Wilson v. Wilson, 2980108.
| Decision Date | 21 May 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 2980108.,2980108. |
| Citation | 736 So.2d 633 |
| Parties | Richard Allen WILSON v. Toni M. WILSON. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Stephen V. Hammond of Chenault, Hammond & Hall, P.C., Decatur, for appellant.
No brief filed for appellee.
This is the second time this matter has been before this court. In the initial appeal, Wilson v. Wilson, 709 So.2d 1264 (Ala.Civ.App.1998), this court remanded this matter to the trial court for a reconsideration of the husband's support obligations.
The trial court conducted a hearing and on July 30, 1998, entered an "Order After Remand." The trial court modified the original judgment of divorce by terminating the husband's obligation to pay $308 monthly for medical insurance for the wife, and entered a finding that the husband would have a minimum monthly income of $1879.41, after the payment of court-ordered obligations and taxes. The parties were instructed to file affidavits, with supporting evidence, regarding the remaining issue of arrearage for the court's later determination.
The husband filed what he called a Rule 59(e) motion; the court denied it. The husband appeals. It is well established that, with limited exceptions, an order can not be appealed unless it is a final order. McCollough v. Bell, 611 So.2d 383 (Ala.Civ.App.1992). A ruling that disposes of fewer than all claims or relates to fewer than all parties in an action is generally not final as to any of the parties or any of the claims. See Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. "`A final judgment is a terminal decision by a court of competent jurisdiction which demonstrates there has been complete adjudication of all matters in controversy between the litigants within the cognizance of that court.'" McCollough, 611 So.2d at 385 (quoting Holland v. Holland, 406 So.2d 877, 879 (Ala.1981)).
"The question whether a judgment is final is jurisdictional, and the reviewing court, on a determination that the judgment is not final, has a duty to dismiss the case on its own motion." Powell v. Powell, 718 So.2d 80 (Ala.Civ.App.1998). "The question of finality of the [judgment] may be phrased as whether there is `something more for the court to do.'" Id., at 82 (quoting Wesley v. Brandon, 419 So.2d 257 (Ala.Civ.App.1982)).
The trial court's "order after remand," entered on July 30, 1998, stated that certain alimony payments were in arrears and directed the parties to submit evidence and affidavits on this issue and stated that a hearing would be conducted on the matter in the event the parties disputed the amount in arrears. Thereafter, both parties filed affidavits and evidence. The record indicates no evidence of any adjudication on that issue. Therefore, it appears there remains something more for the trial court to do in the present action. Because the issue of the amount of alimony in arrears remains pending in the trial court, the order of July 30, 1998, did not resolve all of the issues before the court; it therefore is not a final judgment and will not support an appeal.
The trial court has the discretion, under Rule 54(b) to direct the entry of a final judgment as to fewer than all of the claims presented in an action if it makes a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dunkin v. Bobby Schrimsher & Sons, Inc.
...court that might pertain to those issues. A final judgment is one that adjudicates all of the parties’ claims. Wilson v. Wilson, 736 So. 2d 633, 634 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999). In this case, the trial court ruled on all of the parties’ claims, i.e., it found that the parties had agreed that Schr......
-
Dunkin v. Bobby Schrimsher & Sons, Inc.
...court that might pertain to those issues. A final judgment is one that adjudicates all of the parties' claims. Wilson v. Wilson, 736 So. 2d 633, 634 (Ala.Page 11 Civ. App. 1999). In this case, the trial court ruled on all of the parties' claims, i.e., it found that the parties had agreed th......
-
Nettles v. Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, P.C.
...an action is generally not final as to any of the parties or any of the claims. See Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P.' Wilson v. Wilson, 736 So. 2d 633, 634 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999). When an action involves multiple claims or parties, Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., gives the trial court the discretion......
-
Stallworth v. Stallworth
...question of finality of the [judgment] may be phrased as whether there is ‘something more for the court to do.’ " ’ Wilson v. Wilson, 736 So.2d 633, 634 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999) (quoting Powell v. Powell, 718 So.2d 80 at 82 [ (Ala. Civ. App. 1998) ], quoting in turn Wesley v. Brandon, 419 So.2......