Diane Helen Allen v. Mark James Allen

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/25/2012 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 Reporter o f Decisions, 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, 2011-2012 2110405 Diane Helen Allen v. Mark James A l l e n Appeal from C o l b e r t C i r c u i t Court (DR-07-251) THOMAS, Judge. This this court dismissed had i st h et h i r d concerning the appeal time their these p a r t i e s have divorce judgment. because two o u t s t a n d i n g n o t been addressed b y t h e t r i a l court. been before I n 2 0 0 9 , we contempt motions See A l l e n v . A l l e n 2110405 (No. 2971113, Aug. 2009)(table). judgment In Allen, 2010, 53 and So. 3d the we regarding the fees, we and 960, amount Helen alimony reasonable Following Allen June I I , the 21, 2011, Allen her ("the any marital residence. Pursuant wife to the fees. the f o r January on filed failed The a a judgment of attorney 3d of 2011. Allen for i t to amount at of 965-66. this court in conference for f o r January 19, The wife filed a a v e r r i n g t h a t Mark James things, failed to pay t h e m o r t g a g e p a y m e n t on the a motion to dismiss the 2011. "Motion Instructions So. reset among o t h e r t o pay See court status 18, 2011, 8, of equitable opinion husband f i l e d February the the denial 53 subsequently 18, of 2010)("Allen of trial an was January and contempt motion The attorney husband") had, alimony the scheduled reset again c o n t e m p t m o t i o n on and App. ground the aspects wife") of aspects ( A l a . C i v . App. the ("the (Ala. Civ. the on court which 855 marital property. cause to issuance trial 2010, and Allen the the alimony remanded the 3d parties 964-65 of So. affirmed reversed award Diane and 58 we dividing However, II"). 2009), divorcing incompatibility v. 11, for from 2 the Final Decree Alabama Court of Divorce of Civil 2110405 Appeals" on A p r i l a h e a r i n g had issued an trial on to 14, January September $1,200 per 2011. month attorney fees trial the pending N o v e m b e r 14, vacate an 14, 2011, 2011. The October ordered amended a status 2011. The divorce increased the from wife husband to $600 pay the $2,000. f o r October filed 25, court judgment the rescheduled wife that trial judgment of awarded t o amount o f then motions on The scheduling amended f i n a l also i n the 2011. amended f i n a l The and court the 19, pending motions court also entered The or I t appears from t h a t motion amount o f p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y wife for on f o r the September the 2011. b e e n h e l d on order conference 13, the 12, status 2011, a motion judgment on conference and to again alter, September for amend, 27, 2011, s p e c i f i c a l l y a s k i n g the t r i a l court to address the alimony alleged The alter, trial husband amend, on final January denied the or October order 20, by Williamson vacate 14, or, 2011. concerning 2012. operation v. owed. Fourth The of in The the husband the wife law. Ave. Rule then motion to for a new a motion for arrearage filed alimony postjudgment 59.1, Supermarket, 3 a on alternative, alleged parties' filed A l a . R. Inc., she 12 motions Civ. So. 3d P; were see 1200, 2110405 1204 ( A l a . upon i s d e n i e d as motion with this will 712 " ) . first from The law wife address whether the ( A l a . 1987) of such magnitude do so even trial judgment. on the then 90th filed day after a timely the appeal t h a t we filed court, See we have jurisdiction Nunn v. Baker, 518 over So. 2d (stating that " j u r i s d i c t i o n a l matters are ex mero m o t u " ) . and t h e husband The of motion not o t h e r w i s e r u l e d court. appeal 711, a matter is filed We the 2009) ("[A] postjudgment take notice The wife o f them a t any t i m e filed a contempt motion a motion t o d i s m i s s the contempt however, failed to rule on and motion. either party's on t h e p e n d i n g motions motion. The trial renders 1216, the 1220 because court's judgment the judgment f a i l s Civ. relevant judgment. App. here, Decker 2007). v. The Decker, appeal A l a . Code 1975, 984 So. judgment i s not to completely adjudicate a l l See B u t l e r v . P h i l l i p s , 2008). an to rule nonfinal. ( A l a . C i v . App. between the p a r t i e s . (Ala. failure Subject to ordinarily a lies 3 So. few 4 final issues 3d 922, 925 exceptions not only § 12-22-2; Bean v. 2d from Craig, a 557 final So. 2110405 2d 1249, 1253 (Ala. 1990). Therefore, we dismiss the wife's appeal. The wife's request f o r an attorney fee on appeal i s denied. APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, concur. 5 Bryan, 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.