Appeal Dismissed Because of Improper Rule 54(b) Certification
In Flores v. Flores, No. 2060408 (Ala. Civ. App. August 3, 2007), the Court of Civil Appeals dismissed an appeal from an order modifying a periodic alimony obligation because the trial court improperly certified the order as a final judgment pursuant to ARCP 54(b). “’[A] Rule 54(b) certification should not be entered if the issues in the claim being certified and a claim that will remain pending in the trial court ‘are so closely intertwined that separate adjudication would pose an unreasonable risk of inconsistent results.’” (quoting Schlarb v. Lee, 955 So. 2d 418 (Ala. 2006)).
Mrs. Flores initiated the action, asking the trial court to increase the periodic alimony payments that she received from Mr. Flores. Mr. Flores counterclaimed and petitioned the court for primary physical custody of the couple’s daughter. The trial court ordered separate trials of the alimony and custody issues. Mr. Flores then requested pendente lite custody of his daughter. The trial court granted the request and suspended Mr. Flores child support payments. The trial court also entered a judgment in which it increased the amount of Mr. Flores periodic alimony payments to Mrs. Flores and revised other terms of the divorce settlement. The judgment did not address final custody of the couple’s daughter or child support payments. The trial court certified the judgment as final, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.
Mr. Flores filed a timely appeal from the trial court judgment. Neither he nor Mrs. Flores addressed the Rule 54(b) certification in the appellate briefs. The Court of Civil Appeals flagged the issue and expounded upon its importance. “’Rule 54(b) certifications should be granted only in exceptional cases and should not be entered routinely or as a courtesy to accommodate counsel.”” (quoting Summerlin v. Summerlin, No. 1051470 (Ala. Jan. 12, 2007). The Court explained that piecemeal appellate review is not favored, so courts should provide a Rule 54(b) certification only if failure to do so might have a “harsh effect.”
The Court noted that in reaching a decision on Mrs. Flores’ request for a modification of her periodic alimony payments, the trial court should have considered, among other items, evidence of the payor’s financial expenses, including his child support obligations. The trial court could not weigh these factors without first making a final decision on the child custody issue and determining whether Mr. Flores would have future child support obligations. Because the alimony and custody issues were so intertwined, the trial court erred in issuing the Rule 54(b) certification, and the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.
Mr. Flores filed a timely appeal from the trial court judgment. Neither he nor Mrs. Flores addressed the Rule 54(b) certification in the appellate briefs. The Court of Civil Appeals flagged the issue and expounded upon its importance. “’Rule 54(b) certifications should be granted only in exceptional cases and should not be entered routinely or as a courtesy to accommodate counsel.”” (quoting Summerlin v. Summerlin, No. 1051470 (Ala. Jan. 12, 2007). The Court explained that piecemeal appellate review is not favored, so courts should provide a Rule 54(b) certification only if failure to do so might have a “harsh effect.”
The Court noted that in reaching a decision on Mrs. Flores’ request for a modification of her periodic alimony payments, the trial court should have considered, among other items, evidence of the payor’s financial expenses, including his child support obligations. The trial court could not weigh these factors without first making a final decision on the child custody issue and determining whether Mr. Flores would have future child support obligations. Because the alimony and custody issues were so intertwined, the trial court erred in issuing the Rule 54(b) certification, and the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.
