Michael Berry McMillan v. Dawn Dean McMillan

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 6/4/10 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 , A l a b a m a 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 2081043 M i c h a e l Berry McMillan v. Dawn Dean McMillan Appeal from Etowah C i r c u i t Court (DR-09-112) BRYAN, J u d g e . Michael Berry McMillan ("the husband") a p p e a l s j u d g m e n t d i v o r c i n g h i m f r o m Dawn Dean M c M i l l a n from a ("the w i f e " ) . We a f f i r m . The h u s b a n d p r e s e n t s two i s s u e s on a p p e a l : (1) w h e t h e r 2081043 the trial court erred in awarding the wife a property s e t t l e m e n t i n t h e amount o f $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 , w h i c h , t h e h u s b a n d says, v i o l a t e d t h e unambiguous t e r m s o f a p o s t n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t t h e p a r t i e s had e x e c u t e d , and (2) w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n r e q u i r i n g t h e h u s b a n d " t o p r o v i d e t h e [ w i f e ] w i t h 12 months o f COBRA" h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e b e n e f i t s . The husband and the wife are both 51 h u s b a n d has one c h i l d b y a p r e v i o u s m a r r i a g e , two c h i l d r e n by a p r e v i o u s m a r r i a g e . the marriage The w i f e years o l d . The and t h e w i f e has No c h i l d r e n were b o r n o f between t h e husband and the w i f e . and h e r two c h i l d r e n moved i n t o home, w h i c h i s l o c a t e d on 17 a c r e s , h u s b a n d and t h e w i f e m a r r i e d the husband's a few months before the on November 1, 2004. B e f o r e the w e d d i n g , t h e h u s b a n d h a d t o l d t h e w i f e t h a t , upon h i s d e a t h , he wanted because t h e home and h i s brother had the 17 a c r e s a s s i s t e d him a c r e s . On November 8, a p p r o x i m a t e l y t o go to h i s brother i n developing the 17 a week a f t e r t h e w e d d i n g , the husband p r e s e n t e d the w i f e w i t h a p o s t n u p t i a l agreement. The postnuptial wife without signed the agreement that same s e e k i n g t h e a d v i c e o f an a t t o r n e y . The h u s b a n d t h e p o s t n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t on November 11, 2004. 2 day signed 2081043 I n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , t h e p o s t n u p t i a l agreement s t a t e s : "3. D i v o r c e . I f a n y m a r r i a g e o f MICHAEL B. McMILLAN a n d DAWN D. McMILLAN i s annulled or d i s s o l v e d by d i v o r c e i n any j u r i s d i c t i o n , n e i t h e r p a r t y w i l l c l a i m any r i g h t , t i t l e , o r i n t e r e s t i n o r t o any o f t h e s o l e p r o p e r t y o r e s t a t e o f t h e o t h e r p a r t y , whether r e a l , p e r s o n a l , o r mixed, and each p a r t y does h e r e b y waive and f o r f e i t t h e r i g h t t o c l a i m any o f t h e s o l e p r o p e r t y o f t h e o t h e r p a r t y i n such event. L i k e w i s e i n t h e event any marriage o f the p a r t i e s i s a n n u l l e d o r d i s s o l v e d by d i v o r c e i n any j u r i s d i c t i o n , t h e p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a t n e i t h e r s h a l l c l a i m any r i g h t t o a l i m o n y from t h e o t h e r o r pension or other retirement plan rights of the o t h e r , a n d do e x p r e s s l y f o r f e i t a n d w a i v e t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e r i g h t s t o any alimony o r any such p e n s i o n o r o t h e r r e t i r e m e n t p l a n r i g h t s . As t o p r o p e r t y owned jointly by t h e p a r t i e s , whether real, p e r s o n a l , o r m i x e d , i n t h e e v e n t any m a r r i a g e o f t h e p a r t i e s i s a n n u l l e d o r d i s s o l v e d by d i v o r c e i n any j u r i s d i c t i o n , t h e p a r t i e s agree t h a t e i t h e r such p r o p e r t i e s w i l l be s o l d a n d t h e y w i l l s h a r e e q u a l l y i n t h e n e t proceeds o f any such s a l e , o r , a t t h e o p t i o n o f e i t h e r p a r t y , one p a r t y may p u