Ex parte K.B.L. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

REL: May 5, 2023

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue,
Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections
may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
OCTOBER TERM, 2022-2023
_________________________

CL-2023-0125
_________________________

Ex parte K.B.L.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(In re: K.B.L.

v.

R.M.M., Jr.)

(Jefferson Circuit Court, Bessemer Division, CV-22-61)

MOORE, Judge.

K.B.L. ("the mother") petitions this court for a writ of mandamus

directing the Bessemer Division of the Jefferson Circuit Court ("the

circuit court") to dismiss an appeal to that court filed by R.M.M., Jr. ("the
CL-2023-0125

father"), from a judgment entered by the Bessemer Division of the

Jefferson Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") modifying custody of the

parties' children. We grant the petition and issue the writ.

Procedural History

According to the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by the mother

and the answer thereto filed by the father, the mother and the father

engaged in a nonmarital relationship that produced two children.

Beginning in 2015, the juvenile court entered a series of judgments

providing for the custody of the children, including a 2021 judgment

awarding their custody to the father. On June 24, 2022, the mother filed

a petition requesting a modification of the children's custody; that action

was assigned case number CS-15-34.03 ("the .03 action").

On October 31, 2022, the juvenile court entered an order in the .03

action providing that "[t]he care, custody, and control of the minor

children shall be returned to the mother at the conclusion of the current

school semester and or the Christmas break, the court frowns on

changing schools when the semester is so close to being over." That order

2
CL-2023-0125

did not address child support or provide for visitation between the father

and the children.

On November 14, 2022, the father filed a notice of appeal in the .03

action, appealing the juvenile court's judgment to the circuit court. In

response to that notice, the juvenile court entered an order on November

15, 2022, that states, in its entirety: "Notice of appeal filed by [the father]

is hereby OTHER. This matter was heard on the record. Therefore, this

matter should be appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals not Circuit Civil."

However, the case remained in the circuit court, and it was assigned case

number CV-22-61. The father proceeded to file several motions in case

number CV-22-61, which the circuit court acted upon by, among other

things, setting the case for trial and entering an order purporting to

restrain the mother from relocating with the children to Baldwin County.

On February 15, 2023, the mother filed in the circuit court a motion

to dismiss the father's appeal. She asserted, among other things, that

the father should have appealed to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

rather than to the circuit court and that the juvenile court retained

jurisdiction over the custody matters between the parties. On February

3
CL-2023-0125

26, 2023, the circuit court entered an order denying the mother's motion

to dismiss the father's appeal. The circuit court stated, among other

things, that "to this date it is unknown if the juvenile court judge

designated a person to transcribe the record of the proceeding and

prepared a reporter's transcript in accordance with the provisions of Rule

10(b)(2) of the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, subsequently

certifying that the record of the proceeding was/is adequate." The circuit

court determined that it had appellate jurisdiction for a trial de novo,

pursuant to Rule 28(B), Ala. R. Juv. P. The mother timely filed her

petition for a writ of mandamus with this court on March 7, 2023.

Standard of Review

" ' " 'A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary
remedy that is available when a trial court has
exceeded its discretion. Ex parte Fidelity Bank,
893 So. 2d 1116, 1119 (Ala. 2004). A writ of
mandamus is "appropriate when the petitioner can
show (1) a clear legal right to the order sought; (2)
an imperative duty upon the respondent to
perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) the
lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) the
properly invoked jurisdiction of the court." Ex
parte BOC Group, Inc., 823 So. 2d 1270, 1272 (Ala.
2001).' " '

4
CL-2023-0125

"Ex parte Brown, 963 So. 2d 604, 606-07 (Ala. 2007) (quoting
Ex parte Rawls, 953 So. 2d 374, 377 (Ala. 2006), quoting in
turn Ex parte Antonucci, 917 So. 2d 825, 830 (Ala. 2005)). A
writ of mandamus is the proper remedy to correct a trial
court's order erroneously denying a motion to dismiss that is
based on a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Ex parte
Hampton, 189 So. 3d 14, 16 (Ala. 2015)."

Ex parte Thompson Tractor Co., 227 So. 3d 1234, 1239 (Ala. Civ. App.

