Maurer v. Boyd
111 So. 3d 690
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Divorce between Raven Maurer and Michael Maurer; joint legal custody with Raven having primary physical custody and Michael paying child support.
- Michael filed emergency custody petition citing Raven’s conduct; court granted temporary custody to Michael and appointed a guardian ad litem.
- 2008 custody terms reverted to Raven’s custody; criminal allegations led to proceedings and protective orders in other jurisdictions.
- 2010–2011 ongoing contempt and custody disputes; Chancellor Gambrell issued a “final judgment” but ordered proposed findings on arrearage and on reducing child support.
- Record lacked determinations on arrearage amount and on the reduced support, and no Rule 54(b) certification; appeal rejected for lack of jurisdiction as interlocutory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the order is a final, appealable judgment under Rule 54(b). | Raven argues the order is a final judgment. | The order is not finally adjudicative of all claims or properly certified. | Not final; no Rule 54(b) certification; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Whether the court properly deprived the appeal due to lack of certification or permission for interlocutory review. | N/A (Raven appeals as of right) | Interlocutory order requires Rule 5 permission to appeal. | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Watters v. Watters, 956 So.2d 1050 (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (final-judgment rule interpretations and appealability)
- Thompson v. True Temper Sports, Inc., 74 So.3d 936 (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (finality and review of judgments)
- Williams v. Bud Wilson’s Mobile Home Serv., 887 So.2d 830 (Miss.Ct.App.2004) (final judgment and interdictory review principles)
- M.W.F. v. D.D.F., 926 So.2d 897 (Miss.2006) (jurisdictional review standards for appeals)
- Bierman v. Kreunen, 912 So.2d 498 (Miss.Ct.App.2005) (interlocutory appeals require permission under Rule 5)
- Moody v. Harrison Cnty. Bd. of Sup’rs, 867 So.2d 274 (Miss.Ct.App.2004) (interlocutory review prerequisites)
- Canadian Nat’l Ry. Co. v. Wattman, 94 So.3d 1111 (Miss.Ct.App.2012) (jurisdiction and finality considerations)
- Knight v. Woodfield, 50 So.3d 995 (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (appellate jurisdiction and finality)