Wilmore v. Wilmore

• Decision Date: 23 March 2012
• Docket Number: 2100101.
• Citation: 91 So.3d 701
• Parties: Beverly WILMORE and Charles WILMORE v. Kendall WILMORE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

91 So.3d 701

Beverly WILMORE and Charles WILMORE

v.Kendall WILMORE.

2100101.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

Aug. 19, 2011.

Rehearing Denied March 23, 2012.

Joan–Marie Dean, Huntsville, for appellants.

Jay E. Stover of Stover, Stewart & Phillips, LLC, Gadsden, for appellee.

PITTMAN, Judge.

Beverly Wilmore and Charles Wilmore (“the Wilmores”) appeal from a judgment entered against them in a declaratory-judgment action that also determined Charles Wilmore to be in contempt of court.

Bradley Wilmore (“the former husband”) and Kendall Wilmore (“the former wife”) were divorced in September 2005 by a judgment of the Etowah Circuit Court. According to certain provisions in that divorce judgment, the former wife was awarded all right, title, and interest in the marital residence; in addition, the former wife was to satisfy the note secured by a mortgage on the marital residence.

In December 2006, the former wife filed a declaratory-judgment action seeking a judicial determination as to the proper amount necessary to pay off the note secured by the mortgage on the former marital residence, which was held by the Wilmores, the former husband's parents. In October 2007, the former wife filed a separate action seeking an adjudication that the former husband was in contempt of court for having refused to pay any child support or alimony since the divorce judgment had been entered. That litigation ran parallel to the declaratory-judgment action until May 2009, when the trial court consolidated the two cases for the purpose of scheduling a hearing on all pending claims. Following numerous continuances, the trial court conducted an ore tenus proceeding on November 9, 2009. Present at that hearing were the former wife, the former husband's father, and counsel for the parties; the former husband did not appear.

On December 7, 2009, the trial court entered a judgment determining that the former husband was in contempt of court.¹ In addition, the trial court ordered the former husband's father to produce certain documents relating to a family-farm trust and specific documents regarding the outstanding debt owed on the former marital residence; the trial court scheduled a final hearing in the declaratory-judgment action to be held in April 2010. Following additional continuances, the trial court rescheduled the final hearing for July 2, 2010. On June 30, the Wilmores filed a “notice of compliance” with the trial court; the next day, the Wilmores filed a motion to dismiss. Attached to that motion was a copy of an Indiana quitclaim deed by which the Wilmores attempted to convey the former marital residence to the former husband and the former wife jointly; that deed specifically noted that “[t]he resolution of all indebtedness due and owing grantors from grantee[s] ... having been resolved by the [Indiana] Circuit [Court] ... and embodied in the judgment issued therein, all grantors' interests in and to the subject ... property are hereby wholly released.” The trial court denied the Wilmores' motion to dismiss and conducted a final hearing on July 2, 2010.

At the outset of that hearing, at which neither of the Wilmores attended, the Wilmores' counsel unsuccessfully attempted to withdraw. Although the former husband had been ordered to attend, he was also absent from the proceeding; the former wife was the only party to attend the hearing. At the outset of the hearing, the trial judge noted on the record that the former husband's father had been ordered to appear at trial and to produce certain financial documents to aid the court in resolving the financial issues presented in the declaratory-judgment action. The judge also stated on the record that the former husband's father had failed to provide the requested documents or to appear in court for the trial on the merits. The trial judge then recited the following facts: that the former husband's father had lied to the court during the previous hearing, that he had been warned by the court that his failure to produce the requested financial documents in a timely manner would subject him to contempt sanctions, and that in the motion to dismiss he had attempted to divest himself of a purported interest in the former marital residence that had already been awarded to the former wife in the 2005 divorce judgment.

