Smith v. SmithSmith v. Smith
Jаmes Randolph Smith and Patricia M. Smith were divorced in Escambia County, Alabama on January 11, 1988. The parties entered into a divorce agreement which the trial court incorporated into the divorce decree. Thе relevant portion of the divorce decree to this case is paragraph ten, which reads as follows:
[t]hat the [husband] will assume all joint debts of the marriage. The [wife] shall receive the house located at 3908 Bishop Street in Detroit, Michigan. The [husband] will repay $3,500 to [the wife’s] mother representing a loan for educationаl expenses.”
After the trial court entered the judgment of divorce in Alabama, the wife’s mother, Mary P. Ulrich, sued the husband in a Florida circuit court to recover for several loans that she made to him during his marriage to her daughter. The husband subsequently filed a third party complaint against the wife, alleging that, as a part of the negotiations in rеaching the marital settlement agreement, the wife agreed to assume the payment of any outstanding debts to her mother, other than the $3,500 in the agreement. At the trial in Florida, it was undisputed that Ms. Ul-rich lent the husband money for educational and living expenses. However, the wife and the husband presented contradictory testimony concеrning the repayment of those loans during the negotiations that preceded the divorce agreement. Following the hearing, the Florida trial court entered a judgment on November 2, 1989, in favor of Ms. Ulrich and against the husband for $14,280, аnd in favor of the husband and against the wife in the same amount on his third party complaint. The record indicates that the Florida trial court arrived at the $14,280 figure by providing that the husband receive compensation from the wife for one-half of the equity in the marital home that the wife had received in the Alabama divorce judgment, one-half of the escrow in the marital home, one-half of all common debts paid by the husband after the divorce, аnd for one-half of the equity in an automobile that the husband had transferred to the wife after the divorce. The rеmarks from the bench contained in the transcript of the Florida court proceeding clearly indicatе that the trial judge entered judgment against the wife,
The husband later filed the Florida judgment in the Mobile County Circuit Court, which is whеre the wife resides, for execution or other process for enforcement of the foreign judgment. The wifе responded by filing a Rule 60(b) motion to vacate the Florida judgment.
The trial court conducted a hearing on thе wife’s motion and heard testimony from the wife and the attorney that represented her in the divorce actiоn. Their testimony supported the express terms of the divorce judgment. The trial court found that the Florida court did nоt accord full faith and credit to the Alabama divorce judgment. Therefore, the trial court declined to enforce the Florida judgment against the wife. The husband appeals.
The dispositive issue in this case is whether an Alabama court is required to give full faith and credit to a foreign judgment which directly contradicts a prior, valid, Alabаma judgment. Article IV, § 1 of the United States Constitution requires that “[f]ull faith and credit shall be given in each state to the ... judicial proceedings of every other state.” In Durfee v. Duke,
We now determine whether the Alabama judgment of divorce was final for the purpose of res judicаta. In the area of property settlements, Alabama law is well established that, in the absence of a timеly-filed post-judgment motion, a trial court loses jurisdiction over a property award in a divorce judgment aftеr the expiration of thirty days. Ex parte Kirkley,
In Tinsley v. Tinsley,
“Alabama courts are not required by thе full faith and credit clause to give recognition to a judgment of a sister state which judgment is in direct conflict with an еarlier, non-modifiable, final, valid, Alabama judgment, which had jurisdiction over both parties and over the subject matter and which approved an agreement of the parties upon the very same issue determined by the sister stаte’s later judgment.”
Tinsley at 1307.
We find that, since the property division was res judicata, the judgment of the Florida court against thе wife is in direct conflict with the earlier, non-modifiable, final, and valid Alabama divorce judgment. Tinsley. Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not err by refusing to give full faith and credit to the Florida judgment. The judgment of the trial court is due to be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.