Court Opinion

ID: 9652083
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:16:09.039556+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:48.015269
License: Public Domain

PITTMAN, Judge,
dissenting.
In my view, the trial court’s errant reference in its judgment to the father’s “petition to have the child support modified” appears to have been intended as an express denial of the father’s contempt claim, *139which was the only other claim asserted by the father at trial that could properly have been acted upon by the trial court. Cf. Miller v. Miller, 10 So.3d 570, 572 n. 1 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (indicating that party’s withdrawal at trial of some of that party’s previously pleaded claims may render judgment adjudicating party’s other claims final). Moreover, the father asserts no issue on appeal as to the contempt claim. In light of Rule 1, Ala. RApp. P., which counsels “the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every appellate proceeding on its merits,” I would place substance over form in this case and reach the merits of the father’s appeal; therefore, I respectfully dissent from the dismissal of the appeal.