Preview:

REL:

12/4/09

Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r .

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010

2080594

Nancy H. G i a r d i n a v. Stewart H. G i a r d i n a Appeal from Baldwin C i r c u i t Court (DR-04-301 and DR-04-301.03) THOMAS, J u d g e . This i s t h e second time these p a r t i e s have been before

t h i s court concerning Giardina,

t h e i r d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t . See G i a r d i n a v . In Giardina,

987 So. 2d 606 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) . aspect

we a f f i r m e d t h e c u s t o d y

o f t h e judgment and a f f i r m e d

2080594 t h e a w a r d o f r e h a b i l i t a t i v e a l i m o n y t o Nancy H. G i a r d i n a wife"); remanded however, we reversed the property court division, (1) ("the we

and

the cause t o the t r i a l

for i t to

reserve

t h e power t o a w a r d p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y t o t h e w i f e , the p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y awarded t o t h e w i f e , an equitable portion o f t h e J.B. Hanover

(2) s p e c i f y

(3) a w a r d t h e w i f e a c c o u n t owned by

S t e w a r t H. G i a r d i n a ("the h u s b a n d " ) , and (4) d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r the husband's form Rule 32, A l a . R. J u d . Admin., CS-41 income-

affidavit

("CS-41 form")

r e f l e c t e d h i s true

income f o r

2004 and 2005 and, i f t h e t r i a l

court determined that i t d i d

n o t , t o d e t e r m i n e t h e h u s b a n d ' s t r u e income and t o r e c o n s i d e r the division of m a r i t a l property in light of that income.

Giardina, In

987 So. 2d a t 623-24. the appeal of the divorce filed judgment court

J u l y 2007, w h i l e

was p e n d i n g i n t h i s c o u r t , t h e w i f e

i n the t r i a l

a p r o se p e t i t i o n t o m o d i f y c u s t o d y o r t o a l t e r h e r v i s i t a t i o n rights. T h a t a c t i o n was d o c k e t e d as c a s e number DR-0 4-301.03. i n c a s e number DR-04the husband held in

On O c t o b e r 3, 2007, t h e w i f e a l s o f i l e d , 301.03, contempt a petition seeking to have

f o r the husband's of the t r i a l

failure

t o comply w i t h

certain to

provisions

court's

June 2007 o r d e r

relating

2

2080594 visitation. The h u s b a n d f i l e d a c o u n t e r p e t i t i o n seeking to

have t h e w i f e h e l d i n c o n t e m p t f o r v a r i o u s a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n s o f t h e d i v o r c e judgment and o t h e r the w i f e ' s v i s i t a t i o n privileges. c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g on t h e court orders and t o m o d i f y

On M a r c h 27, 2008, t h e t r i a l issues been specified i n o u r remand

i n G i a r d i n a ; t h a t a c t i o n had At that hearing, concerning the

assigned

c a s e number DR-04-301.

t r i a l court took a d d i t i o n a l testimony

the husband's The wife

2004 and 2005 income and t h e J.B. H a n o v e r a c c o u n t . did not object to the trial court's taking

additional

testimony. On the S e p t e m b e r 29, 2008, t h e t r i a l modification petition and court held a t r i a l on various on

wife's

contempt

c l a i m s , except those claims i n v o l v i n g the f i n a n c i a l aspects of the divorce judgment, w h i c h court's the t r i a l court dismissed as a

result

of t h i s

r e v e r s a l i n G i a r d i n a of the judgment. their The

property parties' was the case

division children

contained testified

i n the divorce in camera,

and

testimony entered and

transcribed. following

I n F e b r u a r y 2009, t h e t r i a l i n both case number

court

judgment

DR-04-301

number DR-0 4-301.03:

3

2080594 "1. T h i s m a t t e r c o m i n g on f o r h e a r i n g s a f t e r remand f r o m t h e A l a b a m a C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s , t h e C o u r t c o n d u c t e d two h e a r i n g s , a n d a f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g the t e s t i m o n y a n d t h e t a x r e t u r n s a n d o t h e r e x h i b i t s introduced at the h e a r i n g s , the Court i s of the o p i n i o n t h a t t h e [husband] h a s n o t c o n c e a l e d any a s s e t s from t h e C o u r t , and t h e r e f o r e , t h e C o u r t r e a f f i r m s t h e o r i g i n a l p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n and a l i m o n y awards i n t h e o r i g i n a l c a s e . "2. The C o u r t h a s c o n s i d e r e d t h e [ w i f e ' s ] m o t i o n to change custody or a l t e r visitation. After hearing, the Court i s of the o p i n i o n that the motion t o change c u s t o d y i s due t o be d e n i e d b e c a u s e she has n o t met t h e [Ex p a r t e ] M c L e n d o n [ , 455 So. 2d 863 (Ala. 1984),] s t a n d a r d o f p r o o f . The C o u r t i s s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e [husband] is still the best p e r s o n t o have c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n . "3. The C o u r t does m o d i f y the v i s i t a t i o n s c h e d u l e t o p r o v i d e t h a t t h e w i f e s h a l l be e n t i t l e d t o 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 on t h e weekdays t h a t she i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o work p r o v i d e d t h a t she r e t u r n s t h e c h i l d r e n t o s c h o o l t h e n e x t m o r n i n g . The original divorce decree i s hereby modified to r e f l e c t t h i s change r e s p e c t i n g v i s i t a t i o n . " The w i f e a p p e a l s t h e j u d g m e n t b o t h i n s o f a r as i t a d d r e s s e d o u r i n s t r u c t i o n s on remand i n c a s e number DR-04-301 a n d i n s o f a r as it denied her modification petition i n case number DR-04-

301.03. We w i l l the first address whether we have j u r i s d i c t i o n over

a p p e a l f r o m t h e j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as i t d e n i e d t h e w i f e ' s i n c a s e number DR-0 4-301.03. 711, 712 4 ( A l a . 1987) See Nunn that

modification petition v. Baker, 518 So. 2d

(stating

2080594 "jurisdictional matters are of such magnitude t h a t we take The

n o t i c e o f them a t any t i m e and do so e v e n ex mero m o t u " ) . w i f e and to have

t h e h u s b a n d b o t h s o u g h t i n c a s e number DR-04-301.03 the of other the held trial Although from claims in contempt court's the the for various alleged and any the and

violations subsequent contempt divorce

divorce court

judgment dismissed aspects of

orders.

trial

claims

arising the

financial on

judgment,

based

the

custody

v i s i t a t i o n p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e d i v o r c e judgment and

subsequent

o r d e r s were c o n s i d e r e d d u r i n g t h e S e p t e m b e r 29, 2008, h e a r i n g . The trial court, however, failed to rule on either party's

claim seeking The

t o h o l d the o t h e r p a r t y i n contempt.

t r i a l c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o r u l e on t h e p e n d i n g c o n t e m p t renders nonfinal. the judgment Decker 2007) . v. The

p e t i t i o n s i n the p o s t d i v o r c e proceeding on the wife's 984 So. modification 2d 1216, petition

Decker,

1220

( A l a . C i v . App.

judgment i s not f i n a l because the judgment f a i l s t o adjudicate Phillips, a l l issues 3 So. 3d 922, between 925 the parties. See

completely Butler Subject v. to lies

( A l a . C i v . App.

2008).

a few e x c e p t i o n s o n l y from a f i n a l

not r e l e v a n t here, judgment.

an a p p e a l

ordinarily

A l a . Code 1975,

Download 2080594.pdf

Alabama Law