State of Alabama ex rel. Betty Dunn v. Van Wilson Dunn

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 04/15/2011 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 2090659 S t a t e o f Alabama ex r e l . B e t t y Dunn v. Van Wilson Dunn Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t (DR-87-500090.01) PITTMAN, Judge. This appeal Court a r i s e s from a judgment o f t h e M o b i l e ("the A l a b a m a c o u r t " ) Alabama, mother"), Court proceeding to garnish on Circuit d e c l i n i n g to allow the State of the r e l a t i o n t h e wages of Betty Dunn ( " t h e o f Van W i l s o n Dunn ("the 2090659 father") i n order to s a t i s f y a c h i l d - s u p p o r t arrearage by the court State to divorcing f i n d i n g the the p a r t i e s and a 1987 a 1994 order of of that that the of marriage the the c h i l d r e n , one father i n 1976 f a t h e r were d i v o r c e d under t h a t c o u r t ' s and and by c h i l d s u p p o r t i n t h e amount o f $80 The court r i g h t s to one collect of an order of child i n 1983. against the father was Fifteenth Circuit Court of F l o r i d a The in d i r e c t e d to A f t e r the mother support support arrearage the p e r week t o t h e m o t h e r . C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s , a c i v i l establishment mother, the Alabama c o u r t f a t h e r t h e r e a f t e r moved t o F l o r i d a . her the j u d g m e n t , t h e f a t h e r was pay assigned judgment i n c o n t e m p t f o r nonpayment. m o t h e r b o r e two 1987; to f a t h e r t o be During m o t h e r and e x i s t pursuant claimed and to the action assessment u l t i m a t e l y brought ("the had Mobile seeking of an in the F l o r i d a court") by t h e m o t h e r and t h e S t a t e o f F l o r i d a ' s D e p a r t m e n t o f H e a l t h Rehabilitative Services Uniform Reciprocal u n i f o r m a c t t h a t was the time. See pursuant to the Enforcement of terms of Support Act § 30-4-80 e t s e q . 2 former ("URESA"), i n f o r c e i n b o t h A l a b a m a and A l a . Code 1975, the and a F l o r i d a at (repealed), 2090659 and F l a . S t a t . Ann. § 88.011 e t s e q . ( r e p e a l e d ) . court, i n F e b r u a r y 1992, e n t e r e d The F l o r i d a 1 a judgment r u l i n g that the f a t h e r was t o p a y c h i l d s u p p o r t i n t h e amount o f $54 p e r week to the clerk of that d e t e r m i n e d by t h a t Subsequently, the relation actions court, although no i n O c t o b e r 1994, t h e S t a t e of the mother, f i l e d i n t h e Alabama and t h a t court a total T h a t c o n t e m p t a c t i o n was I n December was court. the f i r s t seeking, amount o f o v e r assigned o f two c o n t e m p t entered things, a p a y m e n t s were i n $30,000 c a s e no. 1994, t h e A l a b a m a c o u r t o f A l a b a m a , on among o t h e r d e c l a r a t i o n that the father's child-support arrears arrearage was owed. DR-87-500090.01. an o r d e r finding t h e f a t h e r t o be i n c o n t e m p t , a w a r d i n g t h e S t a t e a judgment i n the principal interest amount o f $ 1 8 , 7 9 3 . 9 7 , for a later determination, reserving and the issue issuing a r r e s t d i r e c t e d t o t h e f a t h e r p e n d i n g h i s payment to purge h i m s e l f of contempt. The f a t h e r was not a writ of of o f $10,000 arrested, A l a b a m a h a s s i n c e r e p e a l e d i t s v e r s i o n o f URESA and replaced i t with i t s v e r s i o n of the Uniform I n t e r s t a t e Family S u p p o r t A c t , w h i c h i s c o d i f i e d a t A l a . Code 1975, § 30-3A-101 e t s e q . See A c t No. 97-245, A l a . A c t s 1997. 1 3 2090659 and no f u r t h e r o r d e r s the or f i l i n g s appear t o have t a k e n p l a c e f i r s t c o n t e m p t a c t i o n f o r more t h a n 10 years. I t a p p e a r s f r o m t h e r e c o r d t h a t , a t some p o i n t a f t e r r e n d i t i o n of the court determined the t h a t f a i l u r e t o pay, a final Florida. father t o be delinquent i n meeting a official records judgment fees. r e c o r d f u r t h e r i n d i c a t e s t h a t , i n September 2008, of Alabama, a g a i n father owed on the $87,663.60 i n t e r e s t accrued thereon. DR-87-500090.02. r e l a t i o n of the mother, The in judgment, the under father unpaid child T h a t a c t i o n was the t h a t he Florida claimed, had 4 had court's the filed a l l e g i n g that support assigned f a t h e r opposed the S t a t e ' s second contempt a c t i o n , a r g u i n g obligations in a document, d a t e d second