r c h a s e t h e o t h e r p a r t y ' s s h a r e i n a l l o r a n y s u c h j o i n t l y owned real properties at fair market value. A l l liabilities i n connection with any o f s a i d p r o p e r t i e s , i n c l u d i n g mortgage i n d e b t e d n e s s , shall be c o n s i d e r e d j o i n t , w h e t h e r e n t e r e d i n t o b y b o t h o f t h e p a r t i e s o r b y one o f t h e p a r t i e s a l o n e . "7. Disclosure of Facts. DAWN D. McMILLAN acknowledge[s] t h a t t h e present approximate n e t w o r t h o f MICHAEL B. McMILLAN h a s b e e n f u l l y a n d completely d i s c l o s e d t o h e r , t h a t she has g i v e n c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n , t h a t she has had the advice o f independent c o u n s e l , o r has d e c l i n e d the a d v i c e o f independent c o u n s e l and t h a t she i s e n t e r i n g i n t o t h i s P o s t n u p t i a l Agreement f r e e l y and 3 2081043 w i t h a f u l l u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f i t s p r o v i s i o n s . MICHAEL B. McMILLAN acknowledges that the present a p p r o x i m a t e n e t w o r t h o f DAWN D. McMILLAN has b e e n f u l l y d i s c l o s e d t o him, t h a t he u n d e r s t a n d s t h a t he has g i v e n c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n , t h a t he has had t h e a d v i c e o f i n d e p e n d e n t c o u n s e l , and t h a t he i s entering into this P o s t n u p t i a l Agreement freely and with a full understanding of i t s provisions. "8. C o n s i d e r a t i o n . The c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r t h i s P o s t n u p t i a l Agreement i s the c o n t i n u a t i o n of the m a r r i a g e by t h e p a r t i e s , and t h e m u t u a l c o v e n a n t s , p r o m i s e s , and b e n e f i t s h e r e i n c o n t a i n e d . " (Capitalization After the among o t h e r and those a the wife improved the The acres husband p a i d f o r many o f the by, flowers, materials used 17 in improvements. 2009. On divorce equitable on an argument, the p a r t i e s s e p a r a t e d F e b r u a r y 13, the division ground of of marital property. the counterclaim incompatibility. i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y and postnuptial seeking a In answer, agreement his on January 2009, t h e w i f e s u e d t h e h u s b a n d f o r 2009, t h e h u s b a n d a n s w e r e d t h e w i f e ' s a 17 s a n d a l o n g t h e bank o f a p o n d l o c a t e d on t h e Following 29, marriage, t h i n g s , b u i l d i n g rock gardens, p l a n t i n g spreading acres. i n o r i g i n a l ; e m p h a s i s added.) complaint divorce barred the 4 On he wife on February and the an 26, asserted ground asserted from sought that claiming of the an 2081043 interest the i n the wife had home and resided answered the husband's the during the an order amount o f the the t r i a l awarding the $400 p e r court to reconsider acres where t h e marriage. The husband wife and then counterclaim. Following a hearing, entered 17 c o u r t , on A p r i l 23, w i f e pendente l i t e month. The 2009, alimony h u s b a n d moved t h e in trial t h a t a w a r d on t h e g r o u n d t h a t i t v i o l a t e d the p o s t n u p t i a l agreement; the t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d t h a t motion. Following entered an ore tenus proceeding, the trial a j u d g m e n t d i v o r c i n g t h e p a r t i e s on June 29, p e r t i n e n t p a r t , the 2009. I n judgment s t a t e d : " T h i s m a t t e r h a v i n g come b e f o r e t h i s H o n o r a b l e C o u r t on t h e 2 6 t h day o f May, 2009, i t i s h e r e b y ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, as f o l l o w s : " "2. T h a t t h e C o u r t h o l d s t h a t t h e p o s t n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t i s v a l i d t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t i t does n o t c o n f l i c t w i t h t h i s f i n a l d e c r e e o f d i v o r c e i s s u e d by t h i s Court. II "4. The [husband] i s o r d e r e d t o pay t o t h e [ w i f e ] $20,000.00 as a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t t o be p a i