Scott Alan Anderson v. Annette Lynn Anderson (Appeal from Morgan Circuit Court: DR-08-270)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 9/17/10 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 Reporter o f Decisions, 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2010 2090265 S c o t t A l a n Anderson v. Annette Lynn Anderson 2090645 Ex p a r t e S c o t t A l a n Anderson PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS ( S c o t t A l a n Anderson v. Annette Lynn Anderson) A p p e l l a t e Proceedings from Morgan C i r c u i t Court, DR-08-270 BRYAN, Judge. Scott Alan Anderson ("the husband") j u d g m e n t o f t h e Morgan C i r c u i t Annette Lynn Anderson ("the w i f e " ) , for a writ grant h i s request f o r a temporary a n d he p e t i t i o n s o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g to prevent the wife from a Court t h a t d i v o r c e d him from court sought appeals from the t r i a l restraining changing this court to order, which the principal r e s i d e n c e o f t h e p a r t i e s ' two m i n o r c h i l d r e n . We d i s m i s s t h e husband's a p p e a l as b e i n g f r o m g r a n t t h e husband's p e t i t i o n 9, 2 0 0 9 , judgment, a n d we f o r w r i t o f mandamus. Procedural On A p r i l a nonfinal History t h e husband filed a complaint f o r a d i v o r c e a l l e g i n g t h a t he a n d t h e w i f e h a d m a r r i e d on O c t o b e r 2, 1 9 9 9 , a n d t h a t two c h i l d r e n h a d b e e n b o r n o f t h e m a r r i a g e : a boy, b o r n i n November 2001, a n d a g i r l , b o r n i n J a n u a r y 2005 ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o c o l l e c t i v e l y as " t h e c h i l d r e n " ) . The husband f u r t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t he was e n t i t l e d t o a d i v o r c e on the ground of physical the children, an award cruelty, a n d he r e q u e s t e d c u s t o d y o f o f c h i l d s u p p o r t , and d i v i s i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s ' p r o p e r t y and d e b t s . 2 2090265/2090645 The w i f e f i l e d asserted an a n s w e r t o t h e h u s b a n d ' s c o m p l a i n t t h a t t h e breakdown of the marriage h u s b a n d ' s a d u l t e r y . The w i f e a l s o f i l e d d i v o r c e and sought custody and was due t o t h e a counterclaim f o ra o f t h e c h i l d r e n , an a w a r d o f c h i l d support, permission Carolina, an e q u i t a b l e d i v i s i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s ' p r o p e r t y a n d debts, an a w a r d attorney's t o move with the c h i l d r e n of p e r i o d i c alimony, f e e s . The w i f e s u b s e q u e n t l y to a n d an a w a r d filed North of her an amendment t o her c o u n t e r c l a i m f o r a d i v o r c e r e q u e s t i n g an a w a r d o f 5 0 % o f the husband's things, retirement b e n e f i t s and a r g u i n g , among t h a t A l a . Code 1975, § 3 0 - 2 - 5 1 , was u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l because i t d e p r i v e d and due p r o c e s s the wife of equal p r o t e c t i o n of the law a f f o r d e d under the U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n and t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a . The w i f e the other attorney general pursuant served t o A l a . Code 1975, § 6-6-227, and t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l f i l e d an a c c e p t a n c e a n d w a i v e r o f h i s r i g h t t o be In heard. A u g u s t 2009, the t r i a l court c o n d u c t e d an o r e t e n u s h e a r i n g on t h e p a r t i e s ' p e n d i n g c o m p l a i n t s f o r a d i v o r c e and on t h e p e n d i n g c o n t e m p t p e t i t i o n s t h a t h a d b e e n f i l e d b y b o t h parties. On September 29, 2009, 3 the t r i a l court i s s u e d an 2090265/2090645 order finding Jessica Slocumb, t h e husband's contempt o f c o u r t f o r h e r f a i l u r e divorce trial. On O c t o b e r divorcing paramour, i