M.A.E. v. L.L.D. (Appeal from Tuscaloosa Juvenile Court: CS-97-5261.02). ( 2024 )

Rel: January 26, 2024
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue,
Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections
may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
OCTOBER TERM, 2023-2024
_________________________
CL-2023-0416
_________________________
M.A.E.
v.
L.L.D.
Appeal from Tuscaloosa Juvenile Court
(CS-97-5261.02)
MOORE, Judge.
M.A.E. ("the mother") appeals from a judgment entered by the
Tuscaloosa Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") on May 2, 2023. We
reverse the judgment and remand the cause with instructions for the
juvenile court to conduct a hearing on the mother's postjudgment motion.
CL-2023-0416
Procedural History
On September 19, 2011, the juvenile court entered a judgment ("the
2011 judgment") that, among other things, required L.L.D. ("the father")
to pay child support to the mother and to satisfy a child-support
arrearage for the benefit of K.M.E. ("the child"), subject to a credit for any
benefits from the Social Security Administration that had been received
on behalf of the child on account of the father's disability. The juvenile
court also entered an income-withholding order requiring the Social
Security Administration to remit a portion of the father's Social Security
disability benefits to the mother for the benefit of the child. In 2021, the
juvenile court terminated the income-withholding order upon the father's
motion. On March 30, 2022, the mother filed in the juvenile court a
petition requesting that the father be held in contempt of court for
violating the terms of the 2011 judgment. On April 18, 2022, the father,
appearing pro se, filed an answer, which was amended on July 19, 2022,
after the father retained counsel.
The juvenile court conducted a trial on April 19, 2023. On May 2,
2023, the juvenile court entered a final judgment concluding, among
2
CL-2023-0416
other things, that the mother had met her burden of proving that the
2011 judgment had not been satisfied but that she had failed to meet her
burden of proving that the father was in contempt for his failure to make
his monthly child-support payments as ordered. The juvenile court
concluded that, as of April 1, 2023, the father was in arrears of his
monthly child-support obligation and that he owed the mother
$16,569.49, which amount, the trial court determined, included interest
in the amount of $20,283.25 less $3,713.71, which it concluded was the
amount the father had paid toward interest. 1 The trial court denied the
mother's motion for contempt, directed the father to pay $500 per month
toward the arrearage, and denied all remaining relief requested. The
juvenile court attached to its judgment an exhibit that reflected the
calculations it had used in determining the amount of the father's
arrearage.
The mother filed a postjudgment motion on May 16, 2023,
challenging the juvenile court's calculation of the amount of the child-
1We note that $20,283.25 minus $3,713.71 equals $16,569.54,
rather than $16,569.49, as stated in the judgment.
3
CL-2023-0416
support arrearage owed by the father; she requested a hearing on the
motion. On May 25, 2023, the father filed a response to the mother's
postjudgment motion, in which, among other things, he conceded that
one of the figures used by the juvenile court in its calculations was
incorrect. Also on May 25, 2023, the mother filed a motion in which she
again requested that the juvenile court schedule a hearing on her
postjudgment motion. The juvenile court did not hold a hearing on the
mother's postjudgment motion; instead, on May 30, 2023, the mother's
motion was denied by operation of law. See Rule 1(B), Ala. R. Juv. P.
The mother filed her notice of appeal to this court on June 13, 2023.
Facts
The mother testified at the trial that, since the entry of the 2011
judgment, she had received payments from the Alabama Central
Disbursement Division, which payments had been made on behalf of the
father. She also testified that the amounts of those payments were
reflected on the Alabama Central Disbursement Division's payment-
history sheet that was admitted as Plaintiff's Exhibit 2. She stated that
she had not received any payments from the father other than those
4
CL-2023-0416
stated on Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 and that neither she nor the child had
received any payments from the Social Security Administration on behalf
of the father.
Teresa Hannah, an employee of the mother's counsel, testified
regarding calculations that she had made in assessing the amounts that
were owed by the father for the principal amount of unpaid child support
and the interest accrued thereon. She stated that she had calculated the
monthly interest by multiplying the amount of child support that was
owed each month by the number of months and then multiplying that
amount by 7.5 percent, the final amount of which, she said, represented
the total amount of interest that had accrued on the judgment, and then
dividing that total by 12.
The father testified that deductions had been made from his
monthly Social Security benefits but that he did not know the amounts
that had been deducted. He stated that he had obtained a pay history of
his Social Security benefits, and that document was admitted at trial as
Defendant's Exhibit 1. According to the father, the Social Security
Administration had provided him with a document that indicated that he
5
CL-2023-0416
no longer owed a balance for the child, which, he said, had led him to file
the motion to terminate the income-withholding order. The father
testified that he receives only a portion of his monthly Social Security
benefits and that the remainder is deducted as child support for his
children, including the child.
