 So.2d 742 (1976)); Womble v. Womble, 56 Ala.App. 318, 321 So.2d 660 (1975); Donald v. Donald, 50 Ala.App. 9, 276 So.2d 436 In Love v. Love,......
-
Morgan v. Morgan
...father, and the mother, not upon the child. To so place it is to probably destroy it, not protect it.' "Moore v. Moore, 57 Ala. App. 735, 331 So. 2d 742, 744 (Ala. Civ. App. 1976); see alsoParker v. Parker, 269 Ala. 299, 303, 112 So. 2d 467, 471 (1959) (reversing a judgment placing visitati......
-
H.H.J. v. K.T.J.
...the father, and the mother, not upon the child. To so place it is to probably destroy it, not protect it.”Moore v. Moore, 57 Ala.App. 735, 331 So.2d 742, 744 (Ala.Civ.App.1976); see also Parker v. Parker, 269 Ala. 299, 303, 112 So.2d 467, 471 (1959) (reversing a judgment placing visitation ......