180 So. 3d 16 (Ala. App. 2015)
Karen Lincecum Blackburn and David Blackburn married on November 6, 2004, in Louisiana.1 The parties later moved to Mobile, Alabama, where they were residents when the divorce action began.2
On January 11, 2013, the husband filed a complaint for divorce in the Mobile Circuit Court alleging incompatibility of temperament and an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.3 The wife filed an answer and counterclaim on January 16, 2013, seeking a divorce on grounds of incompatibility and alleging acts of domestic violence by the husband.4
The parties filed motions regarding discovery and pendente lite support.5 On July 11, 2013, the wife filed a motion to enforce the covenant marriage contract, asserting that the marriage was subject to the Louisiana Covenant Marriage Act.6 After a hearing, the trial court denied this motion on September 6, 2013.7
A trial commenced on April 16, 2014, with the wife appearing pro se.8 The trial was continued due to a flooding emergency at the marital home and resumed on April 21, 2014, when the wife was absent and her request for a further continuance was denied.9 The husband rested his case, and the trial court entered a judgment on April 22, 2014, divorcing the parties and dividing the marital property.10 There were no children born of the marriage.11 The wife filed a postjudgment motion on May 22, 2014, which the trial court denied on August 8, 2014.12
The wife appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama on September 19, 2014.13 In her pro se brief, she raised issues including whether the trial court erred by failing to enforce the covenant marriage contract and whether the trial court failed to rule on pending motions.14
Whether the trial court erred by failing to enforce the parties' covenant-marriage contract under the Louisiana Covenant Marriage Act?15
Judicial power to grant a divorce is founded on domicil.16 The local law of the domiciliary state in which the action is brought will be applied to determine the right to divorce.17 Section 30-2-1(7) and (9), Ala. Code 1975, empowers the circuit courts of this state to divorce married persons for a complete incompatibility of temperament or an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.18 There is no basis for a court of this state to grant a divorce based upon the laws of another state.19
No. The parties were residents of Alabama when the husband filed the complaint on January 11, 2013.20 Both parties asserted incompatibility as a ground for divorce.21 The trial court denied the wife's July 11, 2013 motion to enforce the Louisiana Covenant Marriage Act after a hearing.22 Because the parties had established domicile in Alabama and availed themselves of its divorce statutes, the court properly applied Alabama law rather than the Act.23
The trial court did not err by failing to enforce the parties' covenant-marriage contract under the Louisiana Covenant Marriage Act.24
Whether the trial court erred by failing to rule upon pending discovery and contempt motions before entering the final divorce judgment?25
A judgment that states that any request not otherwise specifically addressed by the order shall be deemed denied adequately addresses all outstanding motions and produces a final appealable judgment.26
No. The trial court entered its April 22, 2014 divorce judgment.27 The judgment contained the statement that any request not otherwise specifically addressed shall be deemed denied.28 This statement resolved all pending motions dealing with discovery and contempt that had been filed during the action.29 The judgment was therefore final and appealable.30
The trial court did not err by failing to rule upon pending discovery and contempt motions before entering the final divorce judgment.31
Whether the wife's remaining arguments in her appellate brief were properly considered on appeal?32
When an appellant fails to properly argue an issue or support it with relevant legal authority, that issue is waived and will not be considered on appeal under Rule 28(a)(10), Ala. R. App. P.33
No. The remaining arguments in the wife's pro se brief on appeal were not developed and were not supported by relevant legal authority.34 Under Rule 28(a)(10), Ala. R. App. P., arguments in briefs must contain discussions of facts and relevant legal authorities that support the party’s position; if they do not, the arguments are waived.35 Because the wife's remaining arguments failed to satisfy this requirement, they were waived and not considered by the Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.36
The wife's remaining arguments in her appellate brief were not properly considered on appeal.37