Stanford v. Feige
| Citation | 816 So.2d 501 |
| Parties | Mary Jane STANFORD v. Daryl M. FEIGE. |
| Decision Date | 26 October 2001 |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Andrew Laplante, Bessemer, for appellant.
Paul B. Shaw, Jr., and Brian D. Turner, Jr., of Wood & Shaw, L.L.C., Birmingham, for appellee.
Mary Jane Stanford and Daryl M. Feige were divorced by a judgment of the trial court on October 24, 2000. The divorce judgment provided, among other things, that the husband would pay the wife periodic alimony in the amount of $500 per month. Additionally, the judgment provided that the trial court would "retain jurisdiction of periodic alimony until the marital residence is sold and until the [wife] has had a complete Psychiatric/Psychological evaluation to help determine [wife's] mental and emotional condition and her employability status." The trial court further amended the judgment, directing that The wife appealed.
The wife argues that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding too little periodic alimony and also in its division of the marital assets. Neither party has questioned the appealability of this case. However, jurisdictional matters, such as the question whether an appeal is supported by a final judgment, are of such importance that this court will take notice of them ex mero motu. See Wilson v. Glasheen, 801 So.2d 848 (Ala.Civ.App. 2001); Nunn v. Baker, 518 So.2d 711 (Ala. 1987). A final judgment completely adjudicates all matters in controversy between the parties. See Wilson, supra; McCollough v. Bell, 611 So.2d 383 (Ala.Civ.App. 1992); Ex parte Harris, 506 So.2d 1003 (Ala.Civ.App.1987).
A thorough examination of the record indicates that the trial court is not just reserving jurisdiction of the case as to future modification of the priodic alimony based on changed circumstances. See Crenshaw v. Crenshaw, 816 So.2d 1046 (Ala.Civ.App.2001)( that reservation of the question as to periodic alimony is a denial of the same, but that periodic alimony can be modified at a future date on a showing of changed circumstances). The trial judge specifically stated that he would retain jurisdiction over the matter while awaiting the examination of the wife because he "need[ed] some information back in here so I can review it and then make my final determination on this matter." The judgment of the trial court, and the testimony at the hearing, show that the trial judge is seeking information as to whether the wife's purported mental difficulties will affect her future earning capability. We have previously...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dodson v. Johns & Kirksey, Inc. (Ex parte Johns & Kirksey, Inc.)
...58 (Ala.Civ.App.2001)). “A final judgment completely adjudicates all matters in controversy between the parties.” Stanford v. Feige, 816 So.2d 501, 502 (Ala.Civ.App.2001). This court has held that an order determining that an injury is compensable under the Act and awarding medical benefits......
-
Wilkerson v. Wilkerson
...was nonfinal and will not support the father's appeal. This court must dismiss an appeal from a nonfinal judgment. Stanford v. Feige, 816 So.2d 501 (Ala.Civ.App.2001). APPEAL YATES, P.J., and CRAWLEY and PITTMAN, JJ., concur. MURDOCK, J., concurs in the result. 1. The second notice of appea......
- Burke v. Burke
-
Reid v. Reid
...pending the submission of information regarding the level of income the mother could expect to earn. See also Stanford v. Feige, 816 So.2d 501 (Ala.Civ.App.2001) (concluding a judgment was nonfinal and dismissing the appeal from that judgment where, in the judgment from which the appeal was......