Murphy v. Murphy
| Decision Date | 11 March 1981 |
| Parties | Cherie S. MURPHY v. Douglas W. MURPHY. Civ. 2515. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Kelby E. Strickland, Jr., Birmingham, for appellant.
Donald M. Phillips, Lanett, for appellee.
This is a child support case.
The ex-wife appeals from an order of the Chambers County Circuit Court which, among other things, denied her petition to hold the ex-husband in contempt, excused his obligations under previous orders of child support and set the amount of such support payable in the future at $30 per week.
The parties were divorced in September 1975 by decree of the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia. The decree awarded custody of the parties' minor child to the wife. The husband was ordered to pay $50 per week child support and other amounts in alimony.
The wife remained in Georgia and the husband moved to Chambers County, Alabama. The wife initiated proceedings in Georgia under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) to compel the husband's payment of child support. Pursuant to URESA, § 30-4-80, et seq., Code of Alabama (1975), the Chambers County Circuit Court ordered the husband to pay child support of $30 per week beginning December 18, 1975. On February 26, 1976, the court issued another order pursuant to URESA ordering the husband to pay $120 per month child support.
The wife moved to Alabama and in August 1980 filed a petition for Rule Nisi, seeking to hold the husband in contempt for failure to pay alimony or child support as required by the Georgia divorce decree. After a hearing the court refused to hold the husband in contempt. In addition, the court found the husband's alimony obligation to have been discharged, excused his obligation to pay child support due prior to the hearing date and ordered him to pay $30 per week child support beginning August 26, 1980. The wife appeals.
We note in beginning that appellee seeks to have the appeal dismissed on the ground that certiorari is the proper way to review the court's action refusing to cite for contempt. Although this assertion is technically correct, we can and do choose to treat the wife's appeal as a petition for certiorari and will consider her arguments accordingly. Armstrong v. Green, 260 Ala. 39, 68 So.2d 834 (1953); Wilson v. Freeman, 376 So.2d 1096 (Ala.Civ.App.), cert. denied, 376 So.2d 1099 (Ala.1979).
The wife raises three issues for our determination: (1) whether the trial court erred in excusing the husband's obligations under previous orders of child support, (2) whether the court erred in setting the amount of child support payable in the future at $30 per week, and (3) whether the court erred in failing to hold the husband in contempt for failure to pay child support.
As to appellant's first issue, the Georgia divorce decree set child support payments at $50 per week. It is clear from the record that the husband has not met his obligations under the Georgia decree. The Georgia cases hold that a court is without authority to "forgive" or "excuse" past-due installments of child support in proceedings brought by the wife against the husband to enforce a support order. Anderson v. Anderson, 230 Ga. 885, 199 S.E.2d 800 (1973). See also, Roberts v. Mandeville, 217 Ga. 90, 121 S.E.2d 150. Alabama, similarly, provides that installment payments for child support under a divorce decree become final judgments as of the date due and are immune from change. Morgan v. Morgan, 275 Ala. 461, 156 So.2d 147 (1963). We have previously held that final judgments for child support of a sister state require full faith and credit in the courts of Alabama, and Alabama courts may determine the amount of arrearage under the foreign judgment. McBride v. McBride, 380 So.2d 886 (Ala.Civ.App.1980); Smith v. Smith, 361 So.2d 369 (Ala.Civ.App.), cert. denied, 361 So.2d 372 (Ala.1978). The court erred in excusing the husband's obligations as to past-due installments of child support, though any payments made under the URESA order may be credited against the total amount accumulated under the Georgia judgment. § 30-4-93(b), Code of Alabama (1975).
The appellant next claims that the trial court erred in setting the amount of support payable in the future at $30 per week. Appellant views this as a modification of the Georgia decree's $50 per week support provision and challenges the authority of the circuit court to so modify. Alabama courts may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gilmore v. Gilmore
...next argues that Alabama does not permit its orders to supersede foreign orders on the same subject matter. Citing Murphy v. Murphy, 395 So.2d 1047 (Ala.Civ.App.1981), wife argues that, where there is no modification, the earlier decree remains in effect "for whatever it is worth." Wife con......
-
Graham v. State, 8 Div. 807
...law and, if there is any evidence to support its finding, the judgment of the trial court will not be disturbed." Murphy v. Murphy, 395 So.2d 1047, 1049 (Ala.Civ.App.1981); See Ex parte Abercrombie, 277 Ala. 479, 172 So.2d 43 (1965); Smith v. Smith, 380 So.2d 897 After a careful review of t......
-
Dearman v. State (Ex parte Dearman)
...trial court will not be disturbed." ’ [ Graham v. State, 427 So. 2d 998,] 1006 [(Ala. Crim. App. 1983)], citing Murphy v. Murphy, 395 So. 2d 1047, 1049 (Ala. Civ. App. 1981)."5 Discussion Dearman argues that his conduct at the August 30, 2018, hearing did not "constitute an act of direct co......
-
Ex parte Dearman
...of the trial court will not be disturbed."' [Graham v. State, 427 So. 2d 998,] 1006 [(Ala. Crim. App. 1983)], citing Murphy v. Murphy, 395 So. 2d 1047, 1049 (Ala. Civ. App. 1981)."5Page 11 Discussion Dearman argues that his conduct at the August 30, 2018, hearing did not "constitute an act ......