Moore v. Moore

575 So. 2d 95, 1990 WL 177718
CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama
DecidedNovember 14, 1990
DocketCiv. 7761
StatusPublished
Cited by31 cases

This text of 575 So. 2d 95 (Moore v. Moore) 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
Moore v. Moore, 575 So. 2d 95, 1990 WL 177718 (Ala. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinions

This case involves modification of child support pursuant to existing case law and Rule 32, Alabama Rules of Judicial Administration.

The parties were divorced in 1978, two child support modifications followed, and a third support modification petition was filed in February 1990. After ore tenus proceedings, the trial court found there had not been a sufficient change in circumstances shown and refused to modify the child support.

Barbara A. Moore (mother) appeals on the sole issue of whether the trial court erred in failing to fix child support in accordance with the child support guidelines.

The mother argues that the main question is whether the trial court was obligated to follow the child support guidelines regardless of a showing of changed circumstances.

Rule 32(A)(2)(i), A.R.J.A. provides:

"The provisions of any judgment respecting child support shall be modified . . . only upon a showing of a material change of circumstances that is substantial and continuing."

There appears to be no dispute on appeal that the mother failed to make a showing of a material change of circumstances that is substantial and continuing. Consequently, the trial court never reached the point of applying the child support guidelines. Having not reached that point, it was not incumbent upon the trial court to find, in its judgment, that the application of the guidelines would be manifestly unjust or inequitable. Therefore, we find no error.

Wendell R. Moore (father) requests that he be awarded an attorney's fee based on a frivolous appeal. We decline to award such a fee because the guidelines are new and subject to different interpretations. The mother also requests an attorney's fee in this appeal, which is also denied.

The judgment of the trial court is due to be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

INGRAM, P.J., concurs.

RUSSELL, J., dissents.

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

Related

Neal G. Whatley v. Allison H. Whatley
Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 2025
Allen v. Allen
966 So. 2d 929 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 2007)
Thompson v. Thompson
649 So. 2d 208 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1994)
Coleman v. Coleman
648 So. 2d 605 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1994)
Campbell v. Tolbert
656 So. 2d 828 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1994)
Stevens v. Stevens
641 So. 2d 825 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1994)
Gordy v. Glance
636 So. 2d 459 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1994)
Scott v. Stevens
636 So. 2d 444 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1994)
Guy v. Guy
630 So. 2d 465 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1993)
Cassick v. Morgan
628 So. 2d 862 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1993)
Sanders v. Gilliland
628 So. 2d 677 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1993)
Ashbee v. Cozart
611 So. 2d 1103 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1992)
McCormick v. McCormick
603 So. 2d 1110 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1992)
Dimoff v. Dimoff
606 So. 2d 159 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1992)
Briscoe v. Briscoe
600 So. 2d 290 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1992)
Pittman v. Pittman
598 So. 2d 993 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1992)
Cherry v. Clark
595 So. 2d 909 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1992)
Johnson v. Johnson
597 So. 2d 699 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1991)
Kellum v. Jones
591 So. 2d 891 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1991)
Miller v. Miller
587 So. 2d 374 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
575 So. 2d 95, 1990 WL 177718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-moore-alacivapp-1990.