101 So. 3d 769
Ala. Civ. App.2012Background
- Divorce in 2001 awarded joint custody with no child support but equal sharing of certain expenditures.
- Modification in 2003 gave mother sole custody and father $617 monthly child support.
- Mother filed contempt in 2010 alleging father stopped paying support in 2005; arrearage around $40,100.
- Father claimed to fund child expenditures instead of monthly support since 2005; provided detailed expense list.
- July 2011 court awarded $27,449.80 in credits against arrearage; later reduced to $27,044.61; final judgment stated arrearage and interest.
- Mother appealed (2011) challenging the nature and amount of credits awarded, including nonessential expenditures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credit for extracurriculars improper | Caswell argues credits for extracurriculars are not essential to basic support. | Caswell asserts father supplied related expenditures; credits may reflect reasonable support. | Reversed for credits related to extracurriculars; not permissible as credits against arrearage. |
| Postminority expenditures improper credit | Caswell contends credits for Ryan after majority are unauthorized. | Father incurred expenditures on Ryan after majority; credits may reflect ongoing support. | Reversed for postminority expenditures; no authority to credit after majority. |
| Nonessential expenditures improper credit | Caswell contends items like vehicles, guns, insurance, etc. are nonessential and should not be credited. | Father reasonably paid various expenses; court discretionary in crediting arrearage. | Reversed for including nonessential items; such expenses cannot be clearly categorized as essential to basic support. |
| Court properly considered surrounding circumstances | Mother contends court abused discretion by considering living arrangement, oral agreement, delay, and ages. | Court properly weighed surrounding circumstances; not reversible error. | Not reversible error to consider those factors; plan to credit remains within discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hillis v. Boggs, 646 So.2d 124 (Ala.Civ.App.1994) (credit discretion; extras not necessarily basic support)
- Deas v. Deas, 747 So.2d 332 (Ala.Civ.App.1999) (guidelines; excludes extras from credits)
- Dodd v. Dodd, 588 So.2d 476 (Ala.Civ.App.1991) (mutual modification of support requires court approval)
- Odom v. Smith, 16 So.3d 109 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (consideration of living arrangement in crediting support)
- Brannon v. Brannon, 477 So.2d 445 (Ala.Civ.App.1985) (trial court discretion in child support matters)
- Kinsey v. Kinsey, 425 So.2d 483 (Ala.Civ.App.1983) (discretion in awarding credits against arrearage)
- Mills v. Dailey, 38 So.3d 731 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (laches not applicable to enforcement of child support)
- Weaver v. Weaver, 401 So.2d 77 (Ala.Civ.App.1981) (no credit for postminority support)