Jennifer Plott Burkhalter v. Charles Randall Burkhalter

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/01/2012 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 R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , 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 2101140 Jennifer Plott Burkhalter v. Charles Randall Burkhalter Appeal from Autauga C i r c u i t (DR-10-107) Court THOMAS, J u d g e . Jennifer judgment Charles Plott Burkhalter ("the w i f e " ) of t h e Autauga C i r c u i t Randall Burkhalter Court appeals divorcing from a h e r from ("the husband") a n d d i v i d i n g t h e 2101140 p a r t i e s ' marital property. from a n o n f i n a l We the husband wife and wife the appeal on A u g u s t 7, 2004. filed being an On May 14, an a c t i o n s e e k i n g a d i v o r c e f r o m t h e an e q u i t a b l e d i v i s i o n filed as judgment. The p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d 2010, dismiss answer to of the m a r i t a l a s s e t s . the husband's The complaint counterpetitioned for a divorce. On May c o u r t e n t e r e d a " s t a n d i n g pendente l i t e " order r e q u i r i n g that the parties "coordinate the payment 19, 2010, of the and fixed trial monthly e x p e n s e s , " among o t h e r t h i n g s . On A u g u s t 17, 2010, alleging the wife f i l e d t h a t the husband had failed a motion f o r contempt to abide by the trial c o u r t ' s s t a n d i n g p e n d e n t e l i t e o r d e r r e g a r d i n g t h e payment o f monthly expenses. The contempt motion, s t a t i n g husband responded t h a t i t was moot. to the wife's On December 3 0 , 2010, t h e w i f e f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s and e x p e n s e s . On M a r c h 11, 2011, t h e w i f e f i l e d a s e c o n d m o t i o n f o r c o n t e m p t a g a i n s t the husband. a hearing on The t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r the w i f e ' s second contempt 2011. On May 1, 2011, t h e w i f e f i l e d court styled as "wife's summary 2 of motion setting f o r May a motion w i t h the husband's 3, trial contempt of 2101140 pendente l i t e incident of order," the i n w h i c h she husband's alleged violations c o u r t ' s s t a n d i n g pendente l i t e On May regarding 3, 2011, the the t r i a l divorce specifically s t a t e d each of the trial order. c o u r t heard ore tenus petitions, the wife's testimony motion seeking a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s , and t h e w i f e ' s c o n t e m p t m o t i o n s . t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment d i v o r c i n g the p a r t i e s , the m a r i t a l property, attorney fees and and denying expenses on The dividing the request for 17, May wife's 2011; however, the judgment f a i l e d t o d i s p o s e of the w i f e ' s motions f o r contempt. On June 1, vacate. 2011, The the w i f e f i l e d a motion to a l t e r , amend, o r husband f i l e d a motion f o r contempt a g a i n s t w i f e on June 13, 2011, a l l e g i n g t h a t she h a d removed i t e m s p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y f r o m t h e m a r i t a l home t h a t t h e t r i a l had a w a r d e d t o him the wife's postjudgment motion t i m e l y appealed On i n i t s judgment. appeal, to t h i s on The trial J u l y 27, the court 2011. of court denied The wife court. the w i f e argues t h a t the t r i a l court erred i n d i v i d i n g t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y and i n f a i l i n g t o a w a r d her alimony. c o u r t has However, we jurisdiction must f i r s t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r to consider t h i s 3 appeal. this 2101140 " T h i s c o u r t has a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n over appeals from j u d g m e n t s t h a t a r e f i n a l . § 12-22-2, A l a . Code 1975." P e r r y v. Perry, Civ. [Ms. 2100860, M a r c h 23, 2012] App. 2 0 1 2 ) . So. 3d , (Ala. " ' [ T ] h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r a judgment i s f i n a l i s a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l q u e s t i o n . ' J o h n s o n v. J o h n s o n , 835 So. 2d 1032, 1034 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002). 'A f i n a l judgment i s one t h a t d i s p o s e s o f a l l t h e c l a i m s and c o n t r o v e r s i e s b e t w e e n t h e parties.' H e a s t o n v . N a b o r s , 889 App. 2 0 0 4 ) . " D e c k e r v. Civ. App. It Decker, So. 2d 588, 984 So. 590 (Ala.Civ. 2d 1216, 1219 ( A l a . 2007). i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t "a t r i a l on a c o n t e m p t m o t i o n r e l a t i n g court's f a i l u r e to rule t o an i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r w o u l d r e n d e r any s u b s e q u e n t judgment n o n f i n a l b e c a u s e t h e f i l i n g o f the contempt motion would not be considered as having i n i t i a t e d a s e p a r a t e p r o c e e d i n g . " D e c k e r v. D e c k e r , 984 So. 2d at 1220; appeal court see P e r r y , as b e i n g had So. 3d a t from a n o n f i n a l failed to rule on r e g a r d i n g the husband's f a i l u r e s t a t u s quo Civ. App. order); 2009) judgment the 4 the trial motion t o a b i d e by t h e t r i a l court's In this wife's because contempt Logan v. L o g a n , (same). (dismissing the wife's 40 So. 3d 721, 723 ( A l a . case, the wife filed two 2101140 motions failure the f o r contempt against the husband for his t o a b i d e by t h e s t a n d i n g p e n d e n t e l i t e trial court's failure motions renders the t r i a l must d i s m i s s t h e w i f e ' s to dispose court's appeal. alleged order. of the w i f e ' s Thus, contempt judgment n o n f i n a l , and we 1 APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, concur. P.J., and Pittman, Bryan, and Moore, J J . , A l t h o u g h t h e h u s b a n d ' s June 13, 2011, c o n t e m p t m o t i o n w o u l d have i n i t i a t e d a s e p a r a t e and i n d e p e n d e n t a c t i o n h a d i t been f i l e d a f t e r a f i n a l j u d g m e n t o f d i v o r c e was e n t e r e d , see W i l c o x e n v. W i l c o x e n , 907 So. 2d 447, 449 n. 1 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) , and D e c k e r , 984 So. 2d a t 1219-20 , t h e h u s b a n d ' s June 13, 2011, c o n t e m p t m o t i o n d i d n o t i n i t i a t e a s e p a r a t e and i n d e p e n d e n t p r o c e e d i n g b e c a u s e , as we d e t e r m i n e d a b o v e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t was n o t f i n a l . Accordingly, the t r i a l c o u r t must r u l e on a l l p e n d i n g c o n t e m p t m o t i o n s f i l e d by t h e husband and t h e w i f e i n o r d e r t o e n t e r a f i n a l judgment o f d i v o r c e . 1 5

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.