Kelly Renee Sims v. Jason Pepper Sims

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/29/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter of Decisions, A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2090696 K e l l y Renee Sims v. Jason Pepper Sims Appeal from Limestone C i r c u i t (DR-09-259) Court THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . K e l l y Renee Sims ("the m o t h e r " ) a p p e a l s f r o m a j u d g m e n t of t h e Limestone C i r c u i t Court d i v o r c i n g h e r from Jason Pepper Sims ("the f a t h e r " ) . Because we c o n c l u d e that the t r i a l 2090696 court's j u d g m e n t was not a final judgment, we dismiss the They a r e the appeal. The p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d on p a r e n t s o f two of the trial On divorce 13, lite 2009, the relief marital as which sought held 1, she well a hearing the as included The a an action seeking father also f i l e d a p e t i t i o n a c h i l d r e n and mother motion custody on filed of for the request for temporary an answer pendente children. lite The to relief trial court of custody of the the children, father and the July the lite sole physical father temporary residence. 2009, t h e m o t h e r f i l e d a m o t i o n t o h o l d f a t h e r i n c o n t e m p t i n w h i c h she violated temporary awarded e x c l u s i v e p o s s e s s i o n of the m a r i t a l On O c t o b e r 7, a pendente July w h i c h i t awarded the p a r t i e s temporary j o i n t l e g a l c u s t o d y awarded entered in in children, court of the t h e p a r t i e s ' m o t i o n s , a f t e r w h i c h , on trial for exclusive possession filed a order the 2009, The residence. complaint father that p h y s i c a l custody of the the time case. from the mother. pendente 2000. c h i l d r e n , b o t h o f whom were m i n o r s a t t h e in this May J u l y 1, 1, 2009, contended t h a t the order 2 by failing father to pay the had the 2090696 telephone b i l l filed r e l a t e d to the m a r i t a l residence. a response incurred i n which he asserted that The father t h e mother the charges r e f l e c t e d i n the telephone b i l l had before the f a t h e r had been awarded p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e m a r i t a l home and t h a t he h a d d e c l i n e d t o be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e payment o f t h a t bill. The 18, trial 2009, evidence. court at which held a trial i t received ore On November 25, 2009, judgment divorcing awarding the the p a r t i e s parties joint i n t h e a c t i o n on November tenus the t r i a l and, legal and court among custody documentary entered other a things, of the c h i l d r e n , a w a r d i n g t h e f a t h e r s o l e p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n , and requiring did t h e mother t o pay c h i l d not r u l e support. on t h e m o t h e r ' s m o t i o n The t r i a l to hold court the father i n contempt. The m o t h e r f i l e d judgment. The trial a motion to a l t e r , court granted amending i t s j u d g m e n t t o p r o v i d e in the m a r i t a l residence. With limited that motion in part, f o r a d i v i s i o n of the equity The m o t h e r exceptions amend, o r v a c a t e t h e appeals. not a p p l i c a b l e i n the present c a s e , t h i s c o u r t has a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n o n l y o v e r a p p e a l s 3 2090696 from judgments t h a t are f i n a l . f i n a l j u d g m e n t i s one before 872 the trial (Ala. that disposes court. 2009). § 12-22-2, A l a . Code 1975. See In the not present case, the So. 3d 868, trial court f o r a d i v o r c e ; however, i t d i d r e s o l v e the mother's contempt motion. In [Ms. a recent case decided 2090026, J u l y 16, 2010), a s i m i l a r of of a l l the i s s u e s pending Brown v. M e l t o n , 29 r e s o l v e d the f a t h e r ' s complaint A the party ___ s i t u a t i o n was p a r t i e s had had 2010] by filed subsequently an filed this So. court, 3d ___ presented. action t h a t the trial c o u r t had entered. App. In t h a t case, divorce to hold c o n t e m p t f o r v i o l a t i n g c e r t a i n p r o v i s i o n s o f an order Meek, (Ala. Civ. for a a motion Meek v. The and the one each other in interlocutory trial court did not r e s o l v e t h o s e motions b e f o r e e n t e r i n g a judgment r e s o l v i n g the d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t was complaint. final, this D i s c u s s i n g whether the court trial court's wrote: "The r e c o r d on a p p e a l r e v e a l s t h a t t h e h u s b a n d , on November 26, 2007, and t h e w i f e , on A p r i l 14, 2009, filed motions f o r contempt t h a t alleged v i o l a t i o n s o f c e r t a i n p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e June 2006 order during the pendency of the divorce proceedings. The r e c o r d does n o t c o n t a i n an o r d e r d i s p o s i n g of e i t h e r motion f o r contempt. 'The pendency of an unadjudicated contempt motion a l l e g i n g a p a r t y ' s f a i l u r e t o obey o r d e r s entered d u r i n g the progress of the l i t i g a t i o n renders a 4 2090696 judgment n o n f i n a l . ' A.C. v. C.C., 34 So. 3d 1281, 1287 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) ( c i t i n g D e c k e r v. D e c k e r , 984 So. 2d 1216 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) , and H e a s t o n v. N a b e r s , [889 So. 2d 588 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 4 ) ] ) . ' [ A ] t r i a l c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o r u l e on a c o n t e m p t m o t i o n r e l a t i n g t o an i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r [ i n a d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g ] w o u l d r e n d e r any subsequent judgment n o n f i n a l because t h e f i l i n g o f t h e contempt m o t i o n w o u l d n o t be c o n s i d e r e d as h a v i n g i n i t i a t e d a s e p a r a t e p r o c e e d i n g . ' D e c k e r v. D e c k e r , 984 So. 2d a t 1220." So. 3d a t In trial . the present case, there court contempt. the mother's Because the motion, i t s judgment appeal. As a r e s u l t , but to d i s m i s s So. 3d 721, 723 motion trial i s not this the mother's remains pending b e f o r e to hold court final the d i d not and will c o u r t i s l e f t w i t h no appeal. ( A l a . C i v . App. father resolve not in that s u p p o r t an alternative See Logan v. L o g a n , 2009). APPEAL DISMISSED. P i t t m a n , B r y a n , Thomas, and Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . 5 the 40

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.