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.
Smith v. Nabors
Citations: 196 So. 3d 284; 2015 WL 7356426Docket: 2150030
Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; November 19, 2015; Alabama; State Appellate Court
Yolanda Nabors Smith petitions for a writ of mandamus to compel the Bessemer Division of the Jefferson Circuit Court to vacate its order that struck her request for enforcement of a provision in a settlement agreement with her former husband, Matthew Carl Nabors, Jr. This provision mandates the former husband to provide post-minority educational support for their adult daughter's college expenses, which was incorporated into their divorce judgment in December 2013. The trial court's ruling referenced the Alabama Supreme Court decision in Ex parte Christopher, which determined that noncustodial parents are not obligated to provide educational support for children over the age of majority under Alabama law. In addition to seeking educational support, the former wife requested past-due child support for their remaining minor child, reimbursement for a vehicle purchased for that child, and a division of equity from the marital residence. She also sought to hold the former husband in contempt for violating other divorce judgment provisions. The court's order striking her request for educational support was an interlocutory judgment, noting that other claims remained pending for future resolution. While a writ of mandamus is a valid method for appealing an interlocutory judgment, it will not be granted if an appeal after a final judgment offers an adequate remedy. The court did not consider the jurisdictional arguments posed by the former wife as relevant, stating that the circuit court maintains jurisdiction over the enforcement of incorporated settlement agreements. Ultimately, the former wife failed to demonstrate a lack of adequate remedy through appeal, leading to the denial of her petition for a writ of mandamus. The judges concurred in this decision.