Appeals from Montgomery Circuit Court. (DR-97-168.03).
Appellant: James E. Long, Montgomery.
Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F), Ala. R. App. P.; Morgan v.
Morgan, [Ms. 2120101, July 11, 2014] __ So.3d __, __, *1
(Ala.Civ. 2014); and Britt v. Britt, 684 So.2d 1325,
1326 (Ala.Civ. 1996).
P.J., and Pittman and Donaldson, JJ., concur.
respectfully dissent as to the affirmance of the trial
court's award of postminority educational support. On
October 4, 2013, our supreme court released Ex parte
Christopher, [Ms. 1120387, Oct. 4, 2013] 145 So.3d 60 (Ala.
2013), in which our supreme court expressly overruled Ex
parte Bayliss, 550 So.2d 986 (Ala. 1989). In overruling
Bayliss, our supreme court specifically held that,
" [a]lthough [this] decision does not affect final
orders of postminority educational support already entered,
our overruling of Bayliss is applicable to all future cases.
Further, this decision also applies to current cases where no
final postminority-support order has been entered or where an
appeal from a postminority-support order is still
Christopher, __ So.3d at __ Id. at*18
August 2011, Gaynor Jones (" the mother" ) filed a
petition in the Montgomery
Circuit Court seeking an award of postminority educational
support for the parties' son. The trial court entered an
order on April 26, 2013, granting the petition seeking an
award of postminority educational support. However, that
order was not a final judgment because it did not specify an
amount or a percentage of postminority educational support
for which Gerald Van Jones (" the father" ) was to
be responsible. Despite that fact, the father appealed the
order in September 2013, after his motion seeking
reconsideration of the April 2013 order was denied. After
discovering the jurisdictional defect, this court reinvested
the trial court with jurisdiction to enter an order
specifying an amount or percentage of postminority
educational support, which the trial court ...