d w i t h i n 60 d a y s f r o m t h e d a t e o f t h i s o r d e r . The [husband] i s r e q u i r e d t o c o n t i n u e p a y i n g t h e $400.00 p e r month a l i m o n y p e n d i n g payment by t h e [husband] to the [ w i f e ] i n t h e amount o f $20,000.00. The [husband] i s t o be g i v e n c r e d i t f o r t h e $400.00 p e r 5 court 2081043 month b e g i n n i n g June 1, 2009 t o w a r d s t h e $20,000.00 property interest. "5. The [husband] i s o r d e r e d t o p r o v i d e t h e [ w i f e ] w i t h 12 months o f COBRA b e g i n n i n g t h e d a t e o f t h i s order." (Capitalization i n original; The husband timely e m p h a s i s added.) moved the t r i a l court to alter or amend t h e j u d g m e n t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. The husband a s s e r t e d the that the t r i a l court should alter o r amend j u d g m e n t t o s t a t e t h e g r o u n d upon w h i c h t h e d i v o r c e was granted. He a l s o a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d a l t e r o r amend t h e j u d g m e n t t o e l i m i n a t e t h e a w a r d t o t h e w i f e of a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t i n t h e amount o f $20,000 b e c a u s e , he s a i d , that award violated husband s a i d , addition, the postnuptial the t r i a l he a s s e r t e d court that agreement, which, the h a d d e t e r m i n e d was v a l i d . the t r i a l court should In a l t e r or amend t h e j u d g m e n t t o e l i m i n a t e t h e p r o v i s i o n r e q u i r i n g h i m "to provide the [wife] insurance benefits requested such testimony at t r i a l 12 months o f COBRA" he because, relief warrant such r e l i e f . with the wife said, i n her complaint and t h e p a r t i e s ' The t r i a l healthhad not or i n her d i r e c t circumstances d i d not c o u r t amended t h e j u d g m e n t t o s p e c i f y i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y a s t h e g r o u n d upon w h i c h t h e d i v o r c e 6 2081043 was granted all other and denied the r e s p e c t s . The husband's postjudgment motion husband then t i m e l y a p p e a l e d to in this court. Because the t r i a l review i s g o v e r n e d by c o u r t r e c e i v e d evidence ore tenus, the our following principles: "'"'[W]hen a trial court hears ore tenus testimony, i t s f i n d i n g s on disputed facts are p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t and i t s j u d g m e n t b a s e d on those f i n d i n g s w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d u n l e s s t h e j u d g m e n t i s p a l p a b l y e r r o n e o u s or m a n i f e s t l y u n j u s t . ' " ' Water Works & S a n i t a r y Sewer Bd. v. P a r k s , 977 So. 2d 440, 443 ( A l a . 2007) ( q u o t i n g F a d a l l a v. F a d a l l a , 929 So. 2d 429, 433 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n P h i l p o t v. S t a t e , 843 So. 2d 122, 125 (Ala. 2002)). '"The p r e s u m p t i o n of c o r r e c t n e s s , however, i s r e b u t t a b l e and may be overcome where t h e r e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence p r e s e n t e d to the t r i a l c o u r t to s u s t a i n i t s j u d g m e n t . " ' Waltman v. R o w e l l , 913 So. 2d 1083, 1086 ( A l a . 2005) ( q u o t i n g D e n n i s v. Dobbs, 474 So. 2d 77, 79 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ) . ' A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e o r e t e n u s r u l e does n o t e x t e n d t o c l o a k w i t h a p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s a t r i a l judge's c o n c l u s i o n s of law or the i n c o r r e c t a p p l i c a t i o n of law t o the facts.' Waltman v. R o w e l l , 913 So. 2d a t 1086." R e t a i l D e v e l o p e r s o f A l a b a m a , LLC Inc., 985 The awarding So. 2d 924, husband f i r s t the wife a 929 v. E a s t Gadsden G o l f Club, ( A l a . 2007). argues t h a t the property trial settlement in court the erred in amount of $20,000 b e c a u s e , he s a y s , t h a t a w a r d v i o l a t e s t h e p o s t n u p t i a l agreement, which, he says, the 7 trial court determined was 2081043 valid. court The w i f e , on t h e o t h e r hand, argues d i d not e r r i n awarding her the property that the t r i a l settlement i n t h e amount o f $20,000 b e c a u s e , s h e s a y s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t have f o u n d f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t could t h e home a n d t h e 17 a c r e s were u s e d f o r t h e common b e n e f i t o f t h e h u s b a n d a n d t h e w i f e before they therefore, property signed the postnuptial t h e home rather agreement a n d t h e 17 a c r e s than t h e husband's and constituted that, marital separate property on t h e d a t e t h e y s i g n e d t h e p o s t n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t . Thus, a c c o r d i n g t o the wife, the t r i a l court could have f o u n d t h a t she had n o t w a i v e d h e r c l a i m t o an i n t e r e s t i n t h e home a n d t h e 17 a c r e s by s i g n i n g t h e p o s t n u p t i a l agreement. C o n s e q u e n t l y , to the wife, the t r i a l court according had t h e d i s c r e t i o n t o award h e r $20,000 t o c o m p e n s a t e h e r f o r h e r i n t e r e s t i n t h e home a n d t h e 17 acres. In 2010] Nelson v. E s t a t e So. 3d a postnuptial of Nelson, [Ms. 2080989, J a n . 29, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) , a c a s e i n v o l v i n g agreement, t h i s court stated: " ' [ A ] n t e n u p t i a l agreements a r e v a l i d i n Alabama. However, courts s c r u t i n i z e such agreements t o determine whether they a r e j u s t and r e a s o n a b l e . ' B a r n h i l l v . B a r n h i l l , 386 So. 2d 749, 751 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1980) ( c i t a t i o n omitted). Prenuptial and p o s t n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t s a r e s c r u t i n i z e d b y t h e same 8 2081043 s t a n d a r d s . T i b b s v. A n d e r s o n , 580 So. 2d 1337, 1339 (Ala. 1991). In B a r n h i l l , supra, t h i s c o u r t r e q u i r e d the party seeking to enforce an antenuptial a g r e e m e n t -- i n t h a t c a s e , a h u s b a n d s e e k i n g to e n f o r c e a p r e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t -- t o show t h a t t h e e n t i r e t r a n s a c t i o n was f a i r , j u s t , and equitable from the w i f e ' s p o i n t of v i e w or t h a t the agreement had b e e n f r e e l y and v o l u n t a r i l y e n t e r e d i n t o by t h e w i f e , w i t h c o m p e t e n t i n d e p e n d e n t a d v i c e and with f u l l k n o w l e d g e o f h e r i n t e r e s t i n t h e e s t a t e and i t s approximate value. Id. at 751. 'Meeting the requirements of e i t h e r of the above t e s t s is sufficient to give effect to an antenuptial agreement.' I d . " So. 3d at postnuptial enforced So. 3d . Moreover, agreement according 652, McGiffert v. 1 9 9 3 ) , and C i v . App. 654 to is valid (Ala. Civ. McGiffert, So. 2007), t h a t t r i a l in an inconsistent with that [26] So. Bentley, 17 in both App. [1210, 1219] not d i s p o s e agreement be (Ala. Civ. 977 3d in of agreement agreed the was a manner that agreement. So. s p e c i f i e d what property of property the the husband of the w i f e f o r purposes of the 3d is to the agreement."). separate separate property (Ala. property I n N e l s o n v. E s t a t e o f N e l s o n , an e x h i b i t a t t a c h e d postnuptial or i t must ("[W]e h e l d 972, c o u r t s may antenuptial H u b b a r d v. 2008) 2d antenuptial unambiguous, See App. 627 written and i t s terms. i n Brown v. Brown, addressed if a at . In the 9 c a s e now parties and the postnuptial before us, on 2081043 t h e o t h e r hand, n e i t h e r t h e p o s t n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t i t s e l f n o r an a t t a c h e d e x h i b i t s p e c i f i e d what p r o p e r t y t h e p a r t i e s a g r e e d was the separate property of property the wife f o r purposes a g r e e m e n t . The u n d i s p u t e d and t h e 17 a c r e s were o f t h e husband evidence used and t h e s e p a r a t e of the postnuptial e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e home f o r t h e common b e n e f i t o f t h e h u s b a n d a n d t h e w i f e b e t w e e n November 1, 2004, t h e d a t e married, a n d November 8, 2004, t h e d a t e postnuptial In the wife signed the agreement. t h e a b s e n c e o f a c o n t r a c t u a l a g r e e m e n t r e g a r d i n g what property c o n s t i t u t e d each p a r t y ' s date they the law governing signed separate property on t h e t h e p o s t n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t , we must l o o k t o what constitutes a spouse's separate p r o p e r t y t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e home a n d t h e 17 a c r e s the they husband's s e p a r a t e property on t h e d a t e the wife were signed t h e p o s t n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t . I n N i c h o l s v . N i c h o l s , 824 So. 2d 797 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) , t h i s court stated: "A p a r t y ' s ' " s e p a r a t e e s t a t e " i s t h a t p r o p e r t y o v e r w h i c h [he o r ] s h e e x e r c i s e s e x c l u s i v e c o n t r o l a n d f r o m w h i c h t h e [ s p o u s e ] ... d e r i v e s no b e n e f i t b y reason o f t h e m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . ' Gartman v. G a r t m a n , 376 So. 2d 7 1 1 , 713 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 7 8 ) . The s e p a r a t e e s t a t e o f t h e p a r t i e s i n a d i v o r c e proceeding i n c l u d e s p r o p e r t y owned p r i o r t o t h e marriage and p r o p e r t y received by gift or 10 2081043 i n h e r i t a n c e during the marriage. § 30-2-51(a), A l a . Code 1975. A l t h o u g h m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y generally includes property purchased or otherwise accumulated by t h e p a r t i e s d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e , i t may a l s o include the property acquired before the marriage or r e c e i v e d by g i f t o r i n h e r i t a n c e d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e when i t i s u s e d , o r income f r o m i t i s u s e d , r e g u l a r l y f o r t h e common b e n e f i t o f t h e p a r t i e s d u r i n g t h e i r m a r r i a g e . See § 3 0 - 2 - 5 1 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975. "The t r i a l j u d g e i s g r a n t e d b r o a d d i s c r e t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether p r o p e r t y purchased b e f o r e t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e o r r e c e i v e d by g i f t o r i n h e r i t a n c e was u s e d ' r e g u l a r l y f o r t h e common b e n e f i t o f t h e p a r t i e s d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e . ' See § 3 0 - 2 - 5 1 , A l a . Code 1975. Even i f t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s t h a t such p r o p e r t y was r e g u l a r l y u s e d f o r t h e common b e n e f i t of the p a r t i e s during the marriage, the determination whether t o i n c l u d e such p r o p e r t y i n t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s t o be d i v i d e d b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s l i e s within the d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l court. D u r b i n v. D u r b i n , 818 So. 2d 404 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) . " 824 So. 2d a t 802 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . Because t h e p a r t i e s agreement t h a t property d i d not specify i n the postnuptial t h e home a n d t h e 17 a c r e s were t h e s e p a r a t e o f t h e husband f o r purposes of the postnuptial a g r e e m e n t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t was f r e e t o d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e home and t h e 17 a c r e s constituted marital property by v i r t u e o f t h e i r u s e f o r t h e common b e n e f i t o f t h e h u s b a n d a n d t h e w i f e b e f o r e t h e w i f e s i g n e d the p o s t n u p t i a l agreement. A l t h o u g h t h e postnuptial agreement requires 11 that the parties sell their 2081043 m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y a n d d i v i d e t h e p r o c e e d s e q u a l l y u n l e s s one o f the p a r t i e s buys t h e o t h e r ' s i n t e r e s t i n t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y , the husband does n o t argue awarding the wife in that the t r i a l court erred by $20,000 t o c o m p e n s a t e h e r f o r h e r i n t e r e s t t h e home a n d t h e 17 a c r e s . "When an a p p e l l a n t fails to a r g u e an i s s u e i n i t s b r i e f , t h a t i s s u e i s w a i v e d . " B o s h e l l v. K e i t h , 418 So. 2d 89, 92 ( A l a . 