Had this issue involved something other than subject-matter jurisdiction, the mother would, in my opinion, have come close to inviting the error of which she now complains. See J.S. v. S.L., 244 So. 3d 120, 125 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017). As presented in her mandamus petition, the mother's argument before this court includes a quote from § 30-3B-201(a)(1), which provides:

NO OPINION. See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(A and F), Ala. R. App. P.; Ex parte Blackstock, 47 So. 3d 801, 804-05 (Ala. 2009); Van Voorst v. Federal Express Corp., 16 So. 3d 86, 92 (Ala. 2008); White Sands Grp., L.L.C. v. PRS II, LLC, 998 So. 2d 1042, 1058 (Ala. 2008); Ex parte Fann, 810 So. 2d 631, 632-33 (Ala. 2001); Ex parte Couch, 521 So. 2d 987 (Ala. 1988); Hummer v. Loftis, 276 So. 3d 215, 221 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018); J.S. v. S.L., 244 So. 3d 120, 125 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017); E.F.B. v. L.S.T., 157 So. 3d 917, 925 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014); C.C. v. B.L., 142 So. 3d 1126, 1128 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013); Harris v. Harris, 59 So. 3d 731, 734-35 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010); HLH Constructors, Inc. v. State Dep't of Revenue, 902 So. 2d 680, 686 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004); Taylor v. Hogan, 673 So. 2d 453, 455 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996); Godwin v. Bogart, 674 So. 2d 606, 608 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995); Phillips v. Phillips, 622 So. 2d 410, 412 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993); and Matter of Nelson, 528 So. 2d 870, 871 (Ala. Civ. App. 1988). Moore, Donaldson, Edwards, and Hanson, JJ., concur.

See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F), Ala. R. App. P.; § 12-15-319(a)(2),(7),(8), and (12), Ala. Code 1975; § 12-15-320(a), Ala. Code 1975; Rule 25(D), Ala. R. Juv. P.; Boshell v. Keith, 418 So. 2d 89, 92 (Ala. 1982); T.D. v. S.R., [Ms. 2180394, July 26, 2019] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2019); J.S. v. S.L., 244 So. 3d 120, 125 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017); K.S.B. v. M.C.B., 219 So. 3d 650, 653 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016); S.S. v. Calhoun Cty. Dep't of Human Res., 212 So. 3d 940, 949 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016); J.L. v. Morgan Cty. Dep't of Human Res., 182 So. 3d 570, 572 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015); M.H. v. Cleburne Cty. Dep't of Human Res., 158 So. 3d 471, 475-76 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014); A.E.T., Jr. v. Limestone Cty. Dep't of Human Res., 49 So. 3d 1212, 1218 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010); A.F. v. Madison Cty. Dep't of Human Res., 58 So. 3d 205, 215 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010); Jefferson Cty. Dep't of Human Res. v. L.S., 60 So. 3d 308, 315-16 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010); and J.F.S. III v. Mobile Cty. Dep't of Human Res., 38 So. 3d 75, 78 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). 2180625 -- AFFIRMED.

See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(A), Ala. R. App. P.; Rule 13, Ala. R. Juv. P.; Ex parte Fann, 810 So. 2d 631, 636 (Ala. 2001); Norman v. Bozeman, 605 So. 2d 1210, 1214 (Ala. 1992); Ex parte Riley, 464 So. 2d 92, 94 (Ala. 1985); J.S. v. S.L., 244 So. 3d 120, 124 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017); T.L. v. W.C.L., 203 So. 3d 66, 71 and 72 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016); Limestone Cty. Dep't of Human Res. v. Long, 182 So. 3d 541, 544 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014); P.S. v. M.S., 101 So. 3d 228 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012); M.W.H. v. R.W., 100 So. 3d 603, 610 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012); J.S.M. v. P.J., 902 So. 2d 89, 96 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004); and C.C. v. A.G., 667 So. 2d 128, 129 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995). Pittman, Moore, and Donaldson, JJ. concur.

Person v. Person, 236 So.3d 90, 95 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017). Accordingly, the husband may not obtain review of the provisions of the April 28, 2015, amended pendente lite order in this appeal. See J.S. v. S.L., 244 So.3d 120 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017).The husband next argues that the trial court erred by failing to enforce the antenuptial agreement as written. Specifically, the husband argues that the trial court erred in awarding the wife $18,000 pursuant to the HELOC provision of the agreement and awarding her an additional $21,150, representing half of the value of the personal property the parties had acquired during the course of the marriage.