Mark Davis v. Tonya Blackstock

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/02/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2060017 Mark Davis v. Tonya B l a c k s t o c k Appeal from Lauderdale C i r c u i t (DR-06-86.01) Court A f t e r Remand f r o m t h e A l a b a m a Supreme Court MOORE, J u d g e . On June 29, 2007, t h i s judgment e n t e r e d court") modifying court by the Lauderdale a prior reversed part of a C i r c u i t Court ("the trial judgment e n t e r e d that by a Tennessee 2060017 c o u r t , w h i c h had awarded Mark D a v i s ("the B l a c k s t o c k ("the mother") j o i n t custody f a t h e r " ) and of t h e i r minor by a w a r d i n g t h e m o t h e r p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y of the See Tonya child, 2007] 3d D a v i s v. B l a c k s t o c k , ___ ( A l a . C i v . App. support was r a i s e d by [Ms. 2060017, June 29, 2007). the Although f a t h e r on the issue appeal, we child. So. of child noted i n our p r i o r o p i n i o n t h a t our r e v e r s a l of the judgment w i t h r e g a r d to c u s t o d y w o u l d n e c e s s a r i l y i m p a c t the c h i l d - s u p p o r t award, and we remanded t h e cause f o r the c h i l d - s u p p o r t award. trial 3d a t So. court . T h i s c o u r t ' s p r i o r j u d g m e n t has Supreme C o u r t o f A l a b a m a . Sept. 11, 2009] ___ So. now b e e n r e v e r s e d by Ex p a r t e B l a c k s t o c k , 3d ___ ( A l a . 2009). w i t h t h e supreme c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n , t h e t r i a l r e l a t i n g t o the m o d i f i c a t i o n of custody Therefore, The we must now f a t h e r argues address the that the attached a Form s t a t e m e n t , see R u l e 32, A l a . R. 1, 2006, j u d g m e n t . In 1061445, compliance court's i s s u e of c h i l d trial CS-42 [Ms. judgment court's child-support in error. Child-Support support. The trial Guidelines Jud. Admin., t o i t s September B a s e d on t h e p a r t i e s ' i n c o m e s , t h e 2 the i s affirmed. a w a r d t o t h e m o t h e r o f $469 p e r month was court to reconsider i t s trial 2060017 court determined $540. The t r i a l resulting the b a s i c court i n a $904 father's percentage child-support o b l i g a t i o n t o be then added c h i l d - c a r e c o s t s total child-support obligation. m o t h e r ' s s h a r e o f t h e $904 t o t a l and t h e f a t h e r ' s share child support that, Therefore, i s $435. I t appears t h a t the t h e f a t h e r t o p a y t h e amount according to i t s c a l c u l a t i o n s , the m o t h e r w o u l d h a v e been o b l i g a t e d t o p a y h a d t h e f a t h e r awarded primary physical conclude that the t r i a l custody court's the child-support obligation i s t r i a l court i n a d v e r t e n t l y ordered of The s h a r e o f t h e p a r t i e s ' income i s 48.13%, and t h e m o t h e r ' s p e r c e n t a g e s h a r e i s 51.87%. $469, o f $364, of the c h i l d . award o f c h i l d been Thus, we support i s i n error. We a l s o n o t e t h a t , a l t h o u g h "the child shall mother's husband available," insurance have medical the t r i a l insurance through h i s place the t r i a l court costs i n the t o t a l failed court ordered coverage o f employment, to include from h e r i f i t is the h e a l t h - child-support obligation. 3 that When 2060017 this action provided, was in filed, part: Rule 32(B)(7), Ala. R. Jud. Admin., 1 " ( a ) The a c t u a l c o s t o f a premium t o p r o v i d e h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e b e n e f i t s f o r t h e c h i l d r e n s h a l l be a d d e d t o t h e ' b a s i c c h i l d s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n ' and s h a l l be d i v i d e d b e t w e e n t h e p a r e n t s i n p r o p o r t i o n t o t h e i r a d j u s t e d g r o s s income i n t h e p e r c e n t a g e s i n d i c a t e d on t h e C h i l d S u p p o r t G u i d e l i n e s f o r m ( F o r m CS-42). " ( b ) The amount t o be a d d e d t o t h e ' b a s i c c h i l d s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n ' s h a l l be t h e a c t u a l amount o f t h e t o t a l i n s u r a n c e premium f o r f a m i l y / d e p e n d e n t coverage, r e g a r d l e s s of whether a l l c h i l d r e n covered a r e i n t h e same f a m i l y . " See a l s o B a l f o u r v. B a l f o u r , App. 1995). The trial 660 court to apply deviation occurred, 707 So. 2d Based 256, on 258 the the 2d 1015, d i d not d e v i a t i n g from the c h i l d - s u p p o r t failure So. state guidelines. guidelines or requires reversal." to 1017 any (Ala. Civ. reasons "A t r i a l explain S p i l l e r s v. ( A l a . C i v . App. trial court's why the Spillers, 1997). foregoing, for the p e r t a i n i n g to custody i s affirmed. court's judgment That p o r t i o n of the c o u r t ' s judgment p e r t a i n i n g t o c h i l d support i s r e v e r s e d , trial and R u l e 32 was amended e f f e c t i v e J a n u a r y 1, 2009. However, b e c a u s e t h i s a c t i o n was f i l e d b e f o r e J a n u a r y 1, 2009, t h e amended r u l e does n o t a p p l y i n t h i s c a s e . See R u l e 32, P r e f a c e R e l a t i n g t o Scope. 1 4 2060017 the cause i s remanded f o r t h e t r i a l court to r e c a l c u l a t e the f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n i n accordance and t h i s w i t h R u l e 32 opinion. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n , concur. 5 Bryan, a n d Thomas, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.