Roger Miles Monroe

Eustice Myrl Shiver, a retired Army lieutenant colonel employed by the Butler County Board of Education as a full-time JROTC instructor, filed a declaratory-judgment action seeking a ruling that state-mandated salary increases from 1993, 1994, and 1996 applied to his full salary rather than only the non-Army-reimbursed portion. The trial court entered judgment for the Board, denying all relief and noting that portions of the claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations in § 6-2-38(m). On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals declined to consider the statute-of-limitations argument because it was not properly preserved and reversed the trial court's ruling on the pay-raise issue, holding that the mandatory pay-raise acts required the increases to be applied to Shiver's total compensation. The decision turned on the interpretation of the pay-raise statutes and the nature of the split-funded JROTC salary arrangement.

labor & employment

In this case, a divorced mother petitioned the trial court to modify the 1985 divorce judgment by ordering the father to provide postminority support for their daughter's college education at the University of South Alabama. The trial court granted the petition and required the father to pay $11,200 annually toward expenses including tuition, room, board, and other costs, subject to conditions such as full-time enrollment and maintaining a C average. The father appealed, arguing both that the payments would cause him undue financial hardship and that certain expenses like personal costs were improperly included. The Court of Civil Appeals held that the evidence supported the father's ability to pay without undue hardship but reversed the judgment because the trial court had included expenses not directly related to education and remanded for recalculation limited to such expenses.

family law

John C. Danley sued his employer, Dorsey Trailers, Inc., seeking workers' compensation benefits for an alleged work-related injury. The trial court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment. Danley appealed, contending that the judgment violated Alabama Code § 25-5-88 by omitting required findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appellate court reversed and remanded, ruling that the statute mandates such a statement even in summary judgment cases so that appellate review is possible, and that the absence of these elements prevents review of the decision.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case concerned repeated efforts by the ex-wife in a 1993 Alabama divorce to vacate or modify the decree years later on grounds of fraud in the separation agreement and to obtain postminority support, a life estate in the marital home, alimony-in-gross, and other relief for the parties' adult son disabled by muscular dystrophy. The trial court denied the requests to set aside the judgment, limited modifications to the parties' 1995 agreement labeling payments as spousal support, and rejected most additional claims while the ex-husband sought counter-modifications. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the denial of attorney fees and the washing-machine claim, but reversed in part and remanded, holding that the trial court erred in failing to address certain support and property issues under the governing divorce judgment and modification agreement. The court reasoned that earlier unappealed orders were final and that the modification agreement controlled the ongoing obligations tied to the son's lifetime.

family law

In this post-divorce custody dispute, the father petitioned to modify the existing joint-custody arrangement that gave the mother primary physical custody of the two children, citing the mother's temporary summer living situation in an apartment with her fiancé. The trial court granted the father primary physical custody after a hearing. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the father had not satisfied the McLendon standard because the evidence showed only a temporary arrangement, no neglect by the mother, and no proof that a custody change would materially promote the children's best interests enough to outweigh the disruption of uprooting them; the mother had since married and returned to her stable four-bedroom home, with no plans to relocate.

family law

In Kelley v. State Department of Revenue, a divorced wife challenged the Department's assessment of state income tax on periodic payments she received from her ex-husband under their 1991 divorce judgment, which entitled her to 40% of his salary; she contended the payments were a nontaxable property settlement, while the Department and her ex-husband (who intervened) maintained they were deductible alimony. The trial court ruled the payments qualified as alimony that the wife should have reported as gross income, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed after de novo review. The court held that the payments satisfied the federal definition of alimony under 26 U.S.C. § 71(b), as adopted by Alabama Code § 40-18-15, because they were cash payments under a divorce instrument, the spouses lived separately, and Alabama law causes such periodic alimony obligations to terminate upon the death of either spouse, distinguishing them from fixed property settlements.

taxesfamily law

This case involved the State Department of Human Resources seeking to terminate the parental rights of T.T. to her 15-year-old daughter A.T., after years of the child's multiple foster care placements and failed reunification efforts due to issues like unstable housing, lack of consistent visitation, and the mother's limited cooperation with services. The trial court terminated the mother's rights, applying a best-interests-of-the-child standard. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding that the proper standard under the Child Protection Act required clear and convincing evidence that the mother was unable or unwilling to discharge her responsibilities, with no viable alternatives like long-term foster care, before considering the child's best interests. The court found insufficient evidence met this threshold and that continued foster care remained a viable option.

family law

This custody dispute arose after a 1995 divorce when the father sought custody alleging sexual abuse of one daughter by the mother's husband; the trial court awarded primary physical custody to the paternal grandparents after finding both parents unfit. The appellate court reversed the custody award to the grandparents as to the father, ruling that the evidence did not clearly and convincingly establish his unfitness to overcome his prima facie right to custody, and highlighted the inconsistency of awarding him joint legal custody while deeming him unfit. The mother's cross-appeal was affirmed, and other issues were not considered due to lack of supporting authority.

family law

In Long v. Long, a divorced father petitioned to modify the mother's visitation after she married a convicted sex offender, resulting in a trial court order that imposed supervised visitation for six months followed by automatic unsupervised visitation including overnights. The father appealed, contending that the automatic modification lacked any conditions or evidentiary support for a future change in circumstances. The appellate court reversed the automatic modification portion of the judgment, reasoning that visitation changes require proof of changed circumstances at the time of modification and that automatic provisions based on speculation about future events are invalid, as established in prior cases like Hall v. Hall. The case was remanded for a new visitation order, and the father's request for appellate attorney fees was denied.

family law

The case involved a dispute between Aerostar World, Inc., an aircraft repair facility, and Ann Corporation along with its owner Jim Branch over payment for inspection and repairs performed on an aircraft. Aerostar sued for breach of contract seeking the full invoice amount after Branch stopped payment on a check, while Branch counterclaimed for unauthorized repairs and damage to the aircraft's radar system. The trial court granted summary judgment to Aerostar on its complaint and certified the judgment as final under Rule 54(b) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, leaving Branch's counterclaim regarding unauthorized repairs unresolved. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that Rule 54(b) certification was improper because Aerostar's claim and the remaining counterclaim both arose from the same contract and centered on the identical issue of whether certain repairs were authorized, making the claims too interrelated for piecemeal adjudication.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty

This case involved a workers' compensation carrier that paid $4,857.90 in benefits to an employee injured in a work-related car accident caused by a third-party tortfeasor. After the tortfeasor's insurer settled with the employee for $7,500 and obtained a release, the carrier sued both the employee and the tortfeasor to recover its payments under Alabama Code § 25-5-11(a). The circuit court granted summary judgment to the tortfeasor, ruling that the carrier must seek reimbursement from the employee's settlement, and also granted summary judgment to the employee. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment for the tortfeasor because the statute requires reimbursement from the employee's recovery against the third party after settlement, but reversed the judgment for the employee, allowing the carrier's claim to proceed, as the employee had not shown the settlement excluded compensation for medical expenses.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case involved C.B. appealing a trial court's judgment terminating her parental rights to her three children after the Jackson County Department of Human Resources had taken custody due to dependency findings dating back to 1991. The trial court terminated the mother's rights based on evidence of limited visitation, the father's issues, the children's long-term foster care placement, and DHR's assessments of the mother's circumstances up through 1995. The appellate court reversed the termination as to the mother, holding that DHR failed to present clear and convincing current evidence of dependency or failed rehabilitation efforts, had not updated information on the mother's living situation or relative resources before the 1996-1997 hearings, and that poverty alone does not justify termination, while the father's termination was affirmed after he relinquished his rights. The court remanded for further proceedings consistent with the requirement to consider viable alternatives and make reasonable rehabilitation efforts.

family law

The case involved the termination of tenured employment contracts for a high school principal and assistant principal by the Franklin County Board of Education after they were found with test answers during a required professional evaluation program. The employees appealed to the Alabama State Tenure Commission, which upheld the terminations, and then to the circuit court, which affirmed. On further appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals determined that the Board, Commission, and trial court erred in conducting joint hearings rather than separate proceedings for each employee, as required by the procedural protections in the Teacher Tenure Act to ensure due process. However, the court found the evidence of misconduct sufficient to support cancellation of the contracts and addressed related claims regarding notice, bias, and the weight of the evidence.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a widow seeking continuation of her deceased husband's workers' compensation benefits after he died from causes unrelated to his 1986 work injury, for which he had been receiving permanent total disability payments. The trial court awarded the widow benefits equivalent to the remaining maximum period under the statute, without deducting prior temporary disability payments made to the husband. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that the employer failed to properly raise the statutory three-year limitation issue before the trial court and that precedent precluded deducting the temporary benefits from the death benefits award. The court reasoned that issues not presented to the trial court cannot be considered on appeal and applied the provisions of Alabama Code sections 25-5-57 and 25-5-60 regarding death following disability.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Holloway v. State Ex Rel. Whetstone, the case concerned the state's petition to forfeit $11,680 in U.S. currency seized from Freddy Holloway's vehicle after a traffic stop revealed the money along with marijuana stems and seeds on the floorboard. The trial court granted the forfeiture under § 20-2-93, Ala. Code 1975, concluding that the currency was used or intended for use in a violation of the Alabama Controlled Substances Act. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed, determining that the state had not met its burden to present reasonably satisfying evidence connecting the money to any specific drug transaction, noting that no charges were filed, the vehicle was returned after verification it was uninvolved, and investigators made no attempt to trace the funds. The opinion stressed that forfeiture statutes are penal in nature and require strict proof of a link to controlled-substance violations.

criminal lawprocedure

In this divorce case, the trial court awarded all household property to the wife in its June 1998 judgment. More than a year later, the court granted the husband's motion under Rule 60(b) and modified the judgment to divide the property according to an alleged prior agreement between the parties. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed, concluding that the change was a substantive modification of the property division rather than a clarification, enforcement, or correction of a clerical error, and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to alter the judgment more than 30 days after entry.

family lawprocedure

CeCe Hylton sued her former partner Edward Meztista and their partnership, Magic Media Division, for breach of the partnership agreement, seeking dissolution of the partnership and an accounting of profits after the partnership lost its sole client. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction, based on Hylton cashing a check marked as final payment. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding that Hylton had presented substantial evidence creating genuine issues of material fact, including whether Meztista acted in good faith by denying her access to partnership books and whether the parties reached a meeting of the minds on full settlement. Under Alabama law, accord and satisfaction requires a meeting of the minds and good faith, and whether those elements exist is typically a question for the trier of fact; Hylton's restrictive endorsement on the check did not preclude her claims. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves post-divorce disputes between Robert Brian Patterson and Carol Ann Patterson over alimony, child support, arrearages, and certain marital debts following their 1995 divorce after 19 years of marriage. The trial court awarded the wife judgments for substantial alimony and child-support arrearages, reduced the husband's ongoing child-support obligation based on his income, denied modification of alimony, and ruled that judgments for the wife's share of home equity and certain debts had been discharged in the husband's bankruptcy as property settlements rather than periodic alimony. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's determinations regarding arrearages, support modifications, and the bankruptcy discharges but reversed and remanded for the trial court to address the wife's request for attorney fees, which had been set for a separate hearing that did not occur. The core reasoning centered on the distinction between modifiable periodic alimony and non-dischargeable obligations versus fixed property settlements under bankruptcy law, along with procedural requirements for final judgments.

family lawprocedure

This case involves a workers' compensation dispute in which employee Gary Wayne Madewell sought future medical benefits from his employer, Miller and Miller Construction Company, after settling a third-party products-liability claim for $400,000. The employer asserted a subrogation right to part of the settlement proceeds under Alabama Code § 25-5-77 to offset its liability for those benefits. The trial court, applying the "made-whole" rule from Powell v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, found that the settlement did not compensate the employee for future medical costs and denied subrogation. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed because the Alabama Supreme Court had overruled Powell in Ex parte State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., requiring remand for proceedings under current subrogation principles; it also directed the trial court to exclude evidence of the employee's post-1997 condition, as a prior judgment fixing 56% vocational impairment remained binding.

labor & employment

This case involves a divorce between Jo Ann Dennis and Warren Dwight Dennis after 25 years of marriage, with disputes over child support for their minor son, payment for their adult daughter's college education, periodic alimony to the wife, and division of certain personal property. The trial court awarded the wife custody and child support based on imputed income to the husband, required both parties to share the daughter's college expenses equally, and ordered the husband to pay the wife $150 per month in alimony beginning in 2002. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the child support award because the husband had not filed the required Child Support Obligation Income Statement/Affidavit form, reversed the college-expense order for lack of evidence on actual costs or undue hardship, and reversed the alimony award because the evidence did not establish that the wife was a dependent spouse. The court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

family law