Nelson v. Nelson
| Decision Date | 13 October 1982 |
| Citation | 421 So.2d 120 |
| Parties | Douglas NELSON v. Karon P. NELSON. Civ. 3236. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Ruben K. King, Montgomery, for appellant.
William G. Hause of Hardwick, Hause & Segrest, Dothan, for appellee.
Post divorce proceedings were filed by Mrs. Nelson against her former husband to enforce certain provisions of the divorce judgment as to doctor, dental and medical bills incurred on behalf of their minor children. Both parties testified before the trial court which ordered Mr. Nelson to reimburse Mrs. Nelson for $810 of such expenses which had been paid by her. He was also directed to pay to an orthodontist $1,987 for dental services rendered to one of the children. Mr. Nelson appeals and raises two issues. We affirm.
The divorce judgment approved an agreement of the parties. Paragraphs numbered 10 and 12 of that agreement enter into the present controversy. By the terms of paragraph 10, Mrs. Nelson agreed to pay all "jointly owed indebtedness incurred by the parties during the marriage...." Paragraph 12 provided that Mr. Nelson would be responsible for, and pay when due, all doctor, dental and medical bills incurred by the minor children.
Mr. Nelson contends that, under paragraph 10 of the agreement, he was entitled to two credits as against the $810 which he was ordered to pay to his ex-wife.
He borrowed $300 from Mrs. Nelson's father to pay a dental bill for capping one of his teeth and he later paid this debt to his former father-in-law. The second alleged credit concerned a $170 balance due to a finance company. Mr. Nelson borrowed that money from them; the loan was only in his name and he repaid it to the creditor.
Under any reasonable construction, paragraph 10 means that Mrs. Nelson agreed to pay jointly owed debts incurred by them during their marriage. Since only Mr. Nelson was obligated to the two creditors to pay those two debts, they were not jointly owed, but were his personal debts. Mrs. Nelson was not a joint obligee as to either of the proposed credits. There was no joint liability therefor by both parties. Consequently, under paragraph 10 she was not due to pay either of those two debts of her former husband and the trial court properly failed to give Mr. Nelson credit for his payment of either of those accounts.
For her dental health, one of the children needed certain orthodontic treatment, including braces, and her dentist referred her to a specialist. A letter from the daughter's orthodontist was introduced into evidence on Mr. Nelson's behalf. It stated in part as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte University of South Alabama
...depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. See Ragan v. Williams, 220 Ala. 590, 127 So. 190 (1930); Nelson v. Nelson, 421 So.2d 120 (Ala.Civ.App.1982); Guthrie v. Bobo, 32 Ala.App. 355, 26 So.2d 203 (1946). Lack of knowledge of the fact that necessaries are furnished does not re......
-
Havard v. Havard
...and necessary. Thus, we conclude that there was evidence to support the trial court's judgment as to this issue. See Nelson v. Nelson, 421 So.2d 120 (Ala.Civ.App.1982). Third, the father contends that the evidence did not support the trial court's judgment finding him in arrears in his paym......
-
University of South Alabama v. Patterson
...present one, we think that this principle has clearly been applied in past cases and should be applied now. See, e.g., Nelson v. Nelson, 421 So.2d 120 (Ala.Civ.App.1982). See also Guthrie v. Bobo, 32 Ala.App. 355, 26 So.2d 203 Based upon the facts and circumstances of this case, as placed b......
-
Kilby v. Kilby
...first time that a parent pay for a child's orthodontic treatment if it is in the best interest of the child's welfare. Nelson v. Nelson, 421 So.2d 120 (Ala.Civ.App.1982). We certainly cannot say that the most recent payment order for orthodontic treatment was not in the child's best Since w......