Jeffery Dale Wood v. Susan Alline Wood

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/2/09 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2009 2080404 Jeffery Dale Wood v. Susan A l l i n e Wood Appeal from Etowah C i r c u i t Court (DR-08-66) THOMAS, J u d g e . J e f f e r y D a l e Wood ("the husband") a p p e a l s of t h e Etowah C i r c u i t Wood ("the w i f e " ) . Court from a judgment d i v o r c i n g h i m and Susan Alline We d i s m i s s f o r want o f j u r i s d i c t i o n . 2080404 The h u s b a n d a n d t h e w i f e were m a r r i e d c h i l d r e n were b o r n o f t h e m a r r i a g e , the time o f t h e p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e . wife sued complaint, t h e husband requested, for a Two one o f whom was a m i n o r a t On J a n u a r y 30, 2008, t h e divorce. among o t h e r i n June 1983. The w i f e , i n her things, possession of the m a r i t a l home, t h a t t h e h u s b a n d be s o l e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e o u t s t a n d i n g m o r t g a g e on t h e m a r i t a l home, a n d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d pay the wife requested alimony postminority minor c h i l d , and c h i l d educational support. support The wife f o r the p a r t i e s ' who was n e a r t h e age o f m a j o r i t y . On J a n u a r y 30, 2008, t h e w i f e a l s o moved t h e t r i a l for pendente also lite divorce complaint. relief, repeating the requests On t h e same d a y , t h e t r i a l court from h e r court entered an o r d e r s e t t i n g a d a t e f o r a h e a r i n g on t h e w i f e ' s m o t i o n f o r pendente l i t e r e l i e f , g r a n t i n g t h e w i f e and t h e p a r t i e s ' minor c h i l d e x c l u s i v e u s e o f t h e m a r i t a l home, o r d e r i n g t h e h u s b a n d t o p a y t h e m o r t g a g e on t h e m a r i t a l home, o r d e r i n g t h e h u s b a n d t o o b t a i n i n s u r a n c e on t h e m i n o r c h i l d ' s a u t o m o b i l e , both parties from disposing assets, and e n j o i n i n g party. On M a r c h each of or concealing party 19, 2008, a f t e r 2 from any m a r i t a l harassing the hearing enjoining the other on t h e w i f e ' s 2080404 motion f o r pendente lite another pendente l i t e t h e w i f e $400 e v e r y two weeks relief, order, the t r i a l court entered o r d e r i n g t h e husband t o pay t o two weeks as c h i l d s u p p o r t as t h e h u s b a n d ' s p o r t i o n a n d $160 e v e r y o f t h e mortgage on t h e m a r i t a l home. On September 29, 2008, the t r i a l court held a bench trial, a t which i t heard ore tenus evidence. On November 6, 2008, the t r i a l d i v o r c i n g the parties, court allocating entered the marital husband t o pay t o t h e w i f e a judgment property, and o r d e r i n g t h e a l i m o n y and c h i l d support. Both p a r t i e s f i l e d t i m e l y postjudgment motions t o vacate, a l t e r , or amend t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59, A l a . R. Civ. P. On December 15, 2008, t h e t r i a l court held a hearing on b o t h p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n s ; on December 22, 2008, t h e t r i a l court denied both p a r t i e s ' postjudgment motions. timely appealed t o t h i s Although, The h u s b a n d court. i n her complaint, the wife d i d not claim that t h e h u s b a n d s h o u l d be h e l d i n c o n t e m p t f o r v i o l a t i n g t h e t r i a l court's pendente trial. The h u s b a n d d i d n o t o b j e c t being tried, lite orders, she d i d make that t o t h e c l a i m of contempt and t h e w i f e and t h e husband p r e s e n t e d 3 claim at evidence 2080404 regarding t h e h u s b a n d ' s o b l i g a t i o n s and c o m p l i a n c e w i t h pendente l i t e orders. claim to parties. raised have been See R u l e by the Therefore, tried 15(b), pleadings by we deem t h e w i f e ' s the A l a . R. are implied C i v . P. tried by the contempt consent of the ("When i s s u e s not express or implied c o n s e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s , t h e y s h a l l be t r e a t e d i n a l l r e s p e c t s as i f t h e y had been r a i s e d i n t h e p l e a d i n g s . " ) . court's judgment d i d n o t a d d r e s s t h e w i f e ' s The trial contempt c l a i m . Although n e i t h e r p a r t y r a i s e s the i s s u e whether the t r i a l court's judgment is final, "'jurisdictional matters are of s u c h i m p o r t a n c 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 and do so e v e n ex mero motu.'" W a l l a c e v. Tee J a y s M f g . Co., 68 9 So. 2d 210, 211 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1997) So. 2d 7 1 1 , 712 ( q u o t i n g Nunn v. B a k e r , 518 ( A l a . 1987)). "An a p p e a l o r d i n a r i l y l i e s o n l y f r o m t h e e n t r y o f a f i n a l j u d g m e n t . A l a . Code 1975, § 12-22-2; Bean v. C r a i g , 557 So. 2d 1249, 1253 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) . A judgment i s g e n e r a l l y n o t f i n a l u n l e s s a l l c l a i m s , o r t h e r i g h t s o r l i a b i l i t i e s o f a l l p a r t i e s , have b e e n d e c i d e d . Ex p a r t e H a r r i s , 506 So. 2d 1003, 1004 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1987) ." H e n n i n g v. H e n n i n g , 999 So. 2d 523, 525 I n t h i s case, the t r i a l of the wife's court's contempt c l a i m ; ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) . judgment d i d n o t therefore, 4 the t r i a l dispose court's 2080404 j u d g m e n t was n o t f i n a l , a n d we d i s m i s s t h e husband's appeal. See N.H. v. T.A.P., 963 So. 2d 97, 98-99 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) (holding that a t r i a l court's father's claim f o r child j u d g m e n t was n o n f i n a l when t h e s u p p o r t was t r i e d b y c o n s e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s and t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment d i d n o t d i s p o s e of that claim). 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.