David A. Dunigan v. Tamara H. Bruning f/k/a Tamara H. Dunigan

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/22/2010 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, 2010-2011 2081150 David A. Dunigan v. Tamara H. Bruning f / k / a Tamara H. Dunigan Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t (DR-92-62.02) Court On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g THOMAS, J u d g e . The opinion o f August 6, 2 0 1 0 , i s w i t h d r a w n , following i s substituted therefor. and t h e 2081150 David f/k/a A. D u n i g a n ( " t h e f a t h e r " ) a n d Tamara Tamara January H. 1992. Dunigan Pursuant m o t h e r was a w a r d e d ("the mother") t o t h e 1992 d i v o r c e custody d a u g h t e r and a son. were H. Bruning divorced judgment, the o f t h e p a r t i e s ' two c h i l d r e n , a I n M a r c h 2003, t h e p a r t i e s a g r e e d t o a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e 1992 d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t , a n d t h e t r i a l entered a agreement. provisions distance judgment adopting The p a r t i e s ' o f t h e 1992 between mother's r e s i d e n c e in the parties' agreement m o d i f i e d judgment, the father's i n North i n part residence court modification the v i s i t a t i o n because i n Alabama of the and t h e Carolina. The m o d i f i c a t i o n a g r e e m e n t p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r w o u l d have v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e s o n f o r one week d u r i n g t h e C h r i s t m a s holidays a n d f o r t h e month o f J u l y . An a d d i t i o n a l week o f v i s i t a t i o n was a n t i c i p a t e d , w i t h a p r e f e r e n c e f o r t h e week o f S p r i n g B r e a k , b u t t h e e x a c t d a t e s o f t h a t v i s i t a t i o n week were t o be a r r a n g e d modification b y agreement o f t h e p a r t i e s . agreement, the d a u g h t e r was t o be a r r a n g e d father's Pursuant t o the visitation with the i n cooperation with the daughter, t a k i n g i n t o account her wishes. 2 2081150 In addition, the modification agreement required p a r e n t s to e q u a l l y share the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the postminority following educational requirements postminority child be sponsored t h a t the under educational for educational time student, 23 expenses. The parental years expenses not university in of the responsibility c h i l d be a for full¬ average, that that exceed the e x t e n d e d o n l y t o an u n d e r g r a d u a t e set a "C" age, Alabama, children's agreement e x p e n s e s : t h a t the c h i l d maintain both the cost and postminority to attend that the a state- obligation degree. B e f o r e the p a r t i e s agreed to the m o d i f i c a t i o n of the d i v o r c e judgment, the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the daughter daughter, had begun who was f a t h e r t h a t she holidays to 14 deteriorate. years old at In she had three-week v i s i t the previous Christmas opportunities holiday 2002, the the over the Christmas been " e x t r e m e l y b o r e d " d u r i n g summer. e l e c t r o n i c - m a i l c o r r e s p o n d e n c e t h a t she her the informed time, him 1992 f a t h e r and November that d i d not w i s h to v i s i t because "being the b o r e d " and She explained her in her d i d n o t want t o s p e n d that she t h a t were more " p h y s i c a l l y a n d / o r had other academically c h a l l e n g i n g " t h a t she w o u l d r a t h e r a v a i l h e r s e l f o f i n s t e a d o f 3 2081150 visiting with visitation which, the father. laws that according correspondence, The d a u g h t e r further referred to she h a d r e s e a r c h e d on to the indicated information that the Internet, contained visitation i n the i n Alabama was, d e p e n d i n g on t h e c h i l d ' s a g e , o f t e n a w a r d e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the c h i l d ' s wishes. with a request electronic-mail The The d a u g h t e r that the closed topic be her correspondence discussed only correspondence. daughter d i d not v i s i t the father during C h r i s t m a s h o l i d a y s o r d u r i n g t h e n e x t two v i s i t a t i o n In December 2003, the father inquired, t h e 2002 periods. v i a electronic-mail c o r r e s p o n d e n c e , w h e t h e r t h e d a u g h t e r w o u l d be a t t e n d i n g visits with via the father. decided not t o attend future The d a u g h t e r r e s p o n d e d t h a t " I have any f u t u r e trips." The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e f a t h e r a n d t h e d a u g h t e r d i d not communicate that, during accompanied The father times when visitation further, other visitation than b r i e f exchanges pleasantries, i f when the daughter t h e m o t h e r when t h e s o n came t o v i s i t t h e f a t h e r . said that he t h e daughter answered telephoned arrangements t o speak with the telephone at t o t h e s o n o r t o make t h e son and t h a t 4 she d i d n o t 2081150 engage in daughter any sort started of conversation college, which with was in him. Before the 2006, she August t e l e p h o n e d t h e f a t h e r on h i s c e l l u l a r t e l e p h o n e and, t o him, a s k e d w h e t h e r he f a t h e r s a i d t h a t he him to discuss t o l d the that the I n J u l y 2006, t h e modification her money f o r c o l l e g e . " The d a u g h t e r i t w o u l d be b e t t e r matter d a u g h t e r t h e n hung up 2003 "had according for with the the mother and that telephone. father f i l e d judgment, a p e t i t i o n to modify alleging that the the daughter's renouncement of the f a t h e r ' s r i g h t s t o v i s i t a t i o n r e s u l t e d i n a material of the father change o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s w a r r a n t i n g 2003 m o d i f i c a t i o n j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as to be postminority responsible educational a modification brought expenses. The the daughter's f a t h e r f u r t h e r sought the son reached the age of m a j o r i t y and was The mother answered and a obligations child-support of the e n t i t l e d to c h i l d support. no l o n g e r his one-half i t required obligation for because the of for a modification d a u g h t e r had counterclaim t o pay seeking his portion the son's o r t h o d o n t i c of to enforce the father's the expenses i n c u r r e d t r e a t m e n t and t o p a y h i s o n e - h a l f 5 of for the 2081150 daughter's college expenses. At 1 trial, the parties s t i p u l a t e d t o t h e amount o f c h i l d s u p p o r t t h e f a t h e r w o u l d for the son and against his support, i f that trial, of obligation the t r i a l the father's stipulation, father's arrearage, The f a t h e r would postminority educational terminated. After c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment m o d i f y i n g child-support to the pay o b l i g a t i o n per father's petition postminority father's parties' to terminate educational the support, postminority-educational-support arrearage, amount o f father f i l e d the t h e amount the a p p l y i n g c e r t a i n c r e d i t s a g a i n s t the fee i n the receive and awarding postminoritythe mother an $2,000. a postjudgment motion, a f t e r which the c o u r t amended i t s j u d g m e n t t o i n c l u d e c o n d i t i o n s on trial the duty of the p a r e n t s The pay o b l i g a t i o n were n o t educational-support attorney to denying the duty calculating to c e r t a i n c r e d i t s the pay t o pay postminority amended j u d g m e n t i n d i c a t e d t h a t educational i t was not support. intended to The m o t h e r ' s o r i g i n a l c o u n t e r c l a i m r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r be h e l d i n c o n t e m p t f o r f a i l i n g t o pay h i s o b l i g a t i o n s u n d e r t h e 2003 m o d i f i c a t i o n j u d g m e n t ; h o w e v e r , t h e c l e r k ' s o f f i c e r e t u r n e d the mother's c o u n t e r c l a i m w i t h a request t h a t t h e m o t h e r pay t h e " c o n t e m p t f e e . " The m o t h e r t h e n f i l e d an amended c o u n t e r c l a i m t h a t d i d n o t i n c l u d e a r e q u e s t t h a t t h e f a t h e r be h e l d i n c o n t e m p t . 1 6 2081150 replace the provisions support contained that i t was court did adding not which the i n the to r e f e r to obligations. the The 1992 the to that educational judgment b u t , judgment. 2003 m o d i f i c a t i o n specifically parties' postminority divorce conditions p a r t i e s had applicable regarding rather, The trial judgment, addressed the in conditions postminority-educational-support amended j u d g m e n t r e a d s , in pertinent part: " 1 . P u r s u a n t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f P a r a g r a p h 13 o f t h e o r i g i n a l D e c r e e o f D i v o r c e e n t e r e d by t h e C o u r t on F e b r u a r y 13, 1992, t h e C o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e [ f a t h e r ] i s r e q u i r e d t o c o n t i n u e t o be r e s p o n s i b l e for one-half (^) o f t h e n e c e s s a r y c o l l e g e e x p e n s e s f o r [ t h e d a u g h t e r ] as f u r t h e r s e t o u t i n P a r a g r a p h 13 o f t h e D e c r e e o f D i v o r c e , b u t , i n a d d i t i o n , t h i s o b l i g a t i o n f o r b o t h t h e [ p a r e n t s ] t o pay o n e - h a l f o f t h e n e c e s s a r y c o l l e g e e x p e n s e s i s c o n d i t i o n e d upon the f o l l o w i n g : "a. That the [daughter] i s r e q u i r e d t o m a i n t a i n a t l e a s t a 'C' a v e r a g e ; "b. T h a t she be a f u l l - t i m e s t u d e n t a t t h e c