discussed in note 5, infra
How later courts described this case
- discussed in note 5, infra
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
The record indicates that the trial court set the issue of the wife's request for attorney fees for a separate hearing, which was never held. Both the husband and the wife proceeded with their appeals before the date the trial court set for the hearing on the attorney fees. I conclude that both appeals are from a nonfinal judgment; and, therefore, that the appeals should be dismissed. See Goza v. Everett , 365 So.2d 658 (Ala. 1978) (holding that order which did not address all claims for relief was not a final judgment and that an appeal from such an order was due to be dismissed); see also Brown v. McConnell , 705 So.2d 476
(Ala.Civ.App. 1997) (holding that order which did not address issues of damages and attorney fees is not a final judgment); but see Holman v. Bane , 698 So.2d 117 (Ala. 1997) (holding that the trial court's judgment confirming the sale of real property and a division of the proceeds was a final judgment even though the trial court reserved the attorney-fees issue, and apparently limiting the holding to sale-for-division actions).
Thompson, J., concurs.