Page 14

Bulletin

Special Interest Charles H. Dunn Did You Know? Tidbits and Whatnots from the World of a Divorce Lawyer Refl ecting on the last fourteen years of my practice of divorce For a good discussion on the distinction, see Pardue v. Pardue, 917 law, I can honestly say that no two days are alike. I often tell my So. 2d 857 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005). friends and family that I am like the bartender of life. I listen to …Th at a non-custodial parent may not receive credit peoples’ problems and, more often than not, I suggest that they against a child support obligation by providing the child with apply good common sense solutions rather than wowing them gifts, luxuries, or other non-essential extras that do not go with some sage and clever advice that I picked up with directly to the basic support of the child? See Caswell my law school degree. Obviously, we all need to have a good grasp of the law so that we can apply it to the …Th at in a post-divorce modifi cation ofv. Caswell, 2012, WL 3055534 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012). particular facts and circumstances of a given case. child support proceeding, the medical insur- Th ere are times, though, when I need to reach ance premium being deducted from the fa- back into the recesses of my mind and pull out ther’s present wife’s employment income is something that I have learned along the way, the proper fi gure to use when re-calculating or that I have recently read, in order to con- support when the father originally had the front what I once believed to be a foregone obligation to maintain insurance under conclusion. In those instances, it is awfully the decree and his present wife’s insur- nice to have some tidbits and whatnots in ance policy was also covering the children your back pocket when you need them. subject to the proceeding? See Jackson Here are a few that I have found helpful: v. Jackson, 777 So. 2d 155 (Ala. Civ. App. Did you know… 2000). …Th at when arguing the issue …Th at while the death of an obligee ends an obligor’s duty to pay of child support credits, you need to be current periodic alimony, it does not end able to distinguish between the hold- the obligor’s obligation to satisfy a prior ings in Landers v. Landers, 481, So. 2d judgment entered against him for past- 392 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985) and Th ompson due alimony? See Joe v. Joe, 891 So. 2d 879 v. Th ompson, 650 So. 2d 928 (Ala. Civ. (Ala. Civ. App. 2004). … App. 1994)? Landers holds that a parent obligated to pay child support must intro- Th at if a legal impediment exist- duce evidence of the specifi c value of the ed on the date an alleged husband claimed non-monetary support provided if seeking a to have entered into a common-law marriage credit for such support when the child primar- with the alleged wife, who had not been di- ily lived with the custodial parent, even if the vorced for more than sixty days, then the parties’ child spent substantial visitation time with the relationship could be considered a common law obligor. On the other hand, Th ompson holds that marriage if the alleged husband presented by clear the non-custodial parent may prove entitlement to a and convincing evidence a present, mutual agreement credit equal to the amount of support due in a specifi ed to permanently enter the marriage relationship to the ex- time by proving that (1) the child primarily lived with the clusion of all other relationships and that the parties’ relation- non-custodial parent during the specifi c time period, (2) that the ship had garnered public recognition as a marriage together with non-custodial parent provided all the support to the child during a public assumption of marital duties and cohabitation after the that time period, and (3) that the custodial parent provided no legal impediment was removed? See Melton v. Jenkins, 92 So. 3d support during that time period for which the credit is sought. 105 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012). continued on page 18 14 Birmingham Bar Association


Bulletin
To see the actual publication please follow the link above