Title: Ex parte Duerr.

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

REL: 06/26/2015
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-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2014-2015
____________________
1140294
____________________
Ex parte Andrew Arthur Duerr
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
(In re:  Andrew Arthur Duerr
v.
Anne Marie Duerr)
(Montgomery Circuit Court, DR-09-768.03;
Court of Civil Appeals, 2121086)
WISE, Justice.
1140294
Andrew Arthur Duerr ("the father") argues that the Court
of Civil Appeals erred in affirming the order of the
Montgomery Circuit Court awarding postminority educational
support for his daughter, N.D.  We reverse and remand.
Facts and Procedural History
The father and Anne Marie Duerr ("the mother") were
married in 1989, and four children were born during the
marriage.   The parties were divorced in 2003.  In October
1
2011, the father filed a petition to terminate alimony and to
modify child support and visitation.  In April 2013, the
mother filed an answer and a counterclaim in which she sought
postminority educational support for N.D., a child of the
marriage, who was attending the Cleveland Institute of Music. 
After conducting a hearing, the trial court, among other
things, ordered the father to pay up to $12,000 per semester
in postminority support for N.D.'s tuition.  On September 26,
2013, the father filed a notice of appeal to the Court of
Civil Appeals.
During the marriage, the father also adopted two of the
1
mother's children from a previous marriage.  
2
1140294
On August 8, 2014, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed
the trial court's judgment, without an opinion.  See Duerr v.
Duerr, [Ms. 2121086, August 8, 2014]  ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala.
Civ. App. 2014).  Judge Thomas concurred in part with and
dissented in part from the no-opinion affirmance, 
reasoning as
follows:
"This is an appeal in a domestic-relations
action.  I concur as to the affirmance of the
Montgomery Circuit Court's decision to reinstate its
award of periodic alimony to Anne Marie Duerr. 
However, I respectfully dissent as to the affirmance
of 
the 
trial 
court's 
award 
of 
postminority
educational support.  On October 4, 2013, our
supreme court released Ex parte Christopher, 145 So.
3d 60 (Ala. 2013), in which our supreme court
expressly overruled Ex parte Bayliss, 550 So. 2d 986
(Ala. 1989).
"In overruling Bayliss, our supreme court
specifically held that,
"'[a]lthough [this] decision does not
affect 
final 
orders 
of 
postminority
educational support already entered, our
overruling of Bayliss is applicable to all
future cases.  Further, this decision also
applies to current cases where no final
postminority-support 
order 
has 
been 
entered
or 
where 
an 
appeal 
from 
a
postminority-support 
order 
is 
still
pending.'
"Christopher, 145 So. 3d at 72 (emphasis added).
"As I explained in my special writing in Morgan
v. Morgan, [Ms. 2120101, July 11, 2014] ___ So. 3d
3
1140294
___, 
___ 
(Ala. 
Civ. 
App. 
2014)(Thomas, 
J.,
concurring in part and concurring in the result in
part), the above language in Christopher plainly
states that the holding in Christopher is applicable
to 
any 
case 
in 
which 
an 
appeal 
of 
a
postminority-educational-support order was pending
at the time the supreme court's opinion in
Christopher was released; there is no mention of an
obligation of a party to have raised the issue
before the trial court.
"The 
State 
Judicial 
Information 
System
case-action-summary sheet in this case indicates
that Andrew Arthur Duerr ('the former husband')
filed this appeal on September 26, 2013, and that
the appeal remained pending when the opinion in
Christopher was released on October 4, 2013. 
Accordingly, it is my opinion that, based upon the
plain language used by our supreme court, this court
must reverse that portion of the trial court's
divorce judgment ordering the former husband to pay
postminority educational support, in accordance with
the supreme court's holding in Christopher that 'the
child-custody statute does not authorize a court in
a divorce action to require a noncustodial parent to
pay educational support for children over the age of
19.'  145 So. 3d at 72."
___ So. 3d at ___. 
On March 19, 2015, this Court granted the father's
petition for a writ of certiorari to determine whether the
decision of the Court of Civil Appeals affirming the trial
court's order awarding postminority educational support for
N.D. conflicted with Ex parte Christopher, 145 So. 3d 60 (Ala.
2013).
4
1140294
Standard of Review
"'"On certiorari review, this Court
accords no presumption of correctness to
the legal conclusions of the intermediate
appellate court. ..."  Ex parte Toyota
Motor Corp., 684 So. 2d 132, 135 (Ala.
1996).'
"Ex parte Helms, 873 So. 2d 1139, 1143 (Ala. 2003). 
'"[O]n appeal, the ruling on a question of law
carries no presumption of correctness, and this
Court's review is de novo."'  Rogers Found. Repair,
Inc. v. Powell, 748 So. 2d 869, 871 (Ala. 1999)
(quoting Ex parte Graham, 702 So. 2d 1215, 1221
(Ala. 1997))."
Ex parte C.L.C., 897 So. 2d 234, 236–37 (Ala. 2004).
Discussion
The father argues that the Court of Civil Appeals erred
in not reversing the trial court's award of postminority
educational support for N.D.  He argues that the reversal of
that order is mandated by Ex parte Christopher, 146 So. 3d 60
(Ala. 2013).  This Court addressed a similar argument in Ex
parte Jones, [Ms. 1131479, February 27, 2015] ___ So. 3d ___,
___ (Ala. 2015), stating:   
"In Ex parte Christopher, this Court overruled
Ex parte Bayliss, 550 So. 2d 986 (Ala. 1989), and
held that the  child-custody statute, § 30–3–1, Ala.
Code 1975, did not authorize a trial court in a
divorce action to require a noncustodial parent to
pay educational support for a child who was over the
age of 19.  145 So. 3d at 72.  This Court further
5
1140294
held that the decision in Ex parte Christopher would
not affect final orders of postminority education
support but would apply to cases where an appeal of
a 
postminority-educational-support 
order 
was 
pending
at the time Ex parte Christopher was decided.
"Because the trial court's order awarding
postminority educational support was pending on
appeal in the Court of Civil Appeals when Ex parte
Christopher was decided, the Court of Civil Appeals
erred in not applying Ex parte Christopher in this
case.  The father filed an appeal from the trial
court's postminority-educational-support order on
September 10, 2013.  This Court decided Ex parte
Christopher on October 4, 2013.  Because this case
was pending on appeal in the Court of Civil Appeals
when Ex parte Christopher was decided, the Court of
Civil Appeals erred by not applying the holding in
Ex parte Christopher that a trial court does not
have authority to order postminority educational
support in this case and by not reversing the trial
court's order.  Because the judgment of the Court of
Civil Appeals affirming the trial court's order
conflicts with Ex parte Christopher, that court's
judgment is reversed."
Likewise, the father in this case filed his notice of
appeal from the trial court's order awarding postminority
educational support on September 26, 2013, and this case was
pending on appeal in the Court of Civil Appeals at the time
this Court decided Ex parte Christopher.  Therefore, based on
the reasoning in Ex parte Jones, the Court of Civil Appeals
erred when it did not apply the holding in Ex parte
Christopher to this case and reverse the trial court's award
6
1140294
of postminority educational support for N.D.  Because the
trial court's order conflicts with this Court's holding in Ex
parte Christopher, that court's judgment must be reversed. 
Conclusion
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of
Civil Appeals and remand this case for proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Moore, C.J., and Stuart, Bolin, Parker, Main, and Bryan,
JJ., concur.
Murdock and Shaw, JJ., dissent.
7