Bonner v. Bonner
170 So. 3d 697
Ala. Civ. App.2015Background
- Parties: Elizabeth Bonner (wife) and Michael Bonner (husband) divorced after long marriage; one minor child (born 2000). Trial court awarded joint legal and physical custody and designated husband as primary decisionmaker for education.
- Custody facts: Wife primarily homeschooled child; husband (former military, now airline pilot) advocated public school for structure and socialization; parents disagreed on schedules and education but testified they would cooperate.
- Income and support: Husband reported gross monthly income of $18,065 (including military retirement); wife reported modest income and health limitations (CVID). Trial court ordered periodic alimony to wife but declined to order child support, citing joint-physical-custody basis for deviation from guidelines.
- Property: Parties jointly own a Madison County house with wife’s mother (Jane Pattinson) as co-owner with rights of survivorship; trial court declined to divide that house because Pattinson was not a party.
- Procedural posture: Wife appealed, challenging joint custody, designation of husband as primary educational decisionmaker, failure to award child support, and trial court’s jurisdiction to divide the marital residence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bonner) | Defendant's Argument (Bonner) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether joint legal and physical custody was in child's best interest | Trial court erred; parents cannot cooperate and husband has abdicated responsibilities | Parents can cooperate; husband is involved and schedule permits equal custody | Affirmed: joint custody supported by evidence and statutory factors |
| Whether the custody plan complied with §30-3-153 specificity requirements | Custody schedule lacks required specificity | Issue not raised below; trial court not given chance to consider §30-3-153 | Not considered on appeal (waived) |
| Whether husband should be primary decisionmaker for education | Removing child from homeschooling is improper; trial court erred in giving husband primary authority | Husband’s views reasonable; trial court may allocate primary authority to resolve disputes | Affirmed: wife failed to support argument with authority; no reversible error |
| Whether child support should have been ordered | Large income disparity and wife's limited earning capacity warrant child support | Trial court properly deviated from guidelines due to joint physical custody and other factors | Affirmed by majority; deviation justified though concurrence dissenting would remand for support calculation |
| Whether trial court had jurisdiction to divide marital residence owned jointly with nonparty | Trial court should have disposed of the house as between the parties despite nonparty co-owner | Court lacks jurisdiction to divide property titled in a nonparty; third-party not joined | Affirmed: trial court properly declined jurisdiction because nonparty co-owner not joined |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Brown, 719 So.2d 228 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998) (presumption of correctness for ore tenus findings)
- Robinson v. Robinson, 795 So.2d 729 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001) (standard of review for discretionary trial-court decisions)
- Cleveland v. Cleveland, 18 So.3d 950 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (joint custody workable despite parental hostility where record does not show unworkable conflict)
- Hutchins v. Hutchins, 637 So.2d 1371 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994) (trial court may deviate from child-support guidelines where application would be inequitable)
- Shewbart v. Shewbart, 19 So.3d 223 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (shared physical custody as recognized basis for deviating from child-support guidelines)
- Ex parte Fann, 810 So.2d 631 (Ala. 2001) (trial court assesses weight and credibility of testimony)
- Owen v. Miller, 414 So.2d 889 (Ala. 1981) (nonparty with adequate opportunity to litigate may be bound by divorce judgment in limited circumstances)
- Moody v. Moody, 339 So.2d 1030 (Ala. Civ. App. 1976) (exception where nonparty participated and controlled litigation might be bound by judgment)
- Simmons v. Simmons, 99 So.3d 316 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011) (nonparty who had opportunity to litigate may be bound by judgment)