Amberson v. Long
Citation | 998 So.2d 1078 |
Decision Date | 13 June 2008 |
Docket Number | 2061191. |
Parties | Connie Sue Long AMBERSON v. Michael W. LONG. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Joel S. Rogers III of Rogers & Rogers, Clanton, for appellant.
Chris Speaks, Clanton, for appellee.
Connie Sue Long Amberson ("the mother") and Michael W. Long ("the father") were divorced in 1996. The mother was awarded custody of the parties' child. The father petitioned for a modification of custody in April 2007. The trial court set the case for a pendente lite hearing on May 11, 2007; after numerous continuances, the hearing was held, without the parties, on July 3, 2007. The case-action-summary sheet reflects that "PDL set w/clients to be present 8-3-07 @ 9:00." The entry on the case-action-summary sheet on August 3, 2007, reads as follows:
The mother filed a notice of appeal from that order on September 14, 2007.
The father argues on appeal that the order from which the mother appeals is a pendente lite custody order that will not support an appeal. He points out that the hearing was a pendente lite hearing and that the order does not address other issues raised in his modification petition, like child-support. The mother argues that the award is a "temporary custody award" and is a final and appealable judgment deciding the custody issue between the parties.
"Ex parte J.P., 641 So.2d 276, 278 (Ala. 1994)."
S.S. v. T.R.A, 716 So.2d 719, 720 (Ala.Civ. App.1998).
The record reflects that the order awarding the father custody was, in fact, a pendente lite order. The case had...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex Parte Andrews
...(Ala.2001); Ex parte Veazey, 637 So.2d 1348, 1349 (Ala. 1993); Ex parte Devine, 398 So.2d 686, 696-97 (Ala.1981); Amberson v. Long, 998 So.2d 1078, 1079 (Ala.Civ.App.2008); Mullis v. Mullis, 994 So.2d 934, 941-42 (Ala. Civ.App.2007); Leopold v. Leopold, 955 So.2d 1031, 1034 (Ala.Civ.App.200......
-
T.C. v. Mac.M.
...did not seek a writ of mandamus pertaining to a nonfinal order, and, therefore, the appeal was dismissed); and Amberson v. Long, 998 So.2d 1078, 1079 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (same). Further, the juvenile court indicated that it intended to receive certain additional evidence at another hearing. ......
-
Gilmore v. Gilmore
...until one of the parties succeeds in a petition requesting the court to modify its custody award. Sims, supra.” ’ ”Amberson v. Long, 998 So.2d 1078, 1079 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (quoting S.S. v. T.R.A, 716 So.2d 719, 720 (Ala.Civ.App.1998), quoting in turn Ex parte J.P., 641 So.2d 276, 278 (Ala.......
-
Gilmore v. Gilmore, 2110638
...until one of the parties succeeds in a petition requesting the court to modify its custody award. Sims, supra."'"Amberson v. Long, 998 So. 2d 1078, 1079 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) (quoting S.S. v. T.R.A, 716 So. 2d 719, 720 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998), quoting in turn Ex parte J.P., 641 So. 2d 276, 27......
-
A Primer for Navigating Potential Appellate Issues in Child Custody Cases
...on your custody litigation journeys. --------Notes:1. S.J.R. v. F.M.R., 984 So. 2d 468 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007).2. Amberson v. Long, 998 So. 2d 1078 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008).3. Ex parte Brandon, 113 So. 3d 638 (Ala. 2012); Ex parte Hester, 682 So. 2d 6 (Ala. 1996).4. Ex parte Hartley, 50 So. 3d 1......