Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

05/05/95 ENOREE PATTERSON MOORE v. JAMES RANDOLPH

May 5, 1995

ENOREE PATTERSON MOORE
v.
JAMES RANDOLPH MOORE



Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court. (DR-92-1924). John C. Calhoun, TRIAL JUDGE.

Application for Rehearing Overruled June 16, 1995, .

Holmes, Retired Appellate Judge. All the Judges concur.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Holmes

HOLMES, Retired Appellate Judge

Enoree Patterson Moore (wife) and James Randolph Moore (husband) were divorced by a final judgment of divorce dated April 8, 1993. The wife was awarded custody of the "minor child of the parties." The husband was awarded visitation rights with the minor child and was ordered to pay child support in the amount of $111 per month.

On May 25, 1994, the wife filed a document entitled "Motion to Reopen the Case and for Relief from Judgment." This motion was filed pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P. The wife alleged that the husband was not the natural father of the minor child, and she requested that the trial court reopen the case to set aside that portion of the decree which pertains to paternity, custody, and support of the minor child. The motion was denied. The wife filed a notice of appeal with this court. However, that appeal was dismissed.

On August 25, 1994, the wife filed a petition to reopen the case, pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, § 26-17A-1. Once again, the wife alleged that the husband was not the natural father of the minor child, and she requested that the case be reopened to set aside that portion of the decree which pertains to paternity, custody, and support of the minor child.

The maternal grandparents filed a motion to intervene, seeking visitation rights with the minor child.

After a hearing, the trial court issued an order, dated October 28, 1994, wherein it denied the wife's petition to reopen the case and granted the motion to intervene filed by the maternal grandparents. A hearing to determine the visitation rights was scheduled for a later date.

The wife appeals.

Our initial inquiry is whether the October 28, 1994, order is a final judgment for purposes of an appeal.

Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., contains the following pertinent language:

"When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.