Lana Coleman (“Wife”) appeals from the trial court’s judgments dated May 28, 2004, November 24, 2003, and August 22, 2003 relating to two motions to “Cite аnd Punish [Anthony Coleman (“Husband”) ]
Facts and Procedural History
The record before us appears to be incomplete. Hоwever, we glean the facts and procedural history as follows: Wife and Husband’s marriage was dissolved on March 13, 1998 and thе trial court entered a judgment dividing the marital property and awarding child support, time-limited maintenance and statutory maintenance to Wife (“Decree”). Neither party appealed the Decree. On January 23, 2003, Wife filed her first mоtion entitled “To Cite and Punish [Husband] for Contempt and/or to Determine Amounts Due to [Wife] from Husband” (“First Motion”) requesting the trial court tо enforce the provisions of the Decree. The prominent issues raised in this First Motion were whether (i) Wife is entitled to thе title of the family residence pursuant to Section 17(a); (ii) Husband is in arrears on child support; (iii) Husband is in arrears on time-limited and statutory maintenance awarded to Wife; (iv) Husband converted IRA funds that were awarded to Wife; and (v) Wife is entitled to attоrney’s fees. In response, Husband filed a motion to dismiss. On February 18, 2003, the cause was heard. The parties agreed, and an order was entered, to sell the family residence. From the record before us, none of the issues raised in the First Motion wеre resolved, and only one issue, regarding the family residence, was addressed.
Pursuant to a court order dated Marсh 26, 2003, the trial court appointed a real estate commissioner to sell the family residence and ordered the sale proceeds es-crowed until further court order. On August 22, 2003, the trial court entered an order finding the family residence was sold and awarding $45,000 of the sale proceeds to Wife pursuant to the Decree for her interest in the family residеnce. The trial court also found that Husband was in arrears for child support in the amount of $83,730.04. 1 The remaining sale proсeeds were to be escrowed until further court order (“August Judgment”).
One month later, on September 22, 2003, the Wife made a “Requеst for Findings” wherein she reiterated the same issues that were raised in her First Motion. On that same day, another hearing was held оn Wife’s First Motion, where according to the record before us, evidence was adduced on the issues raised in the First Motion. On November 24, 2003, the trial court entered an order making a finding on only one issue set forth in the First Motion. The trial court found thаt Section 17(a) of the Decree was unenforceable, thereby effectively vesting title to the family residencе in Husband (“November Order”). The cause was continued until February of 2004.
Based on this finding, on December 14, 2003, Husband filed a motion seeking to receive the remainder of the sale proceeds. On January 22, 2004, Wife filed a motion in opposition to Husband’s motion and filed a second motion to “Cite and punish [Husband] for Contempt and/or to Determine Amounts Due [Wife] from [Husband]” (“Second Motion”). In this Second Motion, she reiterates the same issues as set forth in her First Motion. On April 23, 2004, Husband renewed his motion seeking thе remainder of the sale proceeds and attorney’s fees.
On May 28, 2004, the trial court entered a judgment awarding the rеmainder of the
Analysis
This Court has a duty to examine its jurisdiction
sua sponte. See In re Marriage of Werths,
Until a final judgment is rendered, jurisdiction remains in the trial court, despite the filing of a notice of appeal.
Reynolds v. Reynolds,
Here, Wife claims error in regard to the trial court’s rulings in the May Judgment, the August Judgment, and the November Judgment. From the record before us, it appears that although the trial court has had Wife’s First Motion before it for ovеr three years, it has still not disposed of most of the issues raised therein or formed a final disposition of the matters. The record indicates the trial court has not yet determined the amount of.child support arrearage due to datе, the amount of statutory and time-limited maintenance ar-rearage due to date, the issue of Husband’s alleged cоnversion of the IRA funds, and attorney’s fees. Further, the trial court noted its judgments were not final, by including language in the judgments stating “pending trial on these matters” and “there remain substantive issues to be resolved.” As the Supreme Court noted in
State ex rel. Schweitzer v. Greene,
Logic and justice would sеem to indicate that a trial court should be permitted to retain control of every phase of a casе so that it may correct errors, or, in its discretion, modify or set aside orders or judgments until its jurisdiction is extinguished by the judgment becoming final and appealable.
Wife’s appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED.