In a highly contested divorce case arising from the Autauga Circuit Court in Autauga County, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals recently heard the appeal of Brian James Merrick v. Brandi Rhodes Merrick. Following a series of appeals, this fourth ruling in a five-year divorce proceeding clarifies key rules defining the relationship between settlement terms and court judgments.

Brian James Merrick and Brandi Rhodes Merrick were divorced on December 26, 2019, leading to a highly contested series of cases where the parties disputed the proper distribution of their marital property. Initially, the trial court awarded the husband to pay the wife $2,8000 in monthly rehabilitative alimony for a period of 60 months. The couple was ordered to sell their real estate and divide the proceeds, with the husband paying the wife $3,600 for attorney fees. This initial order was not acceptable to the couple, however, with further issues of alimony and property division arising on three separate occasions prior to this appeal.

In August of 2020, the wife filed a contempt petition against the husband, alleging that he had failed to comply with the trial court’s order. Specifically, she accused him of failing to pay the attorney fees and alimony, failing to deliver the awarded property, and failing to adhere to the terms of the property sale. In response, the husband alleged that the wife had failed to cooperate in the sale of their real estate. In February of 2021, after further proceedings, the trial court found that the husband had stopped paying the mortgage on the former couple’s real estate, and he had wrongfully withdrawn $29,500 from a joint 401(k) account. In November of 2023, the trial court entered the judgment at issue on appeal. The Court awarded the wife $33,451 for the deteriorated value of a boat; $825 for a boat trailer; $2,000 for unpaid mortgage costs; $13,178.53 for attorney fees; and $83,611.38 in proceeds from the sale of real estate. In total, the wife was awarded $145,313.63.

On appeal, the husband argued that the trial court’s judgment was wrongfully based on ore tenus hearings—hearings based on oral testimony. Further, the husband noted that no such hearings occurred after May of 2023, and the ultimate result of the judgment was inconsistent with the terms of the former couple’s settlement. Accordingly, he argued, the judgment was in error.

The Court of Civil Appeals agreed with the husband, citing Williams v. Willaims (2020), 318 So. 3d 508, 513-14 (Ala. Civ. Ap. 2020). In Williams, the Court held that a judgment based on a settlement agreement must be consistent with the settlement’s terms. Applying this rule, the Court found that, because the judgment was inconsistent with the terms of the settlement, it must be reversed. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the settlement’s terms.

Although the full story of the Merrick divorce is contentious, the Court’s holding ultimately came down to the application of a simple rule. While courts play an important role in divorce proceedings and in the equitable distribution of marital property, parties ultimately maintain their ability to agree with each other. Even when courts are involved, the judgment must remain within the bounds of any settlement terms.

If you have a Federal Criminal case, a State Criminal case, a Municipal Case or a Family Law case in the Northern District of Alabama, Middle District of Alabama, Southern District of Alabama, or any federal jurisdiction in the Eleventh Circuit, including Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, contact Joe Ingram or Joe Ingram Law, LLC at 205-825-LAWS. Get Relief * Get Results