n t o appear a t the p a r t i e s ' 1 7, 2009, t h e t r i a l the p a r t i e s . In court entered i t s judgment, a judgment the t r i a l court stated: "The p a r t i e s a p p e a r e d i n c o u r t , r e p r e s e n t e d b y t h e i r a t t o r n e y s , and p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e and t e s t i m o n y i n open c o u r t . A f t e r t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e e v i d e n c e , t h e C o u r t h e l d a show c a u s e h e a r i n g due t o t h e f a i l u r e o f a w i t n e s s , J e s s i c a Slocumb, t o a p p e a r a t t r i a l i n r e s p o n s e t o a s u b p o e n a s e r v e d upon h e r b y t h e [ w i f e ] . A t s a i d show c a u s e h e a r i n g , J e s s i c a Slocumb a p p e a r e d w i t h h e r a t t o r n e y a n d p r e s e n t e d t e s t i m o n y , i n c l u d i n g t e s t i m o n y t h a t she was i n v o l v e d i n a s e x u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e [ h u s b a n d ] a n d was p r e g n a n t w i t h h i s c h i l d , t h a t she h a d e x p e r i e n c e d p r i o r miscarriages of the [husband's] c h i l d , that she u s e d t h e [ h u s b a n d ' s ] l a s t name, e v e n t h o u g h she was n o t m a r r i e d t o h i m , a n d t h a t she was w e a r i n g a r i n g g i v e n t o h e r b y t h e [ h u s b a n d ] on h e r l e f t r i n g f i n g e r . The t e s t i m o n y o f J e s s i c a Slocumb gave t h e Court no c o n f i d e n c e i n the c r e d i b i l i t y of the [husband's] testimony presented at t r i a l . Upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e same, t h e C o u r t does h e r e b y ORDER, ADJUDGE a n d DECREE as f o l l o w s I n i t s S e p t e m b e r 29, 2009, o r d e r , t h e t r i a l c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t S l o c u m b , S l o c u m b ' s a t t o r n e y , a n d t h e w i f e ' s a t t o r n e y were p r e s e n t a t t h e c o n t e m p t h e a r i n g a n d t h a t t e s t i m o n y was t a k e n b e f o r e t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f c o n t e m p t was made. T h e r e was no i n d i c a t i o n i n the t r i a l court's order that e i t h e r the father or t h e f a t h e r ' s a t t o r n e y was p r e s e n t f o r S l o c u m b ' s c o n t e m p t hearing. 1 4 2090265/2090645 The t r i a l c o u r t d i v o r c e d t h e p a r t i e s on t h e g r o u n d o f t h e husband's a d u l t e r y , awarded the p a r t i e s j o i n t l e g a l c u s t o d y o f the children, children, awarded the w i f e s o l e p h y s i c a l custody and a w a r d e d t h e h u s b a n d " s t a n d a r d " of the visitation with t h e c h i l d r e n . The j u d g m e n t a l s o s t a t e d : "The [ w i f e ] ' s r e q u e s t t o move t h e r e s i d e n c e o f t h e c h i l d r e n more t h a n 60 m i l e s f r o m t h e c u r r e n t m a r i t a l residence i s granted, and t h e [ w i f e ] s h a l l be a l l o w e d t o do so s h o u l d she deem i t a p p r o p r i a t e f o r h e r and t h e c h i l d r e n . I n s a i d e v e n t , t h e [ w i f e ] s h a l l p r o v i d e t h e [ h u s b a n d ] w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n ' s new r e s i d e n c e a d d r e s s a n d t e l e p h o n e number, and t h e name and a d d r e s s o f t h e c h i l d r e n ' s s c h o o l s . I n s a i d e v e n t , t h e [ h u s b a n d ] s h a l l have v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e C o u r t ' s S t a n d a r d Out of State Schedule, attached hereto " Among o t h e r p a y $2,500 t h i n g s , the judgment o r d e r e d a month i n c h i l d months i n p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y support, $2,500 the husband t o a month f o r 60 t o t h e w i f e , and $12,424.06 to the w i f e f o r payment o f h e r a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s . The j u d g m e n t f u r t h e r d i v i d e d t h e p a r t i e s ' p r o p e r t y and d e b t s and a w a r d e d