Faellaci v. Faellaci
67 So. 3d 923
Ala. Civ. App.2011Background
- Marriage in 1995; three children born during marriage; separation judgment in 2006 incorporated a separation agreement granting wife sole custody with husband visitation and a specified child-support regime.
- Separation provision fixed husband support at $5,000 monthly plus 50% of net income from bonuses/commissions, with annual W-2/1099 proof.
- Husband filed February 2008 petition to set aside the separation agreement and for divorce; wife moved to dismiss and sought rule nisi for alleged noncompliance with child support.
- Trial court, after ore tenus proceedings, rendered a November 10, 2009 judgment: joint legal custody, wife primary physical custody, husband visitation, child support $4,000 monthly, and arrearage of $100,000; other terms of the separation agreement remained in effect.
- Wife filed postjudgment Rule 59 motion; trial court’s January 6, 2010 order granted some relief (interest on arrearage and modified visitation per agreement) but left unresolved the precise interest amount and an amended visitation order, without a final dispositive order.
- Wife appealed in April 2010; the court discussed finality, concluded the judgment was final for purposes of appeal, but held the appeal was from a nonfinal judgment because further adjudication remained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the November 10, 2009 judgment final? | Faellaci argues final judgment approved. | Faellaci contends unresolved postjudgment items keep it nonfinal. | Final judgment; ultimately disposed but not dispositive of all issues for appeal. |
| Does the postjudgment order affect appellate jurisdiction? | Appeal is timely despite postjudgment order. | Appeal premature due to unresolved postjudgment matters. | Appeal dismissed as from a nonfinal judgment. |
| Did Rule 59.1 timing govern the award of interest on the arrearage? | Interest could be awarded; trial court failed to finalize amount timely. | Interest was denied by operation of law due to lack of due date for payments. | Rule 59.1 timing controlled; since amount of interest not finalized within 90 days, interest was denied by operation of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nunn v. Baker, 518 So.2d 711 (Ala. 1987) (jurisdictional notice for nonfinal judgments raised ex mero motu)
- Giardina v. Giardina, 39 So.3d 204 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (nonfinality when judgment fails to adjudicate all issues)
- Brunson v. Brunson, 991 So.2d 723 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (contempt petitions and finality in divorce judgments)
- Horwitz v. Horwitz, 897 So.2d 337 (Ala.Civ.App.2004) (implicit ruling on contempt can signal finality)
- Frasemer v. Frasemer, 578 So.2d 1346 (Ala.Civ.App.1991) (arrearage award may constitute ruling on rule nisi even without contempt finding)
- Anderson v. Anderson, 65 So.3d 435 (Ala.Civ.App.2010) (postjudgment relief not making final judgment requires further action)
- Sims v. Sims, 38 So.3d 71 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (need amended judgment to finalize postjudgment relief)
- Peoples v. Peoples, 886 So.2d 837 (Ala.Civ.App.2003) (final judgment requires complete adjudication of all issues)