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 childsupport-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 childsupport 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. SlateHamilton 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 healthcare 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 childsupport 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 healthcare-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 healthcare-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