author: BOLIN, Justice. MURDOCK, Justice

text:
    EX PARTE Richard L. WATTERS. (In re Michael J. Gamble, in his capacity as administrator of the Estate of Barbara Ruth Findley Long, deceased v. Richard L. Watters et al.).
    1140526.
    Supreme Court of Alabama.
    June 3, 2016.

      Joe Carl Jordan, Mobile; and Frank L. Thiemonge III, Mobile, for petitioner.
    Troy T. Schwant and Peter F. Burns of Burns, Cunningham & Mackey, P.C., Mobile; and Michael J. Gamble, Dothan, for respondent.
   BOLIN, Justice.

Richard L. Watters petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Mobile Circuit Court to vacate its order denying his motion for a summary judgment as to count one of an amended complaint filed by Michael J. Gamble, in Gamble’s capacity as administrator of the Estate of Barbara Ruth Findley Long (“Long”), deceased; count one asserts a legal-malpractice claim against Watters under the Alabama Legal Services Liability Act, Ala. Code 1975, § 6-5-570 et seq. (“the ALS-LA”), alleging breach of a fiduciary duty. We deny the petition.

I. Facts and Procedural History

This proceeding involves title to real property located in Conecuh County, which was owned by Robert A. Findley at the time of his death. At the time of his death, Findley was survived by his wife, Barbara Joan Findley, and his three natural children—Long, Robert A. Findley II, and James C. Findley. Barbara Joan Findley is Long’s stepmother; Robert A. Findley II and James C. Findley are Long’s half brothers. Although Findley had a will, no letters of administration or letters testamentary were applied for or granted by any court concerning his estate.

On October 9, 2002, Long retained Wat-ters & Associates, of which Watters was a partner, to represent her “in obtaining estate assets” of Findley, her deceased father. The 2002 employment contract between Watters and Long contained the following contingency-fee provision:

“33 1/3% if settled with or without suit.
“40% if the case has to proceed to trial.
“50% if an appeal is taken from the lower court by either side.”

The employment contract also provided, in pertinent part:

“In the event that [Long] desire[s] to dismiss the Firm and retain other counsel to represent [her] interests in any matter encompassed by this agreement, it is understood that [Long] agreefe] to pay all fees, costs, and expenses incurred by [her] or on [her] behalf up to and including the date of dismissal. In the event of such dismissal, [Long] agree[s] that as part of the computation of a reasonable fee, [she has] agreed that each specific service rendered by [Watters] will be billed at a rate of $125.00 per hour out of court and $150 per hour in court.
“This contract and agreement does not include any work other than representation of [Long] in the above matter, and in the event any work other than said work is necessary, both [Long] and the Firm will consider said work as a separate and distinct cause of action requiring new fee arrangements.
“Should the Firm have to pursue legal recourse against [Long] for the collection of fees and/or expenses which are due by [Long] to the Firm under the terms of this agreement then it is further agreed that [Long] shall pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on outstanding balance and further agree to pay a reasonable attorney fee if necessary for the collection of said balance.
“... This Contract contains the entire agreement between the parties regarding matters described herein and super-cedes all prior oral or written agreements. This agreement may only be amended in writing by the parties and not by any subsequent course of conduct between anyone.”

(Emphasis added.)

On July 5, 2003, Watters filed in the Conecuh Circuit Court an action against Findley’s other heirs at law, seeking a judgment declaring Long’s ownership in family property located in Conecuh County. On January 20, 2004, the Conecuh Circuit Court entered a judgment, declaring that Long owned a one-sixth interest (approximately 30 acres) in the Conecuh County property (hereinafter referred to as “the Conecuh property”). On July 7, 2004, Watters received written notice from Long that she was discharging Watters from any further representation in the declaratory-judgment action. On July 13, 2004, Watters filed an attorney’s lien against the Conecuh property pursuant to § 34-3-61, Ala.Code 1975, to secure the payment of his attorney fees in the case. The materials before us do not disclose what action, if any, Watters took in enforcing the attorney’s lien.

Long’s stepmother and half brothers subsequently conveyed to a Long a quitclaim deed conveying title to the Conecuh property; the deed was dated October 7, 2004. Watters did not file the quitclaim deed in the Conecuh Probate Court until January 27, 2006. Accordingly, the tax-assessment notices for the Conecuh property continued to be sent to Long’s deceased father’s address. The 2005 taxes on the Conecuh property were paid by Long’s cousin, Larry Findley; the 2006 taxes on the property were not paid; and on May 2, 2007, Larry Findley purchased the property at a tax sale.

Watters claims that while he was representing Long in another matter concerning certain real property in other counties, he discovered that the Conecuh property had been sold to Larry Findley at a tax sale; that he informed Long of the sale; that he advised Long that she needed to redeem the property before the statutory-redemption deadline; that Long did not have the money to redeem the property; that Long asked Watters if he could find someone to loan her the money to redeem the property; that Watters told Long that his friend, Ted Langley, would loan her the money to redeem the property on the condition that Long sign' a quitclaim deed conveying the property to a partnership, not yet formed, that would include Watters as a member; that Watters told Long that Langley would not record the quitclaim deed if Long repaid the loan within 30 days of redeeming the property; that, in the event the deed was recorded, any claim Watters might have against Long for services rendered regarding her deceased father’s estate would be satisfied; and that Watters and Long agreed to Langley’s terms concerning the loan arrangement. This arrangement was never reduced to writing.

On March 26, 2010, Long executed a quitclaim deed prepared by Watters, conveying title to the Conecuh property to “Langley & Watters, LLP.” On March 30, 2010, Watters submitted to the Conecuh Probate Court a letter, enclosing “his client’s” application for redemption of the Conecuh property; the October 7, 2004, quitclaim deed associated with the property; and a check from Watters & Associate’s trust account representing the redemption amount of $19,186.79. On March 31, 2010, the Conecuh Probate Court issued a “decree of payment” certifying Long as the new owner of the Conecuh property and ordering that the excess amount of $16,865.51 be paid to Watters & Associates. Watters subsequently sent Long a letter, dated June 25, 2010, thanking her for the payment his office had received and inquiring from her when she could pay the $2,321.28 Langley had loaned her to redeem the property—because Langley was concerned about his investment and insisting that Watters record the quitclaim deed. According to Wat-ters, Long told Watters to go ahead and record the quitclaim deed in exchange for the attorney fees she owed him for representing her in the Conecuh County deelar-atory-judgment action concerning her interest in her deceased father’s estate. On October 20, 2010, Watters recorded the quitclaim deed conveying the Conecuh property to Langley & Watters, LLP, in the Conecuh Probate Court; Watters represented to the probate court that the value of the property was estimated to be approximately $54,000.

Long died on April 2, 2013, and on October 9, 2013, the Conecuh Probate Court appointed Gamble as administrator of Long’s estate. On March 6, 2014, Gamble filed a complaint against Watters, asserting claims of legal malpractice under the ALSLA for breach of fiduciary duty (count one); vicarious liability (count two); and aiding/abetting (count three); Gamble requested a jury trial on those claims. Gamble also included an equitable claim seeking to quiet title to the Conecuh property (count four). On April 8, 2014, Gamble filed an amended complaint to add certain equitable claims to count one. Count one of the amended complaint, which Gamble labels “Legal Services Liability Action Against Defendant Watters ... Breach of Fiduciary Duty” alleges the following factual allegations:

“21. Sometime in late 2009 or early 2010, but well in advance of the deadline for Ms. Long to redeem her land, a third party[] (a person known to Defendant Watters) contacted Defendant Watters and informed Watters about the May 2 purchase at tax sale of [the Conecuh property] and the need for prompt action to accomplish a redemption.
“22. Neither Ms. Long nor Defendant Watters were aware of the tax sale prior to the third party revealing that information to Defendant Watters.
“23. The deadline for redemption approached and no steps had been taken to accomplish the redemption. The third party contacted Defendant Watters a second time and warned of the approaching deadline and that time was of the essence.
“24. Specifically, the third party offered to make available to Defendant Watters on behalf of Ms. Long funds sufficient to enable Ms. Long to redeem [the Conecuh property].
“25. The offer by the third party was for an interest-free, unsecured loan.
“26. Defendant Watters assured the third party that Ms. Long was aware of the situation and that she had confirmed to Defendant Watters that she had made arrangements to fund the redemption of [the Conecuh property].
“27. Defendant Watters told the third party that Defendant Watters would contact the third party if it appeared Ms. Long was having difficulty securing the funds needed to accomplish the redemption.
“28. Defendant Watters had no reason to doubt that the third party could and would make good on the offer.
“29. [The Conecuh property] had appreciated significantly in value as numerous producing oil wells had been established in close proximity to the [Co-necuh property].
“30. Producers and leasing agents were paying significant bonuses to obtain oil and mineral operating leases over land in close proximity to and adjacent to [the Conecuh property]. Ms. Long had been paid approximately $8,000 in August of 2006 for a three-year oil and mineral lease of [the Conecuh property].
“31. Defendant Watters ... knew about the development of the oil wells in the area and knew that [the Conecuh property] had increased substantially in value; Defendant Watters ... knew the [Conecuh property] had a potential of providing the owner of the mineral rights a substantial bonanza if a producing oil well servicing [the Conecuh property] were established; [Watters] knew all of this prior to entering into the financial arrangement with Ms. Long, set out below.
“32. Defendant Watters anticipated that Ms. Long would have significant difficulty raising the money to accomplish the redemption; Defendant Wat-ters knew Mr. Long subsisted on a small [S]ocial [S]eeurity income of less than one thousand dollars per month; Defendant Watters knew Ms. Long had no other source of income; Defendant Wat-ters knew Ms. Long was indebted to him for legal fees arising out of his previous representation of her; Defendant Wat-ters knew Mr. Long was indebted to him for massive legal fees arising out of the on-going morass of litigation against Ms. Long’s cousin in the matter of her uncle’s estate.
“33. Ms. Long did not come up with the funds needed to accomplish the redemption.
“34. Defendant Watters did not inform Ms. Long that interest-free funds were available to accomplish the redemption.
“35. Defendant Watters did not contact the third party to enable Ms. Long to take advantage of the offer extended by the third party.
“36. Defendant Watters unilaterally made the decision not to avail Ms. Long of the offer from the third party and did so with the intent to maneuver Ms. Long into a desperate position whereby Wat-ters and [Langley] could take advantage of Ms. Long’s desperate position by having Ms. Long enter into the financing arrangement set out below.
“37. With little over a month until the deadline for redemption, Defendant Watters, in collaboration with [Langley], provided the funds needed to redeem the [Conecuh property] in return for Ms. Long executing a quitclaim deed (“Wat-ters Deed’) on March 26, 2010, transferring all of her interest in [the Conecuh property].
“38. The grantee named in the Wat-ters Deed was ‘Langley and Watters, LLP.’
“39. Upon information and belief Defendant Watters and [Langley] own directly or indirectly most, if not all, of the equity interest in Langley and Watters, LLP.
“40. Defendant Watters acted willfully to advance his self-interest in derogation of Ms. Long’s interest thus breaching his fiduciary duty to his client.
“40.1 Defendant Watters has denied that he, Watters, had any conversations with the third party, as set out above.
“40.2 Defendant Watters insists that he, Watters, discovered the purchase for taxes of [the Conecuh property] while searching court records.
“40.3 Defendant Watters, responding to a request to explain how, he, Watters, had come to own [the Conecuh property], asserted ‘[Ms. Long] ended up borrowing the money (to finance the redemption) from a friend of mine and said she would pay it back, but never did. And in the meantime, she also owed me for past services and she said basically she would just sign over her interest to me and that’s what happened.’
“40.4 Defendant Watters prepared the quitclaim deed purporting to convey [the Conecuh property] to ‘Langley and Watters, LLP.’ (Watters deed).
“40.7 Defendant Watters caused the Watters Deed to be filed in the Probate office of Conecuh County on or about October 20,2010.
“40.10 In letters dated October 11, November 22, December 4, December 23, of 2013, and January 23, 2014, the Administrator made five separate requests of Defendant Watters for copies of documents from Defendant Watters’s client files relative to his representation of Ms. Long, copies of documents bearing on the financing transactions [set out above] and copies of billings and remittances for legal work performed for Ms. Long.
“40.11 Defendant Watters is obligated to allow [Gamble] access to Watters’s client files relative to Watters’s legal representation of Ms. Long.
“40.12 Defendant Watters has refused to provide the Administrator with copies of the requested documents and has refused to provide the Administrator with an accounting relative to the prior legal work and the work done relative to obtaining a redemption of [the Conecuh property].
“40.13 The actual cost to redeem [the Conecuh property] was $2,321.28.
“40.14 The fair market value of [the Conecuh property] on the date it was redeemed would have been not less than $48,000.
“Wherefore, Plaintiff demands an accounting from Defendant Watters of all fees and costs charged to Ms. Long and remittances and property turned over to Defendant Watters by Ms. Long and that Defendant Long provide Plaintiff with copies of his client files, and, as further relief, Plaintiff asks for such other contractual and equitable remedies, compensatory and punitive damages as the facts will support, plus court costs.”

On May 9, 2014, Watters filed a motion for a summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., in which he argued, among other things, that count one of the complaint, asserting a legal-malpractice claim based on a breach of fiduciary duty, was due to be dismissed because, he argued, the claim, sounding in tort, did not survive Long’s death. See § 6-5-462, Ala. Code 1975 (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “the survival statute”). Gamble filed a response, arguing, in part, that because Watters’s duty to Long arose from the 2002 employment contract, any alleged failure to adequately perform that contract should be asserted as a breach-of-contract claim and as an equitable claim alleging unjust enrichment, both of which would survive Long’s death. The trial court conducted a hearing, and, on February 13, 2015, it entered a judgment granting Wat-ters’s summary-judgment motion as to all counts in the amended complaint except count one—the legal-malpractice claim— and count four seeking to quiet title to the Conecuh property. On March 25, 2015, Watters petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus; this Court then ordered answers and briefs.

II, Standard of Revieio

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when the petitioner can demonstrate: “ ‘(1) a clear legal right to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) the properly invoked jurisdiction of the court.’” Ex parte Nall, 879 So.2d 541, 543 (Ala.2003) (quoting Ex parte BOC Grp., Inc., 823 So.2d 1270, 1272 (Ala.2001)).

III. Analysis

We must first determine whether Watters has demonstrated a clear legal right to a writ of mandamus directing the Conecuh Circuit Court to vacate its order denying his motion for a summary judgment as to count one of Gamble’s amended complaint. “The general rule is that 1 “a writ of mandamus will not issue to review the merits of an order denying a motion for a summary judgment.” ’ ... In all but the most extraordinary cases, an appeal is an adequate remedy,...” Ex parte Jackson, 780 So.2d 681, 684 (Ala.2000); see also Ex parte Hodge, 153 So.3d 734 (Ala.2014), and Ex parte U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 148 So.3d 1060 (Ala.2014)(discussing narrow exceptions to the general rule that mandamus will not issue to review the merits of an order denying a summary-judgment motion).

Watters states that this case is appropriate for the writ of mandamus under Ex parte Hodge and Ex parte J.E. Estes Wood Co., 42 So.3d 104 (Ala.2010). Wat-ters provides no discussion of either case. Rather, using specific language taken from Ex parte Hodge, he states that it is clear from the face of Gamble’s complaint that count one, alleging legal malpractice based on a breach of fiduciary duty, sounds in tort and, thus, does not survive Long’s death. Watters asserts that he has no other adequate remedy at law because Gamble has requested a jury trial on the legal-malpractice claim, which, he says, would require “a great deal more effort, expense, and other problems which would not be caused by an ore tenus hearing.” Watters notes that if the claim is dismissed, the only remaining claim would be a claim seeking to quiet title to the Cone-cuh property, which is a nonjury equity matter.

In Ex parte Hodge, this Court narrowly expanded the scope of mandamus review where the defendants, whose summary-judgment motion was denied, were faced with the extraordinary circumstance of having to further litigate the medical-malpractice claim against them after having demonstrated from the face of the plaintiffs complaint a dear legal right to have the action against them dismissed based on the four-year period of repose found in § 6-5^82(a), Ala.Code 1975; that section is an absolute bar to all medical-malpractice claims brought more than four years after the cause of action accrues. In Ex parte Hodge, the Court emphasized:

“Here, it is clear from the face of the second amended complaint that Gertha underwent a surgical procedure in 2006; that Dr. Hodge left a surgical hemostat clamp in her body at that time; and that she filed a medical-malpractice complaint on March 5, 2012. It is clear from the face of the second amended complaint that Gertha suffered an actionable legal injury at the time of the surgery in 2006 when Dr. Hodge left the hemostat clamp in her body, regardless of when or to what extent the complications from the negligent act would be discovered. Therefore, her medical-malpractice complaint filed on March 5,2012, was barred by the four-year period of repose found in § 6-5^182(a). Because Gertha did not have a viable medical-malpractice action at the time of her death, David could not maintain a wrongful-death action. Hall [v. Chi, 782 So.2d 218 (Ala.2000) ]. Accordingly, we conclude that the defendants have established a clear legal right to the relief sought.”

153 So.3d at 745.

Watters does not premise his requested relief upon any applicable statute of limitations that would be a complete bar to the legal-malpractice claim. Rather, he claims that the survival statute dictates that the legal-malpractice claim, sounding in tort, be dismissed. See Gillilan v. Federated Guar. Life Ins. Co., 447 So.2d 668, 674 (Ala.1984)(“A claim sounding in tort for which no action has been filed does not survive death in favor of the personal representative.”). Section 6-5-462, the survival statute, states:

“In all proceedings not of an equitable nature, all claims upon which an action has been filed and all claims upon which no action has been filed on a contract, express or implied, and all personal claims upon which an action has been filed, except for injuries to the reputation, survive in favor of and against personal representatives; and all personal claims upon which no action has been filed survive against the personal representative of a deceased tort-feasor.”

Suffice it say, it is not abundantly clear from the face of Gamble’s complaint whether the survival statute dictates dismissal of the legal-malpractice claim because the issue whether the claim sounds in tort, in contract, or in both for that matter, is sharply disputed by the parties. Watters cites this Court to Brooks v. Hill, 717 So.2d 759 (Ala.1998), holding that an unfiled claim alleging breach of fiduciary duty does not survive the death of the decedent. In response, Gamble asserts that, although count one alleges facts concerning breach of a fiduciary duty, it also alleges facts that would support a breach-of-contract action. See Rutley v. Country Skillet Poultry Co., 549 So.2d 82, 84 (Ala.1989)(“A court must look to the allegations in the body of the complaint in order to determine the nature of a plaintiffs cause of action.”). Specifically, Gamble asserts that Watters’s duty to Long arose out of the 2002 employment contract in which Watters was hired to obtain title to the Conecuh property and that the underlying action specifically involves a dispute over what fee, if any, Watters was owed for his legal services under the 2002 employment contract. Gamble cites Hamner v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co., 49 Ala.App. 214, 218, 270 So.2d 87, 90 (Ala.Civ.App.1972), which explains:

“There is little question but that the line of distinction between actions in tort and contract is thin and often nebulous in many instances. The courts of this State have recognized that under certain circumstances, for the breach of a contract there may be available either an action of assumpsit or one in tort. Wilkinson v. Mosel[e]y, 18 Ala. 288 [ (1850) ]; Mobile Life Ins. Co. v. Randall, 74 Ala. 170 [ (1883) ]; Vines v. Crescent Transit Co., 264 Ala. 114, 85 So.2d 436 [ (1955) ]; Garig v. East End Memorial Hospital, 279 Ala. 118, 182 So.2d 852 [(1966)]. The theory on which the cases have been decided is often difficult to discern, but basically may be stated that if there is failure or refusal to perform a promise the action is in contract; if there is a negligent performance of a contractual duty or the negligent breach of a duty implied by law, such duty being not expressed in the contract, but arising by implication of law from the relation of the parties created by the contract, the action may be either in contract or tort. In the latter instance, whether the action declared is in tort or contract must be determined from the gist or gravamen of the complaint. Basically, the line of division between the actions of contract and tort in such instances is that of nonfeasance and misfeasance. If there is a defective performance there is a breach of contract and may be also a tort. Law of Torts. Prosser, 4th Edition, page 614.”

Gamble also asserts that count one asserts claims for equitable relief, e.g., a demand for an accounting relative to the fees and costs charged to Long; for an accounting relative to the remittances and property turned over to Watters by Long; and for “such other contractual and equitable remedies,” based on, e.g., undue influence based on Watters’s taking title to the Conecuh property—the very property he was hired to acquire for Long pursuant to the 2002 employment contract. Gamble emphasizes that claims equitable in nature survive the death of the decedent in favor of the personal representative. See § 6-5-464, Ala.Code 1975. We express no opinion concerning the merits of these arguments based on the materials before us. Rather, we conclude only that the issue whether count one of the amended complaint sounds in tort or in contract, being disputed, does not fit squarely within the context of Ex parte Hodge, where it was clear from the face of the complaint that the defendants were entitled to the relief they sought.

TV. Conclusion

This case does not come within an exception to the general rule that a writ of mandamus will not issue to review the merits of an order denying a motion for a summary judgment. Accordingly, because Watters has another adequate remedy, i.e., an appeal, we deny his petition for the writ of mandamus.

PETITION DENIED.

STUART, MAIN, and BRYAN, JJ., concur.

MURDOCK, J., concurs specially.

MURDOCK, Justice

(concurring specially).

The main opinion concludes that this case “does not fit squarely within the context of Ex parte Hodge[, 153 So.3d 734 (Ala.2014) ], where it was clear from the face of the complaint that the defendants were entitled to the relief they sought.” 212 So.3d at 183. I agree with this statement and, in particular, would note that in Ex parte Hodge this Court recognized an exception to the general rule disallowing mandamus review of the denial of a motion for a summary judgment where “it was clear from the face of the ... complaint,” 153 So.3d at 745, that the claim was barred by a statute of limitations. The application of a statute of limitations is not an issue in the present case.

      . Pursuant to the same 2002 employment contract, Watters filed a similar action in the Covington Circuit Court seeking a judgment declaring Long’s interest in property located in that county; in that case, Long received a one-third interest in 26 acres of real property upon the death of her stepmother—Barbara Joan Findley. On September 28, 2006, Long entered into another employment contract with Watters for representing her interest in the matter of the estate of her uncle—George Findley; that case involved real property located in Mobile County, Escambia County, Conecuh County, and Covington County. At the conclusion of that litigation, Long was awarded a judgment in the amount of $127,949.94.

      . Gamble also named Langley & Watters, LLP, and Langley & Associates as defendants; Watters is sole petitioner in this case.

      , Gamble states in his affidavit that he is the individual referred to in the complaint as the "third party.”


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    Harry L. MCCALL and Vanies D. McCall v. MORTGAGE DEPOT, INC.
    2121063
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/19/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    MOBILE HOUSING BOARD v. Willie D. GREEN
    2130368
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/17/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Harold SMITH v. Cynthia SMITH
    2130446
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/08/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Krystin Hope WHITAKER v. William Jeremy CADE
    2130448
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/03/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Brian Mark PENTECOST v. Katherine M. EDDINS
    2130466
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/03/2015
   Reh. denied.


text:
    Craig A. LONG v. Terri S. LONG
    2130493
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/10/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    UNITED STATES STEEL CORP. v. Walter EVANS
    2130561
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/22/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Ray H. LOWREY v. Tammy D. LOWREY
    2130567
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/15/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Eric GUNN and Lora Gunn v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
    2130578
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/10/2015
    Reh. denied 05/29/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Ellarnie WASHINGTON v. Victoria WASHINGTON
    2130595
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/10/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Cynthia C. BOLER v. Michael K. POWELL
    2130642
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/22/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    C.C. and L.C. v. In re: K.C., minor child
    2130646
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/01/2015
   Dismissed as to C.C.

04/16/2015

Dismissed as to L.C.


text:
    Jerry NELSON v. Rachael Susan Ivy NELSON
    2130653
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/17/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Scotty Lee PICKLE v. Gena FREDERICK
    2130658
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/12/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Carrie FLORENCE v. Taneaca WILSON and Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.
    2130666
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/10/2015
   Reh. denied.


text:
    ELMORE/AUTAUGA COMMUNITY ACTION COMMITTEE v. Shirley WARE
    2130722
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/12/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kenneth Lee ENSLEY v. Sylvia ENSLEY
    2130748
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/08/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    David J. DUNLAP v. Joan W. DUNLAP
    2130752
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/10/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Christy L. HARRIS v. Joshua H. HARRIS
    2130762
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/05/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Matthew Alan WASSUM v. Sherri Michelle WASSUM
    2130794
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/22/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Chessie Michelle MARTIN v. Kenneth Michael PEAVY
    2130805
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/17/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    ALACARE HOME HEALTH SERVICES, INC. v. STATE HEALTH PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT AGENCY and Hometown Home Health Care of Baldwin County, LLC
    2130832
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/03/2015
   Reh. denied.


text:
    Melissa BOYKIN v. CMS SKI LODGE ASSOCIATES, L.P., et al.
    2130837
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/15/2015
   Reh. denied.


text:
    Christopher Lamar RICHARDS v. Christy Lee RICHARDS
    2130846
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/22/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jessica L. SPARKMAN v. Jeremy S. SPARKMAN
    2130851
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/08/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Colleen CONNOLLY v. STATE EX REL. Martin CONNOLLY
    2130862
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/12/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Allie P. O’KANE v. James J. O’KANE
    2130871
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/26/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    James M. KOTTSICK v. Mary B. KOTTSICK
    2130876
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/01/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Rita REYNOLDS v. William Gordon MADDEN
    2130887
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/19/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Margaret CHANCE v. Thomas Van PARKER
    2130891
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/03/2015
    Reh. denied 05/15/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jeanetta SPRINGER and Jacob C. Springer v. WELLS FARGO, N.A., successor by merger to Wachovia Bank, N.A., f/k/a SouthTrust Bank
    2130909
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/17/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Phillip CORLEY v. Sherri LaPONSIE
    2130928
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/15/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Mary B. KOTTSICK v. James M. KOTTSICK
    2130930
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/01/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Stephen Sean RUTAN v. Angelina Maria RUTAN
    2130937
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/01/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Sheri E. HAMNIK v. Ralph W. SYMONS, Jr.
    2130950
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/17/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Mary OWEN and Highland Park Neighborhood Association v. Carolyn CRANE and Zoning Board of Adjustment for the City of Birmingham
    2130953
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/19/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Michelle CROSKEY v. ASPHALT CONTRACTORS, INC.
    2130967
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/22/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    James P. BERETTA v. ALLSTATE INDEMNITY CO., d/b/a Allstate Insurance, et al.
    2130968
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/05/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Hubert Dee SANSOM v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
    2130971
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/15/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Tony WASHINGTON v. Acquatonia WASHINGTON
    2130981
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/19/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    A.T. v. WALKER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2130982
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/03/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    A.T. v. WALKER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2130983
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/03/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    A.T. v. WALKER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2130984
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/03/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    A.T. v. WALKER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2130985
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/03/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    A.T. v. WALKER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2130986
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/03/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Erin DEAN v. Phillip DEAN
    2130990
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/19/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Tony COOPER v. Nichole Cooper TIDWELL
    2130991
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/26/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Richard BECKWITH et al. v. William L. MAXWELL and Mary Maxwell
    2130992
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/24/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Lauran Hess PARSONS v. James Ronald PARSONS
    2131004
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/10/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Yvette Ann BROWN v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
    2131008
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/15/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    A.T. v. WALKER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2131010
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/10/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kevin Drew WAGNER v. Michelle HAMNER
    2131012
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/10/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    G.H. v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2131014
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/12/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Diana Day CARTEE v. Danny B. GIST
    2131021
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/19/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Shari GATLIN f/k/a Shari Sanders v. William K. SANDERS
    2131031
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/14/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Elogene C. HUGHES v. LEIGH BUICK & MERCEDES-BENZ SERVICES, INC.
    2131035
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/12/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    PRATTVILLE DEVELOPMENT GROUP et al. v. CITY OF PRATTVILLE
    2131040
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/22/2015
   Afirmed.


text:
    Cardellia ANDERSON v. REDSTONE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
    2131057
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/08/2015
    Reh. denied 06/12/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Katherine DAVIS v. Charles Earl DAVIS
    2131058
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/17/2015
   Afirmed.


text:
    Christopher Lamar RICHARDS v. Christy Lee RICHARDS
    2131070
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/22/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Roy LOFTON v. DUCKWORTH-MORRIS REALTY CO. and Martha McNelly, as trustee under declaration of trust dated 9/15/1971
    2131072
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/26/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Moneek M. ACKLES v. LIBERTY NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE CO.
    2131076
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/26/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    J.P. v. J.A. and N.A.
    2131081
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/10/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Amanda BALLARD v. Javie ALLEN
    2140007
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/03/2015
   Affirmed,


text:
    MONTGOMERY TRANSPORT, INC. v. Joel MOSTELLA
    2140016
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/04/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Vicky BREASHEARS v. RICHMARK, INC., and Alexander City Hut f/k/a Pizza Hut
    2140017
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/10/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    J.P. v. M.C. and R.C.
    2140021
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/10/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    J.P. v. M.C. and R.C.
    2140022
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/10/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    M.N. v. JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2140030
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/12/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jimmy STRICKLAND v. Angie LETT
    2140036
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/08/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    James H. LEEPER v. COOK’S PEST CONTROL, INC.
    2140037
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/08/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Minieva Farrar TIMBERLAKE v. Michael Ray TIMBERLAKE
    2140039
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/08/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    John Scott MORGAN v. Jonathan Keith PEPPER and Cary Allison Pepper
    2140040
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/01/2015
   Reh. denied.


text:
    M.W. v. MADISON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2140046
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/05/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    C.A. v. COFFEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2140047
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/12/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jeffrey ACKERMAN v. WOOD-FRUITTICHER GROCERY CO.
    2140051
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/15/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    M.S. v. MADISON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2140054
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/05/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Angela Turner DREES v. Kile T. TURNER
    2140057
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/19/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    T.C. v. A.N.W., SR.
    2140059
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/24/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    J.S., as guardian ad litem for A.N.W., Jr. v. A.N.W., SR.
    2140060
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/24/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    J.S. v. J.C. and C.C.
    2140065
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/08/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Fredrick ISHMAN v. Dr. James MITCHELL, in his official capacity as president of Wallace Community College
    2140068
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/23/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Robert Brenton SMITH v. Brandi Schulman SMITH
    2140076
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/01/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Anita Konieczka HECK v. BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, et al.
    2140081
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/22/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    S.R. v. MADISON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2140083
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/01/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    G.M. v. JACKSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2140107
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/03/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    I.S. v. S.A.
    2140110
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/22/2015
   Transferred to Jefferson Cir. Ct. for trial de novo pursuant to Rule 28 (D), Ala.R.Juv.P.


text:
    L.O. v. JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2140114
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/17/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    MONTGOMERY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES v. S.S. and J.G.
    2140115
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/19/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Donald LYLES and Cheryl Lyles v. JOHN L. HARTMAN III, P.C.; Stephen F. Springfield, P.C.; and Hartman & Springfield
    2140119
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/15/2015
    Reh. denied 06/26/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    CITY OF MONTGOMERY v. Johnnie C. SANKEY and Isaiah Sankey
    2140123
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/17/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Dennis Chadwick NICHOLS v. Lindsey Merrit NICHOLS
    2140125
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/29/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Michael DEWEY v. HONOURS GROUP, LLC
    2140126
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/02/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    L.M. v. B.W. and B.W.
    2140129
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/08/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Terri P. KELLY v. William FOSTER et al.
    2140133
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/06/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Peggy Sue WESSON v. Douglas P. WESSON
    2140135
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/12/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Peggy Sue WESSON v. Douglas P. WESSON
    2140136
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/12/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    J.F. and M.F. v. MADISON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2140145
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/24/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Richard O. LONG v. Adam MADISON, Joven De Los Reyes, Moundville Health & Rehabilitation et al.
    2140152
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/01/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    B.B. v. LAUDERDALE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2140174
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/12/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kenneth S. TRAYWICK v. Michael L. KIDD
    2140185
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/12/2015
   Case reinstated.


text:
    ALLIED CO. OF THE WIREGRASS, INC., d/b/a Allied Fence Co. v. CITY OF DOTHAN, Anne Rumble, Kim Meeker, and Earnest Stokes
    2140190
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/01/2015
   Case reinstated.


text:
    Howard ROSS v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
    2140194
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/01/2015
    Reh. denied 06/12/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Wallace HOLMES v. ALL NATIONS DELIVERANCE CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST
    2140195
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/18/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    N.S. and A.S. v. J.M.
    2140199
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/20/2015
   Transferred to Clay Cir. Ct. for trial de novo pursuant to Rule 28 (D), Ala.R.Juv.P.


text:
    M.S. and A.S. v. J.M.
    2140200
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/20/2015
   Transferred to Clay Cir. Ct. for trial de novo pursuant to Rule 28 (D), Ala.R.Juv.P.


text:
    Linda ROBERTS v. J.F. INGRAM STATE TECHNICAL COLLEGE
    2140206
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/26/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Thomas H. JOINER, Jr., and Betty Joiner v. CITY OF GUIN
    2140211
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/01/2015
   Case reinstated.


text:
    Donna Tatum CAVER v. Gregory W. CAVER
    2140217
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/16/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Arthur Lee NETTLES, Sr. v. Deborah Ann NETTLES
    2140219
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/24/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    T.W.M. v. A.G.
    2140220
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/12/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Wendal BURKS v. Ladonna BURKS
    2140226
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/19/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Paul B. FIELDS as successor trustee of the W. Brent Camp Trust dated October 3, 1980 v. Shannon C. SMITH et al.
    2140228
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/13/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    T.N.T. v. C.W.
    2140230
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/24/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    L.C. v. DALLAS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2140232
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/17/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEMS, INC. v. Rita OWENS
    2140235
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/22/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Damon Earl WARREN v. Frank H. COLLINSWORTH and Shelley Collinsworth
    2140237
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/14/2015
    Reh. denied 05/15/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Melissa JENKINS v. Alton Scott McILWAIN
    2140240
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/12/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Willie James HUGLEY d/b/a Will’s Total Salon v. SENTRY DEVELOPMENT LLC
    2140243
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/16/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Shane HUSEMAN d/b/a Ceramic Concepts, LLC v. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK
    2140244
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/21/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    J.D.A. v. T.A.S.L.
    2140245
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/15/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    A.D.H. v. J.L.M., JR.
    2140247
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/05/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    C.M. v. B.O.
    2140249
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/05/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    D.L. v. R.S.
    2140260
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/04/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Christine DAVIS v. J.F. DRAKE STATE TECHNICAL COLLEGE
    2140261
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/15/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    L.S.P. v. M.A. and P.A.
    2140265
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/29/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    L.S.P. v. M.A. and P.A.
    2140266
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/29/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Tony LeFLORE v. CITY OF MONTGOMERY
    2140270
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/08/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Keith WILLIAMS v. CITY OF MONTGOMERY, Hugh McCall, Joe Herman, and Andrew Sutley
    2140271
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/08/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    A.J. v. E.W.
    2140273
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/29/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Bob SCILLIAN and Cheryl Scillian v. Phillip WILLIAMS and Barbara Williams
    2140274
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/15/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. v. INFIRMARY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., State Health Planning & Development Agency, and Alva Lambert, in his official capacity as executive director of the State Health Planning & Development Agency
    2140283
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/29/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    C.A.M. v. J.D.F.
    2140290
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/12/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    C.A.M. v. J.D.F.
    2140291
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/12/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jimmy F. MONK v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC
    2140295
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/10/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    B.M. v. C.M. and J.M.
    2140298
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/29/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Humberto MEDINA v. Guadalupe MEDINA
    2140303
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/08/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Richard WILEY et al. v. James DAUGHERTY et al.
    2140304
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/07/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    J.H. v. W.R.J.G.
    2140306
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/12/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Robert E. MORRIS v. James Tony GLENN
    2140307
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/22/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    EX PARTE L.T. (In re L.B. III v. L.T.)
    2140309
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/01/2015
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    A.D.E. v. M.H.
    2140318
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/18/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Brandon HOWARD v. PROVIDENCE HOSPITAL
    2140319
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/12/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    R.D.H. v. C.S. and R.S.
    2140322
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/15/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    D.D. v. WINSTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2140323
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/10/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Charles L. SELLERS v. Elizabeth L. SELLERS
    2140324
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/26/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Marcus LUNA v. McMILLIAN FABRICATION WORKS, INC.
    2140328
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/26/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    P.T. v. V.F.K.
    2140329
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/22/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Frank A. WILLIAMS v. WILCO DEVELOPMENT CO.
    2140338
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/19/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Patricia M. SCHWARZ and Richard H. Vissers v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, Nationstar Mortgage, et al.
    2140340
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/21/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Charles Stanton SULLIVAN, Jr., et al. v. Wade PEARSON et al.
    2140346
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/03/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Henry Lee ALDRIDGE v. Lakethia Marie COLLINS
    2140347
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/26/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Henry COBY v. Betty Frye PACKER
    2140354
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/12/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    T.G. and D.E. v. RUSSELL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2140356
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/08/2015
   Dismissed


text:
    C.S. v. TUSCALOOSA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2140369
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/19/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    C.S. v. TUSCALOOSA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2140370
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/19/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    C.S. v. TUSCALOOSA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2140371
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/19/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    D.H. v. TUSCALOOSA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2140372
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/18/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    T.L.H. v. TUSCALOOSA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2140373
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/26/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    K.E. v. C.A.H.
    2140374
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/13/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    J.O. v. L.C.
    2140377
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/29/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Donald O. MANESS v. Vivian L. MANESS
    2140379
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/23/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Michael EUBANKS v. STATE and Douglas Valeska
    2140380
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/27/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    J.M. v. CALHOUN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2140381
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/26/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    EX PARTE Lee Thomas DOBYNE (In re: Lee Thomas Dobyne v. Judge Marvin W. Wiggins)
    2140384
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/08/2015
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    Terrance REYNOLDS v. Crystal REYNOLDS
    2140385
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/23/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Brandon D. DAILEY (In re Brandon D. Dailey v. Arielle A. Dailey)
    2140387
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/13/2015
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    Wayne ROGERS v. EVERBANK
    2140397
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/13/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Tracy CALDWELL v. ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC
    2140399
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/21/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    J.L. v. K.W.O. and S.J.O.
    2140400
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/17/2015
   Transferred to Lamar Cir. Ct. for trial de novo pursuant to Rule 28(D), Ala. R.Juv.P.


text:
    Gene NORMAND v. EVERGREEN FORESTRY, LLC
    2140401
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/12/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Carroll B. POWELL, Jr. v. Beverly C. GRIZZLE
    2140407
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/02/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    V.H. v. SHELBY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2140420
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/15/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    V.H. v. SHELBY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2140421
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/15/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    V.H. v. SHELBY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2140422
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/15/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE John Matthew MORSE (In re: Jennifer Michelle Hughes v. Samuel Andrew Hughes)
    2140428
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/22/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Denise CASEY v. Roger Keith CASEY
    2140429
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/23/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    John Stephen SASSER v. Carie Dawson McGough SASSER
    2140431
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/26/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    S.H. v. L.H.
    2140434
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/15/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Herman B. STANLEY v. Tonya J. STANLEY
    2140442
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/19/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Beverly Jo JONES (In re: Beverly Jo Jones v. Hon. Ben H. Brooks, circuit judge)
    2140443
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/07/2015
   Reh. denied.


text:
    Richard D. KENNEDY v. Adero J. MARSHALL et al.
    2140448
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/05/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Ronald CHAIN and Felicia Chain v. Albert D. KIMBRIL
    2140450
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/08/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Lori Denise ANTHONY v. Bruce Kenneth ANTHONY
    2140454
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/18/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Johnathon Michael VANDEGRIFT v. Bonnie Frances VANDEGRIFT
    2140462
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/25/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Anthony M. ATKINS (In re Anthony M. Atkins v. Hon. Ben A. Fuller and the Elmore County Circuit Court)
    2140474
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/23/2015
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    Everett Leon STOUT et al. v. Larry AMERSON, sheriff
    2140478
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/01/2015
   Transferred to the Ct. of Crim. App. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.


text:
    Jimmie FRYER v. David HOBDY et al.
    2140479
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/15/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Tavarus KING v. STATE EX REL. Jon M. FOLMAR
    2140481
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/02/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Thomas F. CHILDERS and Melissa J. Childers v. U.S. BANK, N.A., as trustee for LSF8 Master Participation Trust and Household Finance Corp.
    2140514
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/27/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Ashley Mae DIXON v. WOLFE-BAYVIEW FUNERAL HOMES AND CREMATORY, INC.
    2140515
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/02/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Tammy Murphy CARPENTER In re: Jerry Gavin Carpenter v. Tammy Murphy Carpenter
    2140516
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/02/2015
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    Mary LONG, as personal representative of the estate of Theodore Long v. AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES CO.
    2140517
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/07/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Doug OLIVER v. FRANKLIN COUNTY COMMISSION
    2140520
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/05/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    EL REPOSO NURSING FACILITY v. Bonnie R. MCCRARY
    2140524
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/24/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Tanya D. DAVIS v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH and Alabama Department of Labor
    2140527
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/19/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Cosimi VINCI and Velia Vinci v. U.S. BANK, NA
    2140533
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/22/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Richard Lamar BOLDEN and Eight Thousand, Two Hundred, and Sixty Five Dollars (In re Richard Lamar Bolden and Eight Thousand, Two Hundred, and Sixty Five Dollars v. State and Judge Michael Conaway)
    2140544
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/23/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    A.S. v. T.B., Jr., T.B., Sr., and P.B.
    2140548
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/15/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Terry Keith WHITNEY v. SAFEWAY INSURANCE CO.
    2140551
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/24/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Wendy WILLIAMS v. Napoleon GOODSON and Tommy Watkins
    2140554
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/18/2015
   Transferred to the Ct. of Crim. App. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.


text:
    EX PARTE M.P.G. (In re: M.P.G. v. Jefferson County Department of Human Resources)
    2140558
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/11/2015
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE Robert Chris CAMPBELL (In re Robert Chris Campbell v. David A. Kimberley, circuit judge)
    2140562
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/27/2015
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    L.R.M. v. M.W. and M.K.
    2140573
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/19/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Lee Thomas DOBYNE (In re: Lee Thomas Dobyne v. Judge Marvin W. Wiggins)
    2140576
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/06/2015
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Stephen COPELAND (In re: Stephen Copeland v. Hon. Judge Harold Hughston, Jr.)
    2140582
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    04/30/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    STATE v. Antwuan THOMAS
    2140586
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/08/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Samuel D. COBB v. SUMMIT BANK, N.A.
    2140591
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/10/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    ALTAPOINTE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. v. Quinn CURETON
    2140596
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/18/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Willie George WILSON v. EQUITY TRUST CO. and Jack M. Dabbs
    2140598
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/16/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE ALABAMA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION SELF INSURANCE FUND (In re: Shirlene Kimbrough v. Door Components, LLC)
    2140602
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/03/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Donna MALICH v. John TINNEY
    2140605
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/18/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Jimmy GLENN (In re Jimmy Glenn v. Oline W. Price, Lee County Rev. Commissior, and Tim Shuman, Opelika City Manager)
    2140606
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/13/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Felicia D. JORDAN v. Reginald JORDAN
    2140615
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/21/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Joe McFERRIN v. MAIN & ASSOCIATES
    2140621
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/19/2015
   Affirmed.


text:
    Wendy MANN and Jeff Mann v. Dylan D. MANN
    2140632
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/09/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    RUSSELL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES v. In re V.W., minor child
    2140633
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/24/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    K.B. v. B.B.
    2140636
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/29/2015
   Transferred to Crenshaw Cir. Ct. for trial de novo pursuant to Rule 28 (D), Ala.R.Juv.P.


text:
    EX PARTE B.D. (In re: B.D. v. Judge Sandra Storm)
    2140641
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/22/2015
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    C.D. v. In re: M.S. and A.D., minor children
    2140647
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/22/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Josie HARRIS-WALTON et al. v. FAMILY HOME LEASING, LLC
    2140651
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/18/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Melvin MCMILLIAN (In re: Melvin McMillian v. State)
    2140655
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    05/28/2015
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    E.A. v. D.M.
    2140659
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/30/2015
   Transferred to Madison Cir. Ct. for trial de novo pursuant to Rule 28(D), Ala. R.Juv.P.


text:
    Donald GRUBB v. Dorinda GRUBB
    2140660
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/18/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Andrea McNELLAGE (In re: Derek McNellage v. Andrea McNellage)
    2140669
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/02/2015
   Mand. pet. granted.


text:
    EX PARTE S.B. (In re S.B. v. Judge Jeanne Anderson)
    2140672
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/11/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    M.B. n/k/a M.D. v. B.L.H.
    2140688
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/25/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    Cecil FERGUSON v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
    2140695
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 9, 2015
   Transferred to Sup. Ct. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.


text:
    EX PARTE Lorenzo WATKINS (In re: Lorenzo Watkins v. Billy Mitchem et al.)
    2140700
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/09/2015
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    J.W. v. In re: D.H., a minor child
    2140709
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/15/2015
   Transferred to DeKalb Cir. Ct. for trial de novo pursuant to Rule 28(D), Ala. R.Juv.P.


text:
    EX PARTE T.C.M. and C.N.M. (In re: M.M.M.)
    2140717
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/30/2015
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE Michael D. BEAM (In re Michael D. Beam v. Estate of James Troy Beam, deceased)
    2140718
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/12/2015
   Transferred to Sup. Ct. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.


text:
    EX PARTE Anne Marie DUERR (In re: Andrew Arthur Duerr v. Anne Marie Duerr)
    2140725
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/30/2015
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    John H. MOLETTE v. SANDERS LEAD CO.
    2140732
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/24/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE A.S. (In re: D.A. and C.A. v. A.S.)
    2140736
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/23/2015
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    Eleanor LAUDERDALE et al. v. Brenda McCLAIN
    2140748
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/25/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Joseph WEST (In re: State v. Joseph West)
    2140763
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/24/2015
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE Joshua D. JONES (In re: Joshua D. Jones v. Honorable Ben A. Fuller, Elmore County circuit judge, and the Elmore County Circuit Court)
    2140777
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/30/2015
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Tamara M. WOODS (In re: James E. Woods v. Tamara Morgan Woods)
    2140782
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/29/2015
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE Andria B. ROWSER, Jr. (In re State v. Andria B. Rowser, Jr.)
    2140783
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    06/29/2015
   Transferred to the Ct. of Crim. App. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.'


author: DONALDSON, Judge.

text:
    Michael Sheldon POOLE v. Melanie Holley POOLE.
    2130678.
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 15, 2015.
    Rehearing Denied August 7, 2015.
    Certiorari Quashed June 10, 2016.
    Alabama Supreme Court 1141253.
    Lindsey Mussleman Davis of Holt, Mus-sleman, Morgan <& Alvis, Florence, for appellant.
    Terry L. Mock and Andrew L. McGee, Tuscumbia, for appellee.
   DONALDSON, Judge.

Michael Sheldon Poole (“the husband”) appeals from a judgment of divorce entered by the Lauderdale Circuit Court (“the trial court”) that, among other things, awarded Melanie Holley Poole (“the wife”) a portion of the husband’s retirement accounts, granted the wife periodic alimony, awarded the wife alimony in gross, restrained the husband from having contact with the wife, and found the husband in criminal contempt of court. We affirm the portions of the judgment finding the husband to be in contempt and restraining the husband from contacting the wife. Because we find that insufficient evidence was presented regarding certain retirement assets to support the property division, we reverse the trial court’s judgment insofar as it distributed the marital estate, including the awards to the wife of periodic alimony and alimony in gross, and we remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Facts and Procedural History

The parties were married in August 1986. The parties had two children who had reached the age of majority before the divorce action was filed. According to the testimony, the marriage began to fail in 2012 when the husband engaged in a pattern of erratic and harassing behavior directed toward the wife. The wife testified that the husband had accused her of having affairs, that he had taken and hidden her automobile, that he had locked her out of the house at night, that he had placed his hands around her neck while threatening to break her neck, and that he had turned off the power to the marital residence at the main breaker, which was located behind a locked door to which only the husband had a key. She testified that, as a result of the husband’s harassment, she left the marital residence to live with her parents. She testified that, after she left the marital residence, the husband placed locks on certain doors within the residence.

On November 15, 2012, the wife filed a petition for protection from abuse in the trial court, which was docketed as case no. DR-12-601, after an encounter with the husband in the parking lot at her place of employment. The wife testified that the husband had approached her, had presented her with papers for an uncontested divorce, and had threatened to make her wish she was dead if she did not sign the papers. The trial court granted an ex parte protection order on November 16, 2012, and set the matter for a hearing. Following the hearing, the trial court entered a protection order enjoining the husband from threatening to commit or from committing acts of abuse against the wife and restraining the husband from contacting the wife. The trial court directed that the judgment would remain in effect until December 10, 2013. The husband appealed that judgment to this court. By an unpublished order, we dismissed that appeal for lack of prosecution. Poole v. Poole, (No. 2120257, Feb. 6, 2013) 159 So.3d 119 (Ala.Civ.App.2013) (table). The documents from the appeal in the protection-from-abuse case have been incorporated into the record in the present appeal.

The wife filed a complaint for a divorce on November 20,2012, citing incompatibility as the ground. In the complaint, however, the wife asserted, among other things, that the husband had been physically and emotionally abusive toward her during the marriage. She specifically referenced the filing of the protection-from-abuse petition in her complaint and incorporated by reference in her complaint the allegations made in that petition. In her prayer for relief, she requested an equitable division of the marital property, an award of periodic alimony, and the following:

“2. The Wife respectfully moves this Honorable Court to merge and/or combine this cause of action with the pending petition for protection from abuse that she has filed and is currently pending in this matter in Case No. DR-12-601, Circuit Court of Lauderdale County, Alabama;
“3. That this Honorable Court will enter a permanent injunction prohibiting the Husband from coming about the Wife at anytime or place following disposition of the protection order that may be entered in this matter....”

The trial court entered a pendente lite order on December 16, 2012, that included, among other things, a provision regarding preservation of assets, stating that “[b]oth parties are ORDERED not to transfer or dispose of any assets other than for usual, normal and ordinary living expenses.” That order also required the parties to continue paying fixed monthly expenses existing at the time of their separation and requiring the party who was responsible for paying the monthly mortgage payment during the marriage to continue paying that expense during the pendency of the litigation.

The trial court conducted a trial on September 24, 2013. The husband represented himself. The wife testified that, in January 2013, the husband had deeded back the marital residence to the holder of the mortgage without her consent. On January 22, 2013, the husband had sent a letter to the wife’s attorney, stating:

“The owner of the house contacted me today and wants to foreclose and take possession back. January, 2013 payment is past due. I told him I would fax you this information as one last attempt so you may relay the information to [the wife] and she may make the decision if she wants to pay January payment and help with future payments.
“The owner will call me back today 1/22/13 at 5:30 pm expecting an answer if payment will be paid.
“I told him if I do not hear from you I would only have to assume there is no interest in preventing foreclosure and he advised me he will be delivering papers tonight to have house signed back over to him and all contents must be removed by Feb 1st, 2013.”

The husband also had sent a letter to her attorney on January 24, 2013, stating that “[a]ll contents from [the marital residence] must be removed by January 31, 2013 .... If I do not hear from you by 5 pm today ... I will assume [the wife] does not want anything from the house and I will throw away whatever I cannot use.” The wife filed a motion seeking an order of the trial court enjoining the husband from disposing of personal property in the marital residence and from deeding ownership of the marital residence without the consent of the wife in violation of the December 16, 2012, order. There is no indication that the trial court ruled on the wife’s motion for injunctive relief. She testified that, although the husband was able to afford the mortgage payment, he had failed to make the January 2013 payment on the note secured by the mortgage. She testified that, based on her opinion of the value of the house, the parties had lost approximately $35,000 in equity in the house because of the husband’s transfer.

The wife testified regarding various instances of the husband’s violation of the December 2012 pendente lite order. She also testified regarding the value of the marital residence, the respective incomes of the parties, and the assets of the parties. The wife further testified regarding numerous problems and issues she alleged had been caused by the husband’s conduct.

The wife testified that the husband had a monthly pension plan through Wise Alloys, LLC, a former employer, that would pay him $175 monthly upon reaching the age of 55. The evidence indicates that the husband also had had a retirement account with Alcoa, another former employer, that he had cashed out before the divorce action was commenced. The wife testified that the husband may have had a retirement account through Reynolds Aluminum, another former employer, although there was no evidence submitted to show the present value of that account. The husband testified that he had been contributing $420 per month to his 401(k) account through Tarkett, Inc., his current employer, since 2010, but that he stopped doing so after he and the wife had separated. An earnings statement from Tarkett entered into evidence at trial showed that the husband had a balance of $1,227.50 in the 401(k) account. At trial, under cross-examination by the wife’s attorney, the husband testified as follows concerning the value of the 401(k) account:

“Q. And since you’re a supervisor, your best estimate of the current balance in that account would be approximately what?
“A. I haven’t contributed so whatever it says on that pay stub is probably the balance.
“Q. Do you think it’s got $2,387 in it? Is that your testimony?
“A. I would assume. I don’t know for sure.”

He also testified that he had attempted to withdraw $1,900 from that account but that he had been unable to do so, signifying that its value exceeded that amount.

The husband testified that he had submitted an affidavit of substantial hardship in the protection-from-abuse case, in which he stated that he had a gross income of $4,675 per month and that he had $1,375 left over every month after all of his expenses were paid. He testified that he believed that the wife was not due to be paid any equity in the marital residence. He denied being at fault for the divorce. He testified that the wife should not be granted any portion of his retirement benefits because she was living with a friend.

The trial court entered a final judgment on March 2, 2014. In the divorce judgment, the trial court awarded each party one-half of the value of the vested benefits in the husband’s retirement plans through Reynolds Aluminum, Wise Alloys, Alcoa, and Tarkett as of November 20, 2012. The judgment ordered the husband to pay $1,200 per month in periodic alimony to the wife. It also ordered the husband to pay the wife alimony in gross in the amount of $17,500 to satisfy her one-half interest in the purported equity in the marital residence which had been lost due to the husband’s transfer of the property during the pendency of the divorce case. The trial court found the husband to be' in contempt of the December 16, 2012, pen-dente lite order for “willingly and with a specific intent” transferring ownership of “the parties’ marital home to a third party.” The court further found the husband in contempt based on five additional and unspecified acts and sentenced him to five days of incarceration for each act. The court suspended the sentence on the condition that the husband comply with the terms of the judgment. The trial court denied motions for contempt filed by the husband against the wife during the pen-dency of the divorce case. The trial court further granted the wife’s request to extend the duration of the provision in the protection-from-abuse order restraining the husband from contacting the wife, stating: “There is hereby entered an order reaffirming the terms of the order of this Court granting a protection order to the Wife in Case No. [DR-12-601]. The same shall be made a permanent protection order the terms of which shall remain in effect until further order of the Court.”

On March 21, 2014, counsel for the husband filed a notice of appearance. On the same date, the husband, through counsel, filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment. The trial court set the motion for hearing on May 1, 2014. The trial court denied that motion on May 2, 2014. The husband filed a notice of appeal to this court on May 16, 2014. On appeal the husband contends (1) that the trial court erred in awarding the wife one-half of the husband’s retirement benefits because there was no evidence as to the present value of the husband’s retirement accounts, (2) that the award of alimony would be financially crippling to the husband, (3) that the award of alimony in gross was improper, (4) that the trial court erred in holding the husband in contempt, and (5) that the trial court improperly extended the duration of the protection-from-abuse order entered in a separate case, which order had already expired by its terms.

Discussion

1. Retirement Accounts

The husband first contends that the trial court erred in awarding the wife one-half of the husband’s retirement benefits when there was no evidence as to the present value of the husband’s retirement accounts.

“As a general matter, a trial court, as a component of a divorce judgment, may order an allowance to one spouse out of the other spouse’s estate when such an award is warranted. See Ala.Code 1975, § 30-2-51(a). In contrast, Ala.Code 1975, § 30—2—51(b), which was added in 1995 and upon which the husband bases his argument, authorizes a court granting a divorce to apportion as a marital asset ‘the present value of any future or current retirement benefits [] that a spouse may have a vested interest in or may be receiving on the date the action for divorce is filed’ (emphasis added).
“In Wilson v. Wilson, 941 So.2d 967 (Ala.Civ.App.2005); Applegate v. Applegate, 863 So.2d 1123 (Ala.Civ.App.2003); and McAlpine v. McAlpine, 865 So.2d 438, 440 (Ala.Civ.App.2002), this court held that, in order to support an award to one spouse of a portion of the other spouse’s retirement benefits pursuant to § 30-2-51(b), the spouse seeking such an award must introduce evidence establishing the ‘present value’ of the retirement benefits. Moreover, this court stated that ‘ “[t]he failure to present the necessary evidence of the present valuation of retirement benefits ... prevents the trial court from exercising its ... discretion to award one spouse any portion of the retirement benefits of the other spouse. McAlpine v. McAlpine, 865 So.2d 438 (Ala.Civ.App.2002).” ’ Wilson, 941 So.2d at 970 (quoting Apple-gate, 863 So.2d at 1124). Reversing the awards of retirement benefits in Wilson, Applegate, and McAlpine, this court remanded those cases with instructions for the pertinent trial courts to amend their judgments to eliminate the awards of retirement benefits and to reconsider divisions of marital assets on the basis of evidence that had already been introduced at trial.”

Brattmiller v. Brattmiller, 975 So.2d 359, 362-63 (Ala.Civ.App.2007)(footnote omitted). See also Underwood v. Underwood, 100 So.3d 1115 (Ala.Civ.App.2012).

