seal

Court Case Record Jay MYERS. v. Joanna MYERS. 2141038


Jay MYERS. v. Joanna MYERS. Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2141038


 
Case Number2141038
Case TitleJay MYERS. v. Joanna MYERS.
Case TypeCivil
StateAlabama, AL
County
CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
Court Address
Phone
Field Date4/8/2016
Close Date

Parties

CounselNameType
Jay MYERS.Appellee/Petitioner
Joanna MYERS.Appellant/Defendant
Details
Jay Myers (“the father”) appeals from a judgment of the Mobile Circuit Court (“the trial court”) modifying the terms of the judgment divorcing him and Joanna Myers (“the mother”) to allow the mother to determine which school the parties' children are to attend. We reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the case.
Procedural History
The mother and the father were divorced by a judgment entered by the trial court on July 29, 2008. That judgment ratified an agreement of the parties giving them joint legal and physical custody of their children and requiring the father to pay, among other things, “the tuition for the minor children so long as they attend a private school in Mobile County.”
On December 23, 2011, the mother filed a motion for a rule nisi and to modify physical custody of the children, which was assigned case number DR–07–500560.01. The father filed an answer and a counterclaim seeking, among other things, sole custody of the children; the counterclaim was assigned case number DR–07–500560.02. The father subsequently amended his counterclaim to also request, among other things, termination of his obligation to pay the children's private-school tuition. On July 30, 2013, the mother filed an amendment to her motion for a rule nisi, asserting that the father owed $5,000 for the children's private-school expenses for the 2012–2013 academic year and that “he [had] failed to pay registration for 2013–2014 academic year and the costs and tuition for said year.”
On November 6, 2014, the trial court scheduled a consolidated trial of both cases for April 20, 2015. At the outset of the trial, the following colloquy occurred:
“THE COURT: All right. In the matter of Jay Myers versus Joanna Myers, as I understand, the issue where Mr. Mims was the Guardian Ad Litem has been resolved and he has been relieved of any further duties.
“Y'all are both in agreement with that?
“[Counsel for the father]: That is correct. Yes, sir.
“[Counsel for the mother]: Yes, sir.
“THE COURT: That would be in the .01, that's the motion for Rule Nisi and Custody?
“[Counsel for the father]: Yes, sir.
“THE COURT: Defendant's—okay.
“So we have .02, which is, [counsel for the father], your client's counterclaim?
“[Counsel for the father]: Yes, sir. And we think that's moot now, too, as well.
“THE COURT: What do we have?
“[Counsel for the father]: The issue that we have is the amended motion to require [the father] to pay for the tuition at St. Luke's School.
“·
“THE COURT: All right. In the matter of Jay Myers versus Joanna Myers, we're now here on the [mother's] amended motion for Rule Nisi.”
Following the trial, at which the court heard the testimony of the mother, the father, and the children's paternal grandmother, the trial court entered a judgment on April 22, 2015, stating, in pertinent part:
“1. THAT [the mother's] Motion for a Rule Nisi, and Motion for Custody (.01) has been resolved hence no order is entered concerning same. [The father's] Counter–Claim (.02) is moot. The only pending issue is the [mother's] Amended Motion for Rule Nisi (.01).
“·
“3. THAT paragraph 3. of the Judgment of Divorce as agreed upon by the parties is hereby reaffirmed. The [father] shall be responsible for paying tuition of the minor children so long as they attend private school in Mobile County pending their graduation from the twelfth (12th) grade.