Blackledge v. Blackledge
134 So. 3d 891
| Ala. Civ. App. | 2013Background
- Parties: Jamie L. Blackledge (husband) filed for divorce; Lisa Michelle Blackledge (wife) counterclaimed.
- On November 4, 2011, parties announced a settlement in open court and the trial court entered a final divorce judgment adopting terms announced that day.
- Judgment awarded the wife exclusive possession of the marital home and required her to pay $50,000 to the husband as his equitable interest; the judgment also imposed mortgage/debt payment and indemnity obligations on the wife.
- Wife moved to alter/amend, arguing the judgment’s provisions about the marital home (mortgage/debt responsibility and indemnity) were not part of the in‑court settlement.
- Trial court amended the judgment to state the wife would indemnify the husband for the home note/mortgage indebtedness, but left the $50,000 payment unchanged.
- Wife appealed, contending the written judgment deviated from the terms announced in open court and no ore tenus evidence supported the additional home‑related obligations.
Issues
| Issue | Blackledge (Wife) Argument | Blackledge (Husband) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the judgment may impose mortgage/debt payment and indemnity terms not announced in open‑court settlement | Judgment deviated from the parties’ oral settlement; no agreement was made about the home, so court erred to include those terms | Trial court may adopt or reject settlements; the written judgment is proper | Reversed: court may not include those home‑related terms absent agreement or ore tenus evidence supporting modification |
| Whether ore tenus evidence was required before altering settlement terms concerning the marital home | No ore tenus evidence was offered; trial court should not alter settlement without such evidence | Trial court can accept/reject settlement in whole or part (general authority) | Court held ore tenus evidence was required to justify terms that deviated from the oral agreement; none was presented |
| Proper remedy when written judgment deviates from oral settlement | Vacate or amend judgment to reflect actual agreement or require presentation of evidence | Trial court’s amendments cure the defect | Remedy: reverse and remand for entry consistent with the actual agreement or for presentation of evidence to support an equitable allocation |
| Standard for trial court when parties announce a settlement in open court | Court must enforce the actual terms announced; cannot add new terms without evidence/consent | Court has discretion to accept or reject settlement terms | Court reiterated that deviations without ore tenus evidence are impermissible and remanded for correct disposition |
Key Cases Cited
- Junkin v. Junkin, 647 So.2d 797 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994) (reversed judgment that deviated from parties’ settlement when no evidence supported the disputed award)
- M.D.L. v. M.R.C., 891 So.2d 876 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004) (reversed where judgment terms deviated from oral settlement)
- J.F. v. D.C.W., 896 So.2d 577 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004) (reversed when award included in judgment diverged from settlement without evidentiary support)
- Williams v. Williams, 261 Ala. 328, 74 So.2d 582 (Ala. 1954) (trial court may accept or reject a settlement)
- Porter v. Porter, 441 So.2d 921 (Ala. Civ. App. 1983) (same)