Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Briscoe v. Briscoe
Citations: 600 So. 2d 290; 1992 WL 80773Docket: 2910108
Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; April 24, 1992; Alabama; State Appellate Court
Angela B. Briscoe and Gregory A. Briscoe were divorced in April 1991, with the divorce judgment incorporating a custody agreement that required Gregory to pay $328 per month in child support. In June 1991, Gregory filed a petition for contempt against Angela, claiming she violated visitation rights. He also filed a Rule 60(b) motion, alleging a mistake in the child support calculation, which led to a hearing. The trial court denied the contempt petition but found a computation error and reduced the child support to $259 per month. Angela appealed, arguing that the modification was improper because Gregory did not demonstrate a material change in circumstances. The court noted that a Rule 60(b) motion does not require such proof, as it is based on correcting mistakes rather than modifying support orders. Angela further contended that the trial court erred in identifying a computation error under Rule 32 of the Alabama Rules of Judicial Administration, claiming the original calculations were correct. The court found that the father’s claim of a "mutual mistake" was unfounded, as the calculations were based on his 1990 tax return, which accurately reflected his income at the time of divorce. The appellate court emphasized that a trial court has wide discretion in granting Rule 60(b) motions, but in this case, Gregory did not prove any mistake justifying relief. The appellate court concluded that the trial court erred in granting the Rule 60(b) motion, reversed its decision, and ordered the court to reinstate the original child support amount. The opinion was authored by Retired Appellate Judge L. Charles Wright and was unanimously adopted by the court.