State ex rel. Dept. of Human Resources on Behalf of Scott v. Scott
| Decision Date | 04 March 1994 |
| Citation | 637 So.2d 892 |
| Parties | STATE of Alabama ex rel. DHR on Behalf of Ellen SCOTT v. James SCOTT. AV92000485. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
William Prendergast and Mary E. Pons, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellant.
Theresa S. Dean, Opelika, for appellee.
This case involves a determination of a child support arrearage.
In December 1992, the State of Alabama ex rel. Ellen Carr Scott (State) filed a contempt petition for non-payment of child support against James Scott in Lee County, alleging an arrearage of $16,187.95 as of October 31, 1992. A motion filed by the Department of Human Resources (DHR), requesting that all payments in that case be made to DHR, was granted and a hearing was set. After ore tenus proceedings, the trial court found that Scott owed $3,000 for past due child support, and it ordered a payment schedule. The State's post-judgment motion was denied and the State appeals, contending that the trial court's determination of $3,000 arrearage is an abuse of discretion.
The record reveals that Scott was ordered to pay child support pursuant to a 1973 Lee County divorce judgment. The record also discloses that the District Court of Tallapoosa County had entered an order in 1978 directing Scott to pay monthly child support. An employee of the Tallapoosa County DHR testified that the Tallapoosa court was not aware of the divorce order at the time of its 1978 order. The record contains numerous orders, including past arrearages, suspensions of payments, and modifications. There was testimony that Scott had paid some support and that one of the children had lived with Scott for an uncertain time period.
The State's witness, a DHR worker, testified regarding several different methods of calculation to estimate the arrearage due. She also testified that the younger child was emancipated by a court order in August 1987.
The figures provided by the State were conflicting and there was confusion regarding matters such as: which calculation should be utilized, whether proper credit was given for payments received, whether modification orders altering and suspending payments were considered, the amount the mother would have been entitled to if she had enforced the divorce decree, and the actual amount of assistance the mother had received including Medicaid, food stamps, and aid to dependent children, etc. There was also testimony regarding an order entered in May 1985, stating...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Griess v. Griess
...of the circumstances demand it and when allowing a credit will not work a hardship on the minor children. See, State ex rel. DHR v. Scott, 637 So.2d 892 (Ala.Civ.App.1994); In re Marriage of Rogers, supra; Finley, supra; Goodson, supra; Raczynski, supra. See, generally, 24A Am.Jur.2d, supra......
-
Starkey v. Starkey
...or recollection of terms of contract for child support approved by court). Griess, 608 N.W.2d at 224. See also, State ex rel. DHR v. Scott, 637 So.2d 892 (Ala.Civ.App.1994); see generally, 24A Am.Jur.2d, supra, § 1068. [n]ormally, exceptions are made only "when the equities of the circumsta......
-
Hayes v. Hayes
...judgment is presumed to be correct and will not be reversed on appeal unless it is plainly and palpably wrong. State ex rel. Scott v. Scott, 637 So.2d 892, 893 (Ala.Civ.App.1994). Moreover, the determination of a child-support arrearage is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and......
-
Walker v. Walker
...is presumed to be correct and will not be reversed on appeal unless it is plainly and palpably wrong. See State ex rel. Scott v. Scott, 637 So.2d 892, 893 (Ala.Civ.App.1994). However, child support obligations become final money judgments on the day they accrue. See Kuhn v. Kuhn, 706 So.2d ......