Patterson v. Patterson
Decision Date | 14 October 1987 |
Citation | 518 So.2d 739 |
Parties | Linda Kay PATTERSON v. George Michael PATTERSON. Civ. 5982. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Jerry Knight of Hardwick, Knight & Haddock, Decatur, for appellant.
George Michael Patterson, pro se.
This post-divorce litigation is for the recovery of property which was awarded to the plaintiff, the husband, by the divorce judgment. From an adverse judgment, the defendant appealed.
Before rendering the divorce, the trial court heard evidence which was in great dispute as to the possession of personal property which is here involved. When the trial court orally announced in open court the terms of the divorce judgment, including the property awards to the parties, the trial court stated that, The trial court further pointed out that some of the plaintiff's personal items, such as tools, were located at the marital residence and that he had the right to obtain those items. It was further directed that the plaintiff receive the items which were in the possession of the register. The trial court requested that the defendant's attorney prepare the final divorce judgment. The presently pertinent provisions of the judgment as written were that the full, complete, and exclusive title, ownership, and possession of the following were awarded to the plaintiff: (1) the gun collection; (2) the boat, motor, trailer, and other accessories used in connection therewith; (3) all of the tools situated at the marital residence; and (4) the guns presently in the possession of the register. No appeal was taken from the divorce judgment.
The plaintiff insisted that the defendant turn over to him five or six guns, certain accessories to the boat, and certain tools. The defendant denied that she possessed those items or that she had any knowledge of their whereabouts. The plaintiff instituted the present proceedings wherein he sought from the defendant the possession of those particular items of personal property or their alternate value and he requested that the defendant be adjudged to be in contempt of court. Both parties testified as to the missing property in approximately the same manner as they had each previously testified at the divorce trial. The trial court rendered the following judgment on January 22, 1987:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stender v. Stender
...has the inherent power to interpret, clarify, and enforce its orders and judgments. Granger v. Granger, supra; Patterson v. Patterson, 518 So.2d 739, 742 (Ala.Civ.App.1987).’“Dunn v. Dunn, 12 So.3d 704, 709 (Ala.Civ.App.2008).”Barnes v. Barnes, 28 So.3d 800, 801–02 (Ala.Civ.App.2009). In Hu......
-
Kizale v. Kizale
...in compliance with this opinion.6 The former husband fails to mention that Null was implicitly overruled by Patterson v. Patterson, 518 So.2d 739 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987), as recognized by this court in Ward v. Cranford, 169 So.3d 1054, 1056 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014).7 We note that a trial court m......
-
Laymon v. Laymon (Ex parte Laymon)
...has the inherent power to interpret, clarify, and enforce its orders and judgments. Granger v. Granger, supra ; Patterson v. Patterson, 518 So. 2d 739, 742 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987)." Dunn v. Dunn, 12 So. 3d 704, 709 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008).In the present case, the former husband invoked the cont......
-
Dunn v. Dunn
...has the inherent power to interpret, clarify, and enforce its orders and judgments. Granger v. Granger, supra; Patterson v. Patterson, 518 So.2d 739, 742 (Ala.Civ.App. 1987). We disagree with the husband's argument that the trial court's January 3, 2006, order and its May 18, 2006, order we......