264 So. 3d 893
Ala. Civ. App.2018Background
- Parties entered a written settlement incorporated into a divorce judgment (Nov. 16, 2015) requiring husband to pay $4,500/month alimony, $2,000/month child support for one child, and college expenses; other obligations included payments from military retirement and conveyance of property interests.
- Husband filed a petition to modify alimony/child support (docketed .02); wife filed an answer plus a contempt counterpetition (docketed .03).
- Trial was held April 10, 2017 on consolidated matters; husband did not appear (had counsel), wife testified to substantial unpaid sums and other alleged misconduct; trial court orally indicated it would grant relief on wife's contempt petition.
- On May 30, 2017 the trial court entered an order in the .02 action denying husband’s petition to modify, granting wife’s contempt petition, ordering immediate jailing until $20,000 cash bond posted, and awarding $5,000 in attorney’s fees; husband’s motion to set aside/default or for new trial was denied.
- Husband appealed. The Court of Civil Appeals reviewed whether the appeal was from a final judgment given the two consolidated actions (.02 and .03) and whether the contested orders resolved all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Hossley (former husband) Argument | Hossley (former wife) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appealed order is final and appealable | The order denying his motion to set aside default/judgment is appealable; trial court erred in entering default-based relief | The order is final and supports appeal | Not final: appeal dismissed because consolidated actions required separate final judgments and the order did not adjudicate all claims (child-support/alimony arrearages and interest remained unresolved) |
| Whether the trial court improperly entered/kept a default judgment | He was not in default; he missed the date by mistake; trial court abused discretion by denying relief | Trial court acted within discretion given his nonappearance | Court did not reach merits because appellate jurisdiction lacking (nonfinal judgment) |
| Sufficiency of contempt/order calculations (arrearages and interest) | Order should have calculated arrearages and interest or directed computation before finalizing contempt relief | Consolidated order sufficed | Order failed to determine amounts owed; thus nonfinal and cannot support appeal |
| Attorney-fee award excessiveness | Fee award was excessive and should be reversed | Fee award appropriate | Court did not address fee merits due to dismissal for lack of finality |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Strickland, 54 So.3d 906 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (appeal typically lies only from a final judgment)
- Sexton v. Sexton, 42 So.3d 1280 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (final-judgment requirement for appellate jurisdiction)
- R.J.G. v. S.S.W., 42 So.3d 747 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (notice of appeal in one consolidated case may be effective as to the other when intent is clear)
- Casey v. Casey, 109 So.3d 199 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012) (consolidated actions retain separate identities and require separate judgments)
- League v. McDonald, 355 So.2d 695 (Ala. 1978) (same: separate identity of consolidated actions)
- Hanner v. Metro Bank & Protective Life Ins. Co., 952 So.2d 1056 (Ala. 2006) (trial court must certify a Rule 54(b) final judgment when fewer than all claims in consolidated actions are resolved)
- Clay v. Clay, 255 So.3d 238 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017) (order failing to calculate child-support arrearage and interest is nonfinal)
- McCarron v. McCarron, 213 So.3d 591 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016) (order that does not conclusively determine alimony arrearage is nonfinal)
- Palughi v. Dow, 659 So.2d 112 (Ala. 1995) (appeal lies only from judgments that conclusively determine the parties' rights)