2017).

Analysis

In her mandamus petition, the mother raises two arguments in

support of her assertion that the circuit court lacks subject-matter

jurisdiction over the father's appeal. First, she argues that an adequate

record of the juvenile-court proceedings exists such that the father should

have appealed to this court rather than to the circuit court. Second, the

mother argues that the juvenile court's October 31, 2022, judgment is not

a final judgment capable of supporting the father's appeal. We find the

mother's second argument dispositive.

We note that the mother did not assert in her February 15, 2023,

motion to dismiss filed in the circuit court that the judgment from which

the father sought to appeal was nonfinal. "However, jurisdictional issues,

5
CL-2023-0125

such as the finality of a judgment, are of such importance that an

appellate court may take notice of them ex mero motu." Morgungenko v.

Dwayne's Body Shop, 23 So. 3d 671, 673 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009).

The mother argues that the juvenile court's October 31, 2022,

judgment is nonfinal because it does not address child support or

visitation. "An order is generally not final unless it disposes of all claims

or the rights and liabilities of all parties." Carlisle v. Carlisle, 768 So. 2d

976, 977 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000). The materials presented to this court do

not include the mother's June 24, 2022, petition for a modification of

custody. However, in a verified motion filed on December 6, 2022, which

is attached to the mandamus petition, the father asserted that the

mother had sought in the juvenile court "emergency custody" of the

children and the suspension of the father's visitation.

In Bearden v. Murphy, 120 So. 3d 1096, 1097 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013),

Bobby Joe Bearden III filed a complaint seeking custody of his child with

Angel Murphy. Bearden was awarded temporary custody of the parties'

child pending the entry of a final order. Following a hearing, the trial

court entered an order that adjudicated Bearden's paternity of the child;

6
CL-2023-0125

directed the parties to meet and resolve the issues of custody and

placement of the child and child support; and provided that, after 42

days, if the parties did not file a settlement agreement and a proposed

final order, "'custody of the child shall revert to the mother.'" Bearden,

120 So. 3d at 1098. In concluding that that order was nonfinal, this court

noted, among other things, that the judgment was silent as to whether

Murphy was to have only sole physical custody or both legal and physical

custody and did not determine the parties' respective child-support

obligations and related issues.

Like in Bearden, the juvenile court's October 31, 2022, order does

not specify whether it intended to award the mother sole physical custody

of the children or sole legal and sole physical custody and it did not

determine the parties' respective child-support obligations. "A trial

court's failure to determine an amount of child support owed by a party

does … render a judgment nonfinal." Ex parte Williams, 185 So. 3d 1106,

1109 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015). Although there is no indication that the

mother asserted a claim for child support in her June 24, 2022, petition

for a modification of custody, that omission does not prevent this court

7
CL-2023-0125

from concluding that the October 31, 2022, judgment is nonfinal. In

Blasdel v. Blasdel, 27 So. 3d 1288 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009), the husband filed

a petition for a divorce against the wife in which, among other things, he

sought custody of the parties' child. The husband affirmed in his divorce

petition that he was not requesting child support at that time because

the wife was unemployed. 27 So. 3d at 1289. The judgment divorcing

the parties awarded sole physical custody of the parties' child to the

husband, subject to the wife's visitation rights, and directed the wife to

take steps to secure employment, to begin paying child support in

approximately six months, and, in the month before the child-support

obligation was to commence, to exchange CS-41 Child Support Obligation

Income Statement/Affidavit forms with the husband in order to calculate

the appropriate child-support amount to be paid by the wife, see Rule

32(E), Ala. R. Jud. Admin. This court determined that the judgment was

not final because the award of child support was ordered pending the

occurrence of both the wife's taking steps to secure employment and the

parties' exchange of CS-41 forms. In reaching that conclusion, this court

stated, in pertinent part:

