RG v. GG
Decision Date | 19 May 2000 |
Citation | 771 So.2d 490 |
Parties | R.G. v. G.G. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
James M. Sizemore, Jr., Montgomery, for appellant.
David B. Byrne, Jr., and Charles B. Haigler III of Robison & Belser, P.A., Montgomery, for appellee.
On Application for Rehearing
The opinion of February 18, 2000, is withdrawn, and the following is substituted therefor.
The parties have been before this court previously. See G.G. v. R.S.G., 668 So.2d 828 (Ala.Civ.App.1995).
The trial court divorced the parties on August 3, 1994, incorporating the written agreement of the parties into the divorce judgment. The court amended its judgment on September 13, 1994, again incorporating the written agreement of the parties into the amended judgment. Pursuant to the agreement, the wife was, among other things, awarded the exclusive use and possession of the marital residence pending its sale; the husband was given complete authority regarding all aspects of the sale of the residence.1 Additionally, the wife was awarded custody of the parties' minor child and the husband was ordered to pay $1,500 per month in child support. The wife appealed and the husband cross-appealed. In that 1995 case, we affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded with instructions. The issues raised in that 1995 case are not relevant to the issues presently before this court.
On January 16, 1996, the wife petitioned the court, seeking to have the husband held in contempt for violating certain provisions of the divorce judgment. The husband counter-petitioned, alleging, among other things, that the wife had caused an unnecessary deficiency in the sale of the marital residence in the amount of $12,500 by reneging on a promise to sell the residence to him. The husband sought an award of $12,500 from the wife for the alleged deficiency in the sale price of the residence. The husband also alleged a material change in his financial situation and sought a reduction in his monthly child-support obligation. On November 22, 1996, the court placed the matter on its administrative docket for the purpose of mediation.
On January 30, 1998, the husband again petitioned the court for relief, seeking a $12,500 award; however, he amended this claim to include interest and expenses from the date the residence would have been sold until the date the residence was actually sold.2 He also renewed his request to have his monthly child-support obligation reduced. The wife answered the husband's petition and counter-petitioned to reallege the matters asserted in her January 1996 petition to hold the husband in contempt. On June 9, 1998, the husband amended his petition to strike his claim for a reduction in his child-support obligation and, instead, sought an accounting by the wife of the child-support payments made on behalf of the minor child and requested that any amount of child support paid above the reasonable expenses of the child be placed in a joint custodial savings account for the child's future needs. The wife answered this amended petition on June 19, 1998.
Following an ore tenus proceeding, the court, on March 19, 1999, among other things, entered an order denying the husband's requested relief regarding the alleged deficiency in the sale of the marital residence and the accounting for the child-support payments. The court also denied certain relief requested by the wife. The wife moved the court to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment, or, in the alternative, for a new trial. The court denied the wife's postjudgment motion. The husband appeals.
We note that when the trial court receives ore tenus evidence, its judgment based on that evidence is presumed to be correct and will not be set aside on appeal absent plain and palpable error; "[h]owever, where there is no factual dispute between the parties, the reviewing court must determine whether the trial court correctly applied the relevant law to the facts and whether the judgment was an abuse of discretion and plainly and palpably wrong." Franz v. Franz, 723 So.2d 61, 63 (Ala.Civ.App.1997). Further, when the trial court "improperly applies the law to the facts, no presumption of correctness exists as to the court's judgment." Ex parte Agee, 669 So.2d 102, 104 (Ala.1995). Both parties adopt the factual findings of the trial court regarding the "frustrated home sale issue." Therefore, this court will, too. The trial court made the following factual findings:
The parties' divorce agreement provides:
The trial court concluded that, based on the language of the parties' agreement giving the husband "the final decision regarding the sale of the property and all aspects relating to the sale of the property including but not limited to the sales price, real estate agent's commission (if any), time of possession (Wife must have at least thirty days notice in order to relocate), etc.," the husband was not required to obtain the wife's consent to sell the home to anyone, including himself. The court stated that any loss resulting from the husband's failure to accept W.'s offer was the result of his own business decision and that it would not hold the wife liable.
The courts of this state favor compromise and settlement of litigation, particularly in cases involving families. Junkin v. Junkin, 647 So.2d 797 (Ala.Civ. App.1994). "[A] settlement agreement which is incorporated into a divorce decree is in the nature of a contract." Smith v. Smith, 568 So.2d 838, 839 (Ala.Civ.App. 1990). A divorce judgment should be interpreted or construed as other written instruments are...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. Johnson
...‘ “[A] settlement agreement which is incorporated into a divorce decree is in the nature of a contract.” ’ ”)(quoting R.G. v. G.G., 771 So.2d 490, 494 (Ala.Civ.App.2000), quoting in turn Smith v. Smith, 568 So.2d 838, 839 (Ala.Civ.App.1990) ...
-
Adams v. Adams
...of both kinds of payments subjects the custodial parent to potential liability to account for the use of the funds, cf. R.G. v. G.G., 771 So.2d 490 (Ala.Civ.App.2000) (noting that the trial court has discretion to order a custodial parent to provide an accounting of child-support payments, ......
-
Graham v. Graham
...Civ. App. 1990). However, if only one reasonable meaning clearly emerges, then the [judgment] is unambiguous. Id.’" R.G. v. G.G., 771 So. 2d 490, 494 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000)." Belcher v. Belcher, 18 So. 3d 946, 948 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). "Generally, Alabama courts ‘ "will not look beyond the ......
-
Walker v. Walker
...a divorce decree is in the nature of a contract.” ’ ” Egres v. Egres, 85 So.3d 1026, 1031 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) (quoting R.G. v. G.G., 771 So.2d 490, 494 (Ala.Civ.App.2000), quoting in turn Smith v. Smith, 568 So.2d 838, 839 (Ala.Civ.App.1990)). When the facts material to the question whether ......