Tomlinson v. Tomlinson

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Tomlinson v. Tomlinson

816 So. 2d 57, 2001 WL 1175357

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama

DecidedOctober 5, 2001

Docket2000459

StatusPublished

Cited by28 cases

This text of 816 So. 2d 57 (Tomlinson v. Tomlinson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tomlinson v. Tomlinson, 816 So. 2d 57, 2001 WL 1175357 (Ala. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

The parties were divorced in 1997. The mother was awarded custody of the parties' two children, and the father was ordered to pay child support. On November 22, 2000, the father moved to modify the divorce judgment, requesting custody of the parties' 10-year-old daughter. The older child, a son, had reached the age of majority when the petition for modification was filed. After a hearing, the trial court granted the relief sought by the father and awarded him custody of the daughter. The mother appeals. We dismiss the appeal as being from a nonfinal order.

The trial court's December 14, 2000, order purporting to modify custody states: "Child support to be paid by [the mother] to [the father] shall be determined upon the prompt submission of Child Support Income Affidavits (CS-41) by the parties." The record contains no further submissions or orders of the court relating to child support.

An appeal ordinarily lies only from a final judgment. Ala. Code 1975, § 12-22-2; Bean v. Craig, 557 So.2d 1249, 1253 (Ala. 1990). An order is generally not final unless it disposes of all claims or the rights or liabilities of all parties. Ex parte Harris, 506 So.2d 1003, 1004 (Ala.Civ.App. 1987) (emphasis added). The only exception to this rule of finality is when the trial court directs the entry of a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala.R.Civ.P. Bean, 557 So.2d at 1253. Because the trial court's order did not dispose of the matter of child support, it is not final, and this court cannot now reach the merits of this case.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Yates, P.J., and Thompson, Pittman, and Murdock, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The parties were divorced in 1997. The mother was awarded custody of the parties' two children, and the father was ordered to pay child support. On November 22, 2000, the father moved to modify the divorce judgment, requesting custody of the parties' 10-year-old daughter. The older child, a son, had reached the age of majority when the petition for modification was filed. After a hearing, the trial court granted the relief sought by the father and awarded him custody of the daughter. The mother appeals. We dismiss the appeal as being from a nonfinal order.

The trial court's December 14, 2000, order purporting to modify custody states: "Child support to be paid by [the mother] to [the father] shall be determined upon the prompt submission of Child Support Income Affidavits (CS-41) by the parties." The record contains no further submissions or orders of the court relating to child support.

An appeal ordinarily lies only from a final judgment. Ala. Code 1975, § 12-22-2; Bean v. Craig, 557 So.2d 1249, 1253 (Ala. 1990). An order is generally not final unless it disposes of all claims or the rights or liabilities of all parties. Ex parte Harris, 506 So.2d 1003, 1004 (Ala.Civ.App. 1987) (emphasis added). The only exception to this rule of finality is when the trial court directs the entry of a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala.R.Civ.P. Bean, 557 So.2d at 1253. Because the trial court's order did not dispose of the matter of child support, it is not final, and this court cannot now reach the merits of this case.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Yates, P.J., and Thompson, Pittman, and Murdock, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

816 So. 2d 57, 2001 WL 1175357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tomlinson-v-tomlinson-alacivapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack