Sarah L. Pais v. Andrew G. Pais

Rel: September 25, 2026 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter. ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2026 _________________________ CL-2026-0180 _________________________ Sarah L. Pais v. Andrew G. Pais Appeal from Lee Circuit Court (DR-18-900151.02) MOORE, Presiding Judge. Sarah L. Pais ("the mother") appeals from a contempt and child- support-modification judgment entered by the Lee Circuit Court ("the trial court"). We affirm the judgment in part, reverse it in part, and remand the case with instructions to the trial court. CL-2026-0180 Procedural History In 2018, the trial court entered a judgment divorcing the mother and Andrew G. Pais ("the father"); the divorce judgment incorporated a settlement agreement entered into between the parties, pursuant to which the parties were awarded joint legal and joint physical custody of their two children. The divorce judgment also provided that the father would maintain health insurance and dental insurance covering the children and that the parties would equally share health-care costs not covered by insurance. In 2020, the trial court modified the divorce judgment to award the mother sole legal and sole physical custody of the children and ordered the father to pay $667 per month in child support beginning on January 1, 2021. The Rule 32, Ala. R. Jud. Admin., CS-42 form attached to the modification judgment indicates that, in calculating the child support due, the trial court determined that the father was paying $503 each month for the health insurance covering the children. On April 24, 2025, the State of Alabama ("the State"), by and through the Lee County Department of Human Resources and on behalf of the mother, filed in the trial court a contempt petition alleging that the father was $27,536.45 in arrears on his child-support obligation, that he 2 CL-2026-0180 owed $13,920 in accumulated unpaid medical expenses, and that he owed $3,520.42 in interest. On August 8, 2025, the father filed an answer and a counterclaim for a modification of his child-support obligation. On August 22, 2025, the trial court held a hearing on the contempt petition. On September 23, 2025, the mother appeared, filed a reply to the father's counterclaim, and asserted a cross-claim against the father for additional medical-support arrearages. On October 23, 2025, the trial court entered an order finding that the father was in contempt of its prior child-support judgments and awarded the mother $32,406.29 as a child- support arrearage based on the petition the State filed. On November 14, 2025, the mother filed a motion requesting, among other things, that the trial court amend the October 23, 2025, contempt order to increase the amount of the arrearage, alleging that the father had not provided health-insurance coverage for the children since April 2021 and had not paid one-half of their uncovered medical expenses. After a trial on the pending claims, the trial court, on February 3, 2026, entered a judgment providing, in pertinent part: "There was a prior finding that the father's amount of unpaid child support was $32,406.29. Since that time, he has paid the $4,000 upfront payments for those arrears. 3 CL-2026-0180 "The [c]ourt finds that the evidence supports that the father did not pay health insurance as ordered, or as available to him since April of 2021, except for one payment of $200.00 in August of 2023. ... "…. "The mother incurred the following medical insurance expenses for the children as a result of the father's not doing so: "● $232.74 ([Children's] 2/3 share of monthly) x 5 months = $1,163.70 "● $321.45 ([Children's] 2/3 share of monthly) x 8 months = $2,571.57 "● 2 years of AllKids = $425 "● Father Paid = $200 "● $591.91 ([Children's] 2/3 share of monthly) x 5 months = $2,959.53 "TOTAL: $6,919.80 "…. "1. [The father] is found in civil contempt for his willful failure to pay medical insurance for the children as previously ordered and as a result thereof, owes the [mother] $6,919.80…. "2. For his prior failure to pay child support, [the father] owes and shall pay to [the mother] the sum of $28,406.29 Dollars, ($32,406.29 - $4,000.00 payment = $28,406.29) for which amount a separate judgment is hereby entered in favor of [the mother] against [the father]…. 4 CL-2026-0180 "3. The [f]ather shall pay the mother at least $493 per month towards his child support and medical insurance arrears until those are paid in full…. "4. Standard Child Support: The [c]ourt finds the amounts used on the attached CS-42 to be the correct inputs for determining current child support and does adopt the same. After having completed such calculations, the [c]ourt finds and orders that, for the use and benefit of the said minor child(ren) [the father] shall pay to [the mother] the sum of $851.00 per month as child support…. "…. "5. As has now become the custom, the mother is now responsible to pay for the children's health insurance and the modification of the current child support reflects that change. "6. Otherwise, except as modified above, all prior orders remain in full force and effect. All requests not granted herein, or previously, are denied. All court costs are taxed as paid. This is a final order." (Emphasis in original.) The mother filed a postjudgment motion on February 12, 2026, which the trial court denied on February 27, 2026. On March 6, 2026, the mother filed a notice of appeal. Finality of the Judgment Before proceeding to the merits, we first address the mother's contention that the judgment is not final because, she says, the trial court failed to address all of her claims. 5 CL-2026-0180 " ' " Generally, an appeal will lie only from a final judgment, and if there is not a final judgment then this court is without jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Hamilton ex rel. Slate- Hamilton v. Connally, 959 So. 2d 640, 642 (Ala. 2006). A judgment is not final if it fails to completely adjudicate all issues between the parties. Giardina v. Giardina, 39 So. 3d 204, 207 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (citing Butler v. Phillips, 3 So. 3d 922, 925 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008))." ' " Cornelius v. Cornelius, 432 So. 3d 424, 428 (Ala. Civ. App. 2025) (quoting Sexton v. Sexton, 42 So. 3d 1280, 1282 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010)). The mother asserts that the trial court did not expressly address each claim that she made in her pleadings, but, as will be explained later, the judgment at least impliedly adjudicates all her claims, and it contains a provision that denies all relief not otherwise addressed in the judgment, so the judgment is a final judgment. See M.S.H. v. C.A.H., 829 So. 2d 164, 168 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002) ("Although the trial court's ... judgment did not specifically address some of the father's assertions, that judgment states in pertinent part that 'all other relief sought herein is denied.' Thus, we conclude that the trial court's ... [judgment] clearly disposed of all of the parties' arguments, and, therefore, that it constituted a final judgment."). Issues The mother argues that the trial court erred in calculating the amount of the health-care-coverage arrearage by using an improper 6 CL-2026-0180 formula to determine the amount of health-care-coverage costs to which she was entitled and by improperly excluding dental-care coverage from the formula. The mother also contends that the trial court erred in failing to order the father to pay his portion of certain medical expenses incurred on behalf of the children that were not covered by health-care insurance. Finally, the mother maintains that the trial court erred in calculating her health-care-coverage costs when modifying the father's child-support obligation. Health-Insurance Coverage The mother testified that, after April 2021, the father had failed to maintain health insurance for the children as required by the divorce judgment and the modification judgment. The father admitted that, in April 2021, he had lost his employment and, with it, the health insurance for the children, which he did not replace. The mother testified that, after April 2021, she had briefly placed the children on Medicaid. The mother said that, from September 1, 2021, onward, she had maintained health- care coverage for the children through a variety of means. First, from September 1, 2021, until January 31, 2022, the mother maintained "marketplace" health insurance for the children. The mother 7 CL-2026-0180 testified that, before the children were covered on her marketplace health-insurance policy, she had paid a premium of $102.71 for her individual coverage and that, when she added the children to her policy, her premium rose by $244.66 per month to $347.37. Second, from January 1, 2022, through September 30, 2023, she maintained health insurance for the children through her employment. The mother testified that her employer had covered her individual health-insurance premium and that she had paid $222.54 every two weeks to cover the children. Third, from October 1, 2023, to September 30, 2025, the children were covered by ALLKids Insurance, which is administered through Alabama's Children's Health Insurance Program, at a cost to the mother of $212.50 per year. And, finally, from October 1, 2025, to the time of trial, the mother had again provided the children with health-care coverage through an employment-related insurance policy under which her employer contributed $637.27 per month and she paid $887.86 per month. The mother presented an exhibit that showed that, if the children were not covered under that policy, her share of the policy premium would have been $144.85 per month. According to the mother, from April 8 CL-2026-0180 2021 to the date of the trial, the father had reimbursed her only $200 for providing the children with health insurance. Rule 32(B)(7)(g), Ala. R. Jud. Admin., states: "If, at any time while a child-support order providing for a health-care-coverage adjustment is in effect, the health-care coverage is allowed to lapse, is terminated, or otherwise no longer covers the child or children for whose benefit the order was issued, the court (i) may find the amount deducted from the obligor's child-support obligation therefor to be an arrearage in the obligor's total child-support obligation; (ii) may find the obligor liable for medical expenses that would otherwise have been covered under the health-care coverage; and/or (iii) may enter such other order as it shall deem appropriate." By its plain language, Rule 32(B)(7)(g) affords a trial court much discretion in determining the appropriate remedy when an obligor parent fails to maintain health-insurance coverage as required by a child- support order. In this case, the trial court elected to order the father to reimburse the mother the cost of the health-care coverage that she had obtained for the children after April 2021. The mother maintains that the trial court, as was its option under Rule 32(B)(7)(g)(i), should have additionally awarded her an arrearage for the $503 per month that was credited to the father's child-support obligation in the modification judgment because, she says, the father did 9 CL-2026-0180 not actually expend that amount to cover the children on health-care insurance after April 2021. Although the mother contends that the trial court did not consider that option because it did not expressly address her claim in the judgment, the record shows that the trial-court judge was fully apprised of the claim and that he addressed the claim by implicitly rejecting it when he denied all other claims for relief in the judgment. "[T]he decision whether to reduce the amount of the unpaid insurance premiums to an arrearage is a matter of discretion for the trial court ...." Mills v. Dailey, 38 So. 3d 731, 736 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). The mother cites no legal authority that would have required the trial court to award her an arrearage under Rule 32(B)(7)(g)(i) in these circumstances, and she makes no cogent legal argument that the trial court exceeded its discretion in applying Rule 32(B)(7)(g)(iii) instead and in determining that awarding the mother reimbursement for the health- care-coverage costs that she had incurred was a more appropriate remedy. Thus, we do not consider this argument further. See White Sands Grp., L.L.C. v. PRS II, LLC, 998 So. 2d 1042, 1058 (Ala. 2008). In calculating the health-care costs attributable to the children (not counting the cost of ALLKids Insurance), the trial court determined the 10 CL-2026-0180 total amount the mother had actually paid for health-care coverage and attributed two-thirds of that amount to the children. For the marketplace insurance, the trial court determined that the total costs to the mother was $347.37, two-thirds of which, i.e., $232.74, it attributed to the health-care costs for the children.1 For the employment-related insurance that the mother obtained beginning in January 2022, the trial court determined that the total monthly cost the mother had paid was $482, two-thirds of which, i.e., $321.45, it attributed to the health-care costs for the children.2 Finally, for the health-care coverage that the mother maintained after October 1, 2025, the trial court determined that the mother incurred a total cost of $887.86 per month, two-thirds of which, i.e., $591.91, it attributed to the health-care costs for the children.3 The trial court then purported to award the mother the corresponding monthly amount for each month that she paid those costs. 1$347.37 x .67 = $232.7379. The trial court rounded some of the figures to the benefit of the mother. 2$222.54 every 2 weeks x 26 weeks = $5,786.04 ÷ 12 months = $482.17 x .666666 = $321.446. The trial court rounded up to benefit the mother. 3$886.86 x .666666 = $591.906. Again, the trial court rounded up to benefit the mother. 11 CL-2026-0180 It appears that the trial court followed the formula established in Rule 32(B)(7)(e) when calculating the health-care costs. Rule 32(B)(7)(e) provides that, when determining health-care-coverage costs for the purposes of establishing the basic child-support obligation, the costs of health-care coverage "shall be the pro rata portion of the health-care-coverage cost attributable to the child or children who are the subject of the support order, which shall be calculated by dividing the total health-care-coverage cost actually paid by, or on behalf of, the parent ordered to provide the coverage by the total number of persons (adult and/or children) covered and then multiplying the result by the number of children who are the subject of the support order." The mother argues that the trial court erred in using that formula instead of accepting her testimony regarding what she believed was the actual cost of the coverage that she provided for the children. However, the trial court was authorized by Rule 32(B)(7)(g) to enter any order it deemed appropriate, and the mother has failed to demonstrate that the trial court exceeded its discretion by using the formula from Rule 32(B)(7)(e) to ascertain the health-care-coverage costs that the father should be required to repay the mother. We do agree, however, that the trial court erred in calculating the reimbursement amount for the health-care costs during the period from 12 CL-2026-0180 January 2022 through September 2023. The trial court awarded the mother $321.45 for only 8 of the 21 months during that period. When calculating a child-support arrearage, the trial court is bound by the evidence. See Tatum v. Carrell, 897 So. 2d 313 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004). Multiplying $321.45 by 21, the trial court should have determined that the mother was due $6,750.45 for that period, not $2,571.57, and, as a result, the mother was entitled to a total of $11,098.68, not $6,919.80, as reimbursement for providing the children replacement health-care coverage.4 Therefore, we reverse the judgment and remand the case for the trial court to enter a new judgment awarding the mother $11,098.68 as a medical-support arrearage. Dental Insurance The divorce judgment and the modification judgment required the father to maintain dental insurance for the benefit of the children. The mother testified that the father had not provided any insurance for the children since April 2021. The mother presented evidence indicating that she had maintained dental insurance covering herself and the children since February 18, 2022. The mother testified that the dental-insurance 4$1,163.70 + $6,750.45 + $425 - $200 + $2,959.53 = $11,098.68. 