contempt a c t i o n i n the Alabama c o u r t the his the f u l l payment by t h e f a t h e r o f a l l d e l i n q u e n t s u p p o r t , c o s t s , and State in equivalent 2002, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h a t d e l i n q u e n c y s a t i s f i e d by The filed record i n t h i s appeal contains November 25, was was his B a s e d upon a " c e r t i f i c a t e of delinquency" judgment The the F l o r i d a c o u r t ' s URESA j u d g m e n t , t h e F l o r i d a support-payment o b l i g a t i o n s under t h a t judgment. to in and case no. claim i n the s a t i s f i e d a l l of judgment, " r e d u c e [ d ] the which amount of 2090659 child support due." The State, f o r i t s p a r t , contended t h e F l o r i d a c o u r t ' s URESA j u d g m e n t d i d n o t s u s p e n d o r the Alabama c o u r t ' s s u p p o r t entered record i n c a s e no. in this judgments. Although DR-87-500090.02 d o e s n o t appeal, the p a r t i e s agree c o u r t d i s m i s s e d the second contempt a c t i o n . court entered its an o r d e r i n the first w r i t of a r r e s t d i r e c t e d to the In filed December a process seeking benefits the the sums debt to satisfy stemming on the appear that the behalf of first Social the State unpaid child contending t h a t the hearing, the Alabama court entered a not a In suspend the judgment i n State did was support. arrearage the Security claimed determined t h a t the by mother, contempt a c t i o n s e c o n d c o n t e m p t a c t i o n had alleged the Alabama the response, the f a t h e r f i l e d a motion to immediately garnishment proceedings, in A l s o , the Alabama father's what from judgment father. State, from replace contempt a c t i o n v a c a t i n g of garnishment i n the withholding of $75,758.37 2009, the that the child-support exist. After judgment g r a n t i n g a the f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n and s u s p e n d i n g any g a r n i s h m e n t a t t e m p t s i n t h e first in contempt a c t i o n . which i t again The State f i l e d a s s e r t e d t h a t i t had 5 a postjudgment motion the right to enforce 2090659 the Alabama court's support judgments F l o r i d a c o u r t ' s URESA j u d g m e n t . court modified expressly The its brief, on the support judgment did a r g u m e n t on URESA judgment child asserts that that modify that the the that did, in o b l i g a t i o n and support. the is Alabama the in proposition 1987 arrears. 2002 that URESA support remedy to The father's that the modification satisfaction he was child- 1992 appropriate effect a the accrued court's In court court's to a contention fact, that i s an liability." mother, a p p e a l s . Alabama appeal i s l i m i t e d negated the Florida garnishment support judgment support of further i n i t s w o r d s , " f o r g i v e " an not child relation State arrearage; j u d g m e n t ; and collect r e l i e v e d f r o m any the w i t h o u t power t o , owed to Administration State, father contempt a c t i o n child-support and the the Alabama no "discharged that first the t h a t the f e d e r a l S o c i a l S e c u r i t y a r r e a r a g e and was After a hearing, i t s judgment i n the state notwithstanding owed any of of 1992 his that further 2 We n o t e t h a t t h e f a t h e r has n o t c o n t e n d e d i n h i s b r i e f on a p p e a l t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t o f d i s m i s s a l i n t h e second contempt a c t i o n s h o u l d be held to bar the State from i n i t i a t i n g garnishment proceedings i n c i d e n t to the first contempt a c t i o n . To t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e A l a b a m a c o u r t may 2 6 2090659 We c o n s i d e r e d a parallel fact pattern i n State ex r e l . D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s v . C u r r a n , 716 So. 2d 1196 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1997) . was I n C u r r a n , t h e f a t h e r o f two m i n o r c h i l d r e n o r d e r e d i n a 1987 A l a b a m a d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t t o p a y $300 p e r month i n c h i l d s u p p o r t , a f t e r w h i c h he moved t o S o u t h C a r o l i n a and unilaterally marriage reduced h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t of the elder Department child. p a y m e n t s upon t h e Thereafter, o f Human R e s o u r c e s , on b e h a l f m o t h e r , i n i t i a t e d a URESA a c t i o n t h e Lee County of the children's i n South C a r o l i n a among o t h e r t h i n g