Joni O' Shields Sims v. Edward Lee Sims
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 11/06/2009 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 Reporter o f Decisions, 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, 2009-2010 2070697 Joni O ' S h i e l d s Sims v. Edward Lee Sims Appeal from Morgan C i r c u i t Court (DR-04-974.01) PITTMAN, Joni divorcing Judge. O'Shields Sims h e r from Edward ("the w i f e " ) L e e Sims appeals from a judgment ("the husband") t h a t , she c l a i m s , i m p r o p e r l y d i v i d e d the p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l assets and d i d not award her alimony health-insurance or direct coverage. t h ehusband t o provide her 2070697 The parties separated on were married October 31, the age parties' the parties. their which the parties testified court that two entered judgment, jointly owned a the real t i m e l y postjudgment 18 , 2 00 8. In i t s order lists goods of and the The March 18, property parties' instructed represented leaving the the items wife items appealed 2008, division wanted identified and on within order. that 3, the i n s t r u c t e d to to equally split by each p a r c e l wife filed in part in the part and on wife's c o u r t d i r e c t e d t h e w i f e t o make property husband he offered granted granting personal the was ore December e a c h p a r c e l . The which an divorcing p a r t i e s were and and on judgment the debts secured motion, conducted later, property postjudgment motion, the t r i a l two court years the c o s t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s e l l i n g March filed. at the proceeds a f t e r paying a was trial trial In reached the Over of had 2005, evidence. they child 19, proceeding 2007, 1977; complaint divorce October 24, h u s b a n d moved out only the documentary sell The of m a j o r i t y b e f o r e On tenus October 2 0 0 4 , when t h e marital residence. the on the 42 She to the choose court days of 2 the the d e c i s i o n not household which list award him, f o r the wife. to second l i s t challenges court's and entry trial to of the court's order the 2070697 husband to pay p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y or to p r o v i d e coverage f o r the w i f e . trial court's following ore tenus court's discretion. dismiss the As the we a wife For proceeding the 25 months had was outside reasons discussed App. threshold appeals matter, from See Blythe 2007 ), and (Ala. we a final not liabilities 2d Lolley, must first division 2006). final So. 2d unless the property divide 1121, the determine trial must the held prepare are 1122 Indus. lists nonfinal divided 1191, or the in order until a 3 or Blythe, 976 orders the v. parties' i t does not court has instructing the This effectuate division Inc., 2003)). "equitably," to rights Coatings, property. 1192 " ' [ a ] judgment i s states that trial-court (Ala. Civ. 2d ( A l a . C i v . App. marital that 1019 So. rule, ordinarily, have been d e c i d e d . ' " Edmonds be 935 whether from a n o n f i n a l 1018, a l l claims, postjudgment order should 2d a general (quoting 863 to As So. Hubbard, a l l parties, consistently parties elapsed b e l o w , we judgment, because, 976 v. 1020 at actually Blythe, of Although marital v. Hubbard C i v . App. generally the appeal. c a n n o t e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r an a p p e a l order. So. In a d d i t i o n , the w i f e a s s e r t s t h a t e n t r y of a judgment a f t e r the health-insurance of the a property property 2070697 actually occurs. 505 See, e.g., M c G i l l v. M c G i l l , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004) was nonfinal parties' because, personal (concluding that a divorce instead property, and awarded party the property identified 1997) Grubbs, (same). indicates Nothing that the personal-property attempted to appeal Moreover, discern how just 729 on t h e l i s t So. 2d parties division. from a n o n f i n a l some trial 2d final disposition court before wife's The appeal appeal wife's request appeal with the wife has supra, we cannot might affect of the t h i s case. T h e r e must i s final. the property by t h e See M c G i l l , 888 S o . Accordingly, the dismissed. f o r an award i s denied. APPEAL the on division 729 So. 2d a t 347. i s due t o be other judgment. of the personal i t s judgment a t 505, and Grubbs, complied and Grubbs, the personal-property e q u i t i e s under the circumstances be ever the ( a l a . C i v . App. Consequently, as i n M c G i l l t o make t w o i n the record have the of h i s choosing), 3 4 6 , 347 contained judgment dividing property personal v. actually one p a r t y of the t h e i r Grubbs of i t ordered lists and 888 S o . 2 d 5 0 2 , DISMISSED. 4 o f an attorney f e e on 2070697 Thompson, P.J., and Bryan, concur. 5 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.