t h e w i f e one-half o f the v a l u e o f the husband's r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s . The h u s b a n d f i l e d a m o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e t h e judgment p u r s u a n t t o Rule 59, A l a . R. C i v . P., and requested a h e a r i n g on h i s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . The h u s b a n d a r g u e d t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t had w r o n g f u l l y c o n s i d e r e d the t e s t i m o n y 5 heard 2090265/2090645 at J e s s i c a Slocumb's contempt h e a r i n g because t h e t a k i n g of evidence i n the p a r t i e s ' divorce t r i a l h a d c l o s e d on A u g u s t 12, 2009, t h e l a s t d a y o f t h e o r e t e n u s h e a r i n g i n t h e d i v o r c e a c t i o n . The h u s b a n d a l s o c h a l l e n g e d , award o f s o l e p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y the p e r m i s s i o n more t h a n it was granted 60 m i l e s contrary among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e of the c h i l d r e n to the w i f e ; to the wife to r e l o c a t e the c h i l d r e n from the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e , a l l e g i n g to provisions o f t h e Alabama that Parent-Child R e l a t i o n s h i p P r o t e c t i o n A c t , c o d i f i e d a t A l a . Code 1975, § 3 0 ¬ 3-160 e t s e q . ( " t h e A c t " ) ; t h e a w a r d o f c h i l d award o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y ; the d i v i s i o n support; the of m a r i t a l property and d e b t s ; a n d t h e a w a r d o f 5 0 % o f h i s r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s t o the wife, because the p a r t i e s had not been m a r r i e d f o r 10 years. The trial court issued an order that granted h u s b a n d ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n i n s o f a r as t h e h u s b a n d that the t r i a l c o u r t had w r o n g f u l l y c o n s i d e r e d hearing " t o reopen a d d i t i o n a l testimony the case f o r the argued the testimony f r o m J e s s i c a S l o c u m b ' s c o n t e m p t h e a r i n g . The t r i a l a court set presentation r e l a t i n g to the [husband]'s the of credibility, w h i c h i s t h e o n l y i s s u e t h e C o u r t c o n s i d e r e d a t t h e show c a u s e 6 2090265/2090645 hearing relief p r e v i o u s l y h e l d . " The t r i a l requested husband court denied a l l other i n t h e husband's postjudgment motion. subsequently evidentiary hearing filed an objection to and argued t h a t t h e t r i a l The holding an court d i d not have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o amend t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e i t h a d lost jurisdiction over the case i n l i g h t of the f a c t t h a t i t had d e n i e d t h e h u s b a n d ' s r e q u e s t e d p o s t j u d g m e n t r e l i e f r e l a t e d to the divorce testimony irrelevant j u d g m e n t . The h u s b a n d a r g u e d t h a t a d d i t i o n a l regarding t h e husband's by t h e t r i a l court's f i l e d h i s n o t i c e of appeal On F e b r u a r y motion for a receiving credibility order. rendered The h u s b a n d timely on December 16, 2009. 16, 2010, t h e h u s b a n d temporary was restraining filed order an emergency i n response to n o t i c e b y t h e w i f e , on J a n u a r y 28, 2010, t h a t she i n t e n d e d t o move w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n t o S t u r g e o n B a y , W i s c o n s i n , on F e b r u a r y 27, 2 0 1 0 ; t h e h u s b a n d d i d n o t n o t i f y t h e w i f e when he f i l e d the motion. entered On F e b r u a r y 25, 2010, t h e t r i a l court an o r d e r d e n y i n g t h e h u s b a n d ' s m o t i o n f o r a t e m p o r a r y r e s t r a i n i n g order c i t i n g the p r o v i s i o n i n the p a r t i e s ' judgment t h a t p e r m i t t e d the wife t o move more t h a n 60 m i l e s f r o m t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e . On A p r i l 7 divorce 9, 2010, 2090265/2090645 the husband f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus, arguing t h a t t h i s c o u r t s h o u l d g r a n t h i s p e t i t i o n and o r d e r t h e t r i a l court t o i s s u e a temporary r e s t r a i n i n g order preventing the w i f e from changing the p r i n c i p a l r e s i d e n c e o f t h e c h i l d r e n t o S t u r g e o n Bay. I n h i s p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus, t h e husband argues t h a t t h e testimony p r e s e n t e d by t h e w i f e a t t h e p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e t r i a l was r e l a t e d t o a p o s s i b l e move t o N o r t h Carolina, not Wisconsin, a n d he a r g u e s that the r e l o c a t i o n provision i n the divorce judgment i s n o t i n c o m p l i a n c e the A c t . T h i s c o u r t c o n s o l i d a t e d t h e husband's appeal divorce judgment and h i s p e t i t i o n with from t h e f o r a w r i t o f mandamus e x mero motu. Issues In a d d i t i o n to the issues presented by t h e husband i n h i s p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus, t h e h u s b a n d p r e s e n t s issues f o r review by t h i s court resulting from several the divorce judgment, namely: ( 1 ) t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d by f a i l i n g t o c o n d u c t a h e a r i n g on h i s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n a n d b y f a i l i n g t o grant relief t o the husband i n light of the t r i a l court's i m p l i c i t concession t h a t i t had improperly considered evidence from J e s s i c a Slocumb's contempt h e a r i n g ; ( 2 ) t h a t t h e t r i a l 8 2090265/2090645 c o u r t e r r e d by awarding the b e n e f i t s i n l i g h t of the married f o r 10 years; residence by its in child discretion court erred been (4) t h a t t h e trial court exceeded i t s the (6) i n ordering alimony i n the not court erred i n i t s wife to change (5) t h a t t h e trial that the amount o f the trial in i t s division a month; of p r o p e r t y principal exceeded $2,500 a month court h u s b a n d t o pay $2, 500 the court o r d e r i n g t h e h u s b a n d t o pay support; retirement trial children; d i s c r e t i o n by of h i s t h a t the allowing of the one-half f a c t t h a t t h e p a r t i e s ' had (3) custody determination; discretion wife exceeded its the w i f e p e r i o d i c (7) t h a t t h e and (8) t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n o r d e r i n g the h u s b a n d t o pay the w i f e ' s attorney's and debts; trial fee. Discussion A. The The Husband's A p p e a l f r o m t h e D i v o r c e husband f i r s t considering testimony when making a final argues t h a t the presented trial Judgment court husband reopen the argues determination case that for because regarding the presentation 9 by a t Slocumb's contempt h e a r i n g p r e s e n t e d by t h e p a r t i e s as p a r t o f t h e i r d i v o r c e The erred of trial the issues proceedings. court additional agreed to testimony 2090265/2090645 regarding h i s c r e d i b i l i t y , the t r i a l court i m p l i c i t l y t h a t i t had w r o n g f u l l y considered the testimony conceded presented a t Slocumb's contempt h e a r i n g . I n response, t h e w i f e argues t h a t , even i f t h e t r i a l presented was requested because the t r i a l postjudgment r e l i e f on t h e h u s b a n d ' s The considered a t Slocumb's contempt h e a r i n g , harmless hearing court wrongfully statement despite made b y t h e t r i a l the testimony any e r r o r committed denied t h e husband's agreeing t o conduct a credibility. judgment, q u o t e d above, l e a v e s considered court the testimony court i n the divorce no d o u b t t h a t t h e t r i a l presented a t Slocumb's contempt h e a r i n g , w h i c h t h e h u s b a n d was a p p a r e n t l y n o t p r e s e n t s u p r a n o t e 1 ) , when i t made i t s f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n the i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d proceedings. to regarding by t h e p a r t i e s p u r s u a n t t o t h e i r t h e e r r o r a l l e g e d by t h e husband by the case so t h a t a d d i t i o n a l t e s t i m o n y to f o r (see divorce The r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t a t t e m p t e d ameliorate credibility court c o u l d be p r e s e n t e d . reopening r e g a r d i n g t h e husband's The t r i a l c o u r t was n o t a b l e conduct such a h e a r i n g because t h e husband f i l e d a n o t i c e of appeal with this c o u r t b a s e d on h i s b e l i e f that a hearing on t h e h u s b a n d ' s c r e d i b i l i t y was moot b e c a u s e t h e t r i a l 10 court 2090265/2090645 had d e n i e d the husband's remaining the d i v o r c e postjudgment challenges judgment. However, the trial court's order, which granted the husband's motion to a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e the part reopened presentation and ordered the additional adjudicate a l l the case testimony, does n o t issues 5 8 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. sufficient indicates ("A f o r the reflect before i f i t an i n t e n t to trial the court. or i n i t i a l e d i n t e n t i o n to adjudicate, and judgment i n indicates by the Cf. judge considering the of finally Rule w r i t t e n o r d e r or a judgment w i l l i f i t i s signed an record, to ... the substance be and whole of the adjudication."). Pursuant to the t r i a l court c l e a r l y ordered the p r e s e n t a t i o n had expressly presentation would i t s November 26, not j u d g m e n t , we of the allowed the reopening a d d i t i o n a l testimony consider agree trial t h a t t h e c a s e be of a d d i t i o n a l testimony. changing that w o u l d have b e e n a u s e l e s s that 2009, p o s t j u d g m e n t court the any taking with aspect of trial the an court case for intent that i t of the additional a c t . However, we will agreed to conduct a hearing 11 reopened f o r I f the of order, divorce testimony not presume that would 2090265/2090645 have been a v a i n and useless a c t , because the law r e q u i r e t h e d o i n g o f a v a i n o r u s e l e s s t h i n g . See, Corsino v. Corsino, 2004). Although 904 the 59 So. 2d trial motion 1261, court generally, (Ala. Civ. purported to App. deny the only reasonable e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r g r a n t i n g an all the issues presented so the trial grounds, the Rule was a l l other not husband's evidentiary hearing on 1265 does court could reconsider i n the d i v o r c e proceedings in light o f any e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g t h e h u s b a n d ' s c r e d i b i l i t y t h a t m i g h t be p r o d u c e d a t t h e e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g . Thus, we must c o n c l u d e that the trial additional did not court's testimony consider order was the an case allowing indication t o be the presentation t h a t the f i n a l l y adjudicated m e r i t s a f t e r the e n t r y of i t s postjudgment o r d e r . because the husband's j u d g m e n t , we subject-matter appeal must d i s m i s s ("Generally, taken See So. v. 3d ___ , ___ will the a final for lack of Sexton, [Ms. (Ala. Civ. App. final j u d g m e n t , and i f t h e r e i s n o t a f i n a l j u d g m e n t t h e n t h i s court jurisdiction appeal Sexton on Accordingly, from appeal court a is without an not husband's jurisdiction. 