Tommy E. Bryan

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.

procedure

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.

labor & employmentprocedure

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.

family lawpropertyprocedure

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.

family law

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.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

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.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a divorce action between Forney and Ronda McMichael concerning their jointly owned LLC, including disputes over management authority and access to business premises. After the Talladega Circuit Court issued a consent order dissolving a prior TRO and permitting Ronda access, it found Forney in contempt for barring her entry and requiring law enforcement involvement. Forney appealed the contempt order, but the appellate court affirmed, holding that the absence of a hearing transcript required presuming the evidence supported the findings and that the Talladega court had jurisdiction over the LLC matters.

family lawprocedureproperty

This case concerns the termination of nonprobationary school employee Barry Long by the Mobile County Board of School Commissioners under the Fair Dismissal Act. Following earlier appeals in which the court upheld the Board's decision to dismiss Long, a hearing officer awarded him back pay for the period between the Board's August 2010 termination and the October 2010 issuance of a certificate of judgment. The Board petitioned for a writ of mandamus to vacate that award. The court granted the petition, holding that the hearing officer lacked authority under the Act to order pay after the appellate reversal of the initial hearing officer decision, as the statute only requires continued pay until a hearing officer issues an opinion and provides no basis for further awards once the dismissal is upheld on appeal.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned a divorce action between M.S.M. and M.W.M. in which the circuit court addressed custody of their minor child after a guardian ad litem raised allegations of dependency due to emotional abuse and inadequate parental care. The circuit court, while also purporting to act in a juvenile-court capacity, awarded sole legal and physical custody to the husband with supervised visitation to the wife, and the wife appealed the final divorce judgment. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the circuit court possessed subject-matter jurisdiction to decide custody matters and that any procedural irregularities in handling the dependency issues were harmless error.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a divorce action between B.R.F. (the father) and A.V.F. (the mother) in which the parties disputed child custody, responsibility for the mortgage on the marital home, and allocation of the mother's student-loan debt. The trial court awarded the parties joint legal custody with sole physical custody to the mother, awarded the mother the marital residence subject to her duty to seek refinancing to remove the father's name from the mortgage once employed full-time, and ordered the father to pay the mother $7,000 toward her student loans. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment in full. It held that the ore tenus evidence supported the custody award, that the trial court acted within its discretion in dividing marital debts, and that the father had failed to cite authority supporting his challenge to treating the student loans as marital debt.

family lawproperty

In this case, Jennifer Ann Vest petitioned for a writ of mandamus directing the Elmore Circuit Court to vacate its order denying her motion to dismiss or transfer a post-divorce proceeding filed by David Jeremy Vest, which sought modification of child custody and a contempt finding regarding visitation under their 2002 divorce judgment. The mother argued that venue was improper in Elmore County under Alabama Code § 6-5-440 due to a pending post-divorce action she had filed in Mobile Circuit Court, that neither party resided in Elmore County, and that the father had waived venue objections in the Mobile proceeding. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals denied the petition, holding that the mother failed to submit sufficient evidence to the Elmore Circuit Court proving her venue allegations or waiver claims, and that certain pleadings from the Mobile action could not be considered because they were not before the trial court. The court also granted the father's motion to strike those unsupported pleadings and related statements.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over whether the Coffee Juvenile Court had subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a mother's 2009 petition to modify a 2008 custody order that had awarded physical custody of her child to the paternal grandparents after adjudicating the child dependent. The juvenile court, relying on prior precedent, concluded it lacked jurisdiction under the Alabama Juvenile Justice Act and vacated its earlier modification order granting custody to the mother. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding that the juvenile court retained continuing jurisdiction because the child had already been adjudicated dependent in 2008. The core reasoning was that § 12-15-117(a) grants juvenile courts ongoing authority over such cases until the child reaches age 21 or jurisdiction is expressly terminated, without requiring new dependency allegations in modification proceedings.

family lawprocedure

In Robinson v. Sovran Acquisition Ltd. Partnership, tenants who rented a storage unit sued the facility owners and employees after their property was stolen during renovations, claiming the defendants had negligently disabled 24-hour surveillance cameras they had been told would operate continuously, and asserting claims for negligence, wantonness, fraud, deceit, and breach of contract based on an exculpatory clause in the rental agreement that released the owners from liability for theft and property damage. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that the exculpatory clause barred the negligence claim because the tenants did not challenge its validity and failed to show that any distinction between active and passive negligence prevented its enforcement; the deceit claim failed for lack of evidence establishing a duty to disclose the cameras' inoperability; and the breach-of-contract claim was waived for inadequate briefing. Other claims were either not pursued on appeal or lacked supporting authority.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a divorce proceeding between Julia and Jared Faellaci, following a 2006 legal separation agreement that granted the wife sole custody of their three children and required the husband to pay $5,000 monthly in child support plus a share of bonuses. After the husband petitioned for divorce and modification of custody and support, the trial court awarded joint custody with primary physical custody to the wife, set support at $4,000 per month, determined a $100,000 arrearage, and left other agreement terms intact, but did not resolve the wife's request for interest on the arrearage. The wife appealed, arguing the trial court erred by not awarding interest and on other issues. The Court of Civil Appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that the judgment was nonfinal because the wife's postjudgment motion remained pending beyond the 90-day limit under Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P., causing it to be denied by operation of law without a ruling on the interest issue, and because the pending contempt petition was not fully addressed. A dissent argued the judgment should be treated as final and the appeal decided on the merits.

family lawprocedure

PC & All, Inc. sued Maxie and McNeil for breach of contract and conversion related to two computers, also seeking injunctive relief to preserve the items. The trial court entered a default judgment against the defendants, later set it aside, and after a December 15, 2009 hearing entered judgment for the defendants on the merits. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the notice of the hearing—which stated only that the default had been set aside and the case was set for hearing—failed to provide the 60 days' notice of a trial on the merits required by Rule 40(a) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.

procedure

This case arose from a 2008 petition by a former husband to modify aspects of a 1997 divorce judgment, including child-support and tax-dependency claims, which prompted a counter-petition by the former wife to increase child support, recover medical expenses, and establish arrearages. The trial court modified the husband's monthly support obligation, calculated an arrearage of $26,623.40 by applying the new amount retroactively to the filing date, and awarded partial reimbursement for uncovered medical costs. On appeal, the appellate court dismissed one appeal because a subsequent order amending the judgment was void for lack of jurisdiction after the post-judgment motion had been adjudicated, and reversed the child-support and arrearage portions of the judgment because the retroactive application of the modified obligation was improper, while affirming the remainder. The matter was remanded for recalculation consistent with the opinion.

family lawprocedure

In this case, South Highland Limited Partnership sued Southern Family Markets of Clanton, LLC for breaching a 1987 commercial lease by vacating the premises and ceasing rent payments in 2006. The tenant argued that the primary lease term expired in 2003 without proper exercise of the renewal option, resulting in a month-to-month tenancy that it lawfully terminated. The trial court granted summary judgment to the tenant, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the lease required written notice by certified mail to extend the term, which was not provided, and that evidence of oral discussions, holding over, or other documents did not create a genuine issue of material fact regarding renewal.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case is a divorce proceeding in which the husband appealed the trial court's division of marital property, including the parties' interests in their jointly owned corporation TEC and various items of personal property, subject to a valid antenuptial agreement that protected each spouse's pre-marital assets and limited claims on individually owned property. The trial court awarded the husband sole ownership of TEC while ordering him to pay the wife $100,000 for her share, divided 32 pieces of jointly owned personal property to the husband with a $35,000 payment to the wife, and awarded the wife a 1998 Mercedes. The appellate court affirmed the award of the Mercedes but reversed the valuation of the wife's interest in TEC and the division of jointly owned property, remanding for the trial court to reconsider evidence regarding ownership of certain assets like a Corvette and to make an equitable division consistent with the antenuptial agreement.

family lawproperty

The case involved divorced parents who shared joint physical custody of their two children under a 2008 court order. The father petitioned to modify custody and opposed the mother's planned out-of-state relocation, leading the trial court to award him sole physical custody based on a material change in circumstances from the proposed move. The mother appealed, arguing that she had abandoned her relocation plans and that no material change existed. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the trial court could not modify custody based on the unoccurred relocation under the Alabama Parent-Child Relationship Protection Act and that insufficient evidence supported modification on other grounds.

family law

The case involved a mother facing criminal charges related to her husband's death who sought a stay of a juvenile court dependency proceeding initiated by the children's paternal aunt, arguing that proceeding would violate her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The juvenile court stayed the final adjudication but allowed a pendente lite hearing on custody. The Court of Civil Appeals denied the mother's petition for a writ of mandamus, reasoning that the substantial interest in protecting the children from potential harm outweighed the need for a complete stay, and the lower court had appropriately balanced the competing interests by limiting the proceeding to temporary custody matters.

family lawcriminal lawprocedure