Court Opinion

ID: 9927154
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-26 15:01:40.637612+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:00.158054
License: Public Domain

Rel: January 26, 2024

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) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections
may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.

 ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
                               OCTOBER TERM, 2023-2024
                                _________________________

                                         CL-2023-0416
                                   _________________________

                                                  M.A.E.

                                                      v.

                                                   L.L.D.

                     Appeal from Tuscaloosa Juvenile Court
                                (CS-97-5261.02)

MOORE, Judge.

        M.A.E. ("the mother") appeals from a judgment entered by the

Tuscaloosa Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") on May 2, 2023. We

reverse the judgment and remand the cause with instructions for the

juvenile court to conduct a hearing on the mother's postjudgment motion.
CL-2023-0416

                            Procedural History

     On September 19, 2011, the juvenile court entered a judgment ("the

2011 judgment") that, among other things, required L.L.D. ("the father")

to pay child support to the mother and to satisfy a child-support

arrearage for the benefit of K.M.E. ("the child"), subject to a credit for any

benefits from the Social Security Administration that had been received

on behalf of the child on account of the father's disability. The juvenile

court also entered an income-withholding order requiring the Social

Security Administration to remit a portion of the father's Social Security

disability benefits to the mother for the benefit of the child. In 2021, the

juvenile court terminated the income-withholding order upon the father's

motion. On March 30, 2022, the mother filed in the juvenile court a

petition requesting that the father be held in contempt of court for

violating the terms of the 2011 judgment. On April 18, 2022, the father,

appearing pro se, filed an answer, which was amended on July 19, 2022,

after the father retained counsel.

     The juvenile court conducted a trial on April 19, 2023. On May 2,

2023, the juvenile court entered a final judgment concluding, among

                                      2
CL-2023-0416

other things, that the mother had met her burden of proving that the

2011 judgment had not been satisfied but that she had failed to meet her

burden of proving that the father was in contempt for his failure to make

his monthly child-support payments as ordered.       The juvenile court

concluded that, as of April 1, 2023, the father was in arrears of his

monthly child-support obligation and that he owed the mother

$16,569.49, which amount, the trial court determined, included interest

in the amount of $20,283.25 less $3,713.71, which it concluded was the

amount the father had paid toward interest. 1 The trial court denied the

mother's motion for contempt, directed the father to pay $500 per month

toward the arrearage, and denied all remaining relief requested. The

juvenile court attached to its judgment an exhibit that reflected the

calculations it had used in determining the amount of the father's

arrearage.

     The mother filed a postjudgment motion on May 16, 2023,

challenging the juvenile court's calculation of the amount of the child-

     1We  note that $20,283.25 minus $3,713.71 equals $16,569.54,
rather than $16,569.49, as stated in the judgment.
                                    3
CL-2023-0416

support arrearage owed by the father; she requested a hearing on the

motion. On May 25, 2023, the father filed a response to the mother's

postjudgment motion, in which, among other things, he conceded that

one of the figures used by the juvenile court in its calculations was

incorrect. Also on May 25, 2023, the mother filed a motion in which she

again requested that the juvenile court schedule a hearing on her

postjudgment motion. The juvenile court did not hold a hearing on the

mother's postjudgment motion; instead, on May 30, 2023, the mother's

motion was denied by operation of law. See Rule 1(B), Ala. R. Juv. P.

The mother filed her notice of appeal to this court on June 13, 2023.

                                  Facts

     The mother testified at the trial that, since the entry of the 2011

judgment, she had received payments from the Alabama Central

Disbursement Division, which payments had been made on behalf of the

father. She also testified that the amounts of those payments were

reflected on the Alabama Central Disbursement Division's payment-

history sheet that was admitted as Plaintiff's Exhibit 2. She stated that

she had not received any payments from the father other than those

                                    4
CL-2023-0416

stated on Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 and that neither she nor the child had

received any payments from the Social Security Administration on behalf

of the father.

     Teresa Hannah, an employee of the mother's counsel, testified

regarding calculations that she had made in assessing the amounts that

were owed by the father for the principal amount of unpaid child support

and the interest accrued thereon. She stated that she had calculated the

monthly interest by multiplying the amount of child support that was

owed each month by the number of months and then multiplying that

amount by 7.5 percent, the final amount of which, she said, represented

the total amount of interest that had accrued on the judgment, and then

dividing that total by 12.

     The father testified that deductions had been made from his

monthly Social Security benefits but that he did not know the amounts

that had been deducted. He stated that he had obtained a pay history of

his Social Security benefits, and that document was admitted at trial as

Defendant's Exhibit 1.       According to the father, the Social Security

Administration had provided him with a document that indicated that he

                                      5
CL-2023-0416

no longer owed a balance for the child, which, he said, had led him to file

the motion to terminate the income-withholding order.          The father

testified that he receives only a portion of his monthly Social Security

benefits and that the remainder is deducted as child support for his

children, including the child.

                                 Analysis

     The mother argues on appeal that the juvenile court's failure to

conduct a hearing on her postjudgment motion amounts to reversible

error. We agree.

