from Calhoun Circuit Court (DR-15-900128)
Sutchaleo ("the wife") appeals from a judgment of
the Calhoun Circuit Court ("the trial court")
divorcing her from Somboon Sutchaleo ("the
husband"). We affirm the judgment in part and reverse it
judgment at issue, the trial court awarded the parties joint
legal custody of the parties' minor child and stated,
with regard to the "placement" of the child:
"The [wife] shall have the placement of the ... child
... during the week beginning each Sunday at 6:00 p.m. and
continuing through Friday at 6:00 p.m.
"The [husband] shall have placement of the child ...
each weekend beginning every Friday at 6:00 p.m. and
continuing through Sunday at 6:00 p.m."
trial court also ordered the husband to pay to the wife $500
per month as child support. The judgment directed that the
wife shall have the right to claim the child as a tax
dependent for income-tax purposes in even-numbered tax years
and that the husband shall have the right to claim the child
as a tax dependent for income-tax purposes in odd-numbered
trial court awarded the husband the full right, title,
ownership, interest, possession, and control in and to the
parties' restaurant. The husband also received a 1998
Mercedes automobile and a 1998 Ford F-150 truck. The wife
received a 2008 Mazda automobile. The judgment also awarded
various other personal property and assets to each party. In
addition, the trial court ordered the husband to pay to the
wife $22, 000 in monthly increments of $1, 000. The judgment
reserved the issue of alimony pending the payment of the $22,
000 to the wife.
wife filed a postjudgment motion on April 27, 2016; the trial
court entered an order denying that motion on May 18, 2016.
The wife timely filed a notice of appeal to this court on
June 13, 2016.
wife first argues on appeal that the trial court erred in
fashioning the husband's visitation schedule with the
child. She asserts that, during the trial, she testified that
she wanted sole physical custody of the child and that the
husband be awarded standard visitation. Although the wife
testified at the trial that she wanted sole physical custody
of the child, the wife did not state that she wanted the
husband to have standard visitation. On the contrary, the
parties agreed that the husband would have "consistent
visitation" with the child, which included visitation
every weekend while the divorce action was pending. At the
close of the trial, the following exchange between the trial
court and the wife occurred:
"The Court: Do you agree with [the] husband on the
visitation? Does he have the child ...