Court Opinion

ID: 9353536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-12 01:47:04.14739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:08:21.228010
License: Public Domain

Rel: December 16, 2022

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, 2022-2023
                                _________________________

                                           2210227
                                   _________________________

                                       James L. Cason, III

                                                      v.

                                        Stacy Leigh Cason

                          Appeal from Shelby Circuit Court
                                   (DR-19-900224)

FRIDY, Judge.

        James L. Cason, III ("the husband"), appeals from a judgment of

the Shelby Circuit Court ("the trial court") entered in June 2021,

divorcing him from Stacy Leigh Cason ("the wife"), dividing the marital

property, awarding the wife periodic alimony and an attorney fee, and
2210227

ordering the husband and the parties' younger child to engage in

"reunification therapy" to repair their relationship before the husband

could exercise visitation with that child. For the reasons set forth herein,

we dismiss the appeal as moot to the extent that the husband challenges

the portion of the judgment related to therapy, and we reverse those

portions of the judgment relating to the division of the marital property,

alimony, and the attorney-fee award.

                               Background

     The parties married in 2006, and one child was born of the

marriage. That child was thirteen years old when the trial court entered

the judgment. The wife also had a child from a previous marriage, whom

the husband adopted. That child was no longer a minor when the

judgment was entered. The husband was a certified public accountant

and the primary earner during the marriage. The wife worked as a

preschool teacher during the marriage.

     After the parties separated in March 2019, the husband testified,

he was able to visit the children only a few times in public locations even

though, he testified, there was no suggestion that he had ever posed a

safety risk to the children. In December 2019, the husband obtained an

                                     2
2210227

order, issued by the trial court, permitting him to have overnight

visitation with the children. He said that, the day after the trial court

entered that order, he received a telephone call from the younger child,

with whom he had been in contact almost daily since the separation, who

told him the that wife had said that the husband had something to tell

the children, and so he explained the visitation order. Since that

telephone call, the husband said, he had not had any contact with the

younger child. The husband said that he believed that the wife had

alienated the children against him.

     On June 25, 2021, the trial court entered a judgment divorcing the

parties, dividing the marital property, and awarding the wife periodic

alimony, among other things. The trial court also awarded the parties

joint legal custody and the wife sole physical custody of the younger child.

In the judgment, the trial court found that the husband and the younger

child had had no contact with each other since November 2019 and that

their relationship was "strained, tenuous and in need of repair before

visitation [could] commence." If the husband elected to pursue a

relationship with the younger child, the trial court said in its judgment,

he and the child were required to engage in reunification therapy under

                                      3
2210227

the direction of Sara Hadgraft, a counselor. The trial court ordered

Hadgraft to find appropriate times and places for the husband and the

child to visit "outside of the therapeutic setting, beginning in smaller

increments of time and progressing into larger increments of time to

include overnight visitation once a relationship has been restored to such

a point that overnight visitation can occur," ultimately resulting in the

husband's receiving standard visitation with the younger child.

     The trial court said in its judgment that it reserved jurisdiction to

enter a specific visitation schedule if the husband became "dissatisfied

with either the progress of reunification therapy or with the

amount/duration of visitation time that is suggested in reunification

therapy." The trial court's judgment added that, once the husband and

child's relationship had been "satisfactorily restored," or after one year of

therapy, the husband would be awarded visitation.

     The husband filed a timely motion to alter, amend, or vacate the

judgment. On October 21, 2021, the trial court granted the husband's

motion in part, amending the judgment to require the parties to

participate in reunification therapy for no longer than six months, at

which time the husband would have standard visitation with the child.

                                     4
2210227

The trial court also amended the judgment in other ways not germane to

the resolution of the issues on appeal. The husband filed a timely notice

of appeal to this court.

                                Analysis

     The husband contends that the trial court erred in dividing the

marital property, in awarding the wife periodic alimony, including

retroactive alimony, and in awarding the wire an attorney fee. Among his

arguments for reversal of the judgment is the contention that, in making

its award of periodic alimony, the trial court failed to make the express

findings mandated by § 30-2-57, Ala. Code 1975. Thus, he says, based on

this court's holding in Merrick v. Merrick, [Ms. 2200188, Oct. 29, 2021]

___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2021), in which this court reversed a

judgment awarding alimony because the trial court had failed to make

the express findings required by § 30-2-57, the judgment here must be

reversed so that the trial court can enter a new judgment that complies

with that statute. The wife concurs with the husband's argument and

further acknowledges that, because awards of alimony and property

division are interrelated and the reversal of one of those awards normally

necessitates reversal of the other award, the judgment is due to be

                                    5
2210227

reversed insofar as it awarded the wife periodic alimony, divided the

marital property, and awarded the wife an attorney fee.

     We agree with the parties' assessment that, because the trial

court's judgment does not contain the express findings that § 30-2-57

requires to support an award of periodic alimony, the periodic-alimony

award is due to be reversed. Merrick, supra; see also Laurendine v.

Laurendine, [Ms. 2200305, Nov. 12, 2021] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App.

2021). Moreover, we agree with the wife that, because the periodic-

alimony award is intertwined with the division of the marital property

and the attorney-fee award, those aspects of the judgment are likewise

subject to reversal and reconsideration by the trial court on remand.1

Pylant v. Pylant, 230 So. 3d 805, 808 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017) (holding that,

because property-division and alimony awards      are   interrelated,   we

often reverse both aspects of a judgment so that the trial court

may consider the entire award again upon remand); see also Beck v.

Beck, 142 So. 3d 685, 696-97 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013) (holding that, because

     1By resolving the appeal as to those aspects of the judgment in this
manner, we pretermit discussion of the additional grounds asserted by
the husband for reversal of those aspects of the judgment.
                                    6
2210227

awards of alimony and alimony in gross were reversed, attorney-fee

award would also be reversed for reconsideration on remand).

     The husband also argues that the trial court erred in requiring him

to undergo reunification therapy before he can visit with the younger

child. As the wife points out, the trial court's amended judgment, entered

on October 21, 2021, required the parties to participate in reunification

therapy for six months, at which time the husband would have standard

visitation. Because the six-month period would have ended in April 2022,

the wife says, this issue has become moot.

     Although the husband filed a motion to stay the judgment, there is

no indication in the record that the trial court ruled on that motion.

Additionally, the husband did not file a reply brief to respond to the wife's

assertion that this issue is moot. Because there is no longer any way for

this court to grant effectual relief to the husband on the propriety of the

requirement that he participate in reunification therapy, which has

already concluded by the terms of the judgment, the appeal from the

judgment insofar as it ordered the husband to participate in reunification

therapy must be dismissed as moot. See C.F.D. v. J.P., [Ms. 2200873, Feb.

4, 2022] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2002).

                                     7
2210227

     For the reasons set forth above, the judgment is reversed insofar as

it divided the marital property and awarded the wife periodic alimony

and an attorney fee, and the cause is remanded for the trial court to enter

a new judgment that complies with § 30-2-57. The appeal is dismissed as

moot insofar as it challenges that portion of the judgment requiring the

husband to engage in reunification therapy.

     APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

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

                                    8