2080852, F e b r u a r y 5, 2 0 1 0 ] ___ 2010) was the trial of to hear the 12 l i e only appeal."). from 2090265/2090645 B. The Husband's P e t i t i o n In his petition for a writ motion f o r temporary prevent the w i f e from changing the p r i n c i p a l r e s i d e n c e o f the (setting forth the e r r e d by f a i l i n g t h e husband that t o Sturgeon court o f mandamus, argues children the t r i a l f o r a W r i t o f Mandamus restraining B a y . See R u l e requirements order, to grant h i s which 65(b), f o r the sought to A l a . R. C i v . P. issuance of a t e m p o r a r y r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r when no n o t i c e i s p r o v i d e d t o t h e a d v e r s e p a r t y ) . The h u s b a n d a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d 2 by r e l y i n g on t h e p r o v i s i o n i n t h e p a r t i e s ' divorce judgment t h a t p e r m i t t e d t h e m o t h e r t o change t h e p r i n c i p a l r e s i d e n c e o f t h e c h i l d r e n t o any p l a c e more t h a n 60 m i l e s f r o m t h e m a r i t a l residence. "A w r i t o f mandamus i s an e x t r a o r d i n a r y remedy, and i t w i l l be ' i s s u e d o n l y when t h e r e i s : 1) a clear l e g a l r i g h t i n the p e t i t i o n e r to the order T h e h u s b a n d , i n a v e r i f i e d p l e a d i n g a n d i n an a f f i d a v i t , s e t s f o r t h f a c t s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t immediate and i r r e p a r a b l e harm w o u l d have r e s u l t e d i f a t e m p o r a r y r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r was n o t i s s u e d b e f o r e t h e w i f e c o u l d be h e a r d on h i s m o t i o n . The h u s b a n d ' s a t t o r n e y a l s o c e r t i f i e d t h a t he h a d n o t made any attempt t o g i v e n o t i c e t o the w i f e because o f the p o t e n t i a l f o r i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y i f t h e t e m p o r a r y r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r was not immediately i s s u e d . The p o t e n t i a l harm c a u s e d b y t h e relocation of the c h i l d r e n , without proper evidentiary s u p p o r t , was a s u f f i c i e n t s h o w i n g o f i m m e d i a t e a n d i r r e p a r a b l e harm t o t h e h u s b a n d . 2 13 2090265/2090645 s o u g h t ; 2) an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y upon t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o p e r f o r m , a c c o m p a n i e d by a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; 3) t h e l a c k o f a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e r e m e d y ; and 4) p r o p e r l y i n v o k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t . ' Ex p a r t e U n i t e d S e r v . S t a t i o n s , I n c . , 628 So. 2d 501, 503 (Ala. 1993). A w r i t o f mandamus w i l l issue only i n s i t u a t i o n s where o t h e r r e l i e f i s u n a v a i l a b l e o r i s i n a d e q u a t e , and i t c a n n o t be u s e d as a s u b s t i t u t e f o r a p p e a l . Ex p a r t e D r i l l P a r t s & S e r v . Co., 590 So. 2d 252 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . " Ex p a r t e E m p i r e F i r e (Ala. & M a r i n e I n s . Co., 720 So. 2d 893, 894 1998). Because we not have a determined judgment is final provision i n the p a r t i e s ' that judgment, the we parties' will divorce consider the d i v o r c e judgment t h a t p e r m i t s the w i f e t o r e l o c a t e w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n more t h a n 60 m i l e s f r o m t h e location of the m a r i t a l residence p e r m i t t i n g t h e change o f p r i n c i p a l pursuant 3 to be a temporary residence t o § 3 0 - 3 - 1 6 9 . 2 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . of the c h i l d r e n 3 S e c t i o n 30-3-169.2(b) s t a t e s : "The c o u r t may g r a n t a t e m p o r a r y o r d e r p e r m i t t i n g t h e change o f p r i n c i p a l r e s i d e n c e o f a c h i l d and providing f o r a r e v i s e d schedule f o r temporary v i s i t a t i o n with a c h i l d pending a f i n a l hearing i f the c o u r t f i n d s t h a t the r e q u i r e d n o t i c e of a p r o p o s e d change o f p r i n c i p a l r e s i d e n c e o f a c h i l d as p r o v i d e d i n t h i s a r t i c l e was p r o v i d e d i n a t i m e l y manner, contained sufficient and accurate information, and i f the court finds from an examination of the evidence p r e s e n t e d a t a h e a r i n g 14 order 2090265/2090645 In order, ore support of h i s motion t h e husband tenus f o r a temporary argued t h a t the w i f e , hearing i n the divorce evidence regarding her intent residence of the c h i l d r e n only restraining a t the August 2009 action, had presented change the principal to to North Carolina and t h a t t h e r e h a d b e e n no m e n t i o n o f a p o s s i b l e r e l o c a t i o n t o S t u r g e o n Bay. The m a t e r i a l s p r e s e n t e d w i t h t h e husband's p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus i n d i c a t e t h a t denied the t r i a l court summarily t h e husband's motion f o r a temporary r e s t r a i n i n g order b a s e d on t h e p r o v i s i o n i n t h e p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t t h a t p e r m i t t e d t h e w i f e t o move more t h a n 60 m i l e s f r o m t h e m a r i t a l residence. parties' The h u s b a n d divorce argues judgment that that i s too broad provision t o comply i n the with the s t r i c t mandates o f t h e A c t . We a g r e e . The A c t r e q u i r e s t h e t r i a l to consider various factors c o u r t , i n c a s e s s u c h as t h i s , before making an initial for temporary r e l i e f t h a t there i s a l i k e l i h o o d t h a t on f i n a l h e a r i n g t h e c o u r t w i l l a p p r o v e t h e change of the p r i n c i p a l residence of the c h i l d . " We n o t e t h a t § 3 0 - 3 - 1 6 9 . 2 ( c ) , A l a . Code 1975, s t a t e s t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t "may n o t g i v e w e i g h t t o t h e t e m p o r a r y change o f principal residence as a f a c t o r i n r e a c h i n g i t s final d e c i s i o n " r e g a r d i n g w h e t h e r t o a l l o w a change o f p r i n c i p a l residence. 15 2090265/2090645 determination of custody i n a d i v o r c e a c t i o n when one has e x p r e s s e d an i n t e n t t o change t h e p r i n c i p a l residence of t h e p a r t i e s ' c h i l d r e n . See § 30-3-169.7, A l a . Code 1975 requires a t r i a l court i n a divorce proceeding parent (which to consider the f a c t o r s s e t f o r t h i n § 30-3-169.2 and § 30-3-169.3, A l a . Code 1975, when m a k i n g wishes to change a custody the determination principal 30-3-169.7, residence Pursuant to § consider t h e 17 f a c t o r s s e t f o r t h making a intent t o change those determination the t r i a l of and the n o n r e l o c a t i n g the was required to considering of child). the the the i n travel parent; parent of court residence f a c t o r s i n c l u d e : the i n c r e a s e children one i n § 30-3-169.3(a) custody, the p r i n c i p a l when time before wife's children; f o r the feasibility of p r e s e r v i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e c h i l d r e n and t h e nonrelocating parent, circumstances c o n s i d e r i n g the l o g i s t i c s and financial o f t h e p a r t i e s ; w h e t h e r a change o f p r i n c i p a l r e s i d e n c e o f t h e c h i l d r e n w i l l enhance t h e g e n e r a l q u a l i t y o f life f o r t h e c h i l d r e n and t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t , considering f i n a n c i a l o r e m o t i o n a l b e n e f i t s and e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s ; whether there i s a support system a v a i l a b l e i n the area of the proposed p r i n c i p a l residence of the c h i l d r e n ; the reason 16 the 2090265/2090645 r e l o c a t i n g p a r e n t i s s e e k i n g t o change t h e p r i n c i p a l of t h e c h i l d r e n ; and a n y o t h e r factor that deems m a t e r i a l t o t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n . (5), ( 1 1 ) , ( 1 2 ) , ( 1 5 ) , and the t r i a l See § court 30-3-169.3(a)(3), ( 1 7 ) , A l a . Code w o u l d be i m p o s s i b l e f o r a t r i a l residence 1975. T h u s , i t c o u r t to determine whether a change i n p