Judgment Which Did Not Address Issue Joined by Parties Was Not Final
A circuit court’s judgment was not final, and would not support an appeal, where the judgment did not address the husband’s request to end his obligation to maintain life insurance for his ex-wife’s benefit. Hennaing v. Hennaing, No. 2060530 (Ala. Civ. App. May 9, 2008). The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The circuit court entered a judgment which reduced the husband’s monthly alimony obligation and awarded the wife an arrearage for past-due alimony. The judgment did not address an issue the parties had joined: namely, the husband’s request that he no longer be obligated to maintain a life insurance policy naming the wife as beneficiary. From this judgment the parties appealed.
The Court of Civil Appeals ruled that the order appealed from was not final and did not yield appellate jurisdiction. “Although neither party argue[d] that the failure of the trial court to make a ruling on the life-insurance issue” impacted the appellate court’s jurisdiction, the court noticed the jurisdictional issue ex mero motu.
“A judgment is generally not final unless all claims, or the rights and liabilities of all parties, have been resolved. 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.” Here, because the trial court did not rule on the life-insurance issue, “one of the claims of the parties remain[ed] unresolved.” “We cannot,” the court wrote, “despite the urging of each party, decide which result the trial court intended by its silence on the issue. Because the appeals are from a nonfinal judgment, we dismiss the appeals.”