Lisa Rushing Tice v. David Wayne Tice, Sr.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 5/11/12 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 , A l a b a m a 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, 2011-2012 2101072 L i s a Rushing T i c e v. David Wayne T i c e , S r . Appeal from Lee C i r c u i t Court (DR-10-274) BRYAN, J u d g e . Lisa divorcing Rushing Tice ("the w i f e " ) h e r and David Wayne T i c e , Because t h e judgment a p p e a l e d the appeal. appeals from a judgment S r . ("the h u s b a n d " ) . from i s n o t f i n a l , we d i s m i s s 2101072 On June 1 1 , 2 0 1 0 , t h e w i f e s u e d t h e h u s b a n d f o r a d i v o r c e on the ground of incompatibility. amended h e r c o m p l a i n t The wife t o seek a l e g a l s e p a r a t i o n i n s t e a d o f a d i v o r c e ; however, t h e husband c o u n t e r c l a i m e d the ground of i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y . trial c o u r t , on M a r c h 14, 2 0 1 1 , the p a r t i e s , wife filed a Rule alimony. f o r a d i v o r c e on F o l l o w i n g a bench t r i a l , and awarding t h e On M a r c h 3 1 , 2 0 1 1 , t h e h u s b a n d 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., m o t i o n t o a l t e r , or vacate t h e judgment. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e w i f e posttrial m o t i o n s . On June 27, 2011, t h e t r i a l hearing regarding husband testified circumstances was b e i n g informed the e n t e r e d a judgment d i v o r c i n g d i v i d i n g the m a r i t a l property, rehabilitative subsequently the pending motions. regarding t h a t had o c c u r r e d events after filed amend, several court held a At the hearing, the and changes the t r i a l . 1 in W h i l e he c r o s s - e x a m i n e d by t h e w i f e ' s a t t o r n e y , t h e husband the t r i a l court that he was feeling i l l a n d was A l t h o u g h n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e may be i n t r o d u c e d i n s u p p o r t o f a R u l e 5 9 ( e ) m o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e t h e j u d g m e n t , new e v i d e n c e , i . e . , e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g e v e n t s and c h a n g e s i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s o c c u r r i n g a f t e r t h e t r i a l may n o t . See M a r s h v. S m i t h , 67 So. 3d 100, 107-08 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011). I n o r d e r t o seek r e l i e f from a d i v o r c e judgment based on new e v i d e n c e , a p a r t y must f i l e a s e p a r a t e a c t i o n s e e k i n g m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t . See E s t r a d a v. R e d f o r d , 855 So. 2d 5 5 1 , 554 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) . 1 2 2101072 s u b s e q u e n t l y t a k e n b y a m b u l a n c e t o t h e h o s p i t a l . On June 28, 2011, the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r s t a t i n g , i n pertinent part: "[The h u s b a n d ] was c a l l e d t o t h e s t a n d b y h i s attorney t o t e s t i f y regarding h i s Motion t o A l t e r , Amend o r V a c a t e . D u r i n g h i s c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , [ t h e h u s b a n d ] r e p o r t e d t o t h e c o u r t t h a t he f e l t f l u s h and i l l . D u r i n g a t e n m i n u t e r e c e s s , [ t h e h u s b a n d ] was t a k e n by ambulance t o E a s t Alabama M e d i c a l Center Emergency Room. A f t e r consultation with c o u n s e l t h e Court announced t h a t i t would g r a n t i n i s u b s t a n c e t h e [husband's] m o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e t h e j u d g m e n t ] , h o w e v e r , w i t h no d e t a i l s as t o what was a l t e r e d , amended o r v a c a t e d . The C o u r t o r d e r e d t h