author: CRAWLEY, Presiding Judge.

text:
    STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Michael BROWN.
    2040367.
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    Dec. 9, 2005.

      Mark D. Hess of Haskell Slaughter Young & Rediker, L.L.C., Birmingham; and J. Curtis Wright of Dortch, Wright & Wright, Gadsden, for appellant.
    Michael L. Roberts of Cusimano, Keener, Roberts, Kimberley & Miles, P.C., Gadsden, for appellee.
   CRAWLEY, Presiding Judge.

Judy Brown was seriously injured in an automobile accident involving an automobile owned and driven by Waylon Gant. Gant was insured by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”). Judy Brown and her husband, Michael Brown, sued Gant, alleging that his negligence or wantonness in operating his automobile had resulted in physical injuries to Judy and had resulted in the loss of Judy’s services and companionship to Michael (i.e., Michael asserted a loss-of-consortium claim). Judy and Michael each sought damages in excess of $50,000. The Browns also sued State Farm directly, seeking a judgment declaring that State Farm’s insurance policy should be construed to provide $50,000 of coverage for Judy’s claims and an additional $50,000 of coverage for Michael’s claims. After a partial summary judgment was entered in favor of the Browns on their declaratory-judgment action on the coverage issue, State Farm appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Brown, 894 So.2d 643 (Ala.2004). The supreme court reversed the summary judgment in favor of the Browns on the ground that the Browns’ direct suit against State Farm was barred by the direct-action statute, Ala.Code 1975, § 27-23-2. The supreme court did not address State Farm’s alternative argument that the trial court had wrongly determined that Michael Brown was entitled to $50,000 in insurance coverage in addition to the $50,000 in insurance coverage for Judy’s claims.

After remand, the parties settled Judy’s claim and the trial court entered a $50,000 judgment against Gant and in favor of Michael on his loss-of-consortium claim. Michael then instituted a garnishment proceeding against State Farm, seeking to collect the $50,000 he insisted was due him under Gant’s policy. State Farm sought a judgment on the pleadings in the garnishment proceeding establishing that the policy language precluded a determination that Michael’s claim was covered under the policy; in response, Michael sought a judgment on the pleadings that the policy language provided coverage for his claim. The trial court entered a judgment on the pleadings in favor of Michael. State Farm appealed to this court, which transferred the appeal to our supreme court, which, in turn, transferred the case to this court pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 12-2-7(6).

“The applicable standard of review of a judgment on the pleadings was summarized by our Supreme Court in Universal Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Thompson, 776 So.2d 81, 82-83 (Ala.2000):
“ ‘A judgment on the pleadings is subject to a de novo review. Harden v. Ritter, 710 So.2d 1254, 1255 (Ala.Civ.App.1997). A court reviewing a judgment on the pleadings accepts the facts stated in the complaint as true and views them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. at 1255-56. If matters outside the pleadings are presented to and considered by the trial court, then the motion for a judgment on the pleadings must be treated as a motion for a summary judgment. See Rule 12(c), Ala. R. Civ. P. Otherwise, in deciding a motion for a judgment on the pleadings, the trial court is bound by the pleadings. See Stockman v. Echlin, Inc., 604 So.2d 393, 394 (Ala.1992).’ ”

Lary v. Flasch Bus. Consulting, 909 So.2d 194, 197 (Ala.Civ.App.2005).

The State Farm insurance policy defines “bodily injury” as “bodily injury to a person and sickness, disease or death which results from it.” In addition, the policy provides that State Farm will:

“1. pay damages which an insured becomes legally liable to pay because of:
“A. bodily injury to others.... ”

The policy limits liability to $50,000 for each person and $100,000 for each accident. The “Limits of Liability” section further provides:

“Under ‘Each Person’ is the amount of coverage for all damages due to bodily injury to one person. ‘Bodily injury to one person’ includes all injury and damages to others resulting from this bodily injury.”

The trial court based its decision that Michael’s loss-of-consortium claim was not included in the “each person” limit on Tate v. Allstate Insurance Co., 692 So.2d 822 (Ala.1997), and City of Lanett v. Tomlinson, 659 So.2d 68 (Ala.1995). State Farm argues that Weekley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 537 So.2d 477 (Ala.1989), and Tate, when read together, stand for the proposition that the definition of bodily injury contained in State Farm’s policy, unless changed to include such items as loss of services or other terms encompassing typical loss-of-consortium damages, does not encompass loss of consortium. In addition, State Farm argues that, contrary to Michael’s assertion otherwise, Tomlinson did make loss of consortium a “bodily injury” as a matter of law.

In Weekley, our supreme court considered the same question presented today— whether a husband’s claim alleging loss of consortium was subject to the per-person limit of liability for loss provided in the applicable insurance policy. Weekley, 537 So.2d at 479. The Weekley opinion failed to set out the applicable policy language in its discussion of the issue. However, the court did conclude that “the limits of liability for each person, arising out of the ‘bodily injury’ to one person, include claims for loss of consortium.” Id. at 480. The court noted that, in Alabama, a loss-of-consortium claim is separate from and derivative of the injured spouse’s claim. Id. at 479. Because the policy limits had been paid to the wife, the Weekley court concluded that no further recovery was due because the husband’s claim “arises out of the bodily injury to the [wife], and not out of a separate bodily injury to [the husband].” Id. at 480. Thus, application of Weekley alone should have yielded a judgment in favor of State Farm.

However, in 1995 the supreme court considered a similar case involving whether, under the statutory cap on damages recoveries against a governmental entity, Ala.Code 1975, § 11-93-2, a husband’s loss-of-consortium damages in the amount of $50,000 were recoverable against a city in light of his injured wife’s $100,000 damages award. Tomlinson, 659 So.2d at 71. The statute provided:

“The recovery of damages under any judgment against a governmental entity shall be limited to $100,000 for bodily injury or death for one person in any single occurrence. Recovery of damages under any judgment or judgments against a governmental entity shall be limited to $300,000 in the aggregate where more than tiuo persons have claims or judgments on account of bodily injury or death arising out of any single occurrence.”

§ 11-93-2. The court went on to explain the meaning of the statute, pointing out that the clear import of the statute was that a single person’s recovery against a governmental entity was limited to $100,000 per single occurrence, two persons’ recoveries would be limited to $200,000, and three or more persons’ recoveries would be limited to $300,000. Id. at 71-72. The court explained that a “claim” under the statute was defined as a “ ‘claim ... for money damages only, which any person is legally entitled to recover as damages caused by bodily injury ....’” Id. at 72 (emphasis added). Thus, the court concluded that the husband’s loss-of-consortium damages and the wife’s physical-injury damages both arose from the wife’s bodily injury and that each spouse had a claim upon which they could each recover as much as $100,000 against the city. Id.

In 1997, the supreme court again considered whether a husband’s loss-of-consortium claim was subject to the per-person liability limit imposed upon his wife’s bodily injury claim or whether his loss of consortium was itself a bodily injury to him and therefore not subject to the per-person liability limit imposed upon his wife’s claim. Tate, 692 So.2d at 824. The Allstate policy language at issue in Tate differed in one marked respect from the language in the State Farm policy at issue here; the Allstate policy defined “bodily injury” as “ ‘bodily injury, sickness, disease or death to any person, including loss of services.’” Id. (some emphasis omitted). After noting that the “language in an insurance policy should be construed in accordance with its ordinary meaning” and that “where a policy specifically assigns to a term or phrase a meaning that goes against what is customary, the Court must not rewrite the policy,” id. at 824, the Tate court concluded that, under the policy’s own definition of “bodily injury,” the husband’s claimed loss of consortium was a bodily injury and the husband was subject to his own and not his wife’s per-person limitation of liability. Id. at 824-25.

Michael convincingly argued to the trial .court that both Tomlinson and Tate effectively changed Alabama law to make a loss-of-consortium claim a bodily injury claim in all circumstances. State Farm vehemently disagreed, noting first that Tomlinson did not involve an insurance contract and that Tate actually appeared to limit its holding to “where, as in this case, an insurance policy specifically defines ‘bodily injury’ to include ‘loss of services.’ ” Tate, 692 So.2d at 825.

Careful consideration of the above discussed cases compels the conclusion that the trial court erred in determining that Tomlinson and Tate dictated a judgment in Michael’s favor requiring State Farm to provide coverage for his claim. For example, reading Tate and Weekley together, as State Farm contends, leads to a conclusion that, in general, bodily injury is not thought to include claims for loss of services or loss of consortium, unless, as was the case in Tate, a definition in an insurance policy specifically includes those claims within its “bodily injury” definition. Additionally, a fair reading of Tomlinson indicates that the holding in that case is not, as Michael argues, that a loss-of-consortium claim is a claim for bodily injury, but instead that (1) § 11-93-2 limits the amount a claimant against a governmental entity may recover as damages caused by bodily injury from a single occurrence to $100,000, and (2) that the husband’s damages and the wife’s damages, which both arose from the wife’s bodily injury, were recoverable provided each person’s recovery did not exceed $100,000. Tomlinson, 659 So.2d at 72.

We now turn to the language of the insurance policy in this case to determine whether, as State Farm contends, Michael’s loss-of-consortium claim is subject to the “each person” limitation applied to his wife’s claim or whether, as Michael urges, he is entitled to his own limitation because his loss of consortium is a bodily injury in and of itself. As noted above, “bodily injury” is defined in the policy as “bodily injury to a person and sickness, disease or death which results from it.” Unlike the definition in the policy at issue in Tate, the definition here does not include loss of services or any like term that would make Michael’s loss of consortium a bodily injury. As the court noted in Tate, “language in an insurance policy should be construed in accordance with its ordinary meaning.” Tate, 692 So.2d at 824. “Bodily” is defined as “of or relating to the body.” Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 138 (11th ed.2003). The term “bodily injury” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as “[pjhysical damage to a person’s body.” Black’s Law Dictionary 801 (8th ed.2004). Thus, it appears that the ordinary meaning of the term “bodily injury” would not normally encompass injuries like loss of consortium. In light of the provision in the “Limits of Liability” section indicating that “ ‘[bjodily injury to one person’ includes all injury and damages to others resulting from this bodily injury,” the only reasonable construction of the policy is that all claims arising from the bodily injury suffered by one person, including claims of others arising from that same injury like Michael’s loss-of-consortium claim, are all included in the limit for that one person’s injury.

Michael also argues that loss of consortium must be considered a bodily injury because otherwise State Farm’s positions are inconsistent. Michael bases his argument on the policy language stating that State Farm will pay damages for “bodily injury to others” and State Farm’s admission that it does pay loss-of-consortium claims. Thus, according to Michael, State Farm must be considering loss of consortium as a bodily injury or it would not be paying the claims at all. However, because the policy includes derivative claims arising out of the bodily injury to one person as part of that one person’s bodily injury, State Farm would compensate that person’s spouse for his or her loss-of-consortium claim, provided that the total damages arising from that one person’s injury did not exceed the limits of liability under the policy. Michael’s argument is, therefore, unavailing.

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment in favor of Michael and render a judgment in favor of State Farm.

REVERSED AND JUDGMENT RENDERED.

THOMPSON, PITTMAN, and BRYAN, JJ., concur.

MURDOCK, J., concurs in the result, without writing.

      . Although the husband in Weekley sought coverage under the uninsured-motorist provisions of his own insurance policy and not the policy of the tortfeasor as Michael does in the present case, the principles underlying the court's conclusions are the same.

      . Our conclusions are supported by cases from other jurisdictions construing similar or identical policy language. See, e.g., State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Wolff, 926 F.2d 755 (8th Cir.1991) (holding, under the same policy language as that found in the present case, that a husband's injury — loss of consortium — results from the wife’s injury and that it is therefore compensable only under the "each person” limitation of liability applicable to the wife’s claim); Hauser v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 205 Cal.App.3d 843, 252 Cal.Rptr. 569 (1988) (holding that the policy language " ‘ "[bjodily injury to one person " includes all injury and damages to others resulting from this bodily injury,' ” 205 Cal. App.3d at 845, 252 Cal.Rptr. at 570, served to make a wife's loss-of-consortium claim com-pensable under the limit applicable to her husband’s claim); and State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Descheemaeker, 178 Mich.App. 729, 444 N.W.2d 153 (1989) (stating that the definition of bodily injury contained in the policy, which is exactly the same as the definition contained in the policy at issue in the present case, was unambiguous and contemplates " ‘actual physical harm or damage to a human body,’ ” 178 Mich.App. at 732, 444 N.W.2d at 154, and holding that the definition of the " ’each person’ ” limits of liability as " 'the amount of coverage for all damages due to bodily injury to one person,’ " 178 Mich. App. at 733, 444 N.W.2d at 155, "plainly subjects all damages, including any covered derivative damages, arising out of the physical/bodily injury to the person involved in the accident, to [the stated policy] limitation,” 178 Mich.App. at 734, 444 N.W.2d at 155).


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: MURDOCK, Judge.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Phillip R. BARTLETT, a/k/a Phil Bartlett v. UNISTAR LEASING.
    2031080.
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    Dec. 16, 2005.

      J. Paul Whitehurst, Northport, for appellant.
    Donald D. Knowlton of Najjar Dena-burg, Birmingham, for appellee.
   On Application for Rehearing

MURDOCK, Judge.

This court’s no-opinion affirmance of June 24, 2005, is withdrawn, and the following Opinion is substituted therefor.

Phillip R. Bartlett appeals from a judgment domesticating a judgment entered in favor of Unistar Leasing (“Unistar”) by the Supreme Court, Onandaga County, New York. The New York judgment was domesticated as an Alabama judgment on March 26, 2004, in the Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, Ala.Code 1975, §§ 6-9-230 to -238 (“the UEFJA” or “the Act”).

The following facts are pertinent to this appeal. In August 2003, Unistar filed a complaint in Onandaga County, New York, against Bartlett, who it alleged was doing business as Bart Mart and had offices in Northport, Alabama. In its complaint, Unistar asserted that Bartlett breached an agreement by which Bartlett had leased certain equipment from Unistar. Bartlett did not appear in the action, and the New York court entered a default judgment against him in the amount of $17,433.02.

On March 26, 2004, Unistar, pursuant to the UEFJA, domesticated its judgment in the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court. Among other things, as required by the Act, a “Notice of Filing Foreign Judgment” was sent to Bartlett. In addition, Unistar served on Bartlett a “Notice of Filing Affidavit Under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act,” along with an attached affidavit from Unistar’s attorney, as required by the Act.

On April 20, Bartlett filed a “Motion to Vacate Judgment and Motion for Stay” in which he sought an order from the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court vacating the domesticated judgment on the ground that it was void for lack of personal jurisdiction and staying any collection action by Unistar against him. Bartlett’s motion stated that it was filed pursuant to both Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b)(4), Ala. R. Civ. P. On May 27, Unistar responded to Bartlett’s motion by asserting that the New York court had personal jurisdiction over Bartlett and that, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 6-9-234, Bartlett was required to post security for satisfaction of the judgment to be entitled to a stay of the action.

On June 29, after oral argument on Bartlett’s motion, the circuit court entered an order that read:

“This case was argued on defendant’s motion for a stay of judgment. There are disputed facts in this case. Assuming the facts most favorable to the defendant, that the documents upon which the Plaintiff claims jurisdiction are forged, then the New York court would not have jurisdiction over the defendant. The defendant’s motion to stay is granted conditional upon defendant posting the security required by Code of Alabama 6-9-234 pending a final hearing.”

(Emphasis added.)

On July 19, that portion of Bartlett’s April 20 motion seeking a vacation of the March 26 domesticated judgment under Rule 59 was denied by operation of law pursuant to Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P.

Bartlett filed a second motion on July 29, which read, in pertinent part:

“The order dated June 29, 2004 is not clear in that it does not specifically say that the judgment from the court in New York filed in this case was vacated. It appears to grant the motion to vacate the judgment because it says the undisputed facts showed that the documents made the basis of the New York judgment were forged and that the New York court would not have had personal jurisdiction over the Defendant. It also grants the motion for the bond.
“The parties need an order more clearly establishing that the judgment from the New York court is vacated.”

The case action summary indicates that the circuit court set this motion for hearing on September 16.

On August 27, Bartlett filed his notice of appeal from the “Foreign Judgment filed 3/26/04.”

Bartlett argues that the circuit court’s denial of his Rule 59(e) motion was in error. Specifically, Bartlett contends that this court should find, based merely on an affidavit that he submitted in support of his April 20 motion (averring that his signature was forged on a contract that included a clause subjecting him to jurisdiction in New York courts), that the New York court did not have personal jurisdiction over him and that its judgment is therefore void and unenforceable in this State.

Enacted in 1986, the UEFJA “provides a mechanism for the domestication of a ‘foreign judgment’ through its filing in the office of any circuit-court clerk in Alabama.” Menendez v. COLSA, Inc., 852 So.2d 768, 771 (Ala.Civ.App.2002) (citing Ala.Code 1975, § 6-9-232). A “foreign judgment” is defined in the Act as “any judgment, decree, or order of a court of the United States or of any other court which is entitled to full faith and credit in this state.” Ala.Code 1975, § 6-9-231. The United States Constitution provides that “[dull Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the ... judicial Proceedings of every other State.” U.S. Const. Art. IV, § 1.

This court has previously written about the limited review to which our courts can subject foreign judgments once they have been domesticated. In McGouryk v. McGouryk, 672 So.2d 1300, 1302 (Ala.Civ.App.1995), we wrote:

“Before enforcing a foreign judgment, Alabama courts may inquire into the jurisdiction of the foreign court. ‘The scope of the inquiry is limited to “(1) whether the issue of jurisdiction was fully and fairly litigated by the foreign court, and (2) whether the issue of jurisdiction was finally decided by the foreign court.” ’ ”

McGouryk, 672 So.2d at 1302 (quoting Feore v. Feore, 627 So.2d 411, 413 (Ala.Civ.App.1993), quoting in turn Alston Elec. Supply Co. v. Alabama Elec. Wholesalers, Inc., 586 So.2d 10, 11 (Ala.Civ.App.1991)). “The burden is on a party challenging the validity of the foreign judgment to assert and demonstrate the rendering court’s lack of jurisdiction.” Menendez, 852 So.2d at 771 (citing Greene v. Connelly, 628 So.2d 346, 351 (Ala.1993)).

Section 6-9-232, Ala.Code 1975, provides that a foreign judgment filed with a circuit clerk “has the same effect and is subject to the same procedures, defenses and proceedings for reopening, vacating, or staying as a judgment of a circuit court of this state.... ” The language of that statute would seem at first glance to make a Rule 59(e) motion to vacate available as a vehicle for relief from a domesticated foreign judgment. To allow the use of a Rule 59(e) motion to attack the jurisdiction of a court rendering a prior judgment would be problematic, however, because Rule 59(e) motions have as their object the record before the court. As in this case, the Alabama court typically does not have the record from the foreign court. Further, the basis for challenging the validity of the foreign judgment in this case rests not on anything in the record on which that judgment is based, but on evidence collateral to that record and which was never presented to the foreign court, i.e., Bartlett’s affidavit and any evidence that might be presented at the “final hearing” that was still “pending” at the time Bartlett filed his appeal.

The problematic nature of applying Rule 59(e) in cases such as this correlates with our Supreme Court’s recognition that a Rule 60(b) motion is the appropriate method by which to challenge the validity of the underlying foreign judgment. See Ex parte Lyon Fin. Servs., Inc., 775 So.2d 181, 183 (Ala.2000). In Lyon, a judgment debtor sought relief from a domesticated foreign judgment pending litigation of its claim against the judgment creditor. Id. at 182. The Court wrote: “[W]e have recognized that filing a Rule 60(b) motion is the proper procedure for challenging the validity of a foreign judgment that has been domesticated in Alabama.” Id. at 183 (citing Greene v. Connelly, 628 So.2d at 350-51).

This is not a case in which the judgment debtor, in reliance on section 6-9-232, argues that rule 59(e) is an appropriate vehi-ele for relief from a domesticated judgment because the domestication process in the Alabama court was, itself, flawed. Rather, as in Lyon, the attack here is on the validity of the underlying judgment. We conclude that the circuit court’s denial of relief under Rule 59(e) from the March 26, 2004, domesticated judgment is due to be affirmed.

Insofar as the record before us is concerned, the circuit court has not yet even held the contemplated evidentiary hearing on Bartlett’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion. If and when the circuit court enters a judgment on that motion, that judgment will be a separate, appealable order. See Littlefield v. Cupps, 371 So.2d 51, 52 (Ala.Civ.App.1979). If that motion is denied, Bartlett may then appeal that judgment to this court.

APPLICATION OVERRULED; NO-OPINION AFFIRMANCE OF JUNE 24, 2005, WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; AFFIRMED.

CRAWLEY, P.J., and THOMPSON and PITTMAN, JJ., concur.

BRYAN, J., concurs in the result, without writing.

      . This court is at a loss to understand the statements contained in Bartlett’s motion, which are plainly contrary to the trial court's June 29 order. We also note that this second motion effectively constituted a motion by Bartlett for the circuit court to "reconsider” the limited response by the circuit court on June 29 to Bartlett’s Rule 59(e)/Rule 60(b)(4) motion, and therefore did not extend the time to appeal the March 26 domestication of the New York judgment and Bartlett's failed effort through the use of a Rule 59(e) motion to prevent that judgment from becoming a final, domesticated, Alabama judgment.

