R.J.G. v. S.S.W.

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 2080509 R.J.G. v. S.S.W. Appeal from Baldwin J u v e n i l e Court (JU-2008-403.01 and CS-2005-313.01) On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g PER CURIAM. The opinion o f August 2 1 , 2009, i s w i t h d r a w n , following i s substituted therefor. and t h e 2080509 On November 30, 2005, R.J.G. filed a complaint in the B a l d w i n J u v e n i l e C o u r t ( " t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t " ) a l l e g i n g t h a t he i s the b i o l o g i c a l f a t h e r o f A.G. ("the c h i l d " ) and seeking j u d i c i a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n of h i s p a t e r n i t y of the c h i l d . In t h a t c o m p l a i n t , R.J.G. s o u g h t t o e n f o r c e h i s v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s to have 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 the Rule The 32, A l a . R. juvenile number a n s w e r e d and sought a and pursuant to Admin., c h i l d - s u p p o r t g u i d e l i n e s . designated "CS-2005-313." mother"), mother court Jud. determined a The R.J.G.'s 2005 a c t i o n as child's mother, c o u n t e r c l a i m e d ; i n her determination of R.J.G.'s case S.S.W. ("the pleading, the child-support o b l i g a t i o n and t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f an i n c o m e - w i t h h o l d i n g order. On A u g u s t 23, 2006, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t i n case number CS-2005-313 i n w h i c h i t a d j u d i c a t e d R.J.G. t o be t h e f a t h e r o f t h e c h i l d . I n t h e A u g u s t 23, 2006, j u d g m e n t , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t o r d e r e d R.J.G. ( h e r e i n a f t e r " t h e t o p a y $617 p e r month i n c h i l d s u p p o r t , t o p r o v i d e h e a l t h d e n t a l insurance f o r the c h i l d , the c h i l d ' s medical juvenile father") and t o p a y o n e - h a l f o f any expenses not c o u r t awarded the covered by father v i s i t a t i o n insurance. w i t h the and r e q u i r e d him t o a t t e n d c o u n s e l i n g s e s s i o n s w i t h t h e 2 and of The child child. 2080509 On May nisi 12, 2008, t h e m o t h e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n i n case a c t i o n was number CS-2005-313. mother's d e s i g n a t e d a s , and i t i s h e r e i n a f t e r a s , " c a s e number C S - 2 0 0 5 - 3 1 3 . 0 1 . " nisi, The t h e mother a l l e g e d that for a rule rule nisi referred to In her p e t i t i o n f o r a r u l e the father had f a i l e d t o pay c h i l d support, to provide medical insurance f o r the c h i l d , to reimburse her f o r the c h i l d ' s m e d i c a l expenses and not covered by i n s u r a n c e . Also action on May 12, 2008, the mother initiated a separate i n which she s o u g h t a judgment i n the j u v e n i l e court terminating the f a t h e r ' s parental termination-of-parental-rights r i g h t s to the c h i l d . a c t i o n was a s s i g n e d c a s e number J U - 2 0 0 8 - 4 0 3 . 0 1 , and i t i s r e f e r r e d t o b y t h a t this demonstrates that the father received o f p r o c e s s i n c a s e number CS-2005-313.01 he r e c e i v e d 403.01 for c a s e number i n opinion. The r e c o r d that The on May service 27, 2008. service on May 19, 2008, and o f p r o c e s s i n c a s e number JU-2008- On J u l y 22, 2008, t h e m o t h e r moved a d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t i n c a s e number CS-2005-313.01 c a s e number J U - 2 0 0 8 - 4 0 3 . 0 1 . The j u v e n i l e c o u r t and i n ordered that b o t h d e f a u l t - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n s be c o n s i d e r e d on t h e d a t e o f t h e 3 2080509 h e a r i n g on t h e m e r i t s o f t h e m o t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n s . court scheduled a j o i n t hearing c a s e number CS-2005-313.01 The j u v e n i l e on t h e m o t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n s i n and c a s e number JU-2008-403.01 f o r September 10, 2008. On September 10, 2008, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d i n c a s e number CS-2005-313.01 in which i t noted that and c a s e number the mother had orders JU-2008-403.01 appeared at the September 10, 2008, h e a r i n g , b u t t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d n o t , and that a judgment would follow. The record on appeal demonstrates t h a t t h e mother o f f e r e d ore tenus e v i d e n c e a t the September 10, 2008, On September hearing. 19, 2008, the j u v e n i l e j u d g m e n t i n c a s e number CS-2005-313.01 father i n contempt required by for his failure the August number C S - 2 0 0 5 - 3 1 3 . 1 23, 2006, court entered a i n which i t found the t o pay judgment certain entered amounts in case The j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t i n I n i t s September 19, 2008, j u d g m e n t i n c a s e number CS2005-313.01, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r was e n t i t l e d t o an a w a r d o f an a t t o r n e y f e e , b u t i t d i d n o t d e t e r m i n e t h e amount o f t h a t f e e . The f a i l u r e t o a d j u d i c a t e t h e amount o f t h e a t t o r n e y f e e d i d n o t a f f e c t t h e f i n a l i t y o f t h e j u d g m e n t i n c a s e number CS-2005-313.01. Watson v. W h i t t i n g t o n R e a l E s t a t e , LLC, 16 So. 3d 802, 807 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) ; Edwards v. E d w a r d s , 999 So. 2d 393 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008). 1 4 2080509 favor of the mother requiring the father to pay certain amounts i n a r r e a r a g e s . On S e p t e m b e r 23, 2008, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d i n case number CS-2005-313.01 a l e t t e r s e e k i n g a " c o n t i n u a n c e " o f t h e m a t t e r ; i n t h a t l e t t e r t o t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t , t h e f a t h e r made c e r t a i n representations scheduled regarding the reason September 10, 2008, h e a r i n g . he d i d not attend the A l s o on S e p t e m b e r 23, 2008, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d i n c a s e number CS-2005-313.01 a " m o t i o n to a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e " t h e S e p t e m b e r 19, 2008, j u d g m e n t . On S e p t e m b e r 25, 2008, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r i n case number CS-2005-313.01 scheduling a hearing on the 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 f o r O c t o b e r 17, 2008. On September 29, 2008, the juvenile court entered a j u d g m e n t i n c a s e number JU-2008-403.01 i n w h i c h i t t e r m i n a t e d the f a t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o the c h i l d . On O c t o b e r 9, 2008, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d 2005-313.01 a motion O c t o b e r 17, 2008. to continue I n t h a t motion, the hearing 2008, t h e j u v e n i l e court granted 5 number CS- scheduled for the f a t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t the m o t h e r d i d n o t oppose t h e r e q u e s t e d 10, i n case continuance. On October the f a t h e r ' s motion to 2080509 continue filed rescheduled in case the hearing number CS-2005-313.01, a i t i n t h a t c a s e f o r O c t o b e r 23, 2008. A l s o on O c t o b e r 9, 2008, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d CS-2005-313.01 and motion seeking to i n c a s e number amend his earlier p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n f i l e d i n t h a t c a s e ; t h e f a t h e r a l s o moved for a new t r i a l case number motions or to a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e t h e j u d g m e n t i n JU-2008-403.01. Each of the October 9, i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t h a d been f i l e d w i t h r e g a r d c a s e number CS-2005-313.01 2008, to both and c a s e number J U - 2 0 0 8 - 4 0 3 . 0 1 . n o t e , however, t h a t t h e r e c o r d contains that c o n s o l i d a t e d by the j u v e n i l e t h e two actions court or, other h a d been no o r d e r We indicating than the j u v e n i l e court's having conducted a j o i n t h e a r i n g , a n y t h i n g i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the j u v e n i l e c o u r t had t r e a t e d t h e a c t i o n s as i f t h e y h a d been consolidated. On O c t o b e r 23, 2008, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t c o n d u c t e d an o r e tenus hearing motions i n case number CS-2005-313.01 and c a s e number J U - 2 0 0 8 - 4 0 3 . 0 1 . At that hearing, the the f a t h e r ' s postjudgment the j u v e n i l e c o u r t r e c e i v e d ore tenus evidence from father. entered on Also an o r d e r purported to on October i n case deny the 23, 2008, the j u v e n i l e number CS-2005-313.01 father's 6 September court i n which i t 23, 2008, 2080509 postjudgment the motion juvenile court i n that case. entered a Also on O c t o b e r similar order J u d i c i a l I n f o r m a t i o n S y s t e m i n c a s e number which i t denied motion filed the father's i n that On November October 9, on 23, 2008, the State JU-2008-403.01 i n 2008, postjudgment case. 6, 2008, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d i n c a s e number J U - 2008-403.01 a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l t o t h e B a l d w i n C i r c u i t Court; that n o t i c e of appeal i n d i c a t e d that the f a t h e r a l s o intended t o a p p e a l i n c a s e number CS-2005-313.01. later t o Rule granted, father's motion pursuant 2 28, A l a . R. to t r a n s f e r the appeal court J u v . P., the of the judgments i n c a s e number CS-2005-313.01 and c a s e number this The c i r c u i t JU-2008-403.01 t o court. As appeal an initial i n case The t i m e l y matter, number filing we conclude CS-2005-313.01 of a n o t i c e was that the not t i m e l y of appeal i s a father's filed. jurisdictional A l t h o u g h no f o r m a l n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was f i l e d i n c a s e number CS-2005-313.01, i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t , and t h i s c o u r t u n d e r s t o o d t h a t t h e f a t h e r was a t t e m p t i n g t o a p p e a l t h e j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d i n t h a t a c t i o n . A c c o r d i n g l y , we t r e a t t h e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l f i l e d i n c a s e number JU-2008-403.01 (and a l s o d e s i g n a t i n g c a s e number CS2005-313.01) as a l s o b e i n g e f f e c t i v e as t o c a s e number CS2005-313.01. 2 7 2080509 act. G r a v e s v. G o l t h y , [Ms. 1070422, A p r i l 3d , ( A l a . 2009) so even (Ala. So. (an u n t i m e l y a p p e a l must be d i s m i s s e d f o r want o f j u r i s d i c t i o n ) . such magnitude 17, 2009] "[J]urisdictional matters are of t h a t we t a k e n o t i c e o f them a t any t i m e and ex mero motu. " Nunn v. B a k e r , 518 So. 2d 711, do 712 1987). The juvenile c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s judgment i n case CS-2005-313.01 on postjudgment S e p t e m b e r 19, motion 2008. seeking to a l t e r , The father number filed amend, o r v a c a t e his that j u d g m e n t on S e p t e m b e r 23, 2008, w i t h i n t h e 14 days a l l o w e d by the P. Rules of J u v e n i l e Procedure. ( " A l l postjudgment motions See R u l e 1 ( B ) , A l a . R. Juv. ... must be f i l e d w i t h i n 14 d a y s a f t e r e n t r y o f o r d e r o r j u d g m e n t and s h a l l n o t r e m a i n p e n d i n g for more t h a n 14 d a y s . " ) . j u v e n i l e a c t i o n may R u l e 1 ( B ) , A l a . R. A postjudgment motion J u v . P. ("A p o s t j u d g m e n t f a t h e r ' s S e p t e m b e r 23, 2008, m o t i o n f i l e d m o t i o n i s deemed Thus, the i n c a s e number deemed d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w on 7, 2008. R u l e 1 ( B ) ; T.P. Civ. 2008); App. in a n o t r e m a i n p e n d i n g f o r more t h a n 14 d a y s . d e n i e d i f n o t r u l e d on w i t h i n 14 d a y s o f f i l i n g . " ) . 2005-313.01 was filed CS- October v. T.J.H., 10 So. 3d 613, 614 ( A l a . and J . S . v. S t a t e Dep't o f Human R e s . , 8 597 2080509 So. 2d 1376, juvenile 1377 court ( A l a . C i v . App. purported 1992). Although t o deny t h e f a t h e r ' s the postjudgment m o t i o n i n c a s e number CS-2005-313.01 on O c t o b e r 23, 2008, i t had l o s t j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r c a s e number CS-2005-313.01 b y t h a t time. T.P. v. T.J.H., supra. The father h a d 14 d a y s , or u n t i l O c t o b e r 21, 2008, t o a p p e a l t h e O c t o b e r 7, 2008, d e n i a l by operation of law of the postjudgment motion f i l e d number CS-2005-313.01. from J . S . v. S t a t e a p p e a l e d on November his R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. App. P. judgments o f a j u v e n i l e c o u r t days); appeal untimely must be filed Dep't o f Human R e s . , s u p r a . 6, 2008, and, a c c o r d i n g l y , pertaining i n case to case number (appeals within The 14 