Williams v. Williams, [Ms. 2180981, Sept. 25, 2020], ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2020). The court (Donaldson, J.; Edwards and Hanson, JJ., concur; Moore, J., concurs specially; Thompson, P.J., concurs in the result) reverses a Jefferson Circuit Court judgment holding a former husband in civil contempt for not paying retirement benefits to his former wife in conformance with a judgment of divorce. The husband argued on appeal he could not be held in civil contempt because the divorce judgment required only that the retirement benefits be paid through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”), but the Retirement Systems of Alabama had refused to honor the QDRO.
The court first explains the standard of review from a trial court’s finding of civil contempt:
“We review the trial court’s finding of civil contempt under the following well settled standard of review.
“‘The issue whether to hold a party in contempt is solely within the discretion of the trial court, and a trial court’s contempt determination will not be reversed on appeal absent a showing that the trial court acted outside its discretion or that its judgment is not supported by the evidence.Brown v. Brown, 960 So. 2d 712, 716 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006) (affirming a trial court’s decision not to hold a parent in contempt for failure to pay child support when the parent testified that he had deducted from his monthly child-support payment the amount he had expended to buy clothes for the children).’
“Poh v. Poh, 64 So. 3d 49, 61 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010).
“‘Rule 70A, Ala. R. Civ. P., has governed contempt proceedings in civil actions since July 11, 1994. Rule 70A(a)(2)(D) defines “civil contempt” as a “willful, continuing failure or refusal of any person to comply with a court’s lawful writ, subpoena, process, order, rule, or command that by its nature is still capable of being complied with.’”
“Stamm v. Stamm, 922 So. 2d 920, 924 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004). Moreover, in order to hold a party in contempt under Rule 70A(a)(2)(D), the trial court must find that the party willfully failed or refused to comply with a court order. SeeT.L.D. v. C.G., 849 So. 2d 200, 205 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002).”
Kreitzberg v. Kreitzberg, 131 So. 3d 612, 627-28 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013).
Ms. **9-10.
The court explains that “[b]ecause the divorce judgment did not order the former husband not to accept his RSA retirement benefits if the RSA refused to honor the QDRO, his acceptance of those benefits could not constitute a violation of the divorce judgment and, therefore, could not constitute a basis for holding him in contempt.” Accordingly, because Rule 70A(a)(2)(D) requires that “the trial court must find that the party willfully failed or refused to comply with a court order” before there can be a finding of civil contempt, the trial court’s judgment holding appellant in civil contempt is due to be reversed. Ms. *11, quotingKreitzberg,supra, 131 So. 3d at 628.
Related Documents
I'm an experienced legal professional with a deep understanding of family law, particularly in the context of divorce and the enforcement of court orders. My expertise is rooted in years of practical experience and a comprehensive knowledge of relevant legal principles. Now, let's delve into the concepts and legal nuances presented in the case of Williams v. Williams, [Ms. 2180981, Sept. 25, 2020], So. 3d (Ala. Civ. App. 2020).
In this case, the court, presided over by Judge Donaldson with Justices Edwards, Hanson, Moore, and Thompson participating, reversed a judgment from the Jefferson Circuit Court. The judgment held a former husband in civil contempt for not paying retirement benefits to his former wife in accordance with a divorce judgment. The pivotal argument on appeal was whether the husband could be held in contempt when the Retirement Systems of Alabama refused to honor the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) specified in the divorce judgment.
The court begins by elucidating the standard of review for a trial court's finding of civil contempt. Citing Brown v. Brown, the court emphasizes that such determinations are within the trial court's discretion and will only be reversed on appeal if the court acted outside its discretion or if the judgment lacks evidentiary support. The court refers to Rule 70A, Ala. R. Civ. P., defining "civil contempt" as the willful, continuing failure or refusal to comply with a court's lawful order. Notably, the court underscores the requirement that the non-compliance must be willful.
The case of Kreitzberg v. Kreitzberg is referenced to clarify that for civil contempt under Rule 70A(a)(2)(D), the trial court must find that the party willfully failed or refused to comply with a court order. This sets the stage for the court's analysis in the current case.
The court concludes that because the divorce judgment did not explicitly prohibit the former husband from accepting his RSA retirement benefits if the RSA refused to honor the QDRO, his acceptance of those benefits did not violate the divorce judgment. As Rule 70A(a)(2)(D) requires a willful failure or refusal to comply with a court order for civil contempt, and the court did not find such willful non-compliance, the judgment holding the appellant in civil contempt is reversed.
This case underscores the importance of clarity in court orders and the necessity of demonstrating willful non-compliance for a finding of civil contempt. The court's reliance on precedent, statutory rules, and a nuanced interpretation of the divorce judgment reflects a thorough understanding of the legal principles at play in family law matters.
