Loren A. Farquhar
Christopher L. Farquhar
for Publication April 28, 2016.
from Montgomery Circuit Court. (DR-11-333.01). Anita L.
Kelley, Trial Judge.
Judge. Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, Thomas, and Moore, JJ.,
A. Farquhar (" the mother" ) appeals from a
judgment of the Montgomery Circuit Court (" the trial
court" ) modifying the child-support obligation of
Christopher L. Farquhar (" the father" ) and
calculating an arrearage amount owed by the father. We
reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the case
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
parties were divorced by a 2011 judgment entered by the trial
court. That judgment directed the father to pay the mother
$1,050 per month as child support for their two minor
daughters. On December 19, 2012, the mother filed a petition
in the trial court seeking the entry of an income-withholding
order and an order holding the father in contempt for his
child-support arrearage. The mother attached a Form CS-41
Child-Support-Obligation Income Statement/Affidavit ("
CS-41 income affidavit" ) to her motion. On January 22,
2013, the trial court entered an order directing the father
to appear and show cause why the mother's motion for the
entry of the income-withholding order should not be granted.
After the father did not respond to the trial court's
order, the trial court entered an income-withholding order on
February 26, 2013.
August 8, 2013, a hearing was held on the mother's
petition for contempt. Both parties were present at the
hearing and testified. The father did not submit a CS-41
income affidavit. On August 20, 2013, the mother filed a
motion to substitute an amended CS-41 income affidavit to
correct a miscalculation of the cost of
monthly healthinsurance premiums she was paying for the
children. On August 29, 2014, the trial court entered a
judgment finding the father in contempt for failing to pay
child support as had been ordered. The trial court determined
the father's total arrearage to be $12,782.24, after
allowing for various credits. The trial court also awarded
interest on the arrearage, but it did not calculate the
amount of that interest. The trial court further ordered
that, effective August 9, 2013, the father's
child-support obligation would be $704.55 per month, and it
ordered the father to pay an additional $95.45 per month
toward the child-support arrearage. The trial court's
judgment did not include as appendices or incorporate by
reference a CS-42 Child-Support Guidelines form or a CS-41
income affidavit from either party. The mother filed a timely
notice of appeal.
initially determined that the judgment was not final because
it did not award a sum-certain interest amount. See
Swindle v. Swindle, 157 So.3d 983, 989 n.3
(Ala.Civ.App. 2014). On June 24, 2015, we remanded the case
by order to the trial court for 14 days for it to adjudicate
the amount of interest. On July 7, 2015, on remand, the trial
court entered an order (" the amended order" )
finding as follows:
" [T]his Court reviewed the record to ascertain dates
when payments were made by the Defendant/Father to the Mother
to calculate interest due on each installment from its due
date. This calculation could not be done, as the Father
testified to 'lots' of direct payments to the Mother,
but did not specify dates when payments were made.
Notwithstanding the same, the Court credited the testimony of
the Father. The undersigned further notes that
this testimony of 'lots' of direct payments to the
Mother was not disputed by the Mother.
" The Mother asserts that she is due interest in the
amount of $965.75. The Father did not dispute the same. As
the Court reviewed Mother's Exhibit one, and finds no
obvious error, interest is ordered in the amount of $965.75.
mother raises three issues on appeal: 1) whether the trial
court erred by modifying the father's child-support
obligation without complying with Rule 32(E), Ala. R. Jud.
Admin.; 2) whether the trial court exceeded its discretion by
failing to impute additional income to the father; and 3)
whether the trial court exceeded its discretion by
calculating an arrearage amount that is unsupported by the
evidence and by failing to award a sum certain in interest on
mother first argues that the trial court erred in modifying
the father's child-support obligation without complying
with Rule 32(E), Ala. R. ...