From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moorer v. Moorer

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
Apr 2, 1986
487 So. 2d 947 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986)

Summary

holding that award of periodic alimony rather than child support in divorce judgment "was a question that was ripe for appeal upon the entry of" that judgment and could not be raised in an appeal taken from a subsequent judgment declining to modify that award

Summary of this case from Rogers v. Hartsock

Opinion

Civ. 5220.

April 2, 1986.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Montgomery County, John W. Davis, J.

Drayton N. Hamilton, Montgomery, for appellant.

H. Lewis Gillis, Montgomery, for appellee.


This is a divorce modification case.

After an ore tenus hearing, the Montgomery County Circuit Court denied the husband's petition for modification of the divorce decree. The husband appeals and we affirm.

A final decree of divorce was entered between the parties on April 8, 1985. That decree provided that periodic alimony of twenty dollars per week was awarded to the wife. No appeal was taken from this judgment.

On August 30, 1985, the husband filed a petition for modification of the divorce decree. This petition alleged that the original trial court's award of periodic alimony was in fact an award of child support. Put another way, the husband contended in his petition that the original divorce decree awarding periodic alimony was mislabeled and was in fact child support. The husband petitioned the court to modify its earlier decree by striking the award of periodic alimony, claiming that the award was in reality child support and no longer justified because the child for whom such support was provided had joined the U.S. Air Force.

On appeal, the husband, through able and distinguished counsel, contends that the trial court erred in failing to change the award of periodic alimony to an award of child support. We disagree.

It is an established rule of law that a domestic judgment, regular on its face, is conclusive on collateral attack. See Hedrick v. Grimes Motor Co., 275 Ala. 322, 154 So.2d 677 (1963). Therefore, in this instance we conclude that the husband cannot be heard to complain, in light of the judgment rendered by the trial court awarding the wife periodic alimony.

Furthermore, the question of whether the trial court erred in its award of periodic alimony, instead of child support, was a question that was ripe for appeal upon the entry of a final decree of divorce. No appeal was taken from that judgment within the prescribed period. Consequently, the husband cannot be heard now to complain that the trial court erred in failing to change the award of periodic alimony to an award of child support. The husband cannot circumvent the rules by appealing from a denial of a petition to modify the divorce decree by raising issues that should have been raised at a much earlier time. See Rule 4, Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure.

This case is due to be and is hereby affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

WRIGHT, P.J., and BRADLEY, J., concur.


Summaries of

Moorer v. Moorer

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
Apr 2, 1986
487 So. 2d 947 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986)

holding that award of periodic alimony rather than child support in divorce judgment "was a question that was ripe for appeal upon the entry of" that judgment and could not be raised in an appeal taken from a subsequent judgment declining to modify that award

Summary of this case from Rogers v. Hartsock

affirming the denial of a petition to modify a divorce judgment when the petitioner failed to appeal from the divorce judgment but, subsequently, sought an impermissible collateral attack upon the divorce judgment

Summary of this case from Nord v. Nord

affirming denial of petition for modification of divorce judgment where petitioner alleged that periodic-alimony awards in original divorce judgment were actually child support and where petitioner did not appeal from original divorce judgment

Summary of this case from Reneke v. Reneke

affirming denial of petition for modification of divorce judgment where petitioner alleged that periodic-alimony award in original divorce judgment was actually child support and where petitioner did not appeal from original divorce judgment, stating that "[t]he husband cannot circumvent the rules by appealing from a denial of a petition to modify the divorce decree by raising issues that should have been raised at a much earlier time"

Summary of this case from Boatfield v. Clough

affirming denial of petition for modification of divorce judgment where petitioner alleged that periodic-alimony awards in original divorce judgment were actually child support and where petitioner did not appeal from original divorce judgment

Summary of this case from Reneke v. Reneke

affirming the denial of a petition for modification where the petitioner attempted to recharacterize a periodic-alimony award in the original divorce judgment as child support and where no appeal had been taken from the divorce judgment

Summary of this case from Duke v. Duke

affirming the denial of a petition for modification of a divorce judgment where the petitioner alleged that periodic alimony awards in the original divorce judgment were actually child support and where the petitioner did not appeal from the original divorce judgment

Summary of this case from Campbell v. Campbell
Case details for

Moorer v. Moorer

Case Details

Full title:Dan Ellis MOORER v. Jessie Ash MOORER

Court:Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Date published: Apr 2, 1986

Citations

487 So. 2d 947 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986)

Citing Cases

Rogers v. Hartsock

Because the father did not appeal from the divorce judgment, and did not assert a claim in the modification…

Reneke v. Reneke

'" Randolph County v. Thompson, 502 So.2d 357, 361 (Ala. 1987) (quoting Williams v. First National Bank of…