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.
State Department of Human Resources ex rel. Pollard v. Pollard
Citations: 646 So. 2d 111; 1994 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 347; 1994 WL 368610Docket: AV92000733
Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; July 15, 1994; Alabama; State Appellate Court
In 1984 and 1989, the trial court established that Andy Pollard owed child support arrearages, although the specific documentation is missing from the record. On March 26, 1993, Pollard filed a "Motion to Reconsider," contesting the arrearages and claiming discrepancies in calculations, lack of credit for payments made through tax refund interceptions, and issues arising from the Department of Human Resources maintaining two separate payment cards in his name. A hearing was scheduled for May 10, 1993, but was continued to June 11, 1993, for an evidentiary hearing where both parties were instructed to present their calculations of the arrearage. On July 2, 1993, the trial court found a child support arrearage of $2,293.28 claimed by the Department and evidence from Pollard indicating he had overpaid by $1,018.60. After reviewing documents and receipts from both parties, the court concluded that Pollard had overpaid by $1,339.03 and denied the Department’s request for an arrearage. The Department subsequently appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by not applying res judicata based on prior orders. The trial judge acknowledged previous orders establishing arrearages but emphasized the need to consider discrepancies presented at the recent hearing. The court evaluated the requirements for res judicata and found them unsatisfied due to the acknowledged discrepancies in calculations and the absence of supporting documentation in the appeal record. A Department witness could not clarify the discrepancies. The trial court’s judgment was upheld as Pollard demonstrated he had been compliant with court-ordered payments. The ruling affirmed that requiring Pollard to pay an excess arrearage due to errors beyond his control would be inequitable. The decision was affirmed with concurrence from Judge Robertson and Judge Thigpen.