      . Given the limited bases upon which a party may mount a challenge to a domesticated foreign judgment, it is not surprising that the Supreme Court would determine that Rule 60(b) is the appropriate mechanism for bringing such challenges. See, e.g., Ex parte R.S.C., 853 So.2d 228, 233 (Ala.Civ.App.2002) (deeming postjudgment motion attacking jurisdiction of court to arise under Rule 60(b)); Maxwell v. State, 656 So.2d 882, 884 (Ala.Civ.App.1995) ("Rule 60(b)(4) relief is applicable in cases where the court that entered the prior judgment ... lacked personal jurisdiction over one or more of the parties .... ”); and Sumter County v. Ezell, 496 So.2d 59, 61 (Ala.Civ.App.1986) (motion attacking jurisdiction of rendering court is properly filed pursuant to Rule 60(b)). Bartlett’s attempted use of an affidavit to establish his lack-of-personal-jurisdiction claim and the contemplated hearing yet to be held by the trial court are, of course, consistent with the collateral nature of the challenge to the jurisdictional basis of the judgment contemplated by Rule 60(b)(4).
      This court is aware that in Menendez v. COLSA, Inc., 852 So.2d 768, 770 (Ala.Civ.App.2002), the defendant sought to challenge the enforcement of a foreign judgment through the filing of a motion to dismiss the enforcement action that the plaintiff, a foreign creditor, had filed against the defendant, rather than through a Rule 60(b) collateral attack on the foreign court's jurisdiction. Menendez, 852 So.2d at 770. On appeal from the trial court’s entry of a summary judgment in favor of the defendant, we did not address the issue of the proper procedural mechanism by which to attack a foreign judgment in that case; it does not appear that either party raised the issue. See Alabama Dep’t of Envtl. Mgmt. v. Town of Lowndesboro, [Ms. 2020385, April 8, 2005] — So.2d -, - (Ala.Civ.App.2005) (" 'For a case to be stare decisis on a particular point of law, that issue must have been raised in the action, decided by the court, and its decision made part of the opinion of the case; accordingly, a case is not binding precedent on a point of law where the holding is only implicit or assumed in the decision but is not announced.’ " (quoting 20 Am.Jur.2d Courts § 153 (1995))).


text:
    Robert G. PEDEN v. Hazel (Penny) Dunn PEDEN.
    2040233.
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    Dec. 16, 2005.

      Lindsey Mussleman Davis of Holt, Mus-sleman, Holt & Morgan, Florence, for appellant.
    Rodney B. Slusher, Florence, for appel-lee.
   CRAWLEY, Presiding Judge.

Robert G. Peden (“the husband”) and Hazel (Penny) Dunn Peden (“the wife”) were married in September 1995. Before the marriage, the parties executed an antenuptial agreement. According to the parties’ handwritten financial statements appended to that agreement, the wife’s net worth was approximately $10 million. The parties separated in June 2003. The husband sued for a divorce; he later amended his complaint to add a ■ slander claim against the wife. The wife moved for a summary judgment on most of the issues raised in the divorce proceeding, arguing that they were governed by the parties’ antenuptial agreement. The husband responded to the wife’s motion by arguing that the agreement was ambiguous in certain respects; that, under the terms of the agreement as he read them, certain property was not solely the wife’s; and that he was entitled to a constructive trust in the wife’s personal property because it had been paid for with his separate property (i.e., his income). The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of the wife, holding that the antenuptial agreement controlled the disposition of the parties’ assets. After a short trial primarily concerning whether the husband should be responsible for the payment of two promissory notes he allegedly executed in favor of the wife, the trial court entered a judgment divorcing the parties, incorporating the terms of the antenuptial agreement, awarding the wife all the assets in her name, and requiring the husband to pay “any debts contracted by him.” The trial court also ordered a separate trial on the husband’s slander claim. Subsequently, the trial court entered an order making the divorce judgment final pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. The husband appeals.

The wife testified in her deposition and at trial that the husband had executed promissory notes in her favor in the amount of $110,000 and $83,000; the amount of $183,000 owed to the wife by the husband was referenced on the wife’s financial statement appended to the ante-nuptial agreement. The husband contested his liability for the $88,000 promissory note, stating that he and the wife had agreed when the note was executed that it would be null and void upon their marriage or upon the sale of the house that secured the note, both of which events had occurred. The husband also disputed having ever borrowed either $100,000 or $110,000 from the wife. The $110,000 promissory note entered into evidence is not signed by the husband.

The trial court’s judgment requires the husband to be responsible for “any debts contracted by him.” Although this provision could be read to require the husband to be responsible for the $83,000 promissory note executed by him, it cannot be read to require payment of the $110,000 note; the copy of the note that was entered into evidence was not signed by the husband and the husband disputed that he ever executed the note. The trial court’s judgment begs — and therefore does not resolve — the question whether the husband ever contracted for the alleged $110,000 debt.

An appeal ordinarily lies only from the entry of a final judgment. Ala. Code 1975, § 12-22-2; Bean v. Craig, 557 So.2d 1249, 1253 (Ala.1990). A judgment is generally not final unless all claims, or the rights or liabilities of all parties, have been decided. Ex parte Harris, 506 So.2d 1003, 1004 (Ala.Civ.App.1987). The only exception to this rule of finality is when the trial court directs the entry of a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. Bean, 557 So.2d at 1253.

Although the trial court entered an order certifying its judgment as final pursuant to Rule 54(b), the existence of that order does not alone resolve our finality problem. As our supreme court has stated, “Rule 54(b) does not authorize the entry of final judgment on part of a single claim.” Precision American Corp. v. Leasing Serv. Corp., 505 So.2d 380, 381 (Ala.1987). The Precision American court relied on the Committee Comments to Rule 54, which read:

“The rule provides that, in the absence of affirmative action by the judge, no decision is final until the entire case has been adjudicated. The one exception is that where the court has completely disposed of one of a number of claims, or one of multiple parties, and has made an express determination that there is no just reason for delay, the court may direct the entry of judgment on that claim or as to that party.”

Rule 54, Committee Comments on 1973 Adoption.

The husband sued the wife for a divorce. When resolving the husband’s claim for a divorce and his request that the marital assets be divided, the trial court was required to divide both the assets and the liabilities of the parties. The assignment of the debts of the parties is an aspect of the division of the parties’ property. The trial court has not resolved the division of the parties’ debts; therefore, it has not fully resolved the division of the parties’ property. Accordingly, because the divorce judgment does not resolve all issues or determine the rights and liabilities of the parties and because the Rule 54(b) certification of the divorce judgment is inappropriate, the judgment is not final and will not support an appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

THOMPSON, PITTMAN, and BRYAN, JJ., concur.

MURDOCK, J., concurs in the result, without writing.

      . We note the $10,000 discrepancy; however, it is not relevant to the disposition of the appeal at this time.


text:
    C.K. v. J.M.S. J.M.S. v. C.K.
    2040206.
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    Dec. 16, 2005.

      Richard E. Shields of Shields, Ratliff, Green & Kern, P.C., Mobile, for appellant/eross-appellee C.K.

      David P. Broome, Mobile, for appel-lee/cross-appellant J.M.S.
   MURDOCK, Judge.

C.K. appeals from a judgment of the Mobile Juvenile Court modifying his child-support obligation; J.M.S. cross-appeals from that order. Because we find that the juvenile court applied the incorrect law in resolving some of the issues that the parties presented to it, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

On January 5, 1986, P.T.S. was born to J.M.S. On May 6, 1987, the Chancery Court for the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi, entered a judgment establishing that C.K. is P.T.S.’s father (“the 1987 judgment”). The 1987 judgment incorporated an agreement between the parties requiring, among other things, that C.K.: (1) pay $250 per month for P.T.S.’s support; (2) maintain health insurance for P.T.S.; and (3) pay one-half of P.T.S.’s uncovered medical expenses. Consistent with Mississippi law, those obligations would continue until P.T.S. reached the age of 21 years, was married, or was otherwise emancipated.

Subsequent to the entry of the 1987 judgment, J.M.S. and P.T.S. moved to Louisiana, where they presently reside. At the time of the 1987 judgment, C.K. was a resident of Alabama, where he continues to reside.

In 1999, J.M.S. indicated to C.K. that the amount of child support he had been ordered to pay was insufficient to support P.T.S. After the parties exchanged tax returns and further correspondence, C.K. wrote to J.M.S. and indicated that he could pay her $750 per month as child support. C.K. began making payments in that amount in June 1999.

In January 2002, C.K. reduced his monthly child-support payments to $600 on the asserted basis that he was experiencing financial problems. He further reduced his child-support payments to $500 per month in June 2003.

P.T.S. applied to and was accepted by Tulane University to begin as a freshman in the fall of 2004. The annual cost of tuition, room, and board at Tulane was $40,735. After ' deducting from that amount the scholarships and other financial assistance that P.T.S. received, there remained an uncovered annual cost of attendance at Tulane of approximately $17,100.

On December 8, 2003, J.M.S. filed a “Motion to Modify and for Rule Nisi” against C.K. in the Mobile Juvenile Court in which she sought to have the 1987 judgment modified by increasing the amount of C.K.’s child-support obligation. She also sought to have the court order C.K. to pay $178.59 in medical costs that he allegedly owed pursuant to the terms of the 1987 judgment.

On April 6, 2004, J.M.S. filed an “Amended Motion for Modification and for Rule Nisi,” in which she alleged that she and C.K. had entered into an agreement in 1999 to increase his child-support obligation to $750 per month. She claimed that C.K. was in arrears in his child-support payments in the amount of $7,550, and she sought an increase of C.K.’s child-support obligation on the basis that C.K.’s $750 monthly payment was insufficient to support P.T.S. She also alleged that C.K. had failed to pay certain medical bills and to forward insurer reimbursements to her as required under the 1987 judgment.

On April 25, 2004, the Mobile Juvenile Court entered an order registering the 1987 judgment in that court. Thereafter, in June 2004, C.K. filed an amended answer and a counterclaim in which he denied the pertinent allegations of J.M.S.’s motion to modify and sought a modification of the 1987 judgment whereby his child-support obligation would end when P.T.S. reached 19 years of age, as provided by Alabama law, rather than when he reached 21 years of age as provided in the 1987 judgment and by Mississippi law.

The juvenile court held a hearing on the matter on August 12, 2004, at which J.M.S. and C.K. testified. On October 18, 2004, the court entered a judgment disposing of the parties’ claims. In pertinent part, the court’s judgment provided:

“The Court makes the following conclusions of law:
“1. The Court determines that Mississippi law controls the duration and determination of the amount of child support, and therefore the Court concludes that child support shall be payable by the father to the mother until the child reaches the age of twenty-one (21), with no further post-minority support.
“2. The Court concludes that no pri- or modification of the terms of the previous order was affected by law, contract, or other conduct of the parties such that the current existing order remains $250.00 per month payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.
“3. The Court rejects the contention of the Plaintiff that a contract was established by the communications and letters of the parties and the conduct of the Defendant, in paying monies over and above $250.00 per month. The Court further finds that the Defendant is due no credit for any of said overpayments previously made.
“The Court further concludes the following facts:
“1. The Court finds the child’s anticipated college expense beginning with the 2004-2005 academic year to be $40,785.00 to attend Tulane University.
“2. The Court finds that the child has received financial assistance in the amount of $23,635.00, yearly.
“3. The Court finds that pursuant to the terms of the previous order, from the Chancery Court of Mississippi, the Defendant is obligated to provide medical insurance for the benefit of the minor child, and pay a portion of any uncovered charges. The Court further finds that the Defendant maintains medical insurance for the benefit of the child.
“5. The Court finds an unmet financial need for the child’s college expenses of approximately $17,100.00 per year, and finds that the parties are similarly situated, economically, and able to share said expense equally....
“It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED by the court that the Petition to Modify Child Support filed by the Plaintiff is hereby GRANTED, and the Court does ORDER that child support payable to the Plaintiff by the Defendant is hereby set at $712.50 per month beginning August of 2004. The Court ORDERS the Defendant to begin making $712.50 per month payments in the month of November 2004, and the Court awards a judgment to the Plaintiff in the amount of $1,387.50, against the Defendant, said judgment to be paid within ninety (90) days of this date.
“The Court awards a judgment for unpaid medical expenses, due pursuant to the previous order, in the amount of $319.53 in favor of the Plaintiff against the Defendant. Said sum is ORDERED to be paid within one hundred and twenty (120) days.
“The Court does ORDER that child support will terminate upon the attainment of age twenty-one (21), by the child, as will the duty to provide medical insurance.”

The court amended its judgment on October 28, 2004, to include a provision requiring that child-support payments be made through the court.

On October 29, 2004, C.K. filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment in which he asserted, among other things, that the court’s decision to apply Mississippi law in determining the amount and duration of child support was erroneous. The court denied that motion on November 18, 2004.

C.K. filed his notice of appeal to this court on November 29, 2004. J.M.S. filed her notice of cross-appeal on December 13, 2004.

C.K. contends that the juvenile court erred when it concluded that Mississippi law was determinative of the duration and amount of child support he was obligated to provide for P.T.S. Citing Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3A-303(2), he points out that Alabama’s version of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, Ala.Code 1975, §§ 30-3A-101 to -906 (“UIFSA”), provides that courts of this state are required to apply Alabama law when determining “the duty of support and the amount payable ....” He further points out that, when a foreign child-support order is registered in this state, the modification of that order “is subject to the same requirements, procedures, and defenses that apply to the modification of an order issued by a court of this state-” Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3A-611(b). C.K. concludes that, because the juvenile court should have applied Alabama law in determining the duration and amount of child support that would be due from him, the juvenile court erred when it refused to hold that C.K.’s child-support obligation would terminate when P.T.S. reached 19 years of age.

J.M.S. responds that the juvenile court correctly determined that it should apply Mississippi law when determining whether and to what extent it should modify the 1987 judgment. As to whether Mississippi law was applicable to the modification of the duration of child support, J.M.S. points out that Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3A-611(c), prohibits a court of this state that has registered a foreign support order from modifying any aspect of that order that is unmodifiable under the law of the state in which the court that issued the order is located. J.M.S. also argues that the juvenile court was correct to apply Mississippi law with regard to the amount of support because Alabama does not recognize child support after age 19, and, because P.T.S. is entitled to support under Mississippi law until he turns 21, “there is no law to apply [in determining the amount of child support] other than that of Mississippi.”

Alabama Code 1975, § 30-3A-611(b) and (c), read in pertinent part:

“(b) Modification of a registered child-support order is subject to the same requirements, procedures, and defenses that apply to the modification of an order issued by a court of this state and the order may be enforced and satisfied in the same manner.
“(c) A court of this state may not modify any aspect of a child-support order that may not be modified under the law of the issuing state.”

With regard to those subsections, the Official Comment states:

“Subsection (b) states that if the forum has modification jurisdiction because the issuing state has lost continuing, exclusive jurisdiction, the proceedings will generally follow local law with regard to modification of child support orders. However, Subsection (c) prevents the modification of any final, nonmodifiable aspect of the original order. For example, if child support was ordered through age 21 in accordance with the law of the issuing state and the law of the forum state ends the support obligation at 18, modification by the forum tribunal may not affect the duration of the support order to age 21.”

(Emphasis added.)

The appellate courts of this state have not addressed the issue of the modification of the duration of a foreign child-support order under UIFSA. However, numerous courts in other jurisdictions have faced this issue and have held, consistent with the above-quoted Official Comment, that if the law of the state in which a child-support order was originally issued provides that child support shall continue until the child is a particular age, a court of a different state that has registered the order for the purpose of modifying it cannot alter the duration of child support provided in the original child-support order. See, e.g., In re Marriage of Doetzl, 31 Kan.App.2d 331, 336-37, 65 P.3d 539, 543 (2003); Kerr v. Kerr, 100 S.W.3d 912, 914-15 (Mo.Ct.App.2003); Holbrook v. Cummings, 132 Md.App. 60, 67-69, 750 A.2d 724, 728-29 (2000); In re Marriage of Cooney, 150 Or.App. 323, 327-28, 946 P.2d 305, 306-07 (1997).

In support of his view that Alabama law should control the duration of his child-support obligation, C.K. cites this court’s decisions in Finney v. Eagly, 568 So.2d 816 (Ala.Civ.App.1990), and State ex rel. Taylor v. Nelson, 535 So.2d 178 (Ala.Civ. App.1988). In Taylor, this court was confronted with a petitioner’s attempt to modify a divorce judgment rendered by an Alabama court, not a foreign court. Consequently, this court’s holding that Alabama law controlled the duration of the child-support obligation does not provide support for C.K’s position in the present case. Finney likewise fails to provide support for C.K.’s position because that decision was rendered before Alabama’s adoption of UIFSA and, particularly, its pronouncement, buttressed by the Official Comment quoted earlier in this opinion, that the courts of this state are without jurisdiction to modify those portions of a foreign support order that are not modifiable under the law of the state in which the order was issued.

Based on the foregoing, this court must determine whether the duration of C.K.’s child-support obligation contained in the 1987 judgment is subject to modification under Mississippi law. Section 93-11-65(8), Miss.Code Ann., provides, in pertinent part:

“The duty of support of a child terminates upon the emancipation of the child. The court may determine that emancipation has occurred and no other support obligation exists when the child:
“(a) Attains the age of twenty-one (21) years, or
“(b) Marries, or
“(c) Discontinues full-time enrollment in school and obtains full-time employment prior to attaining the age of twenty-one (21) years, or
“(d) Voluntarily moves from the home of the custodial parent or guardian and establishes independent living arrangements and obtains full-time employment prior to attaining the age of twenty-one (21) years.”

Thus, under Mississippi law, a child is entitled to support until he or she is emancipated, as defined by the above-quoted statute. See Caldwell v. Caldwell, 823 So.2d 1216, 1220 (Miss.Ct.App.2002) (quoting Crow v. Crow, 622 So.2d 1226, 1229 (Miss.1993)). See also Lawrence v. Lawrence, 574 So.2d 1376, 1381 (Miss.1991) (holding that parents cannot, by agreement, terminate child support for a child before the child’s emancipation and that any such agreement, even if adopted in a divorce judgment, would be void and unenforceable).

Based on the facts of this case, P.T.S. has not been emancipated. Consequently, under Mississippi law and the 1987 judgment, C.K. must continue to provide child support for P.T.S. until P.T.S. reaches the age of 21 years or is otherwise emancipated. This period is not subject to modification under Mississippi law, and, therefore, the courts of this state cannot modify it. See Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3A-611(c). Therefore, the juvenile court did not err when it held that Mississippi law governed the extent to which the duration of C.K’s child-support obligation was amenable to modification, and we affirm the juvenile court’s judgment in that regard.

Although the juvenile court correctly held that Mississippi law defines the duration of C.K.’s child-support obligation, it was incorrect when it determined that Mississippi law controlled its modification of the amount of child support awarded under the 1987 judgment. Unlike the duration for which child support must be awarded under Mississippi law, the amount of child support awarded by a court pursuant to Mississippi law is subject to modification. See Caldwell v. Caldwell, 579 So.2d 543, 547 (Miss.Ct.App.1991). Thus, Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3A-611(c), does not apply, and, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3A-611(b), the juvenile court should have applied the same “requirements, procedures, and defenses” applicable to modifications of child-support orders issued by courts of this state. In other words, the juvenile court should have applied Alabama law with regard to a modification of the amount of C.K.’s child-support obligation. See Wall v. Borosky, 850 So.2d 351, 357 (Ala.Civ.App.2002). See also Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3A-303(b) (indicating that courts of this state “shall determine the duty of support and the amount payable in accordance with the law and support guidelines of this state”).

J.M.S. argues that the juvenile court correctly applied Mississippi law in determining the amount of support due because Alabama law does not recognize a duty of support after a child reaches the age of majority, which, in Alabama, is 19 years of age. This argument is without merit because, as discussed above, Alabama law does recognize the right of a child to support beyond Alabama’s age of majority when, in a case such as the present case, a parent seeks in an Alabama court a modification under UIFSA of a child-support order that was issued by a court in.a state requiring child support to continue until a point beyond Alabama’s age of majority. See Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3A-611(c). There is no basis for the application of any law other than Alabama’s, however, in determining the amount of child support due, given that Rule 32 of our Rules of Judicial Administration and the guidelines contained therein were “established for use in any action to establish or modify child support, whether temporary or permanent.” Rule 32(A), Ala. R. Jud. Admin, (emphasis added).

Because the juvenile court failed to apply the same “requirements, procedures, and defenses” applicable to modifications of child-support orders issued by courts of this state (Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3A-611(b)), and because the juvenile court failed to “determine the duty of support and the amount payable in accordance with the law and support guidelines of this state” (Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3A-303(b)), we reverse the juvenile court’s determination of the amount of C.K’s child-support obligation and remand the cause to the court for it to apply Alabama law.

J.M.S. contends in her cross-appeal that the juvenile court erred when it excluded evidence of P.T.S.’s size. In her brief to this court, she notes that P.T.S. is 6'3", weighs approximately 275 pounds, and wears a size 14EEEE shoe. J.M.S. argues that P.T.S.’s size “compounds the expense of clothing him year round and feeding him during the summer months,” and that evidence of his size was relevant to the cost to support him.

The following colloquy occurred at trial regarding J.M.S.’s attempt to introduce evidence of P.T.S.’s size:

“[COUNSEL FOR J.M.S.:] At this time was the cost of raising [P.T.S.] due to his age, his education and his activities, increasing?
“[J.M.S.:] Absolutely. [P.T.S.] had turned 16 and was driving age. I had paid for him to go to driving school. And I had passed down my '92 Honda Accord to [P.T.S.] which needed maintenance and gas and insurance.
“Q. Is that what he’s driving now?
“A. That’s correct.
“Q. A little Honda Accord?
“A. That’s correct.
“Q.. Tell the Court how big this boy is.
“[COUNSEL FOR C.K.]: I’m going to object, Your Honor.
“THE COURT: Sustained.
“[COUNSEL FOR C.K.]: It’s irrelevant.
“THE COURT: It doesn’t matter to me how big he is or how small the car is. Let’s go.
“[COUNSEL FOR J.M.S.]: Judge, it goes to the question of him driving a 1992 car. When you hear how large he is, you’ll see that he needs another car and under Mississippi law that goes to the question of maintenance and support. I can hook it up. I’m not doing it for anything other than maintenance and support.
“THE COURT: I don’t think his size is going to get him a new car. Now, if you want to put something on about the car’s undependability or its inability to provide the needs, I’ll hear that.”

Following this colloquy, J.M.S.’s attorney began questioning her about the condition of the 1992 car.

J.M.S. did not preserve for appeal the question whether P.T.S.’s size was admissible to demonstrate the abnormally high cost of supporting him due to the cost of feeding and clothing a child of P.T.S.’s size because, as the above-quoted colloquy demonstrates, she did not offer it for that purpose. Instead, she offered evidence of his size only for the limited basis of arguing that he needs a new car. We cannot consider whether the exclusion of a party’s testimony was error on a ground for admission that he or she did not assert at trial. See Zielke v. AmSouth Bank, N.A., 703 So.2d 354, 359 (Ala.Civ.App.1996).

J.M.S. also contends that the juvenile court erred when it refused to permit her to testify about her conversion of her 401k account into an individual retirement account to fund certain of P.T.S.’s expenses. The basis for J.M.S.’s contention is that the fact that she was required to deplete her assets to support P.T.S., while C.K. was not, is relevant to the determination of a fair division of the parties’ responsibilities with regard to P.T.S.’s support. J.M.S. cites Miss.Code Ann., § 43-19-103(1), in support of her argument. While Mississippi law may provide that J.M.S.’s depletion of her 401k account is relevant, Mississippi law, as noted above, does not apply to the determination of the parties’ support obligations in this modification proceeding. On remand, the juvenile court will be required to apply Alabama law and thereby determine the proper amount of support due. Thus, J.M.S.’s argument, based as it is on Mississippi law, is without merit.

J.M.S. next contends that the juvenile court erred when it refused to enforce the alleged 1999 contract between C.K. and J.M.S. to increase C.K.’s child-support obligation to $750 per month. She argues that, throughout the trial, C.K. and his counsel acknowledged this agreement. Therefore, she argues, “the Juvenile Court’s determination [that there was no contract between the parties to increase C.K’s monthly child-support payments] is against the preponderance of the evidence and thus, constitutes an abuse of discretion, which should be reversed.” J.M.S. argued to the juvenile court, and the juvenile court agreed, that Mississippi law determines whether the parties’ actions and alleged agreement in 1999, which occurred well before the trial court entered an order registering the 1987 judgment, effected a change of C.K.’s child-support obligation, increasing it from $250 per month to $750 per month.

Even if J.M.S. is correct that the parties entered into a contract to increase the amount of C.K.’s child-support payments, the juvenile court was correct in refusing to enforce that contract. Under Mississippi law, agreements to alter child support must be submitted to a court for approval before they become enforceable. Dorr v. Dorr, 797 So.2d 1008 (Miss.Ct.App.2001) (citing Calton v. Calton, 485 So.2d 309, 310-11 (Miss.1986)). J.M.S. concedes that the alleged 1999 agreement was not submitted to a court for approval.

J.M.S. argues that “[t]he Mississippi Supreme Court has held that as a matter of public policy, the parents of a child can and are free to enter into an [sic] post-decree agreement rather than file formal proceedings in court, and has held that such agreements are enforceable as equity dictates.” The cases from which she quotes in support of this argument, however, Varner v. Varner, 588 So.2d 428 (Miss.1991), and Dorr v. Dorr, supra, are not nearly as broad in their holdings as would be necessary to support the conclusion she draws.

In Varner, the Mississippi Supreme Court enforced a postdivorce agreement whereby the noncustodial parent took custody of one of the children born of the marriage in exchange for which his child-support payments were reduced, despite the parents’ failure to seek judicial approval of the agreement. Varner, 588 So.2d at 435. The court wrote:

“The law remains firm that court-ordered child support payments vest in the child as they accrue and may not thereafter by modified or forgiven, only paid. But this does not mean that equity may not at times suggest ex post facto approval of extra-judicial adjustments in the manner and form in which support payments have been made. This gets us to an important consideration, for, although [the father] and [the mother] had no authority to pretermit [the father’s] obligation via [their agreement relating to custody and the reduction in child support], it appears beyond peradventure that [the father] has, in fact, long since paid what he has owed to support [the child]; he just did not pay it to [the mother].”

588 So.2d at 434. Citing Alexander v. Alexander, 494 So.2d 365 (Miss.1986), the court noted that a “father may receive credit for having paid child support where, in fact, he paid the support directly to or for the benefit of the child, where, to hold otherwise would unjustly enrich the mother.” 588 So.2d at 435. Thus, the court affirmed the trial court’s holding that the father had discharged his obligation to support the child from the point at which he took custody of her until her emancipation. Id.

In Dorr, the Mississippi Court of Appeals noted that “in certain circumstances, [extrajudicial agreements modifying child-support obligations] have been given effect when to do so does not adversely affect the true beneficiary of the obligation, ie., the child, and to do otherwise might produce an inequitable result as between the litigants themselves.” Dorr, 797 So.2d at 1013. However, the court did not find the exception to the general rule of the nonen-forcement of extrajudicial modification agreements to be applicable in that case because enforcement of the agreement, which would have relieved the father of a substantial number of child-support payments, would have resulted in inequity to the child for whom the support was intended. Id. at 1014.

J.M.S. cites several reasons that equity should intervene to save her alleged post-judgment contract with C.K. from the general rule that such agreements cannot modify support obligations absent court approval: (1) the 1999 agreement was the only adjustment made by the parties in over 13 years; (2) the existence of the agreement is undisputed; (3) it was C.K. who “begged” J.M.S. to accept $750 per month; (4) C.K.’s reason for failing to continue paying $750 per month after two and a half years of having done so was false; and (5) J.M.S. was forced to convert her 401k account into an individual retirement account to fund certain of P.T.S.’s expenses, evidence of which the court refused to hear.

No case cited by J.M.S. recognizes any of those reasons as a basis for deviating from the general rule of the nonenforcement of postjudgment agreements to modify child support. The fact that she waited 13 years to complain about the amount of child support C.K. was paying does not justify the intervention of equity, nor does the fact that C.K. may have been less than forthcoming as to the reasons he discontinued paying $750 per month. Furthermore, we do not understand the equity exception to be so broad as to encompass every situation in which an alleged agreement was undisputed.

The fact remains that J.M.S. was free at any time, including after C.K. discontinued making the $750 monthly payments, to seek a judicial modification of the child-support amount originally ordered by the Mississippi court. Furthermore, J.M.S. has failed to identify facts demonstrating the primary equitable circumstance, unjust enrichment, recognized by the cases that she cites as a basis for enforcing a post-judgment agreement between the parties to modify child support. Given her ability to have sought a modification of C.K’s child-support obligation at any time, she has failed to demonstrate that C.K. has been unjustly enriched, like the mother in Varner, by the juvenile court’s refusal to enforce the alleged 1999 agreement.

We affirm that portion of the juvenile court’s judgment finding that the actions of the parties with regard to the alleged agreement did not work a modification of C.K.’s child-support obligation.

J.M.S. argues alternatively that the juvenile court should have applied Louisiana law to the determination of whether the parties entered into a binding contract in 1999 that effected a modification to C.K’s support obligation. In order for us to find that the juvenile court should have applied Louisiana law and found the alleged contract to be enforceable thereunder, however, we would necessarily be required to find that the juvenile court erred when it applied Mississippi law in determining that the actions of the parties with regard to the alleged contract did not effect a modification of C.K’s child-support obligation. We cannot reverse the juvenile court’s judgment on that ground because J.M.S. herself argued to the juvenile court that Mississippi law should be applied in that context, her counsel going so far as to state in oral argument before the juvenile court that “there is no way [counsel for C.K.] can argue with a straight face that the determination of arrearages that we want reduced to a judgment is not governed by the law of Mississippi. There’s no place in the Act for room to interpret that.” Indeed, on appeal, J.M.S. admits that her position before the juvenile court was that Mississippi law applied to the determination of whether the parties’ actions relative to the alleged 1999 agreement modified C.K’s child-support obligation, writing in her appellate brief: “At first blush, it would appear, and J.M.S. argued below, that Mississippi law controls whether the post-decree agreement between the parties is enforceable and whether the arrearages, $8,700.00, are owed.” (Emphasis added.) Having led the juvenile court to apply Mississippi law to the resolution of the contract issue, J.M.S. cannot argue to this court that the juvenile court should have applied the law of a state other than Mississippi. See Mobile Infirmary Med. Ctr. v. Hodgen, 884 So.2d 801, 808 (Ala.2003) (“The law is well settled that a party may not induce an error by the trial court and then attempt to win a reversal based on that error. ‘A party may not predicate an argument for reversal on “invited error,” that is, “error into which he has led or lulled the trial court.” ’ Atkins v. Lee, 603 So.2d 937, 945 (Ala.1992) (quoting Dixie Highway Express, Inc. v. Southern Ry., 286 Ala. 646, 651, 244 So.2d 591, 595 (1971)). ‘That doctrine [of invited error] provides that a party may not complain of error into which he has led the court.’ Ex parte King, 643 So.2d 1364, 1366 (Ala.1993). ‘A party cannot win a reversal on an error that party has invited the trial court to commit.’ Neal v. Neal, 856 So.2d 766, 784 (Ala.2002).”).

J.M.S. next contends that the juvenile court erred when it refused to award retroactive support to the date that C.K. discontinued making monthly child-support payments of $750 or, at least, to the date that she filed her motion for a modification. In support of this argument, she cites Mississippi statutory law and case-law, although she does not appear to take a position on which state’s laws apply to the resolution of this issue.

As we previously discussed in this opinion, Alabama law, rather than Mississippi law, controls the determination of whether and to what extent the amount of child-support payments owed by C.K. are due to be modified. Thus, on remand, as previously noted, the juvenile court will be directed to determine, in accordance with Alabama law, whether J.M.S. is due an increase in the amount of child-support payments she is receiving from C.K. Only after the juvenile court applies Alabama law to this question will it be able to consider whether and to what extent, under xMabama law, J.M.S. is entitled to an award of retroactive support. Because the juvenile court has not yet settled these issues under the appropriate law, we will not address J.M.S.’s argument regarding retroactive support.

J.M.S. next contends that the juvenile court erred because, according to her, it “seems to have omitted the requirement that C.K. carry one-half the uncovered [medical] expenses as well as the requirement that C.K. provide disposition notices and payments within ten days of receipt along with his share of uncovered costs,” although, according to her, the court “ordered C.K. to continue to carry the health insurance” for P.T.S.

Our reading of the juvenile court’s judgment does not bear out J.M.S.’s contention. Outside of noting, in its statement of the relevant facts, that the 1987 judgment required C.K. to carry insurance for P.T.S., and that he was in fact carrying insurance on P.T.S., the juvenile court did not address C.K’s obligation with regard to medical insurance or the payment of uncovered medical costs. Because the juvenile court was silent with regard to any modification of those obligations, we find that those obligations, as set out by the 1987 judgment, are still in effect and binding on C.K.

Finally, J.M.S. contends that the juvenile court erred when it failed to apply Alabama law and award postminority support to P.T.S. for his college expenses from the point at which he turns 21 years old. As noted above, the juvenile court correctly determined that Mississippi law governs the issue and the duration of P.T.S.’s child support. Mississippi law does not provide for the continuation of that support beyond a child’s emancipation, whether for college or otherwise, in the absence of a contractual obligation to the contrary. See Meek v. Warren, 726 So.2d 1292, 1293 (Miss.Ct.App.1998). We therefore find no error in the absence from the juvenile court’s judgment of an award of postemancipation college expenses for P.T.S.’s benefit.

For the foregoing reasons, the juvenile court’s judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

APPEAL — AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.

CROSS-APPEAL — AFFIRMED.

CRAWLEY, P.J., and THOMPSON, PITTMAN, and BRYAN, JJ., concur.

      . UIFSA became effective on January 1, 1998, replacing the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, Ala.Code 1975, § 30-4-80 to -98. See State ex rel. K.M. v. R.S., 803 So.2d 575, 575 n. 1 (Ala.Civ.App.2001).

      . Ironically, in order to have not modified the 1987 judgment, the juvenile court should have ordered that C.K.’s child-support obligation continue until P.T.S. "reach[esj the age of 21, marries, or is otherwise emancipated,” as did the 1987 judgment. Instead, the juvenile court's judgment abbreviates this provision by stating only that child support will continue until P.T.S.'s 21st birthday. On appeal, however, C.K. does not complain of this difference between the juvenile court's judgment and the 1987 judgment.

      . See also, e.g., Batterman v. Bender, 809 N.E.2d 410, 413 (Ind.Ct.App.2004); In re Marriage of Crosby and Grooms, 116 Cal.App.4th 201, 209, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 146, 151-52 (2004); Cook v. Cook, 143 Ohio App.3d 687, 690-91, 758 N.E.2d 1158, 1160 (2001); Alaska State Child Support Enforcement Division v. Bromley, 987 P.2d 183, 188-91 (Alaska 1999); and Groseth v. Groseth, 257 Neb. 525, 529-39, 600 N.W.2d 159, 164-69 (1999).

      . Because we find that the amount of child support that C.K. owes should be determinéd in accordance with Rule 32, Ala. R. Jud. Admin., we do not address J.M.S.’s alternative argument that the application of Alabama law to this matter should result in an award of child support beyond that recognized by our Supreme Court in Bayliss v. Bayliss, 550 So.2d 986 (Ala.1989). Furthermore, we find J.M.S.'s contention that the juvenile court erred in its application of Mississippi law by limiting its award of child support against C.K. to one-half of P.T.S.'s college expenses to be without merit, because, as we have stated, the juvenile court should have applied Alabama law in ’determining the amount of C.K.'s child-support obligation. We do point out, however, that the expense of P.T.S.’s college education is one factor that could potentially lead'the juvenile court, on remand, to modify C.K.'s child-support obligation in a manner that deviates from the child-support guidelines, although we do not take a position on whether a deviation from the guidelines is appropriate. See Rule 32(A)(1)(c), Ala. R. Jud. Admin.

      . In resolving the issue whether and to what extent J.M.S. is entitled to retroactive child support, the juvenile court is reminded that under Alabama law child-support payments that mature or become due before the filing of a petition to modify are not modifiable. Ex parte State ex rel. Lamon, 702 So.2d 449 (Ala.1997). A child-support obligation may be modified only as to installments that accrue after the filing of a petition to modify the child-support obligation. Rule 32(A)(3)(a), Ala. R. Jud. Admin.