Boyd James Landry v. Angela O. Landry (Appeal from Autauga Circuit Court: DR-06-65.02)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/06/2009 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2080171 and 2080372 Boyd James Landry v. Angela O. Landry Appeals from Autauga C i r c u i t (DR-06-65.02) Court MOORE, J u d g e . Boyd ("the James Landry m o t h e r " ) were Autauga C i r c u i t Court ("the f a t h e r " ) divorced and Angela O. by a judgment e n t e r e d ("the t r i a l court") I n t h a t d i v o r c e judgment, t h e t r i a l Landry by t h e on O c t o b e r 4, 2007. court ordered the father 2080171; 2080372 t o pay $2, 500 children. modify On 1 his assigned as child June 9, support f o r the 2008, t h e child-support that p e t i t i o n p a r t i e s ' four father filed o b l i g a t i o n ; the c a s e no. a petition trial DR-06-65.02. court In his by 10.1%, a downward m o d i f i c a t i o n of to clerk support p e t i t i o n , t h e f a t h e r a r g u e d t h a t h i s income had justifying minor of decreased his child- support o b l i g a t i o n . On S e p t e m b e r 2, 2008, t h e t r i a l c o u r t h e a r d arguments on the f a t h e r ' s m o d i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n , a c c e p t e d i n t o evidence t a x returns f o r the accepted i n t o evidence i n c o m e s , and 23, 2008, an t a x years of 2006 and e x h i b i t summarizing took the m a t t e r under advisement. the Information action. p a r t i e s f o r the trial System court entered ("SJIS") a into the judgment 2007, the parties' On September State disposing Judicial of the 2 On S e p t e m b e r 29, Expedited Order." 2008, t h e father f i l e d a "Motion f o r an I n h i s motion, the f a t h e r a s s e r t e d t h a t , on Our r e c i t a t i o n of the terms of the p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e judgment i s t a k e n from the f a t h e r ' s p l e a d i n g s . These a s p e c t s of the d i v o r c e judgment appear u n d i s p u t e d i n t h i s a c t i o n . 1 2 that The r e c o r d b e f o r e judgment. us p r o v i d e s 2 no o t h e r information as to 2080171; 2080372 S e p t e m b e r 23, 2008, t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a d a d j u d i c a t e d a p a r a l l e l contempt a c t i o n t h a t had been f i l e d by t h e mother a g a i n s t t h e f a t h e r a n d t h a t h a d been a s s i g n e d father asserted that the t r i a l in t h e judgment entered c a s e no. DR-06-65.01. court mistakenly i n case 3 The had concluded no. DR-06-65.01 that the p a r t i e s h a d s e t t l e d a l l t h e i s s u e s b e t w e e n them, i n c l u d i n g t h e issues raised petition, the in the father's child-support-modification c a s e no. DR-06-65.02. parties had not settled The f a t h e r m a i n t a i n e d the issues involved that in his m o d i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n and t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n remained p e n d i n g . The f a t h e r r e q u e s t e d t h e t r i a l to reflect that the court child-support-modification remained p e n d i n g and t o a d j u d i c a t e Before the t r i a l m o t i o n f o r an e x p e d i t e d filed a notice assigned that court case that petition petition. t o o k any a c t i o n order, of appeal appeal t o c o r r e c t t h e judgment on t h e f a t h e r ' s on November 4, 2008, t h e f a t h e r ("the f i r s t no. appeal"); 2080171. On this the n o t i c e - o f - a p p e a l f o r m , t h e f a t h e r i n d i c a t e d t h a t he was a p p e a l i n g S e p t e m b e r 23, 2008, j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d the i n c a s e no. DR-06-65.02. T h e r e c o r d f r o m c a s e no. DR-06-65.01 i s n o t c o n t a i n e d i n record before us. 3 the court 3 2080171; 2080372 On the d o c k e t i n g statement, the a p p e a l t o b e : "The 06-65.02] Petition with 2008, t r i a l court e r r e d i n c l o s i n g t h i s case an order for to Modify s t i l l While the the f a t h e r i n d i c a t e d the i s s u e Case # [DR- DR-2006-000065.01. outstanding." f i r s t a p p e a l r e m a i n e d p e n d i n g , on November trial the court notation on trial c a s e no. on entered court's the following 18, handwritten case-action-summary sheet in DR-06-65.02: "Issue presented ... by oral argument as to d e p r e c i a t i o n and r a t e t h a t i s t o be u s e d f o r [ t h e father's] income for [child support] to be e s t a b l i s h e d . C o u r t upon r e v i e w o f income s i n c e 2006 does n o t f i n d a 10% change i n i n c o m e , t h e r e f o r e , t h e a g r e e d c h i l d s u p p o r t as b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s r e m a i n s a t $2,500 p e r month." On J a n u a r y 7, 2009, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d a m o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend, or v a c a t e t h a t judgment. a second n o t i c e assigned the of appeal the f r o m t h e November 18, the trial t h a t same d a t e , t h e ("the The 2080372. 2008, j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d petition. 4 issue denial erroneous the of was filed the In his f a t h e r i n d i c a t e d t h a t he father identified court's father second appeal"); s e c o n d a p p e a l c a s e no. n o t i c e of appeal, 06-65.02. On court second appealing i n c a s e no. DR- appealed from as his modification 2080171; 2080372 On J a n u a r y 29, 2009, t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d 18, 2008, o r d e r i n t o t h e S J I S . A f t e r h e a r i n g a r g u m e n t s on f a t h e r ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on F e b r u a r y 27, court denied the father t h a t m o t i o n t h a t same day. filed a motion i t s November styled 2009, t h e the trial L a t e r t h a t same d a t e , "Amended M o t i o n Amend o r V a c a t e o r , I n t h e A l t e r n a t i v e , To to Alter, Set F o r Hearing." I n t h a t motion, the f a t h e r a l l e g e d newly d i s c o v e r e d evidence. The trial court purportedly n o t a t i o n i n t o the This motu. in court S J I S on A p r i l consolidated 1, the t h a t m o t i o n by e n t r y o f 2009. father's appeals ex mero erred to modify h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n because t h e 10% change i n h i s income s i n c e 2006, t h a t t h e t r i a l h i s s e l f - e m p l o y m e n t income, that to trial court failed s u p p o r t g u i d e l i n e s o f R u l e 32, correctly A l a . R. apply Jud. the of court erred i n f a i l i n g to recognize the a the f a t h e r argues t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t On a p p e a l , failing denied and child- Admin. Analysis "Although neither party this court's j u r i s d i c t i o n , m a g n i t u d e t h a t we take e v e n ex mero motu.'" has r a i s e d an issue regarding ' j u r i s d i c t i o n a l matters are of such n o t i c e o f them a t any B a k e r v. 5 Baker, [Ms. t i m e and do so 2080047, J u n e 5, 2080171; 2080372 2009] v. So. 3d Baker, 518 , So. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2d 711, 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. App. father judgment, ( q u o t i n g Nunn (Ala. 1987)). See also Rule P. Case No. The 712 2009) 2080171 - The first e n t e r e d on appealed September First from 23, Appeal the 2008, trial court's disposing of the father's p e t i t i o n to modify h i s child-support o b l i g a t i o n . The f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n f o r an e x p e d i t e d o r d e r , f i l e d on S e p t e m b e r 29, 2008, was, Ala. R. i n essence, C i v . P., a motion seeking S e p t e m b e r 23 j u d g m e n t . 26 ( A l a . 1997) determines what postjudgment filed his ("The alter, pursuant amend, See E v a n s v. W a d d e l l , to Rule 59, vacate the or 689 So. 2d 23, s u b s t a n c e o f a m o t i o n and n o t i t s s t y l e kind of m o t i o n was first to filed appeal motion still on i t is."). Because pending at the time the November 4, 2008, the that father father's a p p e a l was h e l d i n a b e y a n c e u n t i l s u c h t i m e as t h e t r i a l c o u r t disposed operation of of the law. postjudgment See Rule motion 4(a)(5), or i t was A l a . R. denied App. P. by ("A n o t i c e o f a p p e a l f i l e d a f t e r the e n t r y o f judgment b u t b e f o r e the d i s p o s i t i o n of a l l post-judgment motions in abeyance until a l l post-judgment 6 ... s h a l l be h e l d motions ... are ruled 2080171; 2080372 upon; s u c h a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l s h a l l become e f f e c t i v e upon t h e date of d i s p o s i t i o n of the l a s t of a l l such m o t i o n s . " ) . On November 18, 2008, the trial court rendered a s u b s t a n t i v e r u l i n g on t h e f a t h e r ' s m o d i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n ; we c o n s t r u e t h a t o r d e r as a d e c i s i o n by t h e t r i a l t h e S e p t e m b e r 23, 2008, j u d g m e n t i n r e s p o n s e postjudgment that motion. order i n t o 58(c), A l a . R. the However, t h e t r i a l SJIS u n t i l Civ. P. ("An January order or c o u r t t o amend to the c o u r t d i d not e n t e r 29, a 2009. shall R u l e s and date of be 'entered' w i t h i n i n p u t of the order of I n f o r m a t i o n System."). R u l e 59.1, A l a . R. C i v . P., (1)(5) of that into R. C i v . P. 50, court f o r more t h a n n i n e t y a 55, ruling or on 59 the shall (90) remain days father's 7 motion these actual the the f a t h e r ' s postjudgment postjudgment Rules entering 52, ("No this State time, pursuant a l r e a d y h a d b e e n d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w . Ala. rendered as o f t h e judgment By Rule the meaning of the Rules of A p p e l l a t e Procedure the Judicial deemed See judgment e l e c t r o n i c a l l y by t h e j u d g e u n d e r s u b d i v i s i o n rule father's motion See R u l e filed pending "). postjudgment 59.1, pursuant i n the The to to trial time for motion had 2080171; 2080372 e x p i r e d on December 29, 2 0 0 8 . A c c o r d i n g l y , the t r i a l 4 court's November 18, 2008, o r d e r , e n t e r e d i n t o t h e S J I S on J a n u a r y 2009, i s a The i.e., nullity. father's f i r s t the day of 2080171, taken law. properly before Thus, from the order. 5 J a n u a r y 7, the the father's September 2080372 - The 2009, t h e purportedly As r i p e n e d on December 29, 23, 2008, deemed d e n i e d appeal 2008, in case judgment, by no. is court. Case no. appeal, appeal h i s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was operation On 29, pointed father filed appealing out Second A p p e a l from above, the that a second n o t i c e November order is 18, void of 2008, as an T h e 9 0 t h day f e l l on December 28, 2008, a Sunday. Thus, t h e f a t h e r ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was deemed d e n i e d on t h e f o l l o w i n g Monday, December 29, 2008. See Richburg v. C r o m w e l l , 428 So. 2d 621 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) ; and F i r s t A l a b a m a Bank v. McGowan, 758 So. 2d 1116 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 0 ) . 4 T h e f a t h e r ' s amended p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , f i l e d on F e b r u a r y 27, 2009, a f t e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t had l o s t j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c a s e , c o u l d be c o n s t r u e d as h a v i n g b e e n f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 2 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. See E v a n s v. W a d d e l l , 689 So. 2d a t 26 ("The s u b s t a n c e o f a m o t i o n and n o t i t s s t y l e d e t e r m i n e s what k i n d o f m o t i o n i t i s . " ) ; K i m b r e l l v. K i m b r e l l , 965 So. 2d 789, 793 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t s u c c e s s i v e postjudgment motions are g e n e r a l l y not p e r m i t t e d ) ; and F o s t e r v. G r e e r & S o n s , I n c . , 446 So. 2d 605, 608 ( A l a . 1984) ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n o f a c a s e may o n l y be i n o n l y one c o u r t a t a t i m e ) . However, t h e f a t h e r d i d n o t o b t a i n 5 8 2080171; 2080372 untimely a t t e m p t by the trial court to rule on the father's postjudgment motion. A v o i d o r d e r w i l l n o t s u p p o r t an See K.R. So. For v. D.H., that 988 reason, c a s e no. this 2080372, and 2d 1050, court we 1052 ( A l a . C i v . App. lacks appellate dismiss that erred appeal, in the failing father to b e c a u s e h i s income had the trial court employment modify his the that the 2008 trial s i n c e 2006, to recognize the trial court obligation 10% failing (3) and that child-support in (2) his court Jud. Admin. by the trial failed Those i s s u e s r e l a t e o n l y t o t h e o r d e r court on November 18, 2008, w h i c h , as e x p l a i n e d above, i s the s u b j e c t of the f a t h e r ' s second w h i c h we have that self- c o r r e c t l y a p p l y t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t g u i d e l i n e s o f R u l e 32, R. in appeal. (1) d e c r e a s e d by erred income, argues 2008). jurisdiction Whether the T r i a l C o u r t E r r e d i n D i s p o s i n g of F a t h e r ' s M o d i f i c a t i o n P e t i t i o n on S e p t e m b e r 23, On appeal. to Ala. rendered we have appeal, dismissed. p e r m i s s i o n f r o m t h i s c o u r t t o f i l e h i s R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n i n the t r i a l c o u r t . See R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. ("Leave t o make t h e m o t i o n [ p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 60] n e e d n o t be obtained f r o m any a p p e l l a t e c o u r t e x c e p t d u r i n g s u c h t i m e as an a p p e a l from the judgment i s a c t u a l l y p e n d i n g b e f o r e such c o u r t . " (emphasis a d d e d ) ) . Thus, t h e f a t h e r ' s R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 2 ) m o t i o n was n o t p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t . 9 2080171; 2080372 Because the father has failed e r r o r r e l a t e d t o t h e S e p t e m b e r 23, c a s e no. So. f u n c t i o n of t h i s and authority on So. 2d 248, So. t o a r g u e an ( A l a . 2003) a party's arguments argument.'" v. S p r a d l i n , 601 K e i t h , 418 legal So. 2d 89, 251 (quoting ( " ' [ I ] t i s not legal for Dykes ( A l a . 1992)) ). ( A l a . 1982) issue i n i t s brief, a research party v. See the or based to on sufficient Lane Trucking, Spradlin also Boshell ("When an a p p e l l a n t v. fails that issue i s waived."). mother's r e q u e s t f o r the appeal i s g r a n t e d i n the any See B u t l e r v. ( A l a . 1994), c i t i n g i n t u r n 2d 76 92 appeal 2008, j u d g m e n t a t i s s u e i n g e n e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n s n o t s u p p o r t e d by or I n c . , 652 2d 1, 20 C o u r t t o do address undelineated The assert 2080171, we must a f f i r m t h a t j u d g m e n t . Town o f A r g o , 871 make to a w a r d o f an a t t o r n e y amount o f 2080171 on $750. AFFIRMED. 2080372 fee APPEAL DISMISSED. Pittman, B r y a n , and Thompson, P . J . , Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . concurs i n the 10 result, without w r i t i n g .

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.