Sharon Gilbert Yates

This case is a divorce proceeding between Susan L. Gonzalez and Richard P. Gonzalez involving disputes over child custody of their three minor children, periodic alimony, attorney fees, and child support after the parties relocated from Illinois to Alabama. The trial court awarded primary custody to the father, alimony and fees to the mother, and declined to order the mother to pay child support. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the custody award to the father while affirming the financial aspects of the judgment. The decision turned on whether the trial court had properly considered evidence of parental fitness, including the father's drinking and alleged abuse alongside the mother's post-separation conduct, in determining the children's best interests.

family law

The case involved an unemancipated 17-year-old minor petitioning for a waiver of parental consent to obtain an abortion under Alabama's Parental Consent Statute. The trial court denied the petition, concluding the minor was not sufficiently mature to decide independently and that the procedure was not in her best interests. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, determining based on the undisputed evidence that the minor was mature and well-informed enough to make the decision and that granting the waiver served her best interests, as carrying the pregnancy to term would jeopardize her education and financial support. The court emphasized that the trial court's reasoning would effectively nullify the statutory waiver provision.

abortionfamily law

This case is a child-support-modification dispute in which a divorced father was ordered in the original divorce judgment to pay monthly child support and alimony plus assume various marital debts, with jurisdiction reserved for possible college expenses. The mother later petitioned for an order requiring the father to contribute to the parties' son's college costs at the University of Alabama, while the father sought a reduction in his ongoing child-support obligation for the remaining minor child. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court reduced the father's child-support payment by $266 per month and directed him to pay an additional $200 per month toward the son's postminority educational expenses. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court had properly exercised its discretion under Ex parte Bayliss by weighing the parents' financial resources, the child's aptitude and commitment, and the standard of living the child would have enjoyed absent divorce, and that the resulting obligations were supported by the evidence and not plainly and palpably wrong. The court also upheld the child-support recalculation as consistent with Alabama Rule 32.

family law

The case involved paternal grandparents petitioning the juvenile court for custody of their two grandsons, ages 12 and 8, after the death of the children's infant sister, alleging the children were dependent due to the mother's involvement in a child abuse investigation. The juvenile court found the sons dependent under Alabama Code § 12-15-1(10) and awarded custody to the grandparents following hearings that revealed police incidents, pending divorce proceedings, and the mother's admission regarding the circumstances of the daughter's death. The mother appealed, arguing the matter was essentially a custody dispute in which she retained a prima facie right to custody absent a finding of unfitness. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that dependency proceedings permit transfer of custody to a relative to protect the children's welfare without applying the unfitness standard from parental custody disputes.

family law

The case involved Wendy Minnifield's lawsuit against tattoo artist Greg Ashcraft and Skin Worx, Inc., claiming invasion of privacy after Ashcraft submitted photos of a tattoo on her upper breast to a national tattoo magazine without permission, allegedly causing her embarrassment and emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants based on a release form Minnifield had signed and arguments that no defamation damages applied. The Court of Civil Appeals reviewed the evidence in the light most favorable to Minnifield, analyzed the distinct categories of invasion-of-privacy torts under Alabama law including appropriation and false light, and addressed whether the release covered post-tattoo publication or intentional conduct. The court reversed the summary judgment in part, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the viability of the privacy claim and the scope of the release.

torts & liability

Patricia Nelson sued her employer Dollar General Corporation for workers' compensation benefits, claiming injuries sustained during her employment. The trial court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment in a brief order that stated only that the motion was granted, without including findings of fact or conclusions of law. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the case, reasoning that Alabama Code § 25-5-88 requires a statement of the law, facts, and conclusions in final judgments for workers' compensation cases, including those resolved by summary judgment. The court determined that the absence of these required elements prevented meaningful appellate review.

labor & employmentprocedure

Timothy Wayne Nunn sued his employer Fosbel for workers' compensation benefits after a 2000 workplace fall caused a back injury requiring surgery and resulting in ongoing pain that prevented him from performing his prior laborer duties. The trial court found Nunn to be 100% permanently and totally disabled, and that determination was affirmed on appeal under the 1992 Alabama Workers' Compensation Act based on substantial evidence in the record. On cross-appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of Nunn's request for a panel of four pain-management physicians, holding that the statute grants an employee the right to select a new treating physician from such a panel once dissatisfied with the current one.

