Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; November 22, 2005; Alabama; State Appellate Court
Keith Clyde Hallmark appeals a judgment awarding Barbara Prater Hallmark $12,372.69, plus statutory post-judgment interest, instead of one-half of his Teachers’ Retirement System (TRS) account, as originally stipulated in their divorce judgment. The divorce, finalized on June 24, 1998, incorporated a settlement agreement dated May 19, 1998, which explicitly granted the former wife 50% of the TRS account. However, the court record lacks a copy of this settlement agreement.
In September 2002, the former wife petitioned the court for modification, claiming non-payment of the awarded funds. While that petition was pending, she filed a motion in September 2003 seeking relief from the original judgment, having discovered that the TRS funds could not be divided as stipulated. She requested a monetary award equivalent to half the TRS account's value as of the settlement date instead.
The parties subsequently agreed on stipulations regarding the TRS account, which clarified that member contributions are refundable only during the member's lifetime upon employment termination and that partial refunds are not allowed. This stipulation noted that the former husband's total contribution to the TRS account was $24,745.38 as of May 19, 1998. On August 31, 2004, the trial court issued an order awarding the former wife $12,372.69, reflecting half of the former husband’s TRS contributions from the settlement date, thus modifying the original divorce judgment. The appellate court reversed and remanded the decision.
On September 29, 2004, the former husband filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the trial court's judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. Subsequently, on October 6, 2004, the former wife requested the court to amend the judgment to correct a clerical error under Rule 60(a). The trial court amended the judgment for clerical corrections on October 12 and again on October 22, 2004. The former husband appealed the amended judgment on November 23, 2004, which was given case number 2040193, with the appeal held in abeyance until the post-judgment motion was resolved. This motion was denied by operation of law on December 29, 2004, leading the former husband to file a second appeal on January 12, 2005, assigned case number 2040339.
The appeals were consolidated, with the former husband contending that the trial court improperly modified the property division by awarding the former wife $12,372.69 plus interest instead of one-half of the funds in his TRS account, which he argued constituted a modification made after the 30-day period post-judgment. The former wife countered that the trial court merely clarified the original judgment to reflect the parties' intent as per their settlement agreement.
The court referenced prior cases indicating that property division provisions in divorce judgments become final 30 days post-entry and are non-modifiable thereafter. Although a trial court can interpret its own judgments, it cannot make substantive modifications to effective final orders. The divorce judgment explicitly stated the former wife was awarded "fifty (50) percent of all amounts and/or shares" in the former husband's TRS account, indicating a clear intent to award a percentage rather than a specific monetary judgment. Therefore, the subsequent order that awarded a sum certain constituted an impermissible modification of the original judgment.
Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings in alignment with this opinion, concluding that the remaining arguments raised by the former husband did not require discussion. Additionally, it noted that Alabama law (§ 16-25-23, Ala.Code 1975) prevents the trial court from ordering the husband to liquidate his TRS account to settle a marital debt.