Analysis
The mother argues on appeal that the juvenile court's failure to
conduct a hearing on her postjudgment motion amounts to reversible
error. We agree.
In Henderson v. Henderson, 123 So. 3d 974 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013),
this court outlined the relevant standard of review of our consideration
of the juvenile court's allowing the mother's postjudgment motion to be
denied by operation of law without first conducting a hearing on the
motion:
" 'Rule 59(g)[, Ala. R. Civ. P.,] provides that
posttrial motions "remain pending until ruled
upon by the court (subject to the provisions of Rule
59.1[, Ala. R. Civ. P.]), but shall not be ruled upon
until the parties have had opportunity to be heard
thereon." The failure to hold a hearing on a
posttrial motion is not always reversible error,
however. Our supreme court has stated:
6
CL-2023-0416
" ' " '[I]f a party requests a hearing on its
motion for a new trial, the court must
grant the request.' Ex parte Evans, 875
So. 2d 297, 299-300 (Ala. 2003) (citing
Rule 59(g), Ala. R. Civ. P., and Walls v.
Bank of Prattville, 554 So. 2d 381, 382
(Ala. 1989)). Although it is error for the
trial court not to grant such a hearing,
this error is not necessarily reversible
error. 'This Court has established,
however, that the denial of a
postjudgment motion without a
hearing thereon is harmless error,
where (1) there is ... no probable merit
in the grounds asserted in the motion,
or (2) the appellate court resolves the
issues presented therein, as a matter of
law, adversely to the movant, by
application of the same objective
standard of review as that applied in
the trial court.' Historic Blakely Auth.
v. Williams, 675 So. 2d 350, 352 (Ala.
1995) (citing Greene v. Thompson, 554So. 2d 376 (Ala. 1989))."
" 'Chism v. Jefferson County, 954 So. 2d 1058, 1086
(Ala. 2006).'
"Cunningham v. Edwards, 25 So. 3d 475, 477 (Ala. Civ. App.
2009). We agree with the wife that the failure of the trial
court to hold a hearing on her postjudgment motion was error.
The issue becomes whether such error was reversible error.
As the wife's appellate brief correctly notes, '[u]nder Rule 45,
Ala. R. App. P., the failure to grant a hearing on a motion for
new trial pursuant to Rule 59(g) is reversible error only if it
"probably injuriously affected substantial rights of the
7
CL-2023-0416
parties." ' Kitchens v. Maye, 623 So. 2d 1082, 1088 (Ala. 1993)
(footnote omitted) (quoting Rule 45, Ala. R. Civ. P., and citing
Greene v. Thompson, 554 So. 2d 376, 380-81 (Ala. 1989), and
Walls v. Bank of Prattville, 554 So. 2d 381, 382 (Ala. 1989)).
'If the failure to conduct a hearing did not " 'injuriously affect[]
[the] substantial rights of the parties,' " that failure, while
error, was harmless.' DWOC, LLC v. TRX Alliance, Inc., 99
So. 3d 1233, 1236 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012)."
123 So. 3d at 978-79.
Like in Henderson, we conclude that the juvenile court erred in
failing to conduct a hearing on the mother's postjudgment motion. See
Rule 59(g), Ala. R. Civ. P. Thus, we proceed, like in Henderson, to
consider whether the failure of the juvenile court to conduct a hearing on
the mother's postjudgment motion probably injuriously affected the
substantial rights of the mother.
The mother asserts before this court, as she did before the juvenile
court, that the juvenile court miscalculated the child-support arrearage
and the interest due on that arrearage pursuant to § 8-8-10(a), Ala. Code
1975. In his response to the mother's postjudgment motion, the father
conceded that at least one error had been committed by the juvenile court
in its calculations of his child-support arrearage. According to the
mother, that error, when coupled with other alleged mathematical errors
8
CL-2023-0416
made by the juvenile court resulted in the entry of a judgment awarding
an amount that was half as much as she claims was due. After reviewing
the record and the method used by the juvenile court to calculate the
child-support arrearage and interest, we agree with the mother that the
juvenile court appears to have erred by awarding the mother an amount
that is less than that to which she was entitled.
Therefore, we conclude that the juvenile court erred in allowing the
mother's postjudgment motion to be denied by operation of law without
conducting a hearing on said motion and that that error was not
harmless. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand the case to
the juvenile court with instructions that it conduct a hearing on the
mother's postjudgment motion to consider the arguments raised in that
motion. Henderson, 123 So. 3d at 979. In doing so, "[w]e do not express
any opinion on whether the postjudgment motion is due to be granted;
we hold only that it was not harmless error for the juvenile court to deny
the postjudgment motion without first conducting a hearing on its
merits." J.C. v. K.E., [Ms. CL-2022-0702, Feb. 10, 2023] ___ So. 3d ___,
___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2023).
9
CL-2023-0416
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
Thompson, P.J., and Edwards, Hanson, and Fridy, JJ., concur.
10