     In Henderson v. Henderson, 123 So. 3d 974 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013),

this court outlined the relevant standard of review of our consideration

of the juvenile court's allowing the mother's postjudgment motion to be

denied by operation of law without first conducting a hearing on the

motion:

           " 'Rule 59(g)[, Ala. R. Civ. P.,] provides that
           posttrial motions "remain pending until ruled
           upon by the court (subject to the provisions of Rule
           59.1[, Ala. R. Civ. P.]), but shall not be ruled upon
           until the parties have had opportunity to be heard
           thereon." The failure to hold a hearing on a
           posttrial motion is not always reversible error,
           however. Our supreme court has stated:
                                      6
CL-2023-0416

               " ' " '[I]f a party requests a hearing on its
               motion for a new trial, the court must
               grant the request.' Ex parte Evans, 875
               So. 2d 297, 299-300 (Ala. 2003) (citing
               Rule 59(g), Ala. R. Civ. P., and Walls v.
               Bank of Prattville, 554 So. 2d 381, 382
               (Ala. 1989)). Although it is error for the
               trial court not to grant such a hearing,
               this error is not necessarily reversible
               error. 'This Court has established,
               however, that the denial of a
               postjudgment motion without a
               hearing thereon is harmless error,
               where (1) there is ... no probable merit
               in the grounds asserted in the motion,
               or (2) the appellate court resolves the
               issues presented therein, as a matter of
               law, adversely to the movant, by
               application of the same objective
               standard of review as that applied in
               the trial court.' Historic Blakely Auth.
               v. Williams, 675 So. 2d 350, 352 (Ala.
               1995) (citing Greene v. Thompson, 554
               So. 2d 376 (Ala. 1989))."

         " 'Chism v. Jefferson County, 954 So. 2d 1058, 1086
         (Ala. 2006).'

    "Cunningham v. Edwards, 25 So. 3d 475, 477 (Ala. Civ. App.
    2009). We agree with the wife that the failure of the trial
    court to hold a hearing on her postjudgment motion was error.
    The issue becomes whether such error was reversible error.
    As the wife's appellate brief correctly notes, '[u]nder Rule 45,
    Ala. R. App. P., the failure to grant a hearing on a motion for
    new trial pursuant to Rule 59(g) is reversible error only if it
    "probably injuriously affected substantial rights of the
                                    7
CL-2023-0416

     parties." ' Kitchens v. Maye, 623 So. 2d 1082, 1088 (Ala. 1993)
     (footnote omitted) (quoting Rule 45, Ala. R. Civ. P., and citing
     Greene v. Thompson, 554 So. 2d 376, 380-81 (Ala. 1989), and
     Walls v. Bank of Prattville, 554 So. 2d 381, 382 (Ala. 1989)).
     'If the failure to conduct a hearing did not " 'injuriously affect[]
     [the] substantial rights of the parties,' " that failure, while
     error, was harmless.' DWOC, LLC v. TRX Alliance, Inc., 99
     So. 3d 1233, 1236 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012)."

123 So. 3d at 978-79.

     Like in Henderson, we conclude that the juvenile court erred in

failing to conduct a hearing on the mother's postjudgment motion. See

Rule 59(g), Ala. R. Civ. P. Thus, we proceed, like in Henderson, to

consider whether the failure of the juvenile court to conduct a hearing on

the mother's postjudgment motion probably injuriously affected the

substantial rights of the mother.

     The mother asserts before this court, as she did before the juvenile

court, that the juvenile court miscalculated the child-support arrearage

and the interest due on that arrearage pursuant to § 8-8-10(a), Ala. Code

1975. In his response to the mother's postjudgment motion, the father

conceded that at least one error had been committed by the juvenile court

in its calculations of his child-support arrearage.        According to the

mother, that error, when coupled with other alleged mathematical errors
                                   8
CL-2023-0416

made by the juvenile court resulted in the entry of a judgment awarding

an amount that was half as much as she claims was due. After reviewing

the record and the method used by the juvenile court to calculate the

child-support arrearage and interest, we agree with the mother that the

juvenile court appears to have erred by awarding the mother an amount

that is less than that to which she was entitled.

     Therefore, we conclude that the juvenile court erred in allowing the

mother's postjudgment motion to be denied by operation of law without

conducting a hearing on said motion and that that error was not

harmless. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand the case to

the juvenile court with instructions that it conduct a hearing on the

mother's postjudgment motion to consider the arguments raised in that

motion. Henderson, 123 So. 3d at 979. In doing so, "[w]e do not express

any opinion on whether the postjudgment motion is due to be granted;

we hold only that it was not harmless error for the juvenile court to deny

the postjudgment motion without first conducting a hearing on its

merits." J.C. v. K.E., [Ms. CL-2022-0702, Feb. 10, 2023] ___ So. 3d ___,

___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2023).

                                    9
CL-2023-0416

    REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

    Thompson, P.J., and Edwards, Hanson, and Fridy, JJ., concur.

                                10