s , payment o f a c l a i m e d $5,600 a r r e a r a g e and enforcement o f t h e f a t h e r ' s as t o the remaining prospectively child support. attained dismissed ordered minor child; the father I n June t h e age o f 18 t h e URESA a c t i o n child-support support o b l i g a t i o n t h e South Carolina court t o p a y $200 p e r month i n 1995, a f t e r years, seeking, t h e younger t h e South without c h i l d had Carolina prejudice; court however, t h e have a f f o r d e d p r e c l u s i v e e f f e c t t o i t s j u d g m e n t o f d i s m i s s a l i n t h e s e c o n d c o n t e m p t a c t i o n , we w o u l d s i m p l y n o t e t h a t a judgment d i s m i s s i n g a contempt a c t i o n does n o t b a r enforcement o f an o t h e r w i s e v a l i d u n d e r l y i n g j u d g m e n t . H a l l v . H a l l , 485 So. 2d 747, 750 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1986) ( c i t i n g H o w e l l v . Thomas, 566 F.2d 469, 470 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 8 ) , w h i c h n o t e d t h a t t h e outcome o f a s e c o n d p r o c e e d i n g c a n n o t " c o l l a t e r a l l y e s t o p t h e e f f e c t o f an a l r e a d y c o n c l u d e d p r i o r p r o c e e d i n g . " ) . 7 2090659 State o f Alabama Alabama seeking, subsequently among brought other things, p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e d i v o r c e judgment. a contempt a c t i o n i n enforcement Although of the the t r i a l court i n C u r r a n d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r i n t h a t c a s e was somewhat in arrears i n paying contending arrearage his child that the t r i a l court support, appealed, had e r r e d i n c a l c u l a t i n g t h e because, the State s a i d , the Alabama d i v o r c e the State the support provisions of judgment remained c o n t r o l l i n g u n t i l the y o u n g e r c h i l d a t t a i n e d t h e age o f m a j o r i t y i n A l a b a m a . a review o f URESA, we agreed with the State's Upon position i n Curran: "'The p u r p o s e o f t h e URESA p r o c e e d i n g i s to p r o v i d e a s i m p l e , f a i r , a n d c o n v e n i e n t method o f e n f o r c i n g a support o b l i g a t i o n without having t o extradite the payor spouse t o a n o t h e r s t a t e . ' B a r n e s v . S t a t e ex r e l . S t a t e o f V i r g i n i a , 558 So. 2d 948, 949 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 0 ) . A URESA a c t i o n i s n o t b r o u g h t t o m o d i f y , o v e r c o m e , o r r e p l a c e an o r d e r o f c h i l d support i n a d i v o r c e judgment. State ex r e l . Van B u r e n C o u n t y Dep't o f S o c i a l S e r v i c e s v . Dempsey, 600 So. 2d 1019, 1023 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1992). F u r t h e r , ' [ t ] h e r e m e d i e s p r o v i d e d b y URESA " a r e i n a d d i t i o n t o a n d n o t i n s u b s t i t u t i o n f o r any other r e m e d i e s . A l l s u p v. S t a t e e x r e l . S a l a s , 648 So. 2d 597, 599 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 4 ) , q u o t i n g § 30-4-98, A l a . Code 1975. "South C a r o l i n a ' s o r d e r , as t h e 'responding s t a t e ' p u r s u a n t t o t h e URESA p e t i t i o n , was n o t a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e 1987 d i v o r c e o r d e r , b u t a new order of support. A l l s u p , supra. T h e r e b e i n g no 8 2090659 m o d i f i c a t i o n , t h e 1987 d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t r e m a i n e d i n effect. Murphy v . Murphy, 395 So. 2d 1047, 1049 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1981) . C u r r a n ' s c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e South C a r o l i n a o r d e r d i d n o t negate h i s a r r e a r a g e o r his r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s under t h e d i v o r c e judgment. 'Any m o d i f i c a t i o n s t o t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t a n d s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n s must be made b y t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t w i t h j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e d i v o r c e judgment.' Wearb v. L u k s , 708 So. 2d 1 8 1 [ , 184-85] ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) ; [ s e e a l s o ] Ex p a r t e O ' N e i l l , 420 So. 2d 264 ( A l a . 