Stuart C. Dubose v. Allison T. Dubose

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/28/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2090714 S t u a r t C. Dubose v. Allison T. Dubose Appeal from C l a r k e C i r c u i t (DR-08-30) Court PER CURIAM. S t u a r t C. D u b o s e the Clarke ("the Circuit wife"). ("the h u s b a n d " ) a p p e a l s f r o m an o r d e r o f Court d i v o r c i n g him from A l l i s o n T. D u b o s e F o r t h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d h e r e i n , we c o n c l u d e that 2090714 the t r i a l required court's order to d i s m i s s Because detailed The Three children minor at the March 25, an order divorcing and of procedural wife one action for a divorce 2008. On July that of 9, 2009, the order to the November 30, marital in is 1988. whom was a On order i n which i t , among husband court entered stipulated had from court, to on After the other and matters the trial August parties trial property, support. the a wife court 4, 2009, retaining related to the proceeding. 2009, the child from trial order the a l l the i n a subsequent parties' of for t r i a l . trial divorcing decide the parties a more f o r m a l parties, an history trial. an the appeal, a were m a r r i e d marriage, during which i t r e c e i v e d evidence the and the the resolve this filed entry jurisdiction On of facts l e a v i n g a l l other matters the divorce the born indicating divorce, entered of were are appeal. husband time wife on f i n a l , a n d , as a r e s u l t , we o f t h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h we unnecessary. sought the recitation The i s not M a r c h 29, relative alimony, 2010, other 2 court h e l d a bench the trial to the d i v i s i o n child trial custody, court entered t h i n g s , d i v i d e d the of and an parties' 2090714 marital child and property, to the awarded wife, ordered expenses husband filed The an Co. Flanagan 1983), party So. 2d 211 half child of to several of 441 cannot challenged (Ala. W a l l a c e v. Civ. App. p e r t i n e n t to t h i s Code "The jurisdictional." 566, a 567 "final competent issue of H a r d y v. ( A l a . C i v . App. judgment" as jurisdiction 1989). "a a court to reach the Brindley 907, so. 90 9 (Ala. court's Tee Constr. Although Civ. neither appellate to consider Jays Mfg. this court's its Co., With 689 certain appellate § 12-22-2, A l a . judgment is final r e l . C h a m b e r s , 541 Our supreme c o u r t has d e c i s i o n by demonstrates 3 The on ex terminative which college. reversal judgments. whether State child's 1997). case, extends only to f i n a l minor for required jurisdiction 1975. 2d this is support, court. see do minor child in this So. parties' the this possible, we court of grounds policy Co., the enrolled appeal ex m e r o m o t u . not pay the case, this 210, exceptions to Lumber directly jurisdiction to pay whenever in this jurisdiction, husband i t i s the appeal has of the raises Although of App. when a notice merits v. party husband appeal. custody ordered each college sole there a is So. 2d defined court has of been 2090714 complete the it adjudication litigants must be Jackson & within of a l l matters the conclusive Whitsitt cognizance and of certain Cotton Co., in that in 331 controversy court. itself." So. between 2d That i s , Jewell 623, 625 v. (Ala. 1976). To be parties forth considered pay support to the This final, is support amount so, and court 2d not 883 final has not 1009 So. when, "conclusive must, party's court's of among party App. (Ala. Civ. other things, of the See App. i t did father's the set requested child contains no obligation, the A n d e r s o n v. 2004). one obligation. judgment adjudicated 234 assessment" has of things, other child-support parties." 233, among purported completely the ordering child-support a the (Ala. Civ. 2d judgment "[w]here trial between 1008, Turner, the assessment controversy So. of because the conclusive trial child a the matters in Anderson, also Turner 2003) not 899 v. (judgment contain a child-support obligation). With case, the regard trial to the court's c a l c u l a t i o n of order child support in stated: " C h i l d s u p p o r t s h a l l be p a i d t o a c c o r d a n c e w i t h R u l e 32 [, A l a . R. 4 the [ w i f e ] i n Jud. Admin.,] this 2090714 m o d i f i c a t i o n t a b l e s e f f e c t i v e J a n u a r y 1, 2 0 0 9 . The income f o r the p a r t i e s w i l l b e [ , ] f o r the [ w i f e , ] her 2007 t a x return showing a gross income of $ 7 0 , 2 9 2 [ , ] and the [husband's] gross income as d e f i n e d b y s a i d R u l e 32 s h a l l be t h e a v e r a g e of [ h i s ] g r o s s income f o r h i s 2006, 2007, and 2008 income-tax years. The [ h u s b a n d ] w i l l p r o v i d e t o t h e [ w i f e ] ' s a t t o r n e y these tax r e t u r n s p r i o r to the s i g n i n g of t h i s agreement f o r the c a l c u l a t i o n of c h i l d support. T h i s ... f i g u r e w i l l be d i v i d e d b y 12 f o r a m o n t h l y i n c o m e t h a t w i l l be u s e d a l o n g w i t h the [ w i f e ' s ] income to e s t a b l i s h a monthly child support f o r [ t h e minor c h i l d ] . "An i n t e r i m c h i l d - s u p p o r t a m o u n t s h a l l be s e t a t $400 p e r month f o r t h e p a r t i e s ' m i n o r c h i l d , by agreement of the [husband]. The c o u r t r e s e r v e s t h e r i g h t t o r a i s e o r l o w e r t h i s amount upon m o t i o n o f any p a r t y and p r o o f o f [ t h e h u s b a n d ] ' s i n c o m e . "[The information Thus, although support and husband] w i t h i n 30 the order provided u l t i m a t e l y was t o be shall days." submit r e q u i r e d the the manner calculated, in the husband which above to pay child support the order d i d not p r o v i d e e x a c t amount o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n p r o v i d i n g f o r an " i n t e r i m " ordered calculations. paragraph monthly also note support pending that a the support lack the beyond the subsequent of the order p r o v i d e d t h a t " n e i t h e r p a r t y s h a l l child Given amount o f c h i l d We child pay payment[s]." of conclusiveness o r d e r as t o t h e i s s u e o f c h i l d and s u p p o r t , see 5 certainty Jewell, 331 in So. the 2d 2090714 at 6 2 5 , t h e o r d e r was n o t a f i n a l not have must dismiss Shop, must jurisdiction 23 the appeal. So. 3d dismiss The over 671, an a p p e a l wife's request Morgungenko ( A l a . C i v . App. from c o u r t does the husband's appeal. See 674 judgment and t h i s a nonfinal f o r an Thus, we v. Dwayne's Body 2009) ("This court judgment."). attorney's f e e on appeal is denied. APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P.J., and Bryan, concur. Pittman, J . , recuses himself. 6 Thomas, and Moore, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.