Tice v. Tice
Decision Date | 13 July 2012 |
Docket Number | 2101072. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Parties | Lisa Rushing TICE v. David Wayne TICE, Sr. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Beverlye Brady of Beverlye Brady & Associates, Auburn, for appellant.
Roger W. Pierce of Haygood, Cleveland, Pierce, Mattson & Thompson, LLP, Auburn, for appellee.
Lisa Rushing Tice (“the wife”) appeals from a judgment divorcing her and David Wayne Tice, Sr. (“the husband”). Because the judgment appealed from is not final, we dismiss the appeal.
On June 11, 2010, the wife sued the husband for a divorce on the ground of incompatibility. The wife subsequently amended her complaint to seek a legal separation instead of a divorce; however, the husband counterclaimed for a divorce on the ground of incompatibility. Following a bench trial, the trial court, on March 14, 2011, entered a judgment divorcing the parties, dividing the marital property, and awarding the wife rehabilitative alimony. On March 31, 2011, the husband filed a Rule 59(e), Ala. R. Civ. P., motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment. In addition, the wife filed several posttrial motions. On June 27, 2011, the trial court held a hearing regarding the pending motions. At the hearing, the husband testified regarding events and changes in circumstances that had occurred after the trial.1 While he was being cross-examined by the wife's attorney, the husband informed the trial court that he was feeling ill and was subsequently taken by ambulance to the hospital. On June 28, 2011, the trial court entered an order stating, in pertinent part:
“The Court further ruled,
“a) That some relief was necessary.
“b) That the Court made an error in its Judgment of divorce.
“c) That the parties are prohibited from disposing of any assets pending further orders of the Court.
“e) That [the husband] is hereby ORDERED to restore [the wife] to Wayne Tice Electric['s] payroll and thereby reinstate her health insurance effective June 27, 2011.
“f) The [husband's] exhibits One through Four were admitted.
“ This matter is reset for additional testimony and final ruling.”
(Emphasis added.) The wife filed her notice of appeal on August 9, 2011, before the trial court had entered any further orders.2
Although the parties have not raised the issue whether this court has jurisdiction over the appeal, “ ‘jurisdictional matters are of such magnitude that we take notice of them at any time and do so even ex mero motu.’ ” Stone v. Haley, 812 So.2d 1245, 1245–46 (Ala.Civ.App.2001) (quoting Wallace v. Tee Jays Mfg. Co., 689 So.2d 210, 211 (Ala.Civ.App.1997)).
“ ‘ “It is a well established rule that, with limited exceptions, an appeal will lie only from a final judgment which determines the issues before the court and ascertains and declares the rights of the parties involved.” ’ Owens v. Owens, 739 So.2d 511, 513 (Ala.Civ.App.1999), quoting Taylor v. Taylor, 398 So.2d 267, 269 (Ala.1981). This court has stated:
“ ‘A final judgment is one that completely adjudicates all matters in controversy between all the parties.’
“ ‘... ”
Adams v. NaphCare, Inc., 869 So.2d 1179, 1181 (Ala.Civ.App.2003) (quoting Eubanks v. McCollum, 828 So.2d 935, 937 (Ala.Civ.App.2002)). Hubbard v. Hubbard, 935 So.2d 1191, 1192 (Ala.Civ.App.2006).
In Faellaci v. Faellaci, 67 So.3d 923 (Ala.Civ.App.2011), the trial court in that case entered an order granting Mrs. Faellaci's Rule 59 motion insofar as it asserted (1) that the trial court had exceeded its discretion in failing to award her interest on Mr. Faellaci's child-support arrearage and (2) that Mr. Faellaci's visitation should be modified; however, that order neither determined the amount of interest owed by Mr. Faellaci nor set...
To continue reading
Request your trial- State v. Pressley, 2100618.
-
Bradley v. Murphy
..., 117 So.3d 723, 726 (Ala.Civ.App.2013). See also Marsh v. Smith , 67 So.3d 100, 107–08 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) ; and Tice v. Tice , 100 So.3d 1071, 1073 (Ala.Civ.App.2012).3 See Marsh v. Marsh , 852 So.2d 161, 164 (Ala.Civ.App.2002) ( "Rule 4(a)(2)[, Ala. R. App. P.,] allows a party to an appea......
-
Underwood v. Underwood
...set a hearing for October, 11, 2011, to receive evidence regarding the husband's Union 119 retirement account. See Tice v. Tice, 100 So.3d 1071, 1074 (Ala.Civ.App.2012) (A judgment is nonfinal when all matters in controversy have not been completely adjudicated.). At the hearing on October ......
-
Lawrence v. Lawrence, 2110556.
...agree with the general principle that a trial court cannot consider new evidence as a basis for amending a judgment, see Tice v. Tice, 100 So.3d 1071 (Ala.Civ.App.2012), we find no merit in the wife's contention that the trial court improperly amended the judgment based on new evidence in t......