History
  • No items yet
midpage
628 So. 2d 953
Ala. Civ. App.
1993
YATES, Judge.

The husband filed for divorce in the state of New York on April 22, 1991. On August 23, 1991, the husband filed a complaint for divorce in the state of Alabama. The wife filed a counterclaim in the New York action on September 30, 1991.

Action was taken by both courts in this case. The New York court awarded penden-te lite relief to the wife on September 17, 1991. The circuit court of Lauderdale County entered a purported judgment of divorce on September 2, 1992. The wife appeals.

The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the Alabama court erred in exercising jurisdiction in this matter when the husband previously filed a divorce action in a New York court. The record reveals that the parties resided together in New York until their separation in approximately January 1991. It further reveals that the husband was a resident of New York at the time of filing the New York action. Therefore, jurisdiction would have been proper in New York. Once jurisdiction has attached in one court, that court has the exclusive right to continue its exercise of power until the completion of the case, and is only subject to appellate authority. Abernathy v. State of Alabama ex rel. Dana Abernathy Dunn, 627 So.2d 425 (Ala.Civ.App.1993); Dillard v. Dillard, 601 So.2d 1017 (Ala.Civ.App.1992); Swigert v. Swigert, 553 So.2d 607 (Ala.Civ. App.1989); and Martin v. Martin, 509 So.2d 1054 (Ala.Civ.App.1986).

Based upon the foregoing, this court finds that the Alabama court did not have proper jurisdiction to enter a judgment of divorce in this action. Without proper jurisdiction, the judgment is void and, therefore, we dismiss this appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

ROBERTSON, P.J., and THIGPEN, J., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Wesson v. Wesson
Court Name: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
Date Published: Nov 19, 1993
Citations: 628 So. 2d 953; 1993 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 478; 1993 WL 481886; AV92000234
Docket Number: AV92000234
Court Abbreviation: Ala. Civ. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified
and are not legal advice.
Log In