r i n c i p a l r e s i d e n c e o f a c h i l d i s p r o p e r u n l e s s t h e trial court principal was aware residence Because of the a c t u a l place of the c h i l d . the evidence initially presented c o n c e r n e d a p r o p o s e d change o f p r i n c i p a l Carolina, all the t r i a l a by proposed the wife to residence c o u r t c o u l d n o t have p r o p e r l y the f a c t o r s s e t f o r t h whether of the proposed North considered i n § 30-3-169.3(a) i n d e t e r m i n i n g change of principal residence of the c h i l d r e n t o S t u r g e o n B a y was p r o p e r . The r e l o c a t i o n p r o v i s i o n in the t r i a l this case, the w i f e to a p p l i c a t i o n of the A c t ; under the circumstances circumvent court's in the wife divorce was not required allowed to present related to a proposed children to Sturgeon evidence that residence of the c h i l d r e n to North C a r o l i n a . may change judgment Bay have of p r i n c i p a l simply 17 residence b e c a u s e she supported a evidence change of the had presented in principal 2090265/2090645 Therefore, evidence because to support the wife a change had not in principal c h i l d r e n t o S t u r g e o n B a y , we c o n c l u d e presented residence of the t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t had no b a s i s t o a l l o w t h e w i f e t o change t h e p r i n c i p a l residence o f t h e c h i l d r e n t o S t u r g e o n Bay. B e c a u s e t h e p a r t i e s ' judgment i s not yet f i n a l , residence i s s t i l l Therefore, principal the before a proposed the t r i a l residence c o u r t can p e r m i t o f the c h i l d r e n , of principal a change i n t h e i t must f i r s t consider i n § 30-3-169.2 and § 30-3-169.3, i n of the wife's d e s i r e to r e l o c a t e w i t h the c h i l d r e n to S t u r g e o n Bay. F i n d i n g no i n d i c a t i o n trial the A c t i n l i g h t to change divorce s u b j e c t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f § 30-3-169.7. factors set forth light any court considered r e l o c a t e t o S t u r g e o n B a y , we motion for a granted. the trial motion for a court temporary that the o f the wife's d e s i r e conclude restraining Because husband's conclude temporary i n the r e c o r d t h a t the husband's order should refused to restraining have been grant the order, we t h a t t h e h u s b a n d ' s p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus i s due t o be g r a n t e d . A c c o r d i n g l y , we i s s u e t h e w r i t and i n s t r u c t the trial principal court to residence restrain the wife from o f the c h i l d r e n u n t i l 18 changing the t r i a l the court 2090265/2090645 conducts change an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g the p r i n c i p a l residence on t h e w i f e ' s request o f the c h i l d r e n to t o Sturgeon Bay. Conclusion We divorce instruct case the t r i a l court f o r presentation t o reopen of additional the parties' testimony as o r i g i n a l l y ordered by t h e t r i a l c o u r t b e f o r e t h e husband f i l e d a n o t i c e o f appeal evidence initial taken to this c o u r t . Upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e a t t h a t h e a r i n g and t h e e v i d e n c e ore tenus h e a r i n g , we instruct e n t e r a judgment t h a t i s supported taken the t r i a l i n the court to by t h e evidence presented. The w i f e ' s r e q u e s t f o r an a t t o r n e y ' s f e e on a p p e a l i s denied. We f u r t h e r i n s t r u c t t h e t r i a l court t o conduct a hearing on t h e w i f e ' s r e q u e s t t o change t h e p r i n c i p a l r e s i d e n c e o f t h e c h i l d r e n t o S t u r g e o n B a y a n d t o e n t e r an o r d e r c o n s i s t e n t w i t h this opinion. 2090265 APPEAL 2090645 PETITION GRANTED; WRIT Thompson, concur. DISMISSED. P . J . , and P i t t m a n , 19 ISSUED. Thomas, a n d Moore, 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.