Opinion ID: 1584592
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: petition for writ of certiorari to the alabama court of civil appeals

Text: Comes now the Appellant, Scott Andrews, and, pursuant to Rule 39 of the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, brings this Petition for Writ of Certiorari, and as grounds therefore, states the following: 1. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals issued a decision in this matter on February 6, 2009, which affirmed the decision of the trial court, with no opinion. 2. No opinion was issued by the Court of Civil Appeals in the decision of the Court, and therefore Rule (a)(1)(D)2 is applicable. The Opinion of the Court is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. Since no statement of fact was made in the Court of Civil Appeals' Order, a Statement of Facts is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 4. The decision of the trial court was in conflict with prior decisions of this Court as well as prior decisions of the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals. (a) The decision of the trial court to award Appellant only 2% of the marital estate is grossly inequitable and this Court has consistently reversed decisions wherein one party is awarded a disproportionate portion of the marital estate. In Kaufman v. Kaufman, 934 So.2d 1073 (Ala.Civ.App.2005), this Court reversed a divorce decree where the husband received approximately 77% of the marital estate and the wife received 23%. An award of only 16% to one party was also found to be so disproportionate as to be inequitable. Adams v. Adams, 778 So.2d 825 at 827 (Ala.Civ.App.2000). And in a case where Wife was awarded only 13% of the parties' assets, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals cited this Court in Kaufman v. Kaufman, supra, and Adams v. Adams, supra, in concluding the trial court's property division was inequitable. Cunningham v. Cunningham, 956 So.2d 1157 (Ala.Civ. App.2006). (b) The trial court's award of primary custody to Appellee was also in conflict with Alabama precedent, which requires the court to consider: age and sex of the child; child's emotional, social, moral, material, and educational needs; and the characteristics of those seeking custody, including their age, character, stability, mental and physical health, and their respective home environments. Kovakas v. Kovakas, Ala.Civ.App., Case Numbers 2050780 and 2060229, May 23, 2008, citing Ex parte Devine, 898 So.2d at 696-97. There was clear testimony that Appellant had been the child's primary care giver, whereas the Appellee primarily delegated parental responsibilities and made poor decisions while the child was in her care. R. 498, 144-6, 110, 131, 505-12,137, 416,146,169-70. (c) Appellant did not receive his constitutional requirement of due process prior to the Court requiring him to pay rent on the marital residence. A hearing was set, but no evidence was heard, and the judge made a decision based on what evidence might be offered.... Appellant, and in fact any litigant, has the right to notice, a hearing according to that notice, and a judgment entered in accordance with such notice and hearing. Hosey v. Lowery, 911 So.2d 15 (Ala..Civ.App.2005), citing Ex parte Rice, 265 Ala. 454, 458, 92 So.2d 16, 19 (1957). Wherefore, premises considered, the Appellant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court issue a Writ of Certiorari to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals. S/ Traci Owen Vella TRACI OWEN VELLA (VEL002) Attorney for Appellant 200 Office Park Drive Suite 216 Birmingham, AL 35223 (205) 868-1555