RYALS v. RYALS (2021)

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.2021-12-10No. 2200693

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appeal is dismissed because the mother appealed from a nonfinal judgment—specifically, the trial court's May 26, 2021 order awarding child support without specifying the amount—and the trial court's subsequent June 21, 2021 order determining the amount was void because the trial court had lost jurisdiction upon the filing of the notice of appeal.

The mother appealed from a trial court judgment modifying custody and awarding child support following the father's petition for modification in 2020. The trial court initially granted sole physical custody to the father in May 2021, then entered an order in May 2021 awarding child support but without specifying the amount. After the mother filed her notice of appeal, the trial court entered another order on June 21, 2021, setting the child support amount at $504 per month.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal because it lacked jurisdiction to review the case. Under established precedent, a judgment awarding child support is not final—and therefore not appealable—unless it specifies the exact amount of the support obligation. Because the trial court's May 26, 2021 order did not include the specific dollar amount, it was a nonfinal judgment when the mother appealed. Furthermore, once the mother filed her notice of appeal, the trial court lost jurisdiction to act on the case. Consequently, the June 21, 2021 order setting the support amount was void, leaving no valid final judgment for the appellate court to review.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a child support judgment lacking a specific dollar amount is final and appealable
Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction to modify a child support order after a notice of appeal was filed
Finality and jurisdiction requirements for appellate review of family law judgments

Procedural posture

The mother appealed from the trial court's May 2021 order modifying custody and awarding child support, filing her notice of appeal on June 3, 2021, after the trial court had entered an order directing child support but before specifying the amount.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Shannon Mae Ryals (“the mother”) appeals the judgment of the Elmore Circuit Court (“the trial court”) granting a petition for modification of custody and child support filed by James Daniel Edward Ryals (“the father”). We dismiss the appeal as being from a nonfinal judgment.

In April 2013, the trial court entered a judgment that divorced the father and the mother. The parties settlement agreement was incorporated into the divorce judgment. In that agreement the parties stipulated, among other things, that they would share joint custody of their minor child and that neither party would pay child support to the other because of the shared equal custodial time.

On July 7, 2020, the father filed a petition, asking the trial court, among other things, to award the father sole physical custody of the child and child support. On July 9, 2020, the mother filed her answer. After conducting a trial, the trial court, on May 10, 2021, entered an order finding, among other things, that a material change in circumstances had occurred that warranted a change in custody and awarding the father sole physical custody of the child. On May 16, 2021, the father filed a purported motion to alter, amend, or vacate the May 10, 2021, order, arguing that the trial court had failed to award him child support. On May 26, 2021, the trial court entered an order granting the fathers motion and directing each party to file a Form CS-41 “Child-Support-Obligation Income Statement/Affidavit” so that it could accurately determine an award of child support. On June 3, 2021, the mother filed her notice of appeal. On June 21, 2021, the trial court entered an order purporting to direct the mother to pay the father child support in the amount of $504 per month.

Before we can address the issues raised by the mother on appeal, we must determine whether this court has jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

“ ‘ “It is well settled law that ‘jurisdictional matters are of such magnitude that we take notice of them at any time and do so even ex mero motu.’ ” Pace v. Utilities Bd. of Foley, 752 So. 2d 510, 511 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999) (quoting Singleton v. Graham, 716 So. 2d 224, 225 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998))․ Additionally, “[t]he question whether a judgment is final is a jurisdictional question, and the reviewing court, on a determination that the judgment is not final, has a duty to dismiss the case.” Hubbard v. Hubbard, 935 So. 2d 1191, 1192 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006).’

“Parker v. Parker, 946 So. 2d 480, 485 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006).”

Logan v. Logan, 40 So. 3d 721, 723 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009).

In Dubose v. Dubose, 72 So. 3d 1210 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011), this court dismissed the appeal because, we determined, the challenged judgment, which did not include the amount of child support to be paid, was nonfinal. We stated:

“To be considered final, a judgment ordering one of the parties to pay child support must, among other things, set forth the amount of the partys child-support obligation. This is so, because ‘[w]here a party has requested child support and the trial courts purported judgment contains no conclusive assessment of the child-support obligation, the trial court has not completely adjudicated the matters in controversy between the parties.’ Anderson v. Anderson, 899 So. 2d 1008, 1009 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004). See also Turner v. Turner, 883 So. 2d 233, 234 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) (judgment not final when, among other things, it did not contain a ‘conclusive assessment’ of the fathers child-support obligation).”

Dubose, 72 So. 3d at 1211.

Here, the trial court, in its May 26, 2021, order, awarded child support to the father but did not provide the exact amount of the mothers child-support obligation. Accordingly, that order was not a final judgment, and the mothers June 3, 2021, notice of appeal did not invoke this courts jurisdiction because it sought review of a nonfinal judgment. Additionally, the mothers filing of a notice of appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction over the case, and, thus, the trial court no longer had jurisdiction to determine the amount of the mothers child-support obligation until the appeal had been adjudicated. See Ward v. Ullery, 412 So. 2d 796, 797 (Ala. Civ. App.1982)(“Once an appeal is taken, the trial court loses jurisdiction to act except in matters entirely collateral to the appeal.”). Therefore, the trial courts June 21, 2021, order determining the exact amount of the mothers child-support obligation is a nullity. See Etheredge v. Genie Indus., Inc., 632 So. 2d 1324, 1325 (Ala. 1994).

Because the trial court had not adjudicated all the issues in this case at the time the mother filed her notice of appeal, this court does not have a valid, final judgment to review, and, accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. See Morgungenko v. Dwaynes Body Shop, 23 So. 3d 671, 674 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009)(“This court must dismiss an appeal from a nonfinal judgment.”); Horton v. Horton, 822 So. 2d 431, 434 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001); and Young v. Sandlin, 703 So. 2d 1005, 1008 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

THOMPSON, Presiding Judge.

Moore, Edwards, Hanson, and Fridy, JJ., concur.