The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has dismissed an appeal from Dale Golson Warriner, who sought to challenge a divorce judgment involving the division of marital assets with her husband, Timothy James Warriner. The court ruled that the appeal was taken from a nonfinal judgment, which means it could not be reviewed at this time. This decision affects the couple's ongoing divorce proceedings and highlights the complexities involved in asset division during divorce.
Dale and Timothy Warriner were married on September 1, 2002, and separated on July 5, 2021. During their marriage, they lived on a 112-acre farm in Foley, Alabama. Timothy worked in the construction industry, while the couple also earned income from the farm through livestock sales and dirt sales from a dirt pit. The couple's divorce case began when Dale filed a complaint for divorce on March 23, 2023. Following the filing, both parties accused each other of violating court orders, leading to several contempt motions.
On June 27, 2024, the Baldwin Circuit Court ordered Timothy to comply with certain provisions of a status quo order and later mandated him to pay Dale $6,890 per month in family support. After a trial held in September 2025, the circuit court issued a nonfinal judgment regarding the couple's marital assets. This judgment ordered the sale of their farm and outlined how the proceeds would be divided, but it did not fully resolve all issues related to the couple's assets.
The court's nonfinal judgment specified that the farm's sale proceeds should first pay off debts, including a mortgage and credit card balances. Remaining proceeds were to be split 50-50 between the couple. However, the court later amended this judgment on December 11, 2025, changing the division to 60% for Dale and 40% for Timothy, while also increasing Timothy's payment towards Dale's attorney fees from $2,500 to $3,500.
Despite these amendments, the court noted that the judgment was still nonfinal. The court stated, "Because the amended nonfinal judgment references an asset but disposes of that asset only if a contingency occurs -- and does not dispose of that asset if the contingency does not occur -- it does not fully resolve the division of the parties' personal property and has not effectuated a complete adjudication of all matters in controversy." This means that the appeal could not proceed because the lower court had not made a final decision on all issues.
The court emphasized that a final judgment must resolve all matters between the parties. In this case, the judgment did not clarify what would happen to the couple's cattle unless the farm sale proceeds were insufficient to cover their debts. The court noted that the lack of clarity regarding the livestock, which was referenced multiple times in the proceedings, contributed to the nonfinal nature of the judgment.
This ruling has significant implications for the Warriners as they navigate their divorce. The dismissal of the appeal means that they must continue to await a final judgment from the circuit court before they can challenge any decisions regarding their assets. The case underscores the importance of ensuring that all aspects of asset division are clearly defined in divorce proceedings to avoid complications and delays.
Looking ahead, the Warriners may still have the option to appeal once a final judgment is issued. However, as of now, the court's dismissal means that the couple must resolve their outstanding issues in the lower court before any further legal actions can be taken. Details regarding any related cases or future hearings were not available in the court filing.