The case involved the Phenix City Council seeking to subpoena documents from the Phenix City Board of Education regarding the Board's activities, which the Board resisted by suing for an injunction. The trial court granted a permanent injunction preventing the Council from using its subpoena power under the city charter against the Board. On appeal, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed, determining that the Board's members are city officers and that the Board's operations constitute municipal affairs subject to the Council's investigative authority under section 9.03 of the charter, which grants subpoena powers for such inquiries.
This case involves a dispute over the calculation of average weekly earnings for workers' compensation benefits under Alabama law after an initial trial court award was partially reversed on appeal. On remand, the trial court permitted additional discovery and an evidentiary hearing to determine the employee's average weekly earnings, rather than relying solely on the original trial record. The employer petitioned for a writ of mandamus to prevent the new evidence and require the trial court to decide based only on existing evidence. The appellate court denied the petition, holding that the trial court could receive additional evidence on remand to ensure an accurate calculation consistent with the prior opinion, given the limited evidence in the record regarding the employee's short-term employment.
This case involved a post-divorce dispute between Brandy Lee Thurman and James Ronald Thurman, Jr., concerning custody modifications, contempt petitions, and enforcement of a property division from their 2008 divorce judgment. The mother sought Rule 60(b) relief from a December 2008 custody agreement, alleging coercion and false statements in the father's earlier motion, and requested that the father be held in contempt for failing to return certain personal property awarded to her. The trial court denied the mother's requests for relief and contempt, granted the father's counterclaim for custody of one child, and the mother appealed. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the mother failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances warranting Rule 60(b)(6) relief and that the father had made sufficient efforts to provide access to the disputed property.
This case involves a dispute over child-support arrearages in Alabama. The trial court had waived the interest that would accrue on a $27,791.29 judgment for child-support arrearage. Following a reversal by the Supreme Court of Alabama, this court reversed the trial court's waiver of interest and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the higher court's opinion. The decision was based on compliance with the Supreme Court's directive regarding the accrual of interest on the arrearage judgment.
Superior Wall and Paver sued the Gaceks for breach of contract, work and labor performed, and to perfect a lien on their property after installing concrete pavers, alleging an unpaid balance of approximately $14,400. The Gaceks denied liability and countersued for breach of contract and negligence, claiming defective installation, use of improper materials, and incomplete work. Following an unsuccessful mediation and a bench trial, the trial court granted partial summary judgment to Superior on some counterclaims but ruled for the Gaceks on breach and negligence, awarding them $60,500 in damages. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported substantial defects justifying an award of repair costs rather than diminution in value, that Superior was not entitled to a setoff, and that the denial of the motion to enforce the mediation agreement was presumed correct absent a hearing transcript.
This case is a divorce action between Kristi L. Hood and Frank L. Hood concerning child custody, alimony, property division including the marital residence, and the validity of an antenuptial agreement signed on the wedding day. The wife challenged the agreement on grounds of duress and nondisclosure, and the trial court held a hearing solely on its enforceability before entering a divorce judgment without a full evidentiary hearing on other contested issues or a written settlement agreement. The appellate court affirmed the judgment with respect to the antenuptial agreement but reversed it as to all other matters, remanding for further proceedings because the trial court had no basis to resolve the parties' rights and obligations absent evidence or a binding agreement.