1 9 8 2 ) . Further, '[t]he order of support i n a case o f r e c i p r o c a l s u p p o r t does n o t i n any manner " s u p e r s e d e , " overcome o r r e p l a c e an o r d e r o f child support i n a divorce case.' W i l l i s v. L e v e s q u e , 402 So. 2d 1003, 1004 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1981). "We c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l court d i d not p r o p e r l y c a l c u l a t e t h e a r r e a r a g e a n d i n t e r e s t owed under t h e 1987 d i v o r c e judgment. C u r r a n was r e q u i r e d t o p a y $300 p e r month c h i l d s u p p o r t u n t i l his c h i l d r e n r e a c h e d age 19 o r t h e c o u r t m o d i f i e d the support order. See § 2 6 - 1 - 1 , A l a . Code 1975. C u r r a n ' s [ o l d e r c h i l d ] was e m a n c i p a t e d a s a r e s u l t of h e r m a r r i a g e i n S e p t e m b e r 1990; h o w e v e r , a s previously stated, t h i s fact d i d not automatically modify h i s support obligation. Hamilton [v. Phillips, 494 So. 2 d 659, 661 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 6 ) ] . F u r t h e r , C u r r a n ' s [ y o u n g e r c h i l d ] , b o r n on December 8, 1976, d i d n o t a t t a i n t h e age o f m a j o r i t y u n t i l December 1 9 9 5 . A l t h o u g h t h e S o u t h C a r o l i n a o r d e r o f June 1995 r e l i e v i n g C u r r a n o f h i s payments and a r r e a r a g e i n June 1995 r e l i e v e d h i m o f h i s c h i l d support o b l i g a t i o n because 'the o n l y c h i l d i n t h i s c a s e i s 18 a n d h a s g r a d u a t e d f r o m h i g h s c h o o l , ' t h e age o f m a j o r i t y i n A l a b a m a i s 19 a n d C u r r a n was required t o make c h i l d s u p p o r t payments until December 1995. § 2 6 - 1 - 1 , A l a . Code 1975. The j u d g m e n t as t o t h e a r r e a r a g e amount i s r e v e r s e d a n d the case i s remanded f o r t h e t r i a l court to r e c a l c u l a t e t h e a r r e a r a g e , and i n t e r e s t t h e r e o n . C u r r a n i s e n t i t l e d t o c r e d i t f o r t h e p a y m e n t s made 9 2090659 u n d e r t h e URESA o r d e r a g a i n s t any amount t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s he owes. See Wearb, s u p r a . " 716 So. 2d a t 1199-1200 On (emphasis added). t h e a u t h o r i t y o f C u r r a n , we conclude t h a t the F l o r i d a c o u r t ' s URESA judgment d i d n o t , as t h e f a t h e r c o n t e n d s , m o d i f y the father's court's child-support divorce j u d g m e n t f r o m $80 W h i l e URESA was URESA specifically state when s u p e r s e d e any provided, order acting previous as order just I n d e e d , an and Ala. Code appellate court as under week t o the $54 Alabama per week. Florida's version Alabama's of version of o f s u p p o r t i s s u e d by a court of a shall responding of support" or separate-maintenance a c t i o n . (repealed), per in effect in Florida, URESA d i d , t h a t " [ a ] n y this obligation See 1975, state issued i n a F l a . S t a t . Ann. § 30-4-93(b) i n F l o r i d a has not divorce § 88.281 (repealed). squarely held that t h e c o u r t s o f t h a t s t a t e l a c k e d power u n d e r URESA t o m o d i f y a c h i l d - s u p p o r t judgment e n t e r e d by a s i s t e r s t a t e t h a t had e n a c t e d URESA. (Fla. See D i s t . C t . App. Berkman v. Berkman, 951 So. 2d 928, also 931 2007). B e c a u s e t h e F l o r i d a c o u r t ' s URESA j u d g m e n t c o u l d n o t , did and not, judgment, the State not Alabama modify court the erred Alabama court's i n determining 10 divorce that the was 2090659 e n t i t l e d to enforce t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h a t j u d g m e n t by garnishment of p r o p e r t y and Alabama court's terminating the owned by t h e f a t h e r and i n d i s c h a r g i n g r e l i e v i n g t h e f a t h e r f r o m any Alabama c o u r t ' s divorce f u r t h e r l i a b i l i t y under judgment. judgment in Therefore, the first we reverse contempt t h e S t a t e ' s p r o c e s s o f g a r n i s h m e n t , and we cause f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s . REVERSED AND seeking the the action remand 3 REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , and B r y a n and Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . result, without writing. Of c o u r s e , the f a t h e r " i s e n t i t l e d t o c r e d i t f o r the p a y m e n t s made u n d e r t h e [ F l o r i d a c o u r t ' s ] URESA o r d e r a g a i n s t any amount t h a t t h e [Alabama] c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s he owes." C u r r a n , 716 So. 2d a t 1200. 3 11

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.