Hossley v. Hossley

Citation: 264 So. 3d 893Docket: 2160979

Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; May 18, 2018; Alabama; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Nathian Hossley appeals a Baldwin Circuit Court judgment related to post-divorce proceedings with Sarah Hossley. The appeal is dismissed due to it originating from a nonfinal judgment. The couple's divorce was finalized on November 16, 2015, with a written agreement mandating Hossley to pay $2,000 monthly in child support, cover college expenses for their children, and provide $4,500 monthly in alimony. On June 10, 2016, Hossley filed a petition to modify these obligations, designated as case no. DR-15-900431.02. In response, Sarah Hossley filed an answer and a counterpetition for contempt, recorded as case no. DR-15-900431.03, alleging non-payment of the agreed amounts and requesting incarceration until a $20,000 bond was posted. On September 9, 2016, Sarah's motion to consolidate the two cases was granted, with both actions remaining open.

During a trial on April 10, 2017, Nathian Hossley did not appear, but his counsel did. Sarah's counsel moved for dismissal of his petition due to his absence, which the court indicated it would grant. Testimony from Sarah revealed that although Hossley had paid $29,000 since the divorce judgment, he had failed to meet the terms of their settlement agreement, including child support payments.

The former wife testified that her ex-husband forged her signature to access $150,000 in escrow funds for his criminal case obligations. She claimed he wrongfully received approximately $490,000 since their divorce, including $130,000 from a land trust, $3,000 from an insurance check, $2,000 from a real estate agent's escrow, and $50,000 from an oil spill settlement, but had only paid her $29,000. The former husband owned a 2015 Range Rover and purchased a Porsche in March 2017. She indicated that since 2014, he had spent considerable time in casinos. During the proceedings, she requested the court to establish the owed child support amount and compute interest on unpaid sums. The trial court indicated it would grant relief but expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of jailing him for a cash bond due to past due amounts. Prior to judgment, the former husband filed a motion to set aside a default judgment, claiming he was unaware of the trial date; however, this motion was denied. Subsequently, the court denied his petition to modify and granted the former wife's contempt petition, ordering his immediate jailing until a $20,000 cash bond was posted and requiring him to pay $5,000 in attorney's fees to the former wife.

The trial court did not receive a calculation of the former husband’s child support obligations. On June 29, 2017, he filed a motion in the .02 action requesting a new trial, alteration, amendment, vacation of a judgment, or to set aside a default judgment. The trial court denied this motion on July 24, 2017, and the former husband subsequently appealed on September 1, 2017. During the appeal, he contended he was not in default, that the default judgment was improperly entered, that his motion to set it aside should have been granted, and that the attorney's fees awarded to the former wife were excessive.

The court needed to confirm whether the appeal was from a final judgment, as appeals generally require a final judgment for jurisdiction. The record and the former husband’s documents indicate he only referenced the .02 action and appealed from the order denying his motion to set aside the default judgment. Although the actions were consolidated, they retained separate identities requiring distinct judgments. There was no adjudication regarding the former wife’s claims for unpaid child support and alimony from the former husband.

The parties were asked to submit briefs on whether the former husband appealed from the judgment in the .03 action, with the former wife asserting that he did, though without supporting analysis. The former husband argued that the .03 action was consolidated with the .02 action and submitted a case-action summary suggesting the .03 action had been disposed of in 2016. However, the consolidation order did not dictate the disposition of the .03 action, and no final judgment was indicated for it as of the May 30, 2017 judgment. The court referenced that a trial court must certify a judgment as final before an appeal on fewer than all claims in consolidated actions can proceed. Consequently, instead of dismissing the appeal, the case was remanded to determine if the judgment in the .02 action could be certified as final under Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P.

The trial court, upon remand, did not certify the judgment in the .02 action as final but issued what is claimed to be a final judgment in the .03 action. This judgment granted the former wife's contempt petition and ordered the former husband to pay her attorney's fees. However, the order failed to resolve all claims in the contempt petition, specifically regarding alimony and child-support arrearages and interest, which means it is not a final order and cannot support an appeal. Relevant case law is cited, indicating that an order lacking a calculation of arrearages is nonfinal. Appeals typically require a final judgment that conclusively determines the issues and rights of the parties involved. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed due to its basis in a nonfinal judgment, as the .02 and .03 actions were consolidated. Additionally, it is noted that one child was already attending college when the settlement agreement was made, exempting the former husband from child support for that child. No transcript of the hearing is included in the record.