Released for Publication August 5, 2015.
Appeal from Baldwin Circuit Court. (DR-12-900900.01). J. Langford Floyd, TRIAL JUDGE.
For Appellant: James E. Robertson, Jr., Stewart Howard, P.C., Mobile.
For Appellee: W. Lee Webb, Kenneth R. Raines, Raines Law Firm, Fairhope.
MOORE, Judge. Pittman, Thomas, and Donaldson, JJ., concur. Thompson, P.J., concurs in the result, without writing.
Joseph Edward McCarron III (" the former husband" ) appeals from a judgment finding him in contempt of court for his failure to pay periodic alimony to Jerry Ann McCarron (" the former wife" ) and his failure to pay certain monetary property-settlement amounts imposed on him by the parties' divorce judgment. We reverse.
This is the second time these parties have been before this court. See McCarron v. McCarron, [Ms. 2130513, Nov. 21, 2014] 168 So.3d 68,__, (Ala.Civ.App. 2014). The Baldwin Circuit Court (" the trial court" ) entered a judgment divorcing the parties on November 25, 2013, which it amended on February 6, 2014. The former husband appealed that judgment, and, on appeal, this court determined that the former husband did not have the ability to pay the monetary amounts awarded in the property settlement in the time and in the manner ordered. We instructed the trial court to clarify its determination of the former husband's net monthly income, and we " reverse[d]
that portion of the judgment awarding the [former] wife $10,000 per month in
periodic alimony so that the trial court [could] reconsider its award in light
of any modification of the judgment it makes to enable the [former] husband to
pay the property settlement." __ So.3d at __.
Meanwhile, on February 14, 2014, the former wife filed a petition for a rule nisi, alleging that the former husband had failed to pay the monthly periodic alimony awarded to her and had failed to pay all the monetary property-settlement amounts he was ordered to pay in the divorce judgment. The former husband answered the petition on April 25, 2014, amended his
answer on that same date, and amended his answer again on April 29, 2014. After conducting a hearing on the petition, at which it received testimony from the former husband, the former wife, the former husband's brother, who was the former husband's business partner, the former husband's banker, and the former husband's real-estate broker, the trial court entered an order on July 31, 2014, stating:
" This matter having come before this Court on a Petition for Rule Nisi filed by the [former wife] and the Court having taken testimony and reviewed evidence; it is hereby
" ORDERED that the [former husband] is in contempt of this Court for willful failure to comply with the Final Decree as previously ordered. Although the case is on appeal, [the former husband] has not filed a supersedeas ...