Malcolm Rivera
The legal standard of palpably erroneous is a high bar to meet, indicating a decision that is easily perceptible, plain, obvious, readily visible, noticeable, patent, distinct, [and] manifest [ly] wrong. In Alabama, the standard of plainly and palpably wrong is used to determine whether a trial court's judgment based on ore tenus evidence can be reversed. This standard also applies to cases involving child support, where the ruling is not supported by evidence, and in determining whether a party is in contempt for failing to pay their support obligation.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Plainly and palpably wrong in a legal context | Refers to a standard that gives a high degree of deference to an agency determination |
| Palpable defined by Black's Law Dictionary | "Easily perceptible, plain, obvious, readily visible, noticeable, patent, distinct, manifest" |
| Palpable defined by A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, Second Edition | "Tangible, apparent" |
| Analogous example in sports | In gridiron football, a palpably unfair act is any illegal action by officials that clearly and indisputably deprive a team of a score |
| Plainly and palpably wrong in Alabama family law | Refers to a trial court's judgment on child support that is unsupported by evidence |
| Plainly and palpably wrong in Alabama family law | Refers to a trial court's judgment on child support that is an abuse of discretion |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Alabama child support and custody rulings
In Alabama, both parents have a legal duty to financially support their children, regardless of their marital status. The parent who cares for their children most of the time (the custodial parent) usually receives support payments from the non-custodial parent. Alabama uses a schedule of basic child support obligations based on the parents' combined adjusted gross income (AGI) and the number of children being supported. This schedule is periodically updated and can be found on the Alabama Courts Child Support Information page.
The Alabama child support guidelines include special calculations for two types of alternative custody arrangements: shared 50% physical custody, where each parent has custody approximately half the time, and split custody, where each parent is the custodial parent for at least one of the children. Judges in Alabama typically presume that the amount calculated under these guidelines is correct, but they can order a different amount if it would be unfair or inappropriate. For instance, if the paying parent spends significantly more time caring for the children than is typical.
Additionally, judges can order extra child support to cover extraordinary medical, dental, and educational expenses if both parents agree or if it is in the children's best interests. Alabama's guidelines also include a "Self-Support Reserve" (SSR) to ensure parents can sustain themselves financially after paying child support. If a parent's income available for support is $50 or less, the minimum child support obligation is typically $50 per month.
The phrase "plainly and palpably wrong" is a legal standard that refers to a decision that is clearly, plainly, and obviously incorrect. It grants a high degree of deference to an agency determination, indicating that a court might have made a different decision but will defer to the agency charged with enforcing the law unless it is plainly and palpably wrong. This standard is similar to an appellate court's deference to the fact-finder in a lower court.
Justices' Life Terms: What Does the Constitution Say?
You may want to see also
Trial court's discretion
In Alabama, the concept of "plainly and palpably wrong" is closely tied to the discretion of trial courts and the deference given to their decisions by appellate courts. This standard recognises the trial court's unique ability to observe the parties, witnesses, and evidence presented.
When a trial court in Alabama receives ore tenus evidence, its judgment is given a presumption of correctness. This means that the appellate court will not readily disturb the lower court's findings unless there is a clear showing of abuse of discretion or that the judgment is unsupported by the evidence to the extent that it is plainly and palpably wrong. The appellate court recognises that it was not present to see, hear, and weigh the credibility of witnesses, so it affords deference to the trial court's findings of fact.
The term "palpable" has been defined in legal dictionaries as "easily perceptible, plain, obvious, readily visible, noticeable, patent, distinct, manifest," and "tangible, apparent." This sets a high bar for an appellate court to overturn a lower court's decision. It essentially means that even if the appellate court might have decided differently, it will uphold the trial court's judgment unless it is clearly, plainly, and obviously wrong.
This standard of "plainly and palpably wrong" is applied in various types of cases, including those involving child support and contempt rulings. For example, in matters relating to child support in Alabama, the trial court has significant discretion, and its rulings will not be disturbed on appeal unless shown to be unsupported by the evidence and thus plainly and palpably wrong. Similarly, the determination of whether a party is in contempt for failing to meet their support obligation is within the trial court's discretion, and its findings will not be reversed unless found to be plainly or palpably wrong.
Constitutionalism: Power Transfer, Paternalism, and Legitimacy
You may want to see also
Appellate court's deference
Appellate courts are generally reluctant to substitute their judgment for that of the fact-finder in the lower court, as they do not see, hear, or weigh the credibility of the witnesses. This deference is reflected in the legal standard of "palpably erroneous," which refers to decisions that are "easily perceptible, plain, obvious, readily visible, noticeable, patent, distinct, [or] manifest."
In Alabama, the standard of "plainly and palpably wrong" is used in civil appeals to determine whether a trial court's judgment will be reversed. For example, in Amaro v. Amaro, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals stated that where a trial court receives ore tenus evidence, its judgment is entitled to a presumption of correctness on appeal and will not be reversed unless there is a showing that the trial court abused its discretion or that the judgment is unsupported by the evidence to the extent that it is plainly and palpably wrong.
Similarly, in Scott v. Scott, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals applied this standard to a matter relating to child support, stating that such matters rest within the trial court's discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal unless the ruling is not supported by the evidence and is thus plainly and palpably wrong.
The standard of "plainly and palpably wrong" sets a high bar for appellate courts to overturn the decisions of lower courts, reflecting the deference given to the trial court's unique ability to observe the parties and witnesses and evaluate their credibility and demeanor.
Modifying AMA Bylaws: A Step-by-Step Guide to Policy Change
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Palpable's definition
The term "palpable" in the context of legal standards means “easily perceptible, plain, obvious, readily visible, noticeable, patent, distinct, manifest". In other words, it is something that is tangible and apparent. The term “palpably erroneous” indicates a very high degree of deference that courts give to an agency determination. In this case, a court might have made a different determination, but since the agency is specifically charged with enforcing the law, the court will defer to its determination unless it is clearly, plainly, and obviously wrong.
In Alabama, the standard of "plainly and palpably wrong" is used in the context of trial court judgments and appellate reviews. For example, in matters relating to child support, a trial court's judgment is given deference unless it is shown to be unsupported by the evidence and thus plainly and palpably wrong. Similarly, in Amaro v. Amaro, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals stated that when a trial court receives ore tenus evidence, its judgment is presumed correct and will not be reversed unless there is an abuse of discretion or the judgment is unsupported by the evidence to the extent that it is plainly and palpably wrong.
The standard of "plainly and palpably wrong" is also applied in other states. For instance, in Hawaii, a pending bill seeks to change the state's public records law to allow agencies to challenge opinions by the Office of Information Practices, and the standard of “palpably erroneous” is being discussed as a potential deterrent to agencies considering such challenges.
In sports, a "palpably unfair act" is referenced in gridiron football as any illegal action that officials deem has clearly and indisputably deprived a team of a score. This can include instances where a person not legally in the game tackles a player who appears to be heading towards a touchdown, resulting in the award of a touchdown to the team that was wronged.
Private School Constitutional Compliance: What's the Law?
You may want to see also
Palpably erroneous standard
The "palpably erroneous standard" is a legal concept that refers to a very high standard that must be met for a court to overturn a lower court's decision or an agency's determination. It is often used in the context of appellate courts reviewing lower court decisions or agency actions.
The term "palpably erroneous" can be defined as "easily perceptible, plain, obvious, readily visible, noticeable, patent, distinct, or manifest." In other words, it implies that the error is clear and indisputable. This standard acknowledges the high degree of deference that courts traditionally give to agency determinations due to their specialised knowledge and expertise in enforcing specific laws.
In the context of Alabama case law, the "plainly and palpably wrong" standard is often applied to matters relating to child support and alimony obligations. For example, in Amaro v. Amaro (2002), the Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama stated that a trial court's judgment based on ore tenus evidence is presumed correct and will not be reversed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion or the judgment is unsupported by the evidence to the extent that it is plainly and palpably wrong. Similarly, in Scott v. Scott (2005), the court applied this standard to a divorce judgment regarding child support obligations, emphasising that such matters are within the trial court's discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal unless the ruling is not supported by evidence.
The "palpably erroneous standard" also has relevance in other contexts, such as sports. In gridiron football, a "palpably unfair act" refers to any illegal action by officials that clearly and indisputably deprives a team of a score, resulting in appropriate corrective actions.
Federal System's Philosophical Roots: Framers' Visionary Influence
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The term "palpably wrong" is used to describe a decision or ruling that is clearly, plainly, or obviously wrong. It is a legal standard that indicates a high degree of deference given to an agency determination or a lower court's decision.
In Alabama, the term "plainly and palpably wrong" is used in various court contexts, including family law and child support cases. For example, in the case of Amaro v. Amaro in 2002, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals stated that a trial court's judgment based on ore tenus evidence is presumed correct and will not be reversed unless there is a showing of abuse of discretion or the judgment is unsupported by evidence, making it "plainly and palpably wrong."
In the case of Scott v. Scott in 2005, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals addressed a matter related to child support. The court stated that rulings within its discretion "will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing that the ruling is not supported by the evidence and thus is plainly and palpably wrong."