8
CL-2023-0125

"Although the husband did not request an immediate
order for child support in his complaint for a divorce, our
supreme court has held that ' "the right to support of a child
from its parents is inherent and cannot be waived by the
parents even by agreement." ' Ex parte State ex rel.
Summerlin, 634 So. 2d 539, 542 (Ala. 1993) (quoting Willis v.
Levesque, 402 So. 2d 1003, 1004 (Ala. Civ. App. 1981)).
Therefore, the wife has a duty to pay child support despite the
fact that the husband did not request it on behalf of the
parties' son. Further, the trial court, in the divorce judgment,
did not indicate that it intended to 'deviate' from Rule 32,[ Ala.
R. Jud. Admin.,] as requested by the husband; the trial court
only granted the wife 'some period of time with which to
become employed and begin to pay child support.' "

27 So. 3d at 1290 n.4.

In Exum v. Exum, 232 So. 3d 883 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017), this court

considered a judgment that modified an award of custody and directed

the parties to submit certain forms, upon the submission of which the

court would issue a separate order addressing child support. In

concluding that the judgment was not final because the issue of child

support remained pending, this court stated, in pertinent part:

"It is noteworthy that the father did not request an
award of child support in his petition for modification of
custody and, during the trial, testified that he was 'ask[ing]
nothing for child support.' As noted, however, the father's
counsel submitted Forms CS-41 and CS-42 suggesting that
the father did indeed request a child-support award. In any

9
CL-2023-0125

event, we do not believe the ambiguity regarding the father's
child-support request renders the trial court's judgment,
which specifically stated that a determination regarding child
support would be made after submission of the relevant forms,
final. See also Blasdel v. Blasdel, 27 So. 3d 1288, 1290 n.4
(Ala. Civ. App. 2009) ('Although the husband did not request
an immediate order for child support in his complaint for a
divorce, our supreme court has held that " 'the right to support
of a child from its parents is inherent and cannot be waived
by the parents even by agreement.' " Ex parte State ex rel.
Summerlin, 634 So. 2d 539, 542 (Ala. 1993) (quoting Willis v.
Levesque, 402 So. 2d 1003, 1004 (Ala. Civ. App. 1981)).')."

232 So. 3d at 884 n.1. Cf. Pitts v. Pitts, 306 So. 3d 890, 895 (Ala. Civ.

App. 2020) (concluding that a statement in a judgment that "'any and all

other motions and requests by both parties are denied'" amounted to a

denial of any purported claims for child support or visitation pursuant to

a modification of custody such that judgment was final when those claims

had not been otherwise addressed).

In the present case, the juvenile court's judgment was unclear

regarding whether it intended to award the mother sole physical custody

or whether it intended to also award her sole legal custody; it also failed

to address child support, see Bearden and Blasdel, supra, and visitation.

Accordingly, that judgment did not dispose of all the rights and liabilities

10
CL-2023-0125

of the parties and was, therefore, a nonfinal judgment. See Carlisle,

supra.

Rule 28(B), Ala. R. Juv. P., pursuant to which the father in the

present case filed his notice of appeal to the circuit court, provides for

"[a]ppeals from final orders or judgments." (Emphasis added.) See Ex

parte T.C., 96 So. 3d 123, 129 (Ala. 2012) (" 'Rule 28, Ala. R. Juv. P.,

continues to govern the detailed procedure for appeals from the juvenile

court, and that rule expressly authorizes appeals only from "final orders,

judgments, or decrees of the juvenile court." ' " (citations omitted)). "A

nonfinal judgment will not support an appeal." B.J. v. Calhoun Cnty.

Dep't of Hum. Res., [Ms. CL-2022-0514, Sept. 16, 2022] ___ So. 3d ___,

___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2022). Because the juvenile court's judgment was

nonfinal, the circuit court did not acquire jurisdiction over the father's

appeal.

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the circuit court erred in

denying the mother's motion to dismiss the father's appeal. Accordingly,

we grant the mother's petition and issue a writ directing the circuit court

to enter an order granting the mother's motion to dismiss the father's

11
CL-2023-0125

appeal. Because all orders entered by the circuit court were entered

without jurisdiction, those orders are void; thus, we also instruct the

circuit court to vacate its void orders. See State Dep't of Revenue v.

Zegarelli, 676 So. 2d 354, 356 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996) ("A judgment entered

by a court with no jurisdiction is a void judgment; a void judgment will

not support an appeal.").

PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.

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

Thompson, P.J., concurs in the result, without opinion.

12