1 9 8 2 ) . C o n s e q u e n t l y , we a f f i r m the trial property The court's judgment i n s o f a r as i t awarded t h e w i f e a settlement i n t h e amount o f $20,000. husband next argues o r d e r i n g him " t o provide health-insurance request such testimony COBRA because, and t h e e v i d e n c e health-insurance benefits order he i n her complaint at t r i a l employer. Although court the t r i a l court erred i n t h e [ w i f e ] w i t h 12 months o f COBRA" benefits relief that the wife t h e husband says, or she d i d n o t i n her direct d i d not e s t a b l i s h that are a v a i l a b l e through h i s d i d not request t o p a y f o r COBRA that the t r i a l health-insurance b e n e f i t s u n t i l she t e s t i f i e d d u r i n g t h e r e b u t t a l phase o f t h e trial, that t h e husband d i d n o t o b j e c t t o h e r t e s t i m o n y request. pertinent Rule part, 15(b), that A l a . R. "[w]hen 12 C i v . P., issues not concerning provides, raised in by the 2081043 pleadings are t r i e d by express or implied consent of the p a r t i e s , t h e y s h a l l be t r e a t e d i n a l l r e s p e c t s a s i f t h e y h a d been raised i n the pleadings." object to the wife's testimony court's Bavarian concerning her request f o r consented t o the considering that request Motor Works, 342 So. ("Implied consent t o the t r i a l a party fails to object ") T h e r e f o r e , that the t r i a l claim 2d at t r i a l . 355, 358 See Hawk v . (Ala. 1977) o f an i s s u e may be f o u n d when t o evidence offered concerning i t t h e r e i s no m e r i t t o t h e h u s b a n d ' s argument court health-insurance by f a i l i n g t o benefits implicitly COBRA h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e trial The h u s b a n d , erred benefits f o r such b e n e f i t s i n ordering f o r the wife him t o p r o v i d e i n t h e absence i n her complaint COBRA of a and i n h e r d i r e c t testimony. The husband's argument that the t r i a l o r d e r i n g h i m t o p r o v i d e COBRA h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e court erred by benefits i n the a b s e n c e o f a n y e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t s u c h b e n e f i t s were available that through h i s employer would warrant p r o v i s i o n of the divorce t h a t argument t o t h e t r i a l 3d judgment a reversal of i f he h a d presented c o u r t . I n L a c k e y v . L a c k e y , 18 So. 393 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) , 13 this court held that a trial 2081043 c o u r t had e r r e d i n o r d e r i n g a husband t o p r o v i d e h i s w i f e COBRA h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e establishing that b e n e f i t s i n t h e absence o f any e v i d e n c e such b e n e f i t s were available e m p l o y e r . However, i n t h e c a s e now b e f o r e not argue t o t h e t r i a l provide through court that COBRA h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e evidence with establishing h i s employer. that i tcould not order benefits such i n t h e absence o f benefits reverse him t o were available court's j u d g m e n t on t h e b a s i s o f an a r g u m e n t t h a t i s p r e s e n t e d for the 2d 409, cannot u s , t h e husband d i d the t r i a l f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l . We through h i s See Andrews v. M e r r i t t O i l Co., 612 So. 410 ( A l a . 1992) ("This C o u r t c a n n o t c o n s i d e r raised for the f i r s t Accordingly, t i m e on a p p e a l arguments " ) . we a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l court. AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t 14 writing.

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.