Abdel-Ghany v. Peppers

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Abdel-Ghany v. Peppers

653 So. 2d 988, 1993 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 282, 1993 WL 195873

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama

DecidedJune 11, 1993

DocketAV92000185

StatusPublished

This text of 653 So. 2d 988 (Abdel-Ghany v. Peppers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abdel-Ghany v. Peppers, 653 So. 2d 988, 1993 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 282, 1993 WL 195873 (Ala. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

THIGPEN, Judge.

This child support case has been before this court previously. See Abdel-Ghany v. Peppers, 600 So.2d 1017 (Ala.Civ.App.1992). In August 1991, the circuit court determined that Mohamed Abdel-Ghany (father) was the natural father of a child bom to Mavis June Peppers (mother), and it ordered the father to pay $625.68 per month in child support and to maintain medical insurance on the child. This court reversed in part and remanded the cause for the trial court to recalculate its support order in accordance with Rule 32, Ala.R.Jud.Admin., or to make a finding why the guidelines were not applicable. On remand, the trial court determined that application of the guidelines prior to the date of the order would have been unjust and inappropriate under the circumstances; however, based on present income information, the trial court set the child support obligation at $535.61 per month based upon the guidelines. The father appeals.

Although the father attempts to raise several issues on appeal, his brief fails to pres-ént those issues clearly and unambiguously as required by Rule 28, A.R.App.P. Further, the argument does not address any issues in a coherent or intelligible manner and it fails to cite supporting authority. The only citation to authority in the appellant’s brief is a reference to Rule 32, Ala.R.Jud.Ad-min., which fails to advance his arguments. The only authority he cites in his reply brief is relied on for general propositions of law, not his contentions, and it appears to be obtained from the appellee’s brief. See Thomason v. Redd, 565 So.2d 259 (Ala.Civ.App.1990).

The appellant’s failure to comply with Rule 28, A.R.App.P., solicits affirmance of the trial court’s judgment. Harris v. Harris, 528 So.2d 866 (Ala.Civ.App.1988).

Moreover, it appears that the trial court’s order followed our instructions on remand and it is due to be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTSON, P.J., and YATES, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THIGPEN, Judge.

This child support case has been before this court previously. See Abdel-Ghany v. Peppers, 600 So.2d 1017 (Ala.Civ.App.1992). In August 1991, the circuit court determined that Mohamed Abdel-Ghany (father) was the natural father of a child bom to Mavis June Peppers (mother), and it ordered the father to pay $625.68 per month in child support and to maintain medical insurance on the child. This court reversed in part and remanded the cause for the trial court to recalculate its support order in accordance with Rule 32, Ala.R.Jud.Admin., or to make a finding why the guidelines were not applicable. On remand, the trial court determined that application of the guidelines prior to the date of the order would have been unjust and inappropriate under the circumstances; however, based on present income information, the trial court set the child support obligation at $535.61 per month based upon the guidelines. The father appeals.

Although the father attempts to raise several issues on appeal, his brief fails to pres-ént those issues clearly and unambiguously as required by Rule 28, A.R.App.P. Further, the argument does not address any issues in a coherent or intelligible manner and it fails to cite supporting authority. The only citation to authority in the appellant’s brief is a reference to Rule 32, Ala.R.Jud.Ad-min., which fails to advance his arguments. The only authority he cites in his reply brief is relied on for general propositions of law, not his contentions, and it appears to be obtained from the appellee’s brief. See Thomason v. Redd, 565 So.2d 259 (Ala.Civ.App.1990).

The appellant’s failure to comply with Rule 28, A.R.App.P., solicits affirmance of the trial court’s judgment. Harris v. Harris, 528 So.2d 866 (Ala.Civ.App.1988).

Moreover, it appears that the trial court’s order followed our instructions on remand and it is due to be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTSON, P.J., and YATES, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

653 So. 2d 988, 1993 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 282, 1993 WL 195873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abdel-ghany-v-peppers-alacivapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack