Woolwine v. Woolwine
| Decision Date | 14 June 1989 |
| Citation | 549 So.2d 512 |
| Parties | William G. WOOLWINE v. Jane WOOLWINE. Civ. 6800. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
A. Dwight Blair of Hereford, Blair, Holladay and Parsons, Pell City, for appellant.
James E. Hill, Jr. of Hill & Weathington, Leeds, for appellee.
The wife, in an effort to collect the $4,000 in attorney's fees she was awarded under the parties' original divorce decree, requested a writ of garnishment against the husband. In response to the wife's action, the husband filed a motion entitled "Motion to Quash Garnishment," which also requested a reimbursement of funds ordered paid or, in the alternative, a set-off against attorney's fees paid. The trial court denied the husband's Motion to Quash Garnishment. The trial court's order denying the husband's Motion to Quash Garnishment appears to be also a denial of the husband's request for restitution and for a set-off. He appeals from this decision.
The record reveals that the parties were married in May 1978. Prior to their marriage, however, the parties entered into an antenuptial agreement, which reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
Approximately eight years later, in May 1986, the wife, seeking alimony and a property settlement, initiated divorce proceedings. The trial court subsequently rendered a divorce decree in November 1986, wherein it held that the antenuptial agreement was invalid and that the wife was thus entitled to an interest in the husband's estate in the form of periodic alimony and alimony in gross. The trial court also divided the parties' personal property and awarded the wife attorney's fees. Both parties appealed from this decision.
This court, in Woolwine v. Woolwine, 519 So.2d 1347 (Ala.Civ.App.1987), specifically held that the trial court erred when it determined that the antenuptial agreement was void. After pretermitting all other issues raised by the parties, this court reversed and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to enter an order consistent with its opinion. The trial court, upon remand, entered an order in April 1988, wherein it stated that each party should take pursuant to the terms and conditions of the antenuptial agreement. This order made no reference to attorney's fees or personal property.
The wife then initiated proceedings to collect the attorney's fee, which resulted in the issuance of a writ of garnishment in favor of the wife and against the husband in the amount of $4,000 and costs. The husband in turn filed his Motion to Quash Garnishment and therein requested an order requiring the wife to repay the $10,400 in post-judgment alimony he paid her while the case was pending on appeal. The husband subsequently amended the motion and requested as an alternative a set-off. The trial court, after considering the arguments and memoranda filed with regard to this motion, denied the husband's Motion to Quash Garnishment.
The husband contends that the wife is not entitled to an award of attorney's fees because the original decree wherein attorney's fees were awarded was annulled in its entirety on appeal and the trial court's order rendered upon remand did not reinstate said award. This argument is based upon case law which holds that a judgment reversed on appeal is annulled in its entirety. Birmingham Electric Co. v. Alabama Public Service Commission, 254 Ala. 119, 47 So.2d 449 (1950); Price v. Simmons, Adm'r, 21 Ala. 337 (1852). We would note, however, that the rule of law contained in the cases proffered by the husband was qualified in Shirley v. Shirley, 361 So.2d 590, 591 (Ala.Civ.App.1978), as follows: "The reversal of a judgment, or a part thereof, wholly annuls it, or the part of it, as if it never existed." (Emphasis added.)
This court, on the parties'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kreitzberg v. Kreitzberg
...pursuant to judgment that is later reversed on that issue may be entitled to reimbursement for the overpayment); Woolwine v. Woolwine, 549 So.2d 512, 514 (Ala.Civ.App.1989) (same). We find no error on the part of the trial court in holding the husband in contempt for failing to pay alimony ......
-
Kreitzberg v. Kreitzberg
...pursuant to judgment that is later reversed on that issue may be entitled to reimbursement for the overpayment); Woolwine v. Woolwine, 549 So. 2d 512, 514 (Ala. Civ. App. 1989) (same). We find no error on the part of the trial court in holding the husband in contempt for failing to pay alim......
-
Dickson v. Dickson, 2090314
...an award of alimony in gross, and, as a result, on remand, that characterization remained valid and binding. See Woolwine v. Woolwine, 549 So. 2d 512, 514 (Ala. Civ. App. 1989), wherein this court stated: "The husband contends that the wife is not entitled to an award of attorney's fees bec......
-
Ex parte Walters
...held valid in Alabama. Mixon v. Mixon, 550 So.2d 999 (Ala.Civ.App.1989); Ruzic v. Ruzic, 549 So.2d 72 (Ala.1989); Woolwine v. Woolwine, 549 So.2d 512 (Ala.Civ.App.1989); and Barnhill v. Barnhill, 386 So.2d 749 (Ala.Civ.App.1980), cert. denied, 386 So.2d 752 (Ala.1980). In determining whethe......