Williams v. Williams, [Ms. 2180981, Sept. 25, 2020], ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2020).
The court (Donaldson, J.; Edwards and Hanson, JJ., concur; Moore, J.,
concurs specially; Thompson, P.J., concurs in the result) reverses a Jefferson
Circuit Court judgment holding a former husband in civil contempt for
not paying retirement benefits to his former wife in conformance with
a judgment of divorce. The husband argued on appeal he could not be held
in civil contempt because the divorce judgment required only that the
retirement benefits be paid through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order
(“QDRO”), but the Retirement Systems of Alabama had refused
to honor the QDRO.
The court first explains the standard of review from a trial court’s
finding of civil contempt:
“We review the trial court’s finding of civil contempt under
the following well settled standard of review.
“‘The issue whether to hold a party in contempt is solely within
the discretion of the trial court, and a trial court’s contempt
determination will not be reversed on appeal absent a showing that the
trial court acted outside its discretion or that its judgment is not supported
by the evidence.
Brown v. Brown, 960 So. 2d 712, 716 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006) (affirming a trial court’s
decision not to hold a parent in contempt for failure to pay child support
when the parent testified that he had deducted from his monthly child-support
payment the amount he had expended to buy clothes for the children).’
“Poh v. Poh, 64 So. 3d 49, 61 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010).
“‘Rule 70A, Ala. R. Civ. P., has governed contempt proceedings
in civil actions since July 11, 1994. Rule 70A(a)(2)(D) defines “civil
contempt” as a “willful, continuing failure or refusal of
any person to comply with a court’s lawful writ, subpoena, process,
order, rule, or command that by its nature is still capable of being complied
with.’”
“Stamm v. Stamm, 922 So. 2d 920, 924 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004). Moreover, in order to hold
a party in contempt under Rule 70A(a)(2)(D), the trial court must find
that the party willfully failed or refused to comply with a court order. See
T.L.D. v. C.G., 849 So. 2d 200, 205 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002).”
Kreitzberg v. Kreitzberg, 131 So. 3d 612, 627-28 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013).
Ms. **9-10.
The court explains that “[b]ecause the divorce judgment did not order
the former husband not to accept his RSA retirement benefits if the RSA
refused to honor the QDRO, his acceptance of those benefits could not
constitute a violation of the divorce judgment and, therefore, could not
constitute a basis for holding him in contempt.” Accordingly, because
Rule 70A(a)(2)(D) requires that “the trial court must find that
the party willfully failed or refused to comply with a court order”
before there can be a finding of civil contempt, the trial court’s
judgment holding appellant in civil contempt is due to be reversed. Ms.
*11, quoting
Kreitzberg,
supra, 131 So. 3d at 628.