Tiongson v. TIONGSON
| Decision Date | 12 November 1999 |
| Parties | Ann Marie TIONGSON v. Glenn Daniel TIONGSON. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Charles N. Reese of Reese & Reese, Daleville, for appellant.
Randall W. Nichols of Nichols Law Office, P.C., Birmingham, for appellee.
Ann Marie Tiongson and Glenn Daniel Tiongson were divorced in July 1995. The divorce judgment ordered, among other things, that the wife would have custody of the two children, that the husband's visitation would be exercised in the presence of the wife or in her locality, and that the husband would pay $1,500 monthly child support and $500 monthly periodic alimony.
In April 1997, the husband filed a petition to modify the divorce judgment. By that petition, he requested joint custody, increased unrestricted visitation, modifications in the terms for his payment of child support and his payment of medical expenses, and a reduction in periodic alimony. The wife answered and filed a counterpetition, alleging that the husband had a periodic-alimony arrearage and requesting that he be held in contempt for his failure to pay periodic alimony as ordered. The wife also moved to dismiss the husband's petition, alleging that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the child-custody, child-support, and visitation issues. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss.
Following the presentation of ore tenus evidence, the trial court modified the custody and visitation provisions, but did not modify the child-support award. The trial court also terminated the husband's periodic-alimony obligation and ordered him to pay a $15,000 periodic-alimony arrearage within 30 days of the judgment. The wife filed a post-judgment motion, which the trial court denied.
The wife argues that the trial court erred by: (1) exercising jurisdiction over the child-custody, child-support, and visitation issues; and (2) terminating the husband's periodic-alimony obligation.
We conclude that Alabama courts do not have jurisdiction over the child-custody, child-support, and visitation issues. Both the Federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act ("PKPA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1738A, and Alabama's version of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act ("UCCJA"), Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-23, provide that a court has jurisdiction over a child-custody case if the child is a resident of the state or has been a resident of the state within six months before the action is filed and one of the parents continues to reside in the state. In this case, the wife and the child had lived in Indiana for almost two years at the time the husband filed his petition to modify, and the husband was living in Virginia at that time. Therefore, an Alabama court did not have jurisdiction over the child-custody, child-support, and visitation issues. The trial court erred by exercising jurisdiction over those issues.
The wife next argues that the trial court erred by terminating the husband's periodic-alimony obligation. Periodic alimony is a matter resting within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its judgment is presumed correct and will not be reversed absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. Brannon v. Brannon, 477 So.2d 445 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). The trial court may modify an award of periodic alimony upon a showing of a change in circumstances. Boudreaux v. Boudreaux, 550 So.2d 1030 (Ala.Civ.App.1989).
We conclude that the trial court did abuse its discretion by terminating the husband's periodic-alimony obligation. The wife testified that she has enrolled as a full-time college student; that she has limited her work so as to accommodate the demands of her schooling; and that she now makes less than $1,000 per month. The husband contends that the termination of the periodic alimony is justified because the wife is voluntarily underemployed. The wife was previously employed as a medical assistant and as a teacher's aide.
We conclude that the husband's argument regarding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cantrell (Ex parte State)
...that court lacked jurisdiction to issue that order, and the filing of a motion to stay is unnecessary.’ " (quoting Ex parte Tiongson, 765 So. 2d 643, 643 (Ala. 2000) )).The State asserts in its petition that Judge Talmage Lee Carter lacked authority to sua sponte dismiss with prejudice the ......
-
Goldman v. Goldman
...and the trial court's judgment as to those issues will not be reversed absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. Tiongson v. Tiongson, 765 So.2d 643, 645 (Ala.Civ.App.1999).“In Bray v. Bray, 979 So.2d 798 (Ala.Civ.App.2007), this court set forth the applicable standard of review as follow......
-
Williams v. Williams
...in that court and a petition in [the supreme court] for writ of certiorari stay the issuance of that certificate.” ’ Ex parte Tiongson, 765 So.2d 643, 643 (Ala.2000) (quoting Jackson v. State, 566 So.2d 758, 759 n. 2 (Ala.1990), and citing Rule 41, Ala. R.App. P.).” Veteto v. Yocum, 792 So.......
-
Byrd v. Byrd
...and the trial court's judgment as to those issues will not be reversed absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. Tiongson v. Tiongson, 765 So.2d 643, 645 (Ala.Civ.App.1999)." ‘...." ‘ " ‘Where a trial court receives ore tenus evidence, its judgment based on that evidence is entitled to a ......