Janice V. Lowe v. Courtney M. Lowe

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 12/2/11 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 2100672 J a n i c e V. Lowe v. Courtney M. Lowe Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court (DR-05-2673.01) BRYAN, J u d g e . Janice V. Lowe ("the f o r m e r wife") judgment e n t e r e d by t h e J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t court") that modified custody during her marriage appeals Court from ("the t r i a l o f two c h i l d r e n who were t o C o u r t n e y M. Lowe ("the a former born husband") 2100672 and that denied her request f o r an award of an alimony arrearage. The record divorced by Pursuant to on appeal the Talladega the divorce reveals that Circuit Court judgment, the parties i n November which the judgment residence also would indicated be f o r m e r h u s b a n d was the the wife's children's residence, awarded primary that the a w a r d e d v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n , and t h a t the former husband would pay c h i l d support. I n September 2005, t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d f i l e d a p e t i t i o n t o m o d i f y c u s t o d y the c h i l d r e n i n the Talladega 2005, the former wife C i r c u i t Court, filed a petition of the p a r t i e s , the proceedings in additional October requests 2005. alleging a judgment t h a t c o n f i r m e d on i s s u e s p e n d i n g b e f o r e that the Upon a g r e e m e n t were t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e t r i a l Thereafter, for relief t h e i r d i v o r c e judgment. of and, i n O c t o b e r f o r m e r h u s b a n d owed a c h i l d - s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e . court an of t h e i r three c h i l d r e n , but that former 2004. incorporated a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s , t h e p a r t i e s were p u r p o r t e d l y j o i n t l e g a l and p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y were the parties filed from and/or m o d i f i c a t i o n o f I n May 2008, t h e t r i a l court entered an a g r e e m e n t r e a c h e d b y t h e p a r t i e s the t r i a l 2 court. 2100672 The p r e s e n t a c t i o n , c a s e no. DR-05-2673.01, was on A p r i l 16, 2009, when t h e f o r m e r w i f e f i l e d initiated a petition for a r u l e n i s i a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d owed an a r r e a r a g e in h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t , alimony, support o b l i g a t i o n s . filed a child 2010, of to who still were support postminority-educational- On December 21, 2009, t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d petition children and modify payable custody minors, by the and former of he the parties' sought wife. On an two award of December 1, the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment t h a t m o d i f i e d c u s t o d y t h e p a r t i e s ' two wife's v i s i t a t i o n specifically court's minor c h i l d r e n schedule. r e q u e s t e d an judgment states: and s e t f o r t h the A l t h o u g h the former husband award of c h i l d support, "It is that noted e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d as t o t h e p a r t i e s ' i n c o m e s , support f o r m s were issue of c h i l d The former former submitted to the Court. the there trial was and no had no child- Therefore, the support i s reserved." wife filed which was subsequently April 15, 2011, she an "application denied filed by the trial a n o t i c e of appeal e n t e r e d on December 1, 2010. The for rehearing," c o u r t , and, from the r e c o r d s u b m i t t e d on on order appeal does n o t c o n t a i n any f u r t h e r s u b m i s s i o n s o r o r d e r s r e l a t i n g t o 3 2100672 child support. Before wife on we not can appeal, jurisdiction fact 1 address we over must the the determine former specifically, the issues order raised whether wife's appeal t h a t the o r d e r from which a d j u d i c a t e a l l the issues did the by this Sexton 2 0 1 0 ) , was v. Sexton, 42 So. 3d former court in light has of the former w i f e appealed d i d properly before that court; not the former adjudicate h u s b a n d ' s r e q u e s t f o r an a w a r d o f c h i l d s u p p o r t . in the 1280, 1282 faced with s i m i l a r circumstances. This court, (Ala. Civ. App. In t h a t case, we stated: " A l t h o u g h n e i t h e r p a r t y has a d d r e s s e d w h e t h e r t h i s c o u r t has j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r t h i s a p p e a l , ' j u r i s d i c t i o n a l matters are of such magnitude 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.' Nunn v. B a k e r , 518 So. 2d 711, 712 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . G e n e r a l l y , an a p p e a l w i l l l i e o n l y f r o m f i n a l j u d g m e n t , and i f t h e r e i s n o t a f i n a l j u d g m e n t then t h i s c o u r t i s w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n t o hear the a p p e a l . H a m i l t o n ex r e l . S l a t e - H a m i l t o n v. C o n n a l l y , 959 So. 2d 640, 642 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) . A j u d g m e n t i s n o t f i n a l i f i t f a i l s to completely adjudicate a l l i s s u e s b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s . G i a r d i n a v. G i a r d i n a , 39 So. 3d 204, 207 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) ( c i t i n g B u t l e r We n o t e t h a t t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l does n o t c o n t a i n a transcript of the ore tenus proceedings in this case. However, t h e r e c o r d does c o n t a i n a s t a t e m e n t o f t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t was a p p r o v e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 1 0 ( d ) , A l a . R. App. P. 1 4 2100672 v. Phillips, 3 So. 3d 922, 925 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008)) Id. In Sexton, parties' action. the trial court reserved r e q u e s t f o r an a w a r d o f c h i l d I d . a t 1283. We ruling on both support i n a divorce c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e a p p e a l was taken from a n o n f i n a l judgment because i t d i d not " ' d i s p o s e [ ] o f a l l claims or the rights and liabilities ( q u o t i n g C a r l i s l e v. C a r l i s l e , App. not 2000)). Sexton, 42 768 So. 2d 976, Because the t r i a l " a d j u d i c a t e a l l the So. 977 we Id. (Ala. Civ. c o u r t i n the p r e s e n t case d i d issues properly before that 3d a t 1283, w i f e ' s a p p e a l was of a l l p a r t i e s . ' " must c o n c l u d e t h a t the court," former t a k e n f r o m a n o n f i n a l j u d g m e n t and t h a t h e r a p p e a l must be d i s m i s s e d . I d . ( q u o t i n g Young v. S a n d l i n , 703 So. 2d 1005, 1008 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n P o w e l l v. R e p u b l i c N a t ' l L i f e I n s . Co., So. 2d 359, 360 (1974)) 293 A l a . 101, 102, ("'"When i t i s d e t e r m i n e d that 300 an o r d e r a p p e a l e d from i s not a f i n a l judgment, i t i s the duty of t h e C o u r t t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l ex mero m o t u . " ' " ) . 2 We n o t e t h a t t h i s c a s e i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m c a s e s s u c h as P a r k e r v. P a r k e r , 946 So. 2d 480, 486 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 6 ) , i n w h i c h t h i s c o u r t h e l d t h a t a d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t was f i n a l d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t had r e s e r v e d 2 5 2100672 APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, concur. P.J., and Pittman, Thomas, and Moore, J J . , r u l i n g on t h e i s s u e o f c h i l d s u p p o r t . In P a r k e r , the t r i a l c o u r t r e s e r v e d r u l i n g on t h e i s s u e o f c h i l d s u p p o r t b e c a u s e o f t h e n o n c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t ' s l a c k o f i n c o m e , and we h e l d t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t r e s e r v e r u l i n g on t h e c h i l d support i s s u e pending the occurrence of a s p e c i f i c event, such as t h e s u b m i s s i o n o f c h i l d - s u p p o r t f o r m s , t h e j u d g m e n t was f i n a l . I d . See a l s o M.S.M. v. M.W.M., [Ms. 2090949, M a r c h 11, 2011] So. 3d , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) (holding that a d i v o r c e judgment t h a t suspended the n o n c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n because of the n o n c u s t o d i a l parent's unemployment was a f i n a l j u d g m e n t ) . In the p r e s e n t case, t h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e f o r m e r w i f e was u n e m p l o y e d o r t h a t she o t h e r w i s e l a c k e d income f r o m w h i c h she c o u l d pay c h i l d support. I n s t e a d , t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e was s i m p l y no e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d by t h e p a r t i e s f r o m w h i c h t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d have d e t e r m i n e d t h e f o r m e r w i f e ' s c h i l d s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n . See T o m l i n s o n v. T o m l i n s o n , 816 So. 2d 57, 58 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2001) ( d i s m i s s i n g an a p p e a l as h a v i n g b e e n t a k e n f r o m a n o n f i n a l j u d g m e n t when t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t s t a t e d t h a t i t would determine the n o n c u s t o d i a l parent's c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n upon s u b m i s s i o n o f t h e a p p r o p r i a t e c h i l d - s u p p o r t forms). 6

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.