Kyle v. Kyle
128 So. 3d 766
Ala. Civ. App.2013Background
- Married in 1980; two children, one reaching majority during the proceedings.
- Divorce action filed August 14, 2009; wife answered and counterclaimed September 17, 2009.
- pendente lite agreement December 2009: wife pays all household bills; husband pays $150/week; agreement adopted by court.
- 2010–2011: TRO (February 2010) prohibited liquidating inherited funds; financial status and inheritance issues prominent during ongoing litigation.
- Final judgment of divorce entered October 12, 2011 addressing debts/assets, real estate to husband, $18,000 in attorney fees to husband, and mortgage catch‑up within 45 days; postjudgment motions filed thereafter.
- Contempt proceedings: August 2011 contempt for civil contempt resulting in five days’ incarceration (suspended 7 days); November 2011 contempt for failure to pay mortgage; appellate proceedings following these orders; issues raised include improper sanction and lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equitable distribution of marital estate. | Kyle contends distribution inequitable. | Kyle contends no basis to claim misdistribution. | Affirmed final divorce judgment on distribution. |
| Civil contempt sanction improper. | Kyle argues August 2011 order properly held in contempt. | Kyle contends sanctions were punitive, not coercive. | Abused discretion; vacate August 2011 contempt order. |
| Subject-matter jurisdiction over the later contempt order. | Kyle asserts proper proceeding for contempt. | Kyle argues court lacked authority without filing fee. | November 4, 2011 order void for lack of jurisdiction; appeal partial dismissal/ vacatur. |
Key Cases Cited
- Poh v. Poh, 64 So.3d 49 (Ala.Civ.App.2010) (civil contempt standards; lose punitive focus; coercive remedial aim)
- Gladden v. Gladden, 942 So.2d 362 (Ala.Civ.App.2005) (civil contempt framework; no definite term in civil contempt)
- Wilcoxen v. Wilcoxen, 907 So.2d 447 (Ala.Civ.App.2005) (contempt petitions are independent proceedings; filing fee required)
- Kaufman v. Kaufman, 934 So.2d 1073 (Ala.Civ.App.2005) (jurisdictional impact of docketing/fees in contempt)
- Decker v. Decker, 984 So.2d 1216 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (contempt motion before final judgment not a separate proceeding; no fee required)
- Johnson v. Hetzel, 100 So.3d 1056 (Ala.2012) (void judgment for lack of jurisdiction; contempt-related orders must be proper)