a t t e s t i m o n y i n t h i s m a t t e r n e e d e d t o be c o n t i n u e d and t h a t t h e d i v o r c e remained i n e f f e c t , however, a l l matters relating to the property s e t t l e m e n t w o u l d be s e t a s i d e a n d p o s s i b l y be m o d i f i e d , v a c a t e d o r a l t e r e d . I t was n o t a p p a r e n t a t t h i s t i m e w h i c h p r o v i s i o n w o u l d be m o d i f i e d , v a c a t e d or [altered]. [That r u l i n g was made o ] v e r t h e o b j e c t i o n a n d e x c e p t i o n o f t h e [ w i f e ' s ] c o u n s e l as [ t h e husband] was t h e o n l y w i t n e s s t h a t t e s t i f i e d , he was n o t f u l l y c r o s s - e x a m i n e d b e f o r e he l e f t a n d t h e [ w i f e ] was n o t a l l o w e d t o p u t on any t e s t i m o n y i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e [husband's] M o t i o n t o A l t e r , Amend, o r V a c a t e o r i n s u p p o r t o f any o f h e r Motions. "The "a) Court f u r t h e r ruled, T h a t some r e l i e f was n e c e s s a r y . "b) That t h e C o u r t Judgment o f d i v o r c e . made an error in i t s "c) That the parties are prohibited from d i s p o s i n g o f any a s s e t s p e n d i n g f u r t h e r o r d e r s of t h e Court. 3 2101072 "d) That the f i n a n c i a l provisions of the Automatic Court Order are reinstated. Specifically, t h e r e m a i n i n g $20,000 o f t h e $30,000 l o a n e d t o t h e b u s i n e s s b y [ t h e h u s b a n d and t h e w i f e ] s h a l l n o t be d i s b u r s e d t o [ t h e husband] p e n d i n g f u r t h e r c o u r t o r d e r s . "e) T h a t [ t h e husband] i s h e r e b y ORDERED t o r e s t o r e [ t h e w i f e ] t o Wayne T i c e E l e c t r i c [ ' s ] payroll and t h e r e b y reinstate her health i n s u r a n c e e f f e c t i v e J u n e 27, 2 0 1 1 . " f ) The [husband's] were a d m i t t e d . and (Emphasis exhibits One t h r o u g h "This matter i s reset f o r a d d i t i o n a l final ruling." added.) The w i f e filed her notice Four testimony of appeal on August 9, 2 0 1 1 , b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a d e n t e r e d any f u r t h e r orders. 2 Although the parties have n o t r a i s e d the issue t h i s c o u r t has j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e a p p e a l , whether "'jurisdictional m a t t e r s a r e o f s u c h m a g n i t u d e t h a t we t a k e n o t i c e o f them a t any t i m e a n d do so e v e n ex mero m o t u . S t o n e So. 2d 1245, v. H a l e y , 812 1245-46 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2001) ( q u o t i n g W a l l a c e v. Tee J a y s M f g . Co., 689 So. 2d 210, 211 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) ) . The w i f e a l s o p e t i t i o n e d t h i s c o u r t f o r a w r i t o f mandamus on A u g u s t 9, 2 0 1 1 . That p e t i t i o n , w h i c h was d o c k e t e d as c a s e number 2101069, was d e n i e d on A u g u s t 30, 2 0 1 1 . Ex parte Tice, So. 3d ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) ( t a b l e ) . 2 4 2101072 " ' " I t i s a well established rule that, with limited e x c e p t i o n s , an a p p e a l w i l l l i e o n l y f r o m a f i n a l judgment w h i c h d e t e r m i n e s t h e i s s u e s b e f o r e t h e c o u r t and a s c e r t a i n s and d e c l a r e s t h e r i g h t s o f t h e p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d . " ' Owens v. Owens, 739 So. 2d 5 1 1 , 513 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 9 ) , q u o t i n g T a y l o r v. T a y l o r , 398 So. 2d 267, 269 ( A l a . 1981) . T h i s c o u r t h a s stated: "'A f i n a l j u d g m e n t i s one t h a t c o m p l e t e l y adjudicates a l l matters i n controversy between a l l t h e p a r t i e s . ' "'... An o r d e r t h a t does n o t d i s p o s e o f a l l claims or determine the rights and l i a b i l i t i e s o f a l l t h e p a r t i e s t o an a c t i o n is not a f i n a l judgment. I n s u c h an i n s t a n c e , an a p p e a l may be h a d " o n l y upon an e x p r e s s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e r e i s no j u s t r e a s o n f o r d e l a y a n d upon an e x p r e s s d i r e c t i o n f o r t h e e n t r y o f j u d g m e n t . " See R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.'" Adams v. N a p h C a r e , I n c . , 869 So. 2d 1179, 1181 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) ( q u o t i n g Civ. a E u b a n k s v. M c C o l l u m , 828 So. 2d 935, 937 ( A l a . App. 2 0 0 2 ) ) . jurisdictional determination dismiss "The q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r a j u d g m e n t i s f i n a l i s question, and t h e r e v i e w i n g t h a t t h e judgment i s n o t f i n a l , the case. See J i m W a l t e r court, on a has a d u t y t o Homes, I n c . v. Holman, 373 So. 2d 869, 871 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 7 9 ) . " H u b b a r d v. H u b b a r d , 935 So. 2d 1 1 9 1 , 1192 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 6 ) . In F a e l l a c i 2011), the t r i a l v. F a e l l a c i , 67 So. 3d 923 c o u r t i n t h a t case e n t e r e d 5 ( A l a . C i v . App. an o r d e r granting 2101072 Mrs. F a e l l a c i ' s R u l e 59 m o t i o n i n s o f a r as i t a s s e r t e d (1) t h a t the trial court had exceeded i t sdiscretion in failing to a w a r d h e r i n t e r e s t on Mr. F a e l l a c i ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e and (2) t h a t Mr. F a e l l a c i ' s visitation however, t h a t o r d e r n e i t h e r d e t e r m i n e d owed b y Mr. F a e l l a c i rights. appeal nor s e t f o r t h I d . a t 924-26. before determining should court h i s modified entered t h e amount o f i n t e r e s t modified; t h e amount o f i n t e r e s t Mrs. F a e l l a c i then the t r i a l be visitation f i l e d a n o t i c e of any further orders owed b y Mr. F a e l l a c i or s e t t i n g f o r t h h i s m o d i f i e d v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s . I d . a t 925. T h i s court dismissed Faellaci] complete between filed the appeal because, her notice of appeal, adjudication the p a r t i e s " of "at the there a l l the matters time [Mrs. had n o t been a in and, t h e r e f o r e , "her appeal controversy was taken f r o m a n o n f i n a l j u d g m e n t . " I d . a t 926. In the present case, the t r i a l court's o r d e r e x p r e s s l y g r a n t e d t h e husband's Rule aside the d i v i s i o n of the m a r i t a l June 28, 2 0 1 1 , 59 m o t i o n a n d s e t property i n the divorce j u d g m e n t b u t d i d n o t s e t f o r t h a new d i v i s i o n o f t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y . To t h e c o n t r a r y , i t e x p r e s s l y r u l e d t h a t a d d i t i o n a l t e s t i m o n y w o u l d have t o t a k e n b e f o r e a d e t e r m i n a t i o n c o u l d be 6 2101072 made r e g a r d i n g t h e amended d i v i s i o n o f t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y . However, t h e w i f e f i l e d h e r n o t i c e o f a p p e a l b e f o r e t h e t r i a l court entered the marital because, an o r d e r property. " a t the time setting forth Accordingly, the wife an amended d i v i s i o n we filed dismiss the her n o t i c e of of appeal appeal, t h e r e h a d n o t been a c o m p l e t e a d j u d i c a t i o n o f a l l t h e m a t t e r s in controversy between a p p e a l was t a k e n APPEAL the parties" and, therefore, "her f r o m a n o n f i n a l j u d g m e n t . " I d . a t 926-27. DISMISSED. Thompson, concur. P . J . , and Pittman, 7 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.