In its judgment, the trial court specifically awarded the wife one-half of the value of the vested benefits in the husband’s retirement plans through Reynolds Aluminum, Wise Alloys, Alcoa, and Tark-ett as of November 20, 2012. The trial court received evidence from which it reasonably could have concluded that the husband’s 401(k) account through Tarkett had a balance of $2,337 as of June 2013. The evidence further established that the husband had cashed out the Alcoa retirement account before the filing of the divorce complaint, and the trial court could have concluded that that account had a zero balance. Although the trial court received testimony indicating that the husband had a pension through Wise Alloys and that he might have a retirement account through Reynolds Aluminum, the wife failed to present evidence of the present value of those accounts. Regarding the Wise Alloys account, the wife testified only that the husband would receive a monthly pension of $175 beginning when he reached the age of 55. In her brief on appeal, the wife concedes that the present values of the Wise Alloys and Reynolds Aluminum accounts were not established at trial. Without any evidentiary basis to establish the present values of the Wise Alloys and Reynolds Aluminum retirement accounts, the trial court lacked a basis on which to order that the wife was entitled to any portion of those accounts. Thus, we must reverse the judgment insofar as it awarded the wife a portion of the husband’s Wise Alloys and Reynolds Aluminum retirement benefits. See Underwood, 100 So.3d at 1120.

2. Periodic Alimony and Alimony in Gross

The husband contends that the trial court erred in awarding the wife $1,200 per month in periodic alimony because, he contends, the trial court failed to consider his ability to pay that amount. The husband contends that the trial court’s award of alimony in gross to the wife in the amount of $17,500 was in error because, he says, the trial court relied on speculative evidence in determining the amount of equity the parties had in the marital residence. Because we are reversing the judgment insofar as it awarded the wife one-half of the value of the husband’s Wise Alloys and Reynolds Aluminum retirement accounts, we pretermit discussion of the merits of the husband’s arguments related to the awards of periodic alimony or alimony in gross to the wife. As this court has noted, “the issues concerning property division, alimony in gross, and periodic alimony are all interrelated.” Underwood, 100 So.3d at 1122. The entire judgment must be considered in determining whether the trial court exceeded its discretion as to those issues. See Spuhl v. Spuhl, 99 So.3d 339, 342 (Ala.Civ.App.2012). Accordingly, on remand, the trial court should reconsider the awards of periodic alimony and alimony in gross in light of the elimination of the award to the wife of one-half of the value of the husband’s Wise Alloys and Reynolds Aluminum retirement accounts.

3. Contempt

The husband contends that the trial court’s finding that he was in criminal contempt is erroneous because he did not receive adequate notice that contempt proceedings had been initiated against him. He contends that contempt proceedings against him were not initiated in accordance with Rule 70A, Ala. R. Civ. P. He also contends that the trial court found him in contempt for certain acts without specifically identifying those acts in its judgment. Although the husband’s post-judgment motion challenged the trial court’s contempt finding based on his transfer of the marital residence on the general basis that the trial court lacked evidence to sustain that finding of contempt, the husband failed to challenge the sufficiency of the notice of the contempt charges or the findings regarding the five additional acts supporting the contempt judgment in the trial court at any time.

It is well settled that “[t]his court will address only those issues properly presented and for which supporting authority has been cited.” Asam v. Devereaux, 686 So.2d 1222, 1224 (Ala.Civ.App.1996). “ ‘ “Our review is limited to the issues that were before the trial court—an issue raised on appeal must have first been presented to and ruled on by the trial court.”’” Cashion v. Torbert, 881 So.2d 408, 413 (Ala.2003) (quoting Ex parte Weaver, 871 So.2d 820, 823 (Ala.2003), quoting in turn Norman v. Bozeman, 605 So.2d 1210, 1214 (Ala.1992)). This court may not consider arguments made for the fist time on appeal. Ex parte Dixon, 841 So.2d 1273, 1278 (Ala.Civ.App.2002) (declining to consider due-process arguments raised for the first time on appeal). See also Davis v. J.F. Drake State Tech. Coll., 854 So.2d 1151, 1157 (Ala.Civ.App.2002). Accordingly, we do not address the husband’s arguments that he did not receive adequate notice of the contempt proceedings and that trial court failed to specify certain acts for which he was cited for contempt.

4. Restraining Order

The husband contends that the trial court erred by extending the December 2012 protection-from-abuse order entered in case no. DR-12-601, which had expired by its terms in December 2013. The husband relies on this court’s opinion in LaRose v. LaRose, 114 So.3d 822 (Ala.Civ.App.2012), to support his contention that the trial court was without subject-matter jurisdiction to modify the protection-from-abuse order because neither party filed a petition to modify the terms of that order. LaRose, however, is distinguishable from this case. In LaRose, the trial court entered two protection-from-abuse orders in two separate cases and placed no time limitation on the effectiveness of the orders; thus, the orders were permanent under § 30-5-7(d)(2), Ala.Code 1975, which provides that “[a]ny final protection order is of permanent duration unless otherwise specified or modified by a subsequent court order.” The parties subject to the orders did not appeal from those orders. Subsequently, the mother in La-Rose—the person protected by the orders—filed a motion to extend the duration of the orders. This court determined that the mother’s motion was “moot because there was no limitation on those [protection-from-abuse] orders.” LaRose, 114 So.3d at 827. In this case, the December 2012 protection-from-abuse order expired one year after it was issued. Thus, it was no longer in effect at the time the trial court entered the divorce judgment in March 2014.

This case is more akin to Carnes v. Carnes, 82 So.3d 704 (Ala.Civ.App.2011). In that case, the wife obtained a protection-from-abuse order against the husband in the district court after he allegedly assaulted her. That protection-from-abuse order indicated that it was “permanent” and was intended to be effective until the entry of additional orders of the district court. Subsequently, in a judgment divorcing the parties, the circuit court issued a permanent restraining order against the husband. The husband contended on appeal from the divorce judgment that the trial court had “erred in entering a permanent restraining order against him because the parties were divorced on the ground of incompatibility of temperament and because the husband did not have a history of domestic violence.” Carnes, 82 So.3d at 710. This court held

“that thei'e was sufficient evidence in the record to support the [circuit] court’s order restraining the husband from contacting, harming, or harassing the wife. The husband admitted that he had put his hands around the wife’s neck and that he had told her that he could break her neck. The husband also admitted to firing a handgun at a truck that was occupied by the wife. Furthermore, the record indicates that the parties’ tumultuous relationship continued after they separated, despite the existence of a protection-from-abuse order.”

82 So.3d at 710. Thus, despite the existence of a previous protection-from-abuse order, this court concluded in Carnes that the circuit court had heard sufficient evidence to support including in the divorce judgment a permanent restraining order against the husband.

In the present case, the wife specifically requested the following relief in her complaint: “That this Honorable Court will enter a permanent injunction prohibiting the Husband from coming about the Wife at anytime or place following disposition of the protection order that may be entered in this matter.” The wife was not seeking modification of the December 2012 protection-from-abuse order; rather, she was seeking a permanent injunction restraining the husband from contacting or abusing her. In the divorce judgment, the trial court “reaffirmed” the December 2012 protection-from-abuse order that was entered in ease no. DR-12-601, incorporated the terms of that order by reference into the divorce judgment, and extended the duration of the order permanently or until further orders of the court. This was not a modification of the December 2012 protection-from-abuse order. Instead, it was a provision of the divorce judgment that referred to and incorporated the terms of the December 2012 protection-from-abuse order.

The trial court was within its discretion to grant the wife the injunctive relief she requested insofar as she sought to restrain the husband from abusing, harassing, or intimidating her. The trial court heard sufficient evidence to support that portion of its judgment. The wife testified, among other things,'that the husband had placed his hands around her neck and had threatened to break it; that the husband had made threatening comments to her when he attempted to get her to sign papers for an uncontested divorce; that the husband had turned off the electricity to the marital residence and had prevented the wife from turning it back on; and that, after the parties had separated, the husband had locked the wife out of parts of the marital residence. The wife stated that she had'been living in fear of the husband. The evidence indicated that the husband had made or had attempted to make contact with the wife after the parties had separated, despite the prohibitions contained in the protection-from-abuse order. Therefore, the provision of the judgment granting the wife the protection order is affirmed.

Conclusion

We affirm the trial court’s judgment insofar as it held the husband in contempt and insofar as it granted the wife a protection order. We reverse the trial court’s judgment insofar as it awarded the wife one-half of the value of husband’s Wise Alloys and Reynolds retirement accounts, and we remand the cause to the trial court with instructions to eliminate those awards from its judgment. Accordingly, we also reverse the trial court’s awards of periodic alimony and alimony in gross “so that, on remand, [the trial court] can reconsider [those awards] in conjunction with its reconsideration of its division of the marital assets.” Underwood, 100 So.3d at 1122.

The husband’s request for an award of attorney fees on appeal is denied.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

THOMPSON, P.J., and PITTMAN, THOMAS, and MOORE, JJ., concur.