Lo Porto v. Lo Porto
| Decision Date | 05 June 1998 |
| Citation | 717 So.2d 418 |
| Parties | Pino LO PORTO v. Patricia Ann LO PORTO. 2970212. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Claude D. Boone, Mobile; and William E. Shreve, Jr., of Lyons, Pipes & Cook, P.C., Mobile, for appellant.
L.P. Sutley and Spencer E. Davis, Jr., of Murchison & Sutley, L.L.C., Foley, for appellee.
WRIGHT, Retired Appellate Judge.
The parties were married in 1986. The wife had three children, two sons and a daughter, from a previous marriage. The husband adopted the three children. On July 3, 1996, the husband filed a complaint in the Baldwin County Circuit Court, seeking a divorce and an equitable division of the parties' property. The wife answered and counterclaimed, seeking custody of the two minor children, alimony, child support, post-minority educational support, all of the parties' real property, and an attorney fee. The wife also sought a temporary restraining order, requesting that the trial court prohibit the husband from harming, communicating, or threatening her or the children; from selling, disposing of, or encumbering any jointly held asset or any asset in the husband's name; and from changing the beneficiaries of his life insurance.
Following a hearing, the trial court entered a pendente lite order on July 22, 1996, awarding each party temporary exclusive possession of a house; ordering each party to pay one-half of the college and medical expenses of the two sons and one-half of the daughter's educational and medical expenses; and awarding the wife temporary custody of the children. The trial court also stated that the husband admitted to liquidating a jointly owned stock account and receiving $101,867.83 from that account and ordered the husband to pay the wife one-half of the $101,867.83, and to pay her $26,000 immediately. The trial court also entered a judgment in favor of the wife and against the husband in the amount of $21,000. The trial court further ordered that each party could draw a salary of $3,876 every two weeks from the parties' business.
Following oral proceedings, the trial court entered a judgment on July 16, 1997, stating, in pertinent part, as follows:
The trial court ordered each party to be responsible for certain marital debts.
The wife filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment, which the trial court granted in part. The husband filed a post-judgment motion, which the trial court denied.
The husband appeals, contending that the trial court failed to comply with Rule 32, Ala. R. Jud. Admin., in calculating his child support obligation, that the trial court erred in awarding the wife property as pre-payment of his child support obligation, and that the trial court's division of property was an abuse of discretion.
The Alabama Rules of Judicial Administration were promulgated by our supreme court. Child support actions filed on or after October 9, 1989, are subject to the mandatory application of the child support guidelines of Rule 32, Ala. R. Jud. Admin. State ex rel. Dep't of Human Resources v. Hogg, 689 So.2d 131 (Ala.Civ.App.1996). A trial court, upon a written finding that application of the guidelines would be unjust or inequitable, has the discretion to deviate from the guidelines. Martin v. Martin, 637 So.2d 901 (Ala.Civ.App.1994). If a trial court fails to apply the guidelines or to present findings of fact indicating why the guidelines were not followed, this court will reverse. Hogg, supra.
In Martin, this court issued the following directive:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gordon v. Gordon
...changed circumstances and a parent's ability to pay.’ Gordy v. Glance, 636 So.2d 459, 461 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994)." Lo Porto v. Lo Porto, 717 So.2d 418, 421 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998). The mother does not present any argument to this court regarding changed circumstances or an inability to pay. In......
-
Swift v. Swift
...in the marriage. Each spouse has a right, even a property right in this." ’ " Weeks, 27 So.3d at 529 (quoting Lo Porto v. Lo Porto, 717 So.2d 418, 421 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998), quoting in turn Pattillo v. Pattillo, 414 So.2d 915, 917 (Ala. 1982) ). The wife argues in her brief to this court th......
-
Weeks v. Weeks
...the value of [his or her] interest in the marriage. Each spouse has a right, even a property right in this.'" Lo Porto v. Lo Porto, 717 So.2d 418, 421 (Ala.Civ.App. 1998) (quoting Pattillo v. Pattillo, 414 So.2d 915, 917 "On appeal, the issues of alimony and property division must be consid......
-
Humber v. Humber
...support is always subject to modification based upon changed circumstances and a parent's ability to pay.’ " Lo Porto v. Lo Porto, 717 So.2d 418, 421 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998) (quoting Gordy v. Glance, 636 So.2d 459, 461 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994) ) (emphasis added) (holding that clear error occurre......