Treasure Leigh Crocker v. Thomas C. Daves

• Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi
• Decided: April 22, 2025
• Docket: 2023-CA-00602-COA
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2023-CA-00602-COA

TREASURE LEIGH CROCKER APPELLANT

v.

THOMAS C. DAVES APPELLEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/21/2023 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. DEBRA MICHELLE GILES COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: SUNFLOWER COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: JACOB MICHAEL JENKINS A. LEE ABRAHAM JR. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: ELLIS MICHAEL RUSTOM NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - CUSTODY DISPOSITION: APPEAL DISMISSED - 04/22/2025 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

BEFORE BARNES, C.J., WESTBROOKS AND WEDDLE, JJ.

WEDDLE, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Treasure Crocker and Thomas Daves are the parents of three minor children. The

Sunflower County Chancery Court awarded Thomas physical custody of the children subject

to reasonable, liberal visitation for Treasure, with the parties having joint legal custody. The

chancellor held the issue of child support in abeyance because there was insufficient

information before the court to award child support based on the statutory guidelines.

Treasure appeals, claiming the chancery court erred by finding it was in the children’s best

interest to award physical custody to Thomas. Upon review of the record, we find this Court

lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal. FACTS

¶2. The parties lived together throughout the duration of their children’s lives until they

separated in April 2022. The parties were never married, and it is undisputed that Thomas

is the biological father of their three children. After their separation, the children lived with

Treasure. On August 2, 2022, Thomas filed a petition for custody, child support, visitation,

and other temporary relief. On October 6, 2022, the chancellor entered an order appointing

a guardian ad litem (GAL).On April 21, 2023, the chancellor entered an order accepting the

GAL’s recommendation that it was in the children’s best interest for Thomas to be awarded

physical custody of the children subject to reasonable, liberal visitation for Treasure, with the

parties having joint legal custody. Because neither party submitted a financial statement as

required by Uniform Chancery Court Rule 8.05, the chancellor was unable to determine how

much child support Treasure should pay Thomas and held this issue in abeyance. Aggrieved,

Treasure appeals.

DISCUSSION

¶3. Although the parties did not raise this issue, after a review of the record, we find that

this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Jackson v. Lowe, 65 So. 3d 879, 881 (¶5)

(Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (citing M.W.F. v. D.D.F., 926 So. 2d 897, 899 (¶4) (Miss. 2006)). “An

appeal may be taken only from a final judgment.” Houston v. Houston, 385 So. 3d 820, 826

(¶33) (Miss. Ct. App. 2024) (quoting Blaney v. Black Jack Oil Co., 325 So. 3d 1204, 1206

(¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021)). “Generally, a final judgment is one that adjudicates the merits

of the controversy and settles all issues between all parties.” Id. (quoting LaFontaine v.

2 Holliday, 110 So. 3d 785, 787 (¶8) (Miss. 2013)). “In other words, an order is considered

final if it ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute

the judgment.” Id.

¶4. The parties raised issues regarding child support and child custody. The chancellor

addressed the issue of child custody in her order, but she held the issue of child support in

abeyance “until there is appropriate documentation brought back before this court.” In a

similar case, this Court found that because a chancellor did not rule on the issue of child

support, the judgment was not final. S.E.B. v. R.E.B., 67 So. 3d 14, 16 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App.

2011). In the final judgment in that case, the chancellor determined that “[d]ue to [Sara] not

being employed at this time, the issue of child support will not be ruled on until such time

in the future as the court deems proper.” Id. As previously noted, the chancellor in our case

held the issue of child support in abeyance because neither party had submitted a Rule 8.05

financial statement as required. Accordingly, we find that the order was not a final judgment.

¶5. Additionally, the chancellor’s order was not certified pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the

Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. See Walters v. Walters, 956 So. 2d 1050, 1053 (¶10)

(Miss. Ct. App. 2007). This rule “allows the trial court to expressly direct the entry of final

judgment as to fewer than all of the claims or parties in an action.” Id. “Without the entry of

a Rule 54(b) certificate, a [trial] court order which disposes of less than all of the claims

against all of the parties in a multiple[-]party or multiple[-]claim action, is interlocutory.”

Jackson, 65 So. 3d at 881 (¶7) (quoting M.W.F., 926 So. 2d at 900 (¶4)). An interlocutory

order is not appealable unless the Mississippi Supreme Court grants permission to appeal

3 under Rule 5 of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure; otherwise, this Court has no

jurisdiction to hear the case. Id. at 881-82 (¶7). The Supreme Court did not grant permission

for an interlocutory appeal in this case, and because the chancellor’s order was interlocutory

in nature, it is not appealable. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

¶6. Our review of the record reflects that the chancellor’s order was not a final, appealable

judgment. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed.

¶7. APPEAL DISMISSED.

BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND WILSON, P.JJ., WESTBROOKS, McDONALD, LAWRENCE, McCARTY, EMFINGER AND ST. PÉ, JJ., CONCUR.