labor & employment

This case concerned a guardian ad litem's appeal from a juvenile court order granting visitation rights to a maternal grandmother after her earlier petitions seeking custody of the child on dependency grounds had been denied. The grandmother filed a separate motion for visitation months later, even though the parents remained married and no custody or dependency proceeding was pending. The Court of Civil Appeals held that the juvenile court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under Ala. Code § 30-3-4.1 to entertain either an original grandparent-visitation action or an intervention, because the child was not before the court on any custody-related matter and the grandmother had not requested visitation as an alternative in her prior petitions. Relying on prior precedent, the court concluded that the visitation order was void and therefore dismissed the appeal while directing the juvenile court to vacate its order.

family lawprocedure

In this case, divorced parents with joint custody of their child disputed a petition by the father to modify custody, claiming the mother failed to properly medicate the child's respiratory condition and provide a stable home, while the mother sought increased child support. The trial court denied the custody modification, reduced the father's child-support obligation under the guidelines, and the father appealed the custody ruling while the mother cross-appealed the support reduction. The appellate court affirmed the denial of custody change, finding the evidence did not show the required material promotion of the child's best interests under the McLendon standard, as medical opinions were divided and the mother had sought specialist care. It reversed the child-support reduction, holding there was no material change in circumstances since the divorce that was substantial and continuing, given preexisting expenses and the father's increased income. The case was remanded for review of support under the guidelines.

family law

Johnston-Tombigbee Furniture Manufacturing Company sued Scott Berry seeking to reform a deed or quiet title to 112 acres of land purchased with corporate funds but titled in the names of Berry and his brother, alleging mutual mistake. After the trial court granted summary judgment on the original claims, the company amended its complaint to assert additional claims including conversion of corporate assets, breach of fiduciary duty, usurpation of corporate opportunity, self-dealing, and waste of corporate assets. The trial court granted Berry summary judgment on the amended claims, concluding they were barred by the statute of limitations, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. The court reasoned that the new claims did not relate back to the original complaint under Rule 15 because they constituted a different cause of action rather than the same matter differently laid.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In this Alabama custody modification case, divorced parents M.W.W. (mother) and B.W. (father) each sought primary or sole custody of their two daughters, with the mother originally holding primary physical custody under the 1997 divorce judgment; the father also faced unsubstantiated sexual abuse allegations regarding the older daughter that were refuted by polygraph results. The trial court awarded sole custody of the older daughter to the mother (with suspended visitation for the father) and sole custody of the younger daughter to the father, while ordering the mother to pay child support and requiring counseling. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the custody modification under the Ex parte McLendon standard, finding that the father demonstrated the change would materially promote the younger child's welfare by offsetting the effects of the mother's influence against the father and the parties' inability to cooperate, but reversed the child support calculation as erroneous and remanded for recalculation.

family law

This case involves post-divorce proceedings between Frieda Dianne Horwitz and Allan Arnold Horwitz concerning enforcement of prior court orders on property division, periodic alimony, child support, and related payments following an initial 1998 divorce and a 1999 remand from the Court of Civil Appeals. The mother sought to hold the father in contempt for failing to make required payments on the marital home debt and business interest, to modify alimony, and to collect arrearages without restrictions; the trial court found contempt on some issues, denied others, and structured arrearage payments in installments while treating certain obligations as periodic alimony. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's findings on contempt and alimony modification but reversed the portion limiting collection of the judgment to monthly installments. The core reasoning was that Alabama law permits enforcement of judgments through any available legal processes, not solely the court-ordered payment schedule, and that the mother should retain full remedies to collect amounts owed if the father's financial situation improves.

family lawproperty

The case involved paternal grandparents seeking to intervene in a custody dispute between the child's parents to obtain court-ordered visitation rights under Alabama Code § 30-3-4.1 after the parents stipulated to joint legal custody with primary physical custody to the father. The trial court permitted intervention but denied visitation, concluding that state law barred overriding a fit parent's objection even where visitation would serve the child's best interests. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the denial, reasoning that the record lacked sufficient evidence of substantial harm from withholding visitation and that the grandparents had interfered with the father's parental responsibilities, thereby upholding the primacy of parental rights to control non-parental access. The court rejected the trial court's strict interpretation of the statute but found alternative grounds to sustain the result.

family law

In Edwards v. Edwards, a wife appealed a divorce judgment after 31 years of marriage, challenging the provision for periodic alimony that automatically reduced from $1,250 to $250 per month when the husband reached age 65 or ceased regular employment. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's decision on the alimony reduction and remanded the case with instructions to remove the automatic reduction clause. The court reasoned that determining future alimony modifications requires a showing of material change in circumstances through a petition, rather than anticipating events like retirement without evidence, as such projections are speculative and do not align with the purpose of periodic alimony to support the dependent spouse.

family law

In Ks v. Hs, the mother of a minor child appealed an Autauga County Juvenile Court order granting visitation to the child's paternal grandmother under Alabama Code § 30-3-4.1 following the father's death in an accident. The case arose after earlier proceedings involving custody disputes, dependency petitions, and temporary arrangements between the parents and grandmother. The trial court awarded the grandmother weekly visitation after hearings, and the mother contended that the grandmother had not satisfied the constitutional standards for such an award set forth in L.B.S. v. L.M.S. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that the absence of any transcript or substitute for the ore tenus testimony required a conclusive presumption that the evidence supported the trial court's judgment.

family lawprocedure

In Hallum v. Hallum, the husband filed for divorce alleging an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and sought custody of the three minor children along with an equitable property division; the wife counterclaimed for custody, child support, alimony, and the marital home. The parties reached a partial agreement on custody, visitation, and property matters during proceedings, which the trial court incorporated into its final divorce judgment after both parties confirmed their assent on the record, though the court decided the length of equity payments and child-care credits. The wife appealed, arguing the judgment failed to provide an equitable division of the marital estate, omitted periodic alimony and retirement benefits, ignored credit-card debt, and omitted an arrearage for temporary child support, while also challenging the tax-exemption and relocation-review provisions. The appellate court affirmed the property-division and relocation provisions as consistent with the parties' agreement but reversed and remanded on the child-support award because the trial court had not obtained the required CS-41 forms or completed a CS-42 form under Rule 32 and had not stated reasons for deviating from the guidelines by allowing the husband alternating tax exemptions.

family lawpropertyproceduretaxes

This case arose from post-divorce proceedings in which the father petitioned to modify the existing joint-custody arrangement, eliminate child-care support obligations, and prevent the mother from relocating with their young child from Birmingham to her hometown of Luverne, approximately 130 miles away. The trial court denied the father's requests to change primary physical custody and to enforce a geographical restriction on the mother's residence. The appellate court reversed, holding that the evidence did not support continued enforcement of the restriction because the relocation would not materially impair the father's visitation rights or the child's best interests, given the father's ability to travel by air and the mother's willingness to adjust schedules. The court emphasized that custody and relocation decisions rest on a case-specific evaluation of the child's welfare without rigid presumptions against out-of-area moves.

family law

The case involved an underground coal miner who sued his employer for workers' compensation benefits after claiming a psychological injury, including anxiety, nightmares, and sleep loss, stemming from a mine explosion that killed thirteen coworkers; he had suffered only minor physical injuries that resolved quickly. The trial court, adopting the special master's findings after an ore tenus hearing, ruled the psychological injury compensable under the 1992 Workers' Compensation Act and awarded temporary total disability benefits, noting the employee had not yet reached maximum medical improvement. The core reasoning focused on whether the employment was the proximate cause of the injury, applying the requirement that the rational mind must trace the harm to a cause set in motion by the job rather than mere but-for causation, with substantial evidence supporting the trial court's factual determinations. A dissent argued the evidence failed to establish the minor physical injuries as a proximate cause of the psychological condition.

labor & employment

Nacola Ruggs sued her employer, Masterbrand Cabinets, seeking workers' compensation benefits after sustaining a left wrist injury while operating machinery on the job, and she later added a retaliatory-discharge claim. After a trial on the workers' compensation claim, the trial court found Ruggs 100% permanently and totally disabled, treating the injury as one to the body as a whole because overuse of her right upper extremity caused symptoms there. The appellate court reviewed the case under the 1992 Workers' Compensation Act, which requires affirmance of factual findings supported by substantial evidence and de novo review of legal issues. It affirmed the decision to treat the injury as affecting the body as a whole but reversed the total disability finding, as the evidence did not support injuries to the elbow and shoulder, and remanded the case.

labor & employment

This case involved a breach-of-contract dispute in which BSI Rentals sued customer Diedra Wendt after she damaged a rental car in an accident, seeking over $16,000 in repair and related costs under the rental agreement. The trial court entered judgment for Wendt following a nonjury trial, without specific findings, based on her affirmative defenses of estoppel, failure of consideration, fraud, and duress. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that BSI had introduced sufficient evidence establishing the existence of a valid contract, its own performance, Wendt's breach, and resulting damages. Wendt, however, had failed to present any evidence at trial supporting the essential elements of her affirmative defenses, and doctrines such as equitable estoppel did not apply on the record presented.

business & regulatoryprocedure