McCarron v. McCarron
213 So. 3d 591
Ala. Civ. App.2016Background
- On November 25, 2013, a trial court divorce judgment divided property and awarded the wife $10,000 per month in periodic alimony.
- In McCarron v. McCarron, 168 So.3d 68 (Ala.Civ.App.2014) the court affirmed in part, reversed the property awards totaling $491,000, and remanded for an equitable payment schedule; the alimony award was reversed to allow reconsideration with the property order.
- On remand, the trial court on July 22, 2015 issued a judgment setting property payment schedules and stated the husband must immediately pay $10,000/month alimony beginning August 1, 2015, reserving the issue of arrearage.
- Before the trial court acted further on arrearage, the husband appealed the July 22, 2015 judgment.
- The appellate court ordered briefs on the finality of the judgment and concluded the judgment was not final, hence not appealable.
- The court concluded the trial court expressly reserved ruling on alimony arrearage, so the judgment did not conclusively determine the issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the July 22, 2015 judgment final and appealable? | McCarron argues the judgment is final and reviewable. | The state contends the judgment is nonfinal due to unresolved arrearage. | Appeal dismissed as from a nonfinal judgment. |
| Does reserving the arrearage issue prevent finality? | Arrearage was unresolved, so finality is lacking. | Arrearage reservation prevents conclusive determination of issues. | Judgment not final due to reserved arrearage issue. |
| May this court review the arrearage issue on appeal from a nonfinal judgment? | If finality is lacking, appellate review of arrearage is improper. | Appellate review of arrearage would require a final judgment; jurisdiction is limited. | This court cannot assume jurisdiction to rule on the arrearage issue; appeal dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- AC v. C.C., 34 So.3d 1281 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (finality governs jurisdiction; judgment must conclusively determine issues)
- McMurphy v. East Bay Clothiers, 892 So.2d 395 (Ala.Civ.App.2004) (jurisdictional notice of issues; appeals from final judgments)
- Kreitzberg v. Kreitzberg, 131 So.3d 612 (Ala.Civ.App.2013) (nonfinal judgments; review limitations when arrearages unresolved)