Opinion
CL-2022-0840
05-26-2023
Erica Shellese CLAYTON v. Corey Lamont CLAYTON
Larry L. Raby, Montgomery, for appellant. Jim T. Norman III, Prattville, for appellee.
Larry L. Raby, Montgomery, for appellant.
Jim T. Norman III, Prattville, for appellee.
THOMPSON, Presiding Judge.
Erica Shellese Clayton ("the wife") appeals from an order divorcing her from Corey Lamont Clayton ("the husband") and from an order resolving the issue of the custody of the parties’ children. Because the orders do not constitute a final judgment, we dismiss the appeal.
On March 28, 2022, the Lowndes Circuit Court ("the trial court") conducted a hearing at which the husband and the wife testified. Evidence was presented indicating that 4 children (ages 5 months to 14 years) had been born during the parties’ marriage. Conflicting evidence was presented regarding the husband’s financial support of the wife and the children after the parties had separated. The wife testified that she and the children had relocated to Illinois to be near the wife’s parents, so that they could provide her with financial support as well as child-care assistance. The wife testified that she intended to return to Alabama with the children when she could afford to do so.
On April 7, 2022, the trial court entered an order that divorced the parties on the grounds of incompatibility of temperament and irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. Regarding custody of the children and child support, the order provided in pertinent part:
We note that the certificate of divorce included in the record indicates that adultery is the legal ground for the divorce.
"The parties are hereby granted joint legal custody of the children. Physical custody of [the three oldest children] is granted to the [husband], physical custody of [the youngest child] is granted to the [wife]. [The wife] is to relinquish custody of the three oldest children immediately.
"Each party is hereby granted visitation every other weekend from 5:00 p.m. on Friday to 5:00 p.m. on Sunday beginning Friday, April 15, 2022. Said visitation is to take place in the state of residence of the custodial parent.
"Upon the relocation of [the wife] to the State of Alabama, physical custody of the three oldest children will become joint between the parties. Physical custody of the youngest child shall remain with the mother, with the same visitation schedule listed above, until the child reaches two years of age, at which time the physical custody will become joint.
"When the physical custody of any of the children becomes joint as described above, the children will live with one parent for one week, and the other for the following week, alternating weeks between the two parents. The visitation
week shall begin at 5:00 p.m. on Sundays.
"….
"The custodial parent shall make final decisions about educational, recreational/extracurricular activities, medical, dental and religious activities. Once custody becomes joint, the husband shall make the final decision as to educational and recreational/extracurricular activities; and the wife shall make the final decision as to medical, dental and religious activities.
"….
"As the mother is not employed at this time, there will be no child support ordered from either party until such time as the mother moves to Alabama. At the time the mother moves to Alabama, it is hereby ordered that child support will be required to be paid between the parties based on their incomes calculated in such a way that both parties receive the same amount of support. In other words, using the Child Support Guidelines, the amount of child support for four children is calculated. Based on the incomes of the two parties, the amount owing from each party is calculated (highest wage earner’s obligation - (total support amount/2) - this equalizes the support amount.)"
On April 7, 2022, the mother filed a motion asking the trial court to reconsider its order, arguing that the evidence did not support the trial court’s conclusion that awarding physical custody of the three oldest children to the father was in the best interests of the children. On June 20, 2022, the wife filed another motion, alleging in pertinent part that she had relocated to Alabama. The wife attached to her motion a copy of an executed lease for a residence in Montgomery. The wife’s motion asked the trial court to grant her physical custody of the three oldest children.
On June 21, 2022, the trial court entered an order providing:
"Based on the representations made to the court regarding [the wife] having relocated to Montgomery, the previous court order provides for joint physical custody of the three [oldest] children, with alternating weeks and regular visitation with the youngest [child]. Otherwise, all issues raised in the motion to modify filed by [the wife] are moot, as the order filed on April 7th supersedes all previous orders of the court."
The record contains no submissions from the parties or orders from the trial court relating to child support after the entry of the April 7, 2022, order. On July 15, 2022, the wife filed her notice of appeal.
[1, 2] " ‘A final judgment is one that completely adjudicates all matters in controversy between the parties.’ Wilson v. Glasheen, 801 So. 2d 848, 849 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001)." Reid v. Reid, 844 So. 2d 1212, 1214 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002). In Tomlinson v. Tomlinson, 816 So. 2d 57, 58 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001), this court recognized:
"An appeal ordinarily lies only from a final judgment. Ala. Code 1975, § 12-222; Bean v. Craig, 557 So. 2d 1249, 1253 (Ala. 1990). An order is generally not final unless it disposes of all claims or the rights or liabilities of all parties. Ex parte Harris, 506 So. 2d 1003, 1004 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987)."
[3, 4] A review of the record establishes that the April 7, 2022, order is not a final judgment. Although the issue of custody of the children reserved in the April 7, 2022, order appears to have been resolved with the entry of the June 21, 2022, order, the issue of child support remains pending. In its April 7, 2022, order, the trial court reserved its determination of the child-support award until after the mother relocated to Alabama. The record does not include an order of the trial court calculating the parties' child-support obligation or any filings of the parties in compliance with Rule 32(E), Ala. R. Jud. Admin. See also Farquhar v. Farquhar, 190 So. 3d 524, 525 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015). Because the rights and liabilities of the parties concerning child support have not been fully disposed, a final judgment has not been entered in this case. See Tomlinson, supra (holding that trial court’s judgment was nonfinal when the trial court reserved ruling on the issue of child support to allow the parties to submit the necessary child-support forms required by Rule 32(E), Ala. R. Jud. Admin.); Reid v. Reid, 844 So. 2d 1212 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002) (holding trial court’s judgment was nonfinal when the trial court reserved ruling on the issue of child support pending the results of the mother’s examination to obtain a nursing license). A nonfinal judgment will not support an appeal and, therefore, this court must dismiss the appeal. See Wilson v. Glasheen, 801 So. 2d 848 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001)(holding that an appeal from an order that does not dispose of child-support issue was nonfinal and must be dismissed).
Rule 32(E), Ala. R. Jud. Admin., provides:
"A standardized Child-Support Guidelines form (Form CS-42 as appended to this rule), a Child-Support-Obligation Income Statement/Affidavit form (Form CS-41 as appended to this rule), and a Child-Support Guidelines Notice of Compliance Form (Form CS-43 as appended to this rule) shall be filed in each action to establish or modify child-support obligations and shall be of record and shall be deemed to be incorporated by reference in the court’s child-support order…."
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Moore, Edwards, Hanson, and Fridy, JJ., concur.