Nix v. Landers

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Nix v. Landers

480 So. 2d 1, 1985 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 1379

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama

DecidedOctober 30, 1985

DocketCiv. 4894

StatusPublished

This text of 480 So. 2d 1 (Nix v. Landers) 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

Nix v. Landers, 480 So. 2d 1, 1985 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 1379 (Ala. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

WRIGHT, Presiding Judge.

We have examined the issues presented by appellant in this case. There is no response by appellee. We find that the authority cited is dispositive of the issues. Therefore, we perceive no need for discussion of the facts.

There are three issues presented in this appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred when it recognized a Florida Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support decree as determining the amount of past due child support, instead of honoring the original divorce decree; (2) whether the trial court erred when it failed to assess interest as a part of the child support arrearage judgment issued by the court and, (3) whether the trial court erred when it quashed and stayed appellant’s garnishment proceedings as long as the appellee paid $150 per month toward his child support arrearage.

Issue Number One is supported by the authority of § 30-4-93(b), Code of Alabama 1975; Ex parte O’Neill, 420 So.2d 264 (Ala.1982); and Murphy v. Murphy, 395 So.2d 1047 (Ala.Civ.App.1981). Issue Number Two and Issue Number Three are supported by the authority of Osborne v. Osborne, 57 Ala.App. 204, 326 So.2d 766 (1976).

The judgment must be reversed because of error as charged.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

BRADLEY and HOLMES, JJ., concur.

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

WRIGHT, Presiding Judge.

We have examined the issues presented by appellant in this case. There is no response by appellee. We find that the authority cited is dispositive of the issues. Therefore, we perceive no need for discussion of the facts.

There are three issues presented in this appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred when it recognized a Florida Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support decree as determining the amount of past due child support, instead of honoring the original divorce decree; (2) whether the trial court erred when it failed to assess interest as a part of the child support arrearage judgment issued by the court and, (3) whether the trial court erred when it quashed and stayed appellant’s garnishment proceedings as long as the appellee paid $150 per month toward his child support arrearage.

Issue Number One is supported by the authority of § 30-4-93(b), Code of Alabama 1975; Ex parte O’Neill, 420 So.2d 264 (Ala.1982); and Murphy v. Murphy, 395 So.2d 1047 (Ala.Civ.App.1981). Issue Number Two and Issue Number Three are supported by the authority of Osborne v. Osborne, 57 Ala.App. 204, 326 So.2d 766 (1976).

The judgment must be reversed because of error as charged.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

BRADLEY and HOLMES, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

480 So. 2d 1, 1985 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 1379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nix-v-landers-alacivapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack