# Stinson v. Stinson

> Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · September 18, 1998 · 729 So. 2d 864

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9934220

## Case

- **Full name:** Connie Stinson v. Phillip Wayne Stinson.
- **Court:** Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** September 18, 1998
- **Citations:** 729 So. 2d 864; 1998 WL 638112
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Robertson
- **Judges:** Crawley, Robertson
- **Cited by:** 28 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9934220

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that although a strained relationship between a parent and a child does not preclude the parent from having a postminority-support obligation, it is a factor for the trial court to consider
- holding that the value of a car, for which the employer supplied the fuel and paid for the insurance, was part of the husband's income
- affirming a judgment terminating a noncustodial parent's obligation to pay child support as of the date of the filing of the petition to modify, where the child reached the age of majority approximately 10 months before the noncustodial parent filed his petition to modify

## Opinion text

While I concur in the affirmance of the trial court's reduction of the father's obligation to pay child support I do so solely because Rule 32(A)(3)(a) Ala.R.Jud.Admin., permits a trial court to modify child support installment payments "accruing after the filing of the petition for modification. " (emphasis added). Thus, it was the father's petition to modify that placed the mother on notice that the child support installments she received while the petition to modify was pending were subject to retroactive reduction.
However, because the father's original child support obligation was not broken down into specific amounts for each of the parties' two daughters, any knowledge that the mother may have had that the older daughter had attained the age of majority was immaterial. The father's duty to pay $600 per month persisted until he petitioned for, and received, a judgment modifying his support obligation. "When the order establishing the amount of child support to be paid does not designate a specific amount for each child, events such as a child's reaching the age of majority or a child's marriage do not automatically modify a child support judgment." State ex rel. Dep't of Human Resources ex rel. Ratliff v. Curran , 716 So.2d 1196 , 1199 (Ala.Civ.App. 1997).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9934220. Public record. Not legal advice.