Thompson v. Thompson
| Citation | 521 So.2d 46 |
| Parties | Sandra Lynn THOMPSON (Tucker) v. Randy Blake THOMPSON. Civ. 6128. |
| Decision Date | 06 January 1988 |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
A.P. Reich II of Speake, Speake & Reich, Moulton and L. Drew Redden of Redden, Mills & Clark, Birmingham, for appellant.
W.H. Rogers, Moulton, for appellee.
This is an appeal from the modification of a divorce decree.
The husband petitioned the trial court for modification of certain aspects of a prior decree of divorce. After an ore tenus hearing, the trial court refused to modify the divorce decree. Thereafter, within thirty days the husband sought reconsideration of the trial court's action. The wife also sought reconsideration. The trial court reconsidered and made certain modifications. In the main the modifications relate to visitation regarding the parties' minor child and child support.
The wife, through able counsel, appeals. We affirm.
This court determines that the dispositive issue is whether the evidence supports the trial court's action.
In pertinent part the original decree provided the following: (1) that custody of the minor child should be shared jointly, with the child to live "with his mother during the school year and ... with his father during the time school is in vacation"; (2) that each party would have alternate weekend visitation with the child during the time that the child was residing with the other party, with special provisions concerning holidays, birthdays, and vacations; and (3) that the husband would pay the wife $300 per month "during the school year" for child support.
Upon reconsideration of its refusal to modify the original divorce decree, the trial court modified the decree by (1) eliminating the month of September from the husband's support payments, (2) specifying which party was responsible for delivering and returning the child with respect to visitation rights, (3) ordering the wife to pay $300 per month to the husband for child support during the months of June, July, and August, and (4) ordering that certain personal belongings be returned to the possession of the husband.
The wife appeals, contending that the trial court committed reversible error in making the aforesaid modifications.
We note at the outset that a trial court may, on motion or ex mero motu, within thirty days of its refusal to modify its original divorce decree reconsider that decision and issue forth further orders. Brown v. Brown, 476 So.2d 114 (Ala.Civ.App.1985).
This is what appears to this court to have been done in the instant appeal. Hence, the dispositive issue becomes whether the trial court's action is supported by the evidence.
The wife contends that the trial court erred in eliminating September from the husband's child support obligation and in ordering her to pay him $300 per month for child support during the summer months. We disagree.
It is well settled that a trial court may, in its discretion, modify an original award for alimony or support in a divorce decree. Skipper v. Skipper, 280 Ala. 506, 195 So.2d 797 (1967). The determination of whether a modification should be granted is solely within the discretion of the trial court. Young v. Young, 376 So.2d 737 (Ala.Civ.App.1979). Where a divorce decree is modified following an ore tenus hearing, the trial court's findings are presumed correct and will only be set aside on appeal if so unsupported by the evidence as to be plainly and palpably wrong. Brothers v. Vickers, 406 So.2d 955 (Ala.Civ.App.1981).
In determining whether there has been a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant a modification of child support, a trial court may consider several factors. Among those factors a trial court may consider the remarriage of the parties, the parties' financial needs and abilities to respond to those needs, and a party's ability to earn as opposed to actual earnings. See Butler v. King, 437 So.2d 1300 (Ala.Civ.App.1983); McCalla v. McCalla, 497 So.2d 509 (Ala.Civ.App.1986); Taylor v. Taylor, 486 So.2d 1294 (Ala.Civ.App.1986).
In this case the wife at the time of trial was in her third year of medical school. Presumably she will some time in the near future...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte J.R.W.
...County Dep't of Human Resources, 555 So.2d 1075 (Ala.Civ.App.1989), cert. denied, 555 So.2d 1077 (Ala.1990); Thompson v. Thompson, 521 So.2d 46 The contentions of the parties do not concern the correctness of any factual finding on which the circuit court based its judgment of contempt; rat......
-
Ex parte Jefferson County Dept. of Human Resources
...brief, the inability to comply with a court's order provides a complete defense to a contempt citation. See, e.g., Thompson v. Thompson, 521 So.2d 46 (Ala.Civ.App.1988); Matter of Warrick, 501 So.2d 1223 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). However, it is this court's opinion that inconvenience is not tanta......