Orrin C. HUDSON v. Clairerencia HUDSON.
On application for rehearing, Orrin C. Hudson (“the father”) asserts that copies of the orders establishing his child-support obligations for his other children are contained in the record on appeal. Therefore, he asserts, the Shelby Circuit Court (“the trial court”) erred by failing to deduct those other child-support amounts from his gross income, as required by Rule 32(B)(6), Ala. R. Jud. Admin., for purposes of calculating his child-support obligation in this case.
Although the orders referred to by the father are contained in the record, they were not submitted into evidence at the hearing before the trial court. The father first submitted copies of those orders to the trial court in support of his postjudgment motion. In Moore v. Glover, 501 So.2d 1187 (Ala.1986), our supreme court recognized that a trial court may not consider new evidence, as opposed to newly discovered evidence, submitted after the entry of a judgment without an explanation as to why that new evidence could not have been presented earlier. Id. at 1189–90.
Because the father failed to submit the child-support orders to the trial court at the hearing and before the trial court entered its judgment, and because the father failed to establish in his postjudgment motion that he could not have presented those orders earlier, we cannot place the trial court in error for failing to credit those monthly child-support payments when calculating the child support due for the parties' minor child.
THOMPSON, P.J., and PITTMAN, THOMAS, and DONALDSON, JJ., concur.