The trial court proceeded to hear arguments from the parties' counsel as to the proper disposition of the case in the absence of the former husband and the Wilmores. Testimony was adduced from the former wife as well. At the conclusion of that proceeding, the trial court determined that the Wilmores had attempted to interfere with the disposition of the former marital residence, which had been awarded to the former wife in the 2005 divorce judgment. Specifically, the trial court determined that the former husband's father had previously admitted to having prepared fraudulent documents, had not provided the requested financial documents to the court, and had failed to attend the final hearing on the merits. Based on those actions, the trial court determined that the former husband's father was in contempt of court and sentenced him to be incarcerated for 105 days; in the alternative, the trial court ordered the former husband's father, in order to purge himself of contempt, to appear before the trial court with the requested financial documents and to submit to a full examination regarding those documents. In addition, based upon the quitclaim deed that was attached to the Wilmores' motion to dismiss, the trial court instructed the county clerk “to execute a clerk's deed granting sole ownership, rights, title and interest” in the former marital residence to the former wife. Moreover, the trial court reiterated that the former husband would remain in contempt of court until he was able to purge himself of that contempt by beginning to pay a portion of his child-support and alimony arrearage.

The Wilmores appealed, asserting that the former wife had failed to join the former husband as a party in the declaratory-judgment action despite his being, in their view, an indispensable party. In addition, the Wilmores assert that the trial court erred in failing to grant their motion to dismiss, in vesting sole title in the former marital residence in the former wife, and in determining that the former husband's father was in contempt of court.

The Wilmores are correct that, under Alabama law, the duty to join necessary parties is ordinarily placed upon the plaintiff in an action. See Ex parte Izundu, 568 So.2d 771, 773 (Ala.1990); see also Walden v. ES Capital, LLC, 89 So.3d 90 (Ala.2011), and Hodge v. State, 643 So.2d 982 (Ala.Civ.App.1993). It is axiomatic that declaratory-judgment actions are only binding on the parties to the action. See B.W.T. v. Haynes & Haynes, P.C., 20 So.3d 815, 821 (Ala.Civ.App.2009). Although there is no prescribed formula to be applied in determining whether a party is indispensable, see, e.g., Melton v. Harbor Pointe, LLC, 57 So.3d 695, 700 (Ala.2010), we do not agree with the Wilmores that the former husband was an indispensable party to the declaratory-judgment action.

The former wife sought an adjudication of the total amount she owed the Wilmores on the debt secured by the mortgage on the former marital residence. Although the trial court sought testimony from the former husband regarding what portion of the debt owed to the Wilmores had been retired during the marriage, that information was not produced, and the former husband's presence was not necessary for the resolution of the pertinent issue: what amount was owed to the Wilmores at the time of the divorce. In fact, the 2005 divorce judgment specifically terminated the former husband's interest in the former marital residence, awarding the property to the former wife subject to repayment of the remaining debt secured by the mortgage on that property. Thus, we conclude that the former husband does not meet the criterion of an indispensable party; that is, he is not a party whose interest in the controversy is “ ‘of such a nature that a final [judgment] cannot be made without either affecting that interest or leaving the controversy in such a condition that its final determination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience.’ ” J.R. McClenney & Son, Inc. v. Reimer, 435 So.2d 50, 52 (Ala.1983) (quoting 1 Champ Lyons, Alabama Practice, Rules of Civil Procedure at 389 (1973)). The trial court's judgment is not erroneous on the basis that the former husband was not a party to the action.

The Wilmores also insist that the trial court erroneously failed to grant their motion to dismiss the declaratory-judgment action that was filed one day before the final hearing. The Wilmores posit that, because they asserted in that motion that they had relinquished all interest in the former marital residence, the trial court lost jurisdiction over the matter at that time. The problem with the Wilmores' position is two-fold. First, although it is true that the former wife sought a judgment declaring the amount of debt owed on the note held by the Wilmores, the Wilmores' motion to dismiss contained a photocopy of an unrecorded Indiana quitclaim deed purporting to convey the former marital residence to the former husband and the former wife. That document, in and of itself, did not divest the trial court of jurisdiction over the former marital residence, which had always been located in Alabama. Because the former marital residence was awarded to the former wife in the 2005 divorce judgment; because a trial court retains the power to enforce its judgments, see Patterson v. Patterson, 703 So.2d 372, 372 (Ala.Civ.App.1997), and Hall v. Hall, 485 So.2d 747, 749 (Ala.Civ.App.1986); and because the former wife's declaratory-judgment action was initiated to enable her to comply with the terms of the divorce judgment, we conclude that the trial court could properly proceed to trial on the...