contempt claim in Alabama

2014He directs this court to Hurd v. Hurd, 485 So.2d 1194, 1195 (Ala.Civ.App.1986), for the proposition that the inability to comply is a complete defense to a contempt claim.

2006In Hurd v. Hurd, 485 So.2d 1194 (Ala.Civ.App.1986), this court stated: “The rule is that if it be shown at a contempt hearing that the party cited is unable to comply with the decree of the court due to want of means rather than mere contumacy, then there is no contempt.

2017Curtis v. Curtis , 210 So.3d 1120 (Ala. Civ.

2017Curtis v. Curtis , 210 So.3d 1120 (Ala. Civ.

2015As’ a threshold matter, we must first determine whether the appeal is taken from a final judgment in the .06 case. “ ‘[J]urisdictional matters are of such magnitude that we take notice of them at any time .and do so even ex mero.motu.’” Raybon v. Hull, 17 So.3d 673, 675 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (quoting Nunn v. Baker, 518 So.2d 711, 712 (Ala.1987)). “ ‘The question whether an order appealed from is final is jurisdictional, and the reviewing court, on a determination that the order is not final, has a duty to dismiss the case on its own motion.’ ” Hinson v. Hinson, 745 So.2d 280, 281 (Ala.Civ.App.199

2009Co., 689 So.2d 210, 211 (Ala.Civ.App.1997) (quoting Nunn v. Baker, 518 So.2d 711, 712 (Ala.1987)).

2015The former wife failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt “that the [former husband] is financially able to pay the amount ... ordered.” Carr, 652 So.2d at 302 (emphasis added).

2014Carr v. Broyles, 652 So.2d 299, 302-03 (Ala.Civ.

2026See Elizabeth Homes, L.L.C. v. Cato, 968 So. 2d 1, 8 (Ala. 2007) ("In determining the nature of a cause of action, [an appellate c]ourt looks to allegations in the body of the complaint, not the caption or label the party applies."). 3 CL-2025-0966 Georgia after October 2024 and that they had resided there until they relocated to Philadelphia in April 2025.

2024Assuming the wife was seeking information as to any marital misconduct the husband may have committed to prove her claims for alimony or property division, see Ex parte Drummond, 785 So. 2d 358, 363 (Ala. 2000) (recognizing that trial court may consider the fault of the parties in causing the breakdown of the marriage when determining property division and alimony even when the divorce is granted on grounds of incompatibility), or any other misconduct that may form the basis of a contempt claim for violating the orders of the trial court, the wife did not request that the law firm produce that

2023The return of the subpoena in the manner described herein shall be prima facie evidence of service of the subpoena."3 3Section 12-21-180(c)(2), Ala. Code 1975, also provides that when the case involves a misdemeanor, under certain conditions the subpoena may be sent by first-class mail. 6 CR-2022-1067 First, as stated above, the State argued at the contempt hearing that, according to § 12-21-180(e), Grandquest acknowledged service, thereby waiving personal service or consenting to e-mail service, when he sent an e-mail that read "Email received." Section 12-21-180(e), Ala. Code 1975, provides:

2015As’ a threshold matter, we must first determine whether the appeal is taken from a final judgment in the .06 case. “ ‘[J]urisdictional matters are of such magnitude that we take notice of them at any time .and do so even ex mero.motu.’” Raybon v. Hull, 17 So.3d 673, 675 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (quoting Nunn v. Baker, 518 So.2d 711, 712 (Ala.1987)). “ ‘The question whether an order appealed from is final is jurisdictional, and the reviewing court, on a determination that the order is not final, has a duty to dismiss the case on its own motion.’ ” Hinson v. Hinson, 745 So.2d 280, 281 (Ala.Civ.App.199

2015As’ a threshold matter, we must first determine whether the appeal is taken from a final judgment in the .06 case. “ ‘[J]urisdictional matters are of such magnitude that we take notice of them at any time .and do so even ex mero.motu.’” Raybon v. Hull, 17 So.3d 673, 675 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (quoting Nunn v. Baker, 518 So.2d 711, 712 (Ala.1987)). “ ‘The question whether an order appealed from is final is jurisdictional, and the reviewing court, on a determination that the order is not final, has a duty to dismiss the case on its own motion.’ ” Hinson v. Hinson, 745 So.2d 280, 281 (Ala.Civ.App.199

2015The judgment is therefore nonfinal in regard to the .06 case because there is “ ‘something more to do.’ ” Wesley v. Brandon, 419 So.2d 257, 258 (Ala.Civ.App.1982) (quoting Sexton v. Sexton, 280 Ala. 479, 481, 195 So.2d 531, 533 (1967)) (observing that whether an order is final may be phrased as whether there is “‘something more for the [trial] court to do’ ”).

2015The judgment is therefore nonfinal in regard to the .06 case because there is “ ‘something more to do.’ ” Wesley v. Brandon, 419 So.2d 257, 258 (Ala.Civ.App.1982) (quoting Sexton v. Sexton, 280 Ala. 479, 481, 195 So.2d 531, 533 (1967)) (observing that whether an order is final may be phrased as whether there is “‘something more for the [trial] court to do’ ”).

2015The judgment is therefore nonfinal in regard to the .06 case because there is “ ‘something more to do.’ ” Wesley v. Brandon, 419 So.2d 257, 258 (Ala.Civ.App.1982) (quoting Sexton v. Sexton, 280 Ala. 479, 481, 195 So.2d 531, 533 (1967)) (observing that whether an order is final may be phrased as whether there is “‘something more for the [trial] court to do’ ”).

2015See Hall v. Hall, 122 So.3d 185, 192 (Ala.Civ.App.2013) (determining that a trial court lacked jurisdiction over a contempt claim arising from an alleged violation of the divorce judgment because the husband had failed to pay a filing fee to initiate a contempt action); Farmer v. Farmer, 842 So.2d 679, 681 (Ala.Civ.App.2002) (determining that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to decide a request for modification of custody because the father had not paid a filing fee or served the mother with process to institute a modification action).

2015See Hall v. Hall, 122 So.3d 185, 192 (Ala.Civ.App.2013) (determining that a trial court lacked jurisdiction over a contempt claim arising from an alleged violation of the divorce judgment because the husband had failed to pay a filing fee to initiate a contempt action); Farmer v. Farmer, 842 So.2d 679, 681 (Ala.Civ.App.2002) (determining that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to decide a request for modification of custody because the father had not paid a filing fee or served the mother with process to institute a modification action).

2015As’ a threshold matter, we must first determine whether the appeal is taken from a final judgment in the .06 case. “ ‘[J]urisdictional matters are of such magnitude that we take notice of them at any time .and do so even ex mero.motu.’” Raybon v. Hull, 17 So.3d 673, 675 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (quoting Nunn v. Baker, 518 So.2d 711, 712 (Ala.1987)). “ ‘The question whether an order appealed from is final is jurisdictional, and the reviewing court, on a determination that the order is not final, has a duty to dismiss the case on its own motion.’ ” Hinson v. Hinson, 745 So.2d 280, 281 (Ala.Civ.App.199

2013In Budinich , the Supreme Court observed that “ ‘[a] “final decision” generally is one which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.’ Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945).” Budinich, 486 U.S. at 199 .

2011Hood v. Hood, 23 So.3d 1160, 1161-62 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (footnote 1 omitted). *827 Subsequent to the trial court’s entry of its June 11, 2008, order, .the trial court resolved the remaining issues, and the mother appealed.

2010However, “[ajfter a trial court has denied a post-judgment motion pursuant to Rule 60(b), that court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a successive postjudgment motion to ‘reconsider’ or otherwise review its order denying the Rule 60(b) motion, and such a successive postjudgment motion does not suspend the running of the time for filing a notice of appeal.” Ex parte Keith, 771 So.2d 1018, 1022 (Ala.1998).

2009See N.H. v. T.A.P., 963 So.2d 97, 98-99 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (holding that a trial court’s judgment was nonfinal when the father’s claim for child support was tried by consent of the parties and the trial court’s judgment did not dispose of that claim).

2009Co., 689 So.2d 210, 211 (Ala.Civ.App.1997) (quoting Nunn v. Baker, 518 So.2d 711, 712 (Ala.1987)).