13 CL-2026-0180 premium was originally $48.19 every two weeks but that, by October 2025, the premium had risen to $53.88 every two weeks. The mother requested that the trial court order the father to reimburse her for the costs of dental insurance for the children. The mother argues that the trial court erred by failing to address that claim, but the trial court implicitly denied the claim when it provided that any claim for relief not addressed in the judgment was denied. The mother complains that the trial court did not explain its reasoning for denying her relief, but it was not required to do so. See M.B. v. L.B., 154 So. 3d 1043, 1045 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014) (holding that trial court had no legal duty to explain its reason for denying claim for visitation). The mother makes no argument supported by legal authority as required by Rule 28(a)(10), Ala. R. App. P., that the trial court erred in denying her claim for reimbursement of the premiums that she paid for the children's dental insurance, so that argument is waived. See White Sands Grp., supra. Unreimbursed Health-Care Expenses The divorce judgment required the father to pay one-half of the children's health-care expenses not covered by insurance. The divorce judgment and the modification judgment provided that any noncovered 14 CL-2026-0180 health-care expenses should be presented by the paying parent within 30 days and that the other parent would have 30 days from the date of presentation to pay his or her half. The mother presented to the father two receipts for expenses that she had incurred on behalf of the children before the trial -- a receipt for orthodontic services and another for an emergency-room visit -- as to which the father had not yet paid his one-half. However, regarding the emergency-room-visit bill, the mother admitted that the 30-day period for the father to submit reimbursement had not yet passed at the time of the trial, and the father ultimately paid the bill, so that claim was moot. See generally Underwood v. Alabama State Bd. of Educ., 39 So. 3d 120, 127-28 (Ala. 2009) (recognizing that case becomes moot when there is no longer actual controversy between the parties). Although the mother contends that her claim for reimbursement of one-half of the orthodontic bill was unresolved, the trial court's judgment denied all requests not specifically addressed within the judgment, so the trial court effectively denied her claim for reimbursement of one-half of the orthodontic bill. We agree with the mother that the trial court had no basis for doing so. In light of the unambiguous terms of the divorce 15 CL-2026-0180 judgment and the undisputed evidence indicating that the mother had incurred $2,350 to obtain orthodontic care for one of the parties' children, that she had promptly notified the father of that expense, and that he had failed to pay his half of the expense, the trial court should have included in its judgment an award to the mother of $1,175. The trial court erred by not ordering reimbursement of that amount. See Stinson v. Stinson, 729 So. 2d 864, 870 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998) (quoting Morin v. Morin, 678 So. 2d 166, 169 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996)) (" 'The trial court lacked the authority to "forgive" or set aside [a father's] obligation to pay for the children's noncovered medical expenses that had already accrued.' "). On remand, we direct the trial court to enter a judgment in favor of the mother, requiring the father to pay $1,175, one-half of the orthodontist bill that was not covered by insurance. Furthermore, the trial court should recalculate the total medical-support arrearage due and the monthly amount payable to satisfy that arrearage. Prospective Child Support The mother last argues that the trial court erred in modifying the father's child-support obligation to $851 per month. The judgment reflects that the trial court prepared a CS-42 form that, among other 16 CL-2026-0180 things, indicated that the mother was paying $670 monthly for health- care-coverage costs. At trial, the mother presented her own CS-42 form indicating that she was paying $809 per month in health-care-coverage costs. The mother testified that, in determining the amount of the children's monthly medical- and dental-insurance premiums, she had used a formula that she had found on a State website, which, she said, "use[d] the actual child-only premium, as opposed to the two-third calculation of the family plan." The mother argues that the trial court erred by failing to use her calculation of the health-care-coverage costs. "Rule 32(B)(7)(d) provides that health-insurance costs are to be 'divided between the parents in proportion to their adjusted gross income' as reflected on the applicable CS-42 form. Rule 32(B)(7)(e) further provides that the health-insurance cost attributable to the child is calculated by dividing the total health-care-coverage cost actually paid by, or on behalf of, the parent providing the coverage by the total number of covered individuals and then multiplying that figure by the number of children who are the subject of the support order." Desmond v. Desmond, [Ms. CL-2025-1069, July 10, 2026] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2026). The evidence the mother presented showed that she actually paid a total of $887.86 per month for health insurance and $53.88 every two 17 CL-2026-0180 weeks, or $116.74 per month,5 for dental insurance, for a monthly total of $1,004.60, two-thirds of which is approximately $669.73. The trial court apparently made the foregoing calculations and rounded up to $670, to the benefit of the mother. Contrary to the mother's arguments, the figures used by the trial court to make its calculations are supported by the evidence, and the formula used by the trial court complied with Rule 32(B)(7)(e). See Cauthen v. Cauthen, 415 So. 3d 63, 81 (Ala. Civ. App. 2024). We find no error here. Conclusion We reverse the judgment insofar as the trial court miscalculated the medical-support arrearage and remand the case with instructions that the trial court amend the judgment in accordance with this opinion. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Edwards, Hanson, Fridy, and Bowden, JJ., concur. 5$53.88 x 26 weeks ÷ 12 months = $116.74. 18