o l l e g e o r u n i v e r s i t y t h a t she a t t e n d s ; and "c. That the o b l i g a t i o n of b o t h the [ p a r e n t s ] t o pay c o l l e g e e x p e n s e s f o r [ t h e d a u g h t e r ] w i l l e x p i r e o r end upon [the daughter's] reaching the age of twenty-three (23) years except for unforeseen m i t i g a t i n g circumstances. "d. That the o b l i g a t i o n of e i t h e r p a r e n t t o pay c o l l e g e expenses f o r the b e n e f i t of [the daughter] i s c o n d i t i o n e d 7 2081150 upon [ t h e d a u g h t e r ' s ] p r o v i d i n g f u l l and c o m p l e t e i n f o r m a t i o n on a t i m e l y b a s i s t o e a c h p a r e n t as t o t h e c r e a t i o n of an o b l i g a t i o n on h e r p a r t o r t h e i n c u r r i n g o f a n e c e s s a r y c o l l e g e expense, such as, t u i t i o n , room, b o a r d , b o o k s and f e e s . T h i s would also require [the daughter] to f u r n i s h i n f o r m a t i o n to each of the parents as t o p r o s p e c t i v e c o u r s e s and e x p e n s e s t o be incurred in advance of actually incurring same t o the fullest extent possible. Both the [parents] will be responsible for paying the appropriate entity or institution requiring r e i m b u r s e m e n t o r t h e y w i l l be r e q u i r e d t o r e i m b u r s e o r pay [ t h e d a u g h t e r ] i n a d v a n c e o r a f t e r w a r d s , as t h e c a s e may be, f o r t h e payment o f any s u c h e x p e n s e f o r w h i c h she has g i v e n n o t i c e o r w h i c h she has paid 1^ ^ The ^ ^ 1 II -p f i r s t t h r e e c o n d i t i o n s are r e s t a t e m e n t s of the contained the ^ i n the m o d i f i c a t i o n judgment, w i t h the e x c e p t i o n phrase which "except could The educational parents be the full tuition, support and beyond obligation the to pay daughter's 23d complete i n f o r m a t i o n to her room and board, a p p r i s e d of p r o s p e c t i v e incurred. father's The d i r e c t e d to the and and the parents t o keep her c o u r s e s and o t h e r e x p e n s e s t o f a t h e r d i d not file amended j u d g m e n t , and 8 fees of circumstances," amended j u d g m e n t added t h e r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t daughter provide regarding for unforseen m i t i g a t i n g p o s s i b l y extend postminority birthday. conditions a postjudgment he timely motion appealed. 2081150 On a p p e a l , chief the f a t h e r r a i s e s s i x arguments. argument terminating support is his for "repudiation" that the trial o b l i g a t i o n to the pay daughter of her court The erred postminority because, relationship he with father's in not educational contends, him her should have resulted i n a determination t h a t she was r e c e i v e such support. f a t h e r a l s o argues t h a t the trial any undue court improperly hardship the The excluded father no l o n g e r e n t i t l e d t o evidence claimed the s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n p l a c e d upon him. regarding the postminority-educationalThe f a t h e r f u r t h e r argues t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o a w a r d him two c r e d i t s against his postminority-educational-support for and $7,018, w h i c h r e p r e s e n t e d fees incurred by the u n i v e r s i t y as a p a r t - t i m e received imposition by the of semester of t u i t i o n , daughter student mother. conditions one and while the books, attending the another f o r tax c r e d i t s Regarding on o b l i g a t i o n : one the trial court's postminority-educational- s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n i n t h e amended j u d g m e n t , t h e f a t h e r a r g u e s t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d by m o d i f y i n g t h e 2003 m o d i f i c a t i o n judgment i n f a v o r of the d a u g h t e r w i t h o u t The a request t o do so. f a t h e r a l s o a s s e r t s t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n awarding 9 2081150 the mother a money judgment f o r t h e repayment expenses i n c u r r e d by t h e d a u g h t e r . that the t r i a l of college F i n a l l y , the f a t h e r argues c o u r t e r r e d i n a w a r d i n g t h e m o t h e r an a t t o r n e y fee. Because t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s judgment i n t h i s case a f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d o r e t e n u s , we presume any f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s b a s e d on t h a t e v i d e n c e t o be c o r r e c t , u n l e s s t h o s e f i n d i n g s a r e so u n s u p p o r t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e so as t o be p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y wrong. S i m p k i n s v . S i m p k i n s , 595 So. 2d 493, 495 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 1 ) . in which fact, we findings Fielding, a trial court "'will assume fails F u r t h e r m o r e , as i n a l l c a s e s t o make s p e c i f i c that findings of the t r i a l made judge n e c e s s a r y t o s u p p o r t t h e judgment.'" Fielding 24 So. 3d 468, 472 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) Transamerica Commercial those (quoting F i n . C o r p . v. AmSouth Bank, N.A., 60 8 So. 2d 375, 378 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) ) . Notably, t h i s v. c o u r t has h e l d that "the p r i n c i p l e s o f Ex p a r t e B a y l i s s , 550 So. 2d 986 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) , do n o t g e n e r a l l y a p p l y i n t h e c o n t e x t of a p a r e n t ' s c o n t r a c t u a l u n d e r t a k i n g t o p r o v i d e p o s t m i n o r i t y support t o minor c h i l d r e n t h a t i s incorporated into a binding judgment. As we 'specifically point[ed] out' i n Simpkins v. S i m p k i n s , 595 So. 2d 493, 495 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 1 ) , which i n v o l v e d a p e t i t i o n t o modify a c o n t r a c t u a l 10 2081150 undertaking s i m i l a r t o t h a t e n t e r e d i n t o by the p a r t i e s i n t h i s c a s e i n 2001, ' t h i s i s n o t a B a y l i s s f a c t s i t u a t i o n or proceeding.' Rather, the trial c o u r t ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a p e t i t i o n to modify such an u n d e r t a k i n g i s g o v e r n e d by t h e p r i n c i p l e t h a t 'an agreement between the p a r t i e s f i x i n g c h i l d s u p p o r t p a y m e n t s , when i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o a j u d g m e n t , becomes m e r g e d i n t o t h e j u d g m e n t and t h e r e b y loses i t s c o n t r a c t u a l nature to the e x t e n t t h a t a c o u r t of e q u i t y has t h e power t o m o d i f y t h e d e c r e e when c h a n g e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s so j u s t i f y . ' R a l l s v. R a l l s , 383 So. 2d 857, 859 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1980) [overruled on o t h e r g r o u n d s by Ex p a r t e B a y l i s s , 550 So. 2d a t 9 9 4 ] ; see a l s o W e s l e y v. W e s l e y , 627 So. 2d 441, 444 (Ala. C i v . App. 1993) ('[A]wards o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y c h i l d s u p p o r t may be m o d i f i e d , j u s t as o t h e r awards of c h i l d support are m o d i f i e d . ' ) . " Thomas v. C a m p b e l l , 960 (footnote The So. 2d 694, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006) omitted). father f i r s t argues t h a t h i s daughter's o f h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h him, age 697 repudiation e s p e c i a l l y a f t e r she r e a c h e d t h e o f m a j o r i t y , s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d a basis for termination o f h i s o b l i g a t i o n t o pay p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l s u p p o r t her benefit. jurisdictions The to father support relies his on argument cases that r e p u d i a t i o n i s a b a s i s upon w h i c h t h e t r i a l terminated See ("The the expectation N.E.2d 164, that a parent 11 168 other daughter's c o u r t c o u l d have his postminority-educational-support McKay v. McKay, 644 from for obligation. ( I n d . C t . App. w o u l d o r d i n a r i l y be 1994) inclined 2081150 to c o n t r i b u t e toward h i s c h i l d ' s c o l l e g e education be e n f o r c e d (which u n d e r o u r l a w s o f d i s s o l u t i o n ) does n o t continue, and s h o u l d n o t be e n f o r c e d where an a d u l t c h i l d has his relationship with S u p e r . 14, 24, his parent."); 626 A.2d a college good-faith and relationship outstretched contractual d u t y t o pay support when parent made a develop a effort or that to her even o b l i g a t i o n as o n e ) ; M i l n e v. M i l n e , 383 in ("Estrangement has e s t a b l i s h and child, willfully hand," Pa. a parent's his and 426 lessen concerted unquestionably Reif, 174-75 (1993) education with v. repudiated 169, operate to r e l i e v e or toward Reif may and the rejected certain opposed to a Pa. S u p e r . 177, child the cases involving 556 A.2d imposed 854 (1989), 532 (1992) postminority-educational- support cases between the to the inquiry include parent 881, 454 admittedly N.Y.S.2d consideration and "estrangement defense"); 785, rejecting in the child Cohen v. 787 and with Sup. his creating Misc. Ct. 2d 1982) father c a v a l i e r r e j e c t i o n of p a t e r n a l i d e n t i t y w i t h o u t 12 A.2d 628 the r e l a t i o n s h i p S c h n e p f , 115 (N.Y. visitation of 616 a a b r o g a t e d i n p a r t by B l u e v. B l u e , (expanding 521, has parent's judicially Pa. can the 879, ("By and by consultation 2081150 with ... or e x p l a n a t i o n to p e t i t i o n e r , this 18-year-old 'adult' has v o l u n t a r i l y a s s e r t e d h i s i n d e p e n d e n c e f r o m p e t i t i o n e r and has t h u s f o r f e i t e d h i s r i g h t t o c l a i m s u p p o r t from him."); and (Miss. H a m b r i c k v. (stating "is Prestwood, t h a t the dependent, not qualifications behavior child right for t o w a r d , and worthy of the the consider parents the on college, 2d the but on additional effort determining the educational support. Ex often with However, the review educational support, support aptitude the and child's f a t h e r , makes and judicially A l a b a m a l a w has a parent 1989). 1980) financial the burden him"). i m p o s e upon (Ala. educational whether imposed postminority allowed a t r i a l court r e l a t i o n s h i p between the when 477 child's and t h e c h i l d ' s " r e s p o n s i v e n e s s guidance" 474, r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the i n c e p t i o n of educational support, So. to postminority only t h a t w i l l be p l a c e d on Since 382 whether child h i s or her to parental advice and and o b l i g a t i o n of parte this of Bayliss, court, appeals the to and what paying 550 So. court extent 2d of a s t r a i n e d r e l a t i o n s h i p between p a r e n t and 986, charged involving to postminority 987 most postminority "has r e p e a t e d l y s t a t e d t h a t t h e 13 to existence c h i l d does not 2081150 prevent the c h i l d from college education." (Ala. C i v . App. preclude 1998). Wilburn, In the e a r l i e s t cases, between to obtain a to obtain postminority- and h i s d a u g h t e r i n this a of we h e l d t h a t t h e l a c k o f f a m i l i a l a father the daughter, opportunity the opportunity S t i n s o n v. S t i n s o n , 729 So. 2d 864, 869 educational-support interaction having instance, college 574 So. 2d 839, 841 "should from education." not having the Thrasher ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 0 ) . v. I n no i n s t a n c e has t h i s c o u r t r e v e r s e d a t r i a l c o u r t ' s i m p o s i t i o n o f p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l support at t r i a l child reflected t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between p a r e n t was s o b r o k e n as t o be a c o m p l e t e r e c e i p t of such support. determination relationship considering support). between the We the child of affirmed p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l support that denial the daughter's a i t must and consider her parents postminority trial court's the when educational denial of u s i n g as p a r t i a l s u p p o r t f o r decision 14 denying o n , among o t h e r g r o u n d s , t h e that imposition have impediment t o t h e ( r e v e r s i n g a judgment p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l support court's and B u t s e e Penney v. Penney, 785 So. 2d 376, 381 ( A l a C i v . App. 2000) trial s o l e l y because the evidence to live with her 2081150 s t e p f a t h e r a f t e r t h e d e a t h o f t h e mother and h e r d e c i s i o n t o have l i t t l e c o n t a c t w i t h h e r f a t h e r a n d h i s new f a m i l y d e s p i t e the father's daughter. (Ala. attempts to e s t a b l i s h a r e l a t i o n s h i p with the See Newman v . Newman, C i v . App. 1994) . 667 So. 2d 1362, 1368-69 However, o u r o p i n i o n i n Newman made c l e a r t h a t , a l t h o u g h t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d have c o n s i d e r e d t h e poor r e l a t i o n s h i p between the father and evidence of t h a t poor r e l a t i o n s h i p "alone to prevent college." 875 [a c h i l d ] from ... i s i n s u f f i c i e n t receiving assistance ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) denial of postminority educational and daughter, i n going t o Newman, 667 So. 2d a t 1368; s e e a l s o West v . West, So. 2d 323, 325 failed the support t o i n d i c a t e whether t h e c h i l d (affirming the when t h e e v i d e n c e h a d t h e "commitment t o a p t i t u d e f o r c o l l e g e " but admonishing the t r i a l denying p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l support s o l e l y on t h e b a s i s of t h e poor r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e p a r e n t In t h e present case, the t r i a l court f o r court and t h e c h i l d ) . i n d i c a t e d both at trial and a t t h e h e a r i n g on t h e f a t h e r ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n that i t had determined that father t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e a n d t h e d a u g h t e r was s t r a i n e d e v e n b e f o r e the father a g r e e d t o be o b l i g a t e d t o p a y f o r h e r c o l l e g e e d u c a t i o n 15 i n the 2081150 a g r e e m e n t merged trial court into must the have in judgment. concluded that two c o u l d not have b e e n a m a t e r i a l circumstances warranting the the The then r e l a t i o n s h i p between the change 2003 m o d i f i c a t i o n lack of modification t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e f a t h e r ' s v o l u n t a r i l y assumed o b l i g a t i o n pay postminority of review changed and educational the support. f a c t t h a t the circumstances f a t h e r was justifying postminority-educational-support So. 2d at 697, conclusion we that cannot the not father next argues excluding evidence concerning educational sought to support establish educational T h r a s h e r , 574 postminority the parent). support So. f o r the that 2d a t 841 educational The that from Thomas, trial to the trial court h i s a b i l i t y t o pay daughter. pose his 960 court's have his merely him. an At undue by postminority trial, t o pay erred the father postminority hardship. See ( s e t t i n g out the r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t support not mother's the entitled r e q u i r i n g him would see of o b l i g a t i o n terminated because the daughter i s estranged to standard modification with or r e q u i r e d to prove obligation, was postminority-educational-support The a disagree father B a s e d on o u r a counsel 16 c a u s e undue h a r d s h i p objected to to questions 2081150 regarding t h e f a t h e r ' s income and e x p e n s e s , stating that only b a s i s f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n a s s e r t e d i n the f a t h e r ' s was t h a t t h e d a u g h t e r was e s t r a n g e d f r o m him. agreed with prohibited undue mother's the f a t h e r counsel's view from p r e s e n t i n g of appeal, ability t o pay petition evidence to the was father argues r a i s e d by that the mother's the c o l l e g e expenses the mother's educational-support he was simply attempt his counterclaim, to The $6,095 i n f a t h e r appears t o enforce his in of argue postminority- o b l i g a t i o n somehow e n t i t l e d h i m t o p r o v e u n a b l e t o pay undue h a r d s h i p . of i n c u r r e d by t h e d a u g h t e r i n c o n t r a v e n t i o n 2003 m o d i f i c a t i o n j u d g m e n t . that of and establish issue w h i c h she a r g u e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d f a i l e d t o p a y that court hardship. On the petition The t r i a l the the such support w i t h o u t However, b e c a u s e the mother's experiencing counterclaim s o u g h t e n f o r c e m e n t o f t h e o b l i g a t i o n and n o t a f i n d i n g contempt, to which an i n a b i l i t y t o p a y w o u l d have b e e n d e f e n s e , we c a n n o t a g r e e t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s c o u n t e r c l a i m a raised the i s s u e o f the f a t h e r ' s a b i l i t y t o pay such t h a t t h e f a t h e r was e n t i t l e d t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e t o e s t a b l i s h undue 17 hardship. 2081150 The and father f u r t h e r argues t h a t , u n d e r Ex i t s progeny, the p r i m a r y c o n s i d e r a t i o n parte Bayliss for a t r i a l c o n s i d e r i n g the i m p o s i t i o n of p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l is the financial resources of the parents and the court support child and t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , h i s p e t i t i o n to modify n e c e s s a r i l y r a i s e d the i s s u e o f h i s a b i l i t y t o pay. 987. However, b e c a u s e agreement to pay principles of Ex postminority parte to establish modification a of support as e x p l a i n e d change his the father's of The i n t h e p e t i t i o n was Thus, we ability t o pay So. 3d ( A l a . C i v . App. See the 2d at voluntary support, the imposition applicable Thomas, 960 of to So. f a t h e r was only the the 2d required warranting basis a for repudiation cannot conclude t h a t w i t h o u t undue G u t h e r y v. 2009) of the hardship Persall, (determining c o m p l a i n t t h a t i n c l u d e d an a l l e g a t i o n o f f r a u d was 18 So. into a circumstances at i s s u e i n the p r o c e e d i n g s . 1254 not above, the was 1250, are obligation. t h e f a t h e r by t h e d a u g h t e r . of regarding father's obligation. modification asserted issue entered educational Bayliss educational Instead, father postminority m o d i f i c a t i o n of the a t 697. the Ex p a r t e B a y l i s s , 550 that limited 26 a to 2081150 t h e f r a u d - i n - t h e - i n d u c e m e n t c l a i m a l l e g e d i n t h e c o m p l a i n t and c o u l d n o t be r e a d t o i n c l u d e a f o r g e r y Next, the father argues that claim). the trial court erred in f a i l i n g t o award h i m c e r t a i n c r e d i t s a g a i n s t h i s o b l i g a t i o n t o pay postminority educational support. First, the father a r g u e s t h a t he was e n t i t l e d t o a c r e d i t f o r $7,018 i n c o l l e g e expenses by incurred the w h i c h t h e d a u g h t e r was student. had the a biology thus making father t e s t i f i e d have r e f u s e d basis only f o r one a part-time semester and n o t a during full-time Although the evidence e s t a b l i s h e d that the daughter dropped college, daughter t o pay because, he course during her a part-time her first semester student that semester, on d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n t h a t he w o u l d the daughter's c o l l e g e expenses said, "I understand the first on also testified that the daughter had had one not that year c o l l e g e i s t o u g h , so a l o t o f p e o p l e have a h a r d t i m e . " mother in of The "bad" s e m e s t e r t h a t , t h e m o t h e r s a i d , t h e f a t h e r s h o u l d n o t have t o be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r under the agreement. attorney a s k e d t h e m o t h e r i f t h e "bad" she testified had was the same Later, semester the mother's about which father had t e s t i f i e d about d u r i n g h i s t e s t i m o n y ; the mother answered that 19 semester the 2081150 she d i d n o t remember. Documentary e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t the "bad" which semester occurred about during admitted that the mother the daughter's she h a d failed h a d m a i n t a i n e d a "C" a v e r a g e . the "bad" s e m e s t e r was the trial court that sophomore y e a r ; some c l a s s e s Because that might the that f o r determining, as have daughter semester the evidence so vague and u n c l e a r , i n error the semester testified we but regarding cannot i t must t h e p a r e n t s r e f e r r e d t o was hold have, t h e same s e m e s t e r -- i . e . , t h e d a u g h t e r ' s f i r s t s e m e s t e r i n c o l l e g e which the father agreement had despite testified the 738, 739 ( A l a . C i v . App. pay failure f o r under the to the meet See H o u s e r v. G i p s o n , 485 1986) (noting conflicting, the that, testimony i s vague conflicts when i n the evidence i s the task of the t r i a l The and would daughter's r e q u i r e m e n t s o f the agreement. 2d he f a t h e r a l s o a r g u e s t h a t he was resolution The although the credits. The f a t h e r , i n c o n t r a v e n t i o n R. App. P., information mother regarding did testify any on h e r t a x she received sparse, the tax o f R u l e 28(a) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . c i t e s no l e g a l a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n 20 the court). these c r e d i t s i s that of So. e n t i t l e d to a c r e d i t e q u a l t o h a l f of the t a x c r e d i t s the mother c l a i m e d returns. -¬ that 2081150 he i s e n t i t l e d to h a l f of the income-tax c r e d i t s claimed the Thus, mother. we will not entertain this f u r t h e r . Asam v. D e v e r e a u x , 686 So. 2d 1222, 1224 App. 1996) argument (Ala. Civ. ( s t a t i n g that " [ t ] h i s court w i l l address only those i s s u e s p r o p e r l y p r e s e n t e d and f o r w h i c h s u p p o r t i n g has b e e n The by authority cited"). father next challenges the trial court's amended j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as i t m o d i f i e d t h e 2003 m o d i f i c a t i o n j u d g m e n t t o remove c e r t a i n r e s t r i c t i o n s i m p o s e d by t h a t j u d g m e n t on t h e obligation to pay postminority educational support. The f a t h e r f a i l s t o make any l e g a l argument i n s u p p o r t o f r e v e r s a l on t h i s i s s u e and, a g a i n i n contravention c i t e s no r e l e v a n t a u t h o r i t y . this i s s u e as w e l l . The father of Rule 28(a)(10), We t h e r e f o r e d e c l i n e t o c o n s i d e r Asam, 686 So. 2d a t 1224. next argues that the t r i a l court erred in a w a r d i n g a money j u d g m e n t t o t h e m o t h e r f o r t h e r e p a y m e n t o f c o l l e g e expenses i n c u r r e d by t h e d a u g h t e r . the any evidence d i d not e s t a b l i s h that sum of money to pay daughter's c o l l e g e expenses. f o r the He c o n t e n d s t h e mother had father's half that expended of the I n f a c t , he p o i n t s o u t t h a t t h e d a u g h t e r ' s $20,000 i n s t u d e n t l o a n s p a i d f o r o v e r h a l f o f t h e 21 2081150 c o l l e g e expenses i n c u r r e d by t h e daughter. was r e q u i r e d t o p a y f o r o n l y expenses, h a l f of the daughter's improperly awarded Thus, we a g r e e t h a t t h e t r i a l t h e mother a money j u d g m e n t , a n d , i n s o f a r as i t d i d s o , i t s j u d g m e n t i s r e v e r s e d . v. W i l k i n s o n , (Ala. [Ms. 2080141, F e b . 5, 2010] C i v . App. 2010) failing father college t h e e v i d e n c e d i d n o t e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e m o t h e r was due any money f r o m t h e f a t h e r . court Because t h e f a t h e r t o determine when (affirming a t r i a l See W i l k i n s o n So. 3d , court's judgment an amount owed t o t h e m o t h e r t h e mother failed to establish, by t h e among other t h i n g s , t h a t she h a d r e p a i d any o f t h e o l d e r c h i l d ' s s t u d e n t l o a n s o r t h a t she was p e r s o n a l l y l i a b l e f o r r e p a y m e n t o f t h o s e loans and, t h u s , h a d f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t she c o n t r i b u t e d funds toward t h e c h i l d ' s p o s t m i n o r i t y Finally, its the father argues that educational the t r i a l expenses). court d i s c r e t i o n i n a w a r d i n g t h e m o t h e r a $2,000 a t t o r n e y f e e . "We n o t e t h a t t h e m a t t e r o f an award f o r an a t t o r n e y ' s c a s e s s u c h as t h i s discretion of the t r i a l 2d 1169, 1177 fee i n i s a matter that r e s t s soundly w i t h i n the court, which a b s e n t abuse o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n . " So. abused will reversed L a y f i e l d v. R o b e r t s , 599 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1991) 22 n o t be (citing Snead v. 2081150 Snead, 526 So. 2d 586 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 8 ) ) . considered fees i n c l u d e the earning the r e s u l t s of the l i t i g a t i o n , circumstances 841, of the p a r t i e s . " earns almost twice capacity of the and t h e financial Amie v. C o n r e y , 801 So. 2d 847 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) . mother t o be by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n a m o d i f i c a t i o n case i n making an a w a r d o f a t t o r n e y parties, "Factors The f a t h e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e as much as he does p a r t i e s w o u l d have had t o seek m o d i f i c a t i o n and t h a t t h e of the father's c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n f o r t h e son because o f t h e d a u g h t e r ' s a t t a i n i n g t h e age o f m a j o r i t y ; t h u s , he c o n t e n d s , t h e a w a r d o f an a t t o r n e y discretion. f e e t o t h e mother i s , i n t h i s We Although case, an abuse o f disagree. the parties would have been required i n s t i t u t e a modification action to modify the father's support o b l i g a t i o n respecting parties easily reached on t h e amount o f c h i l d s u p p o r t due f o r t h e s o n u n d e r t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t small could amount f o r an a t t o r n e y child- the son, i t i s c l e a r that the an a g r e e m e n t Thus, a l t h o u g h t h e m o t h e r to guidelines. p o s s i b l y have i n c u r r e d some fee f o r the m o d i f i c a t i o n of the father's child-support o b l i g a t i o n , the issue l i t i g a t e d i n the p r e s e n t c a s e was t h e f a t h e r ' s a t t e m p t t o a v o i d h i s o b l i g a t i o n 23 2081150 to pay p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l s u p p o r t t o t h e d a u g h t e r , w h i c h he b a s e d on l e g a l a u t h o r i t y f r o m o t h e r s t a t e s t h a t , although certainly father's voluntary interesting, agreement was inapplicable t o pay p o s t m i n o r i t y to the educational and was a l s o c o n t r a r y t o A l a b a m a l a w on t h e i s s u e . was unsuccessful awarded The f a t h e r i n h i s endeavor t o a v o i d h i s p o s t m i n o r i t y - educational-support being support obligation, certain although credits, one he d i d succeed i n of w h i c h the mother had s t i p u l a t e d he was due t o r e c e i v e . Thus, d e s p i t e t h e d i s p a r i t y of does the p a r t i e s ' incomes, which support argument a g a i n s t t h e award o f an a t t o r n e y f a c t o r s support the t r i a l In conclusion, father's fee, the remaining c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t the mother was due an award o f an a t t o r n e y f e e . award o f an a t t o r n e y the Thus, t h e t r i a l court's f e e t o the mother i s a f f i r m e d . the t r i a l court's judgment is reversed i n s o f a r as i t a w a r d e d a money j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e m o t h e r because the evidence at t r i a l m o t h e r h a d p a i d o r was l i a b l e of the postminority daughter. is d i d not establish that the f o r any o f t h e f a t h e r ' s p o r t i o n educational expenses In a l l other r e s p e c t s , the t r i a l affirmed. 24 incurred court's by the judgment 2081150 APPLICATION OVERRULED; OPINION OF AUGUST 6, 2010, WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED I N PART; AND REMANDED. P i t t m a n , B r y a n , and Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . Thompson, P . 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 25 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.