Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; October 27, 1981; Alabama; State Appellate Court
William C. Vines and Liane Vines were married in 1966 and separated in 1979, having two children, Melissa and Ginger. Following their divorce finalized on February 29, 1980, they entered an agreement mandating William to pay Liane $700 per month for child support and $700 for alimony, later reduced to $500 in March 1981, alongside specific visitation rights for him. William later petitioned to modify the alimony and child support payments, citing changed financial circumstances, and contested Liane's alleged violation of visitation rights.
In Alabama, a trial court can modify alimony and child support if there's a material change in the parties' financial situations, with the burden of proof on the moving party. The trial court denied William's request for modification, determining he did not demonstrate a significant change in financial circumstances. At the time of divorce, William earned $42,000 annually but was only making $32,500 with his new job at Indiana Refrigerator Truck Lines during the hearing. He had missed several payments, accumulating $6,200 in arrears, attributing his financial difficulties to job changes, increased living expenses after remarrying, and significant debt from a loan related to stock purchases. The court's decision not to modify the decree was affirmed, finding no error in its conclusion.
In the divorce decree, the husband received stock in Brada-Miller, while the wife received the marital home, which she later sold, depositing the proceeds into savings and certificates of deposit. The wife earns approximately $1,200 to $1,500 annually from part-time work and had to borrow around $6,000 from family for living expenses due to the husband's failure to pay alimony and child support. The trial court determined that there had not been a substantial change in the husband's financial situation, despite his subsequent voluntary employment change resulting in a decrease of about one-third in income. The husband, a certified public accountant, faced reduced earnings but had better future prospects compared to the wife, who has limited job skills and earns about $100 per month.
At the time of the trial, the husband's required alimony and child support payments of $1,200 constituted over fifty percent of his net income, compared to slightly less than fifty percent at the time of the divorce. The trial court concluded that the evidence did not support a modification of the alimony and support obligations based on the lack of substantial financial change, affirming its decision.
Regarding the husband’s claim that the wife interfered with his visitation rights, the trial court denied his request for enforcement, noting that the original divorce decree did not prohibit such interference. The evidence indicated that the wife had discouraged visits and made disparaging remarks about the husband to the children, but the court found that the husband had made minimal efforts to see his children and had been overdue on child support payments. The court upheld its decision not to grant the husband's request for relief, affirming the judgment.
