S.A.M. v. M.H.W.
227 So. 3d 1232
Ala. Civ. App.2017Background
- Unmarried parents S.A.M. (mother) and M.H.W. (father) litigated custody and paternity for their child born Dec. 2, 2012; father filed petition in Talladega Juvenile Court in Oct. 2015.
- At the May 2016 trial, mother counterclaimed for custody and later moved (April 2016) for retroactive child support; juvenile court’s July 13, 2016 order awarded custody to father and ordered current support but did not address retroactive support.
- Mother filed a postjudgment motion (styled as Rule 59) and parties extended the court’s time to rule; the court held a hearing but did not enter a ruling, so the motion was deemed denied by operation of law on Aug. 18, 2016.
- Mother filed a notice of appeal on Aug. 31, 2016. Father argued mother’s retroactive-support request was an unpermitted amendment to her counterclaim and thus not properly before the court.
- The court concluded retroactive support had been tried without objection (implied consent) but because the final judgment omitted disposition of that claim, the order was not a final, appealable judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retroactive child-support claim was properly before the court | Mother: Raised at trial and therefore before the court; tried by implied consent | Father: It was an amendment to the counterclaim that required leave under Rule 15(a) and was not properly pleaded | Court: Issue was tried by implied consent under Rule 15(b), so it was before the court |
| Whether the juvenile-court order was a final, appealable judgment | Mother: Filed appeal after court’s July order | Father: Judgment was final; appeal should proceed | Court: Because the July order failed to resolve retroactive-support claim, it was not a final judgment; appellate court lacks jurisdiction and appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Walker, 695 So.2d 58 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997) (retroactive child support can be treated as a compulsory counterclaim)
- Wood v. Wood, 34 So.3d 694 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (omission of a tried issue from the judgment renders the judgment nonfinal)
- State ex rel. Thomas v. Mixon, 674 So.2d 611 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995) (appeals may lie only from final juvenile-court orders)
- Austin v. Austin, 159 So.3d 753 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013) (discussing leave to amend under Rule 15 when deadlines near trial)
- Image Mktg., Inc. v. Florence Television, L.L.C., 884 So.2d 822 (Ala. 2003) (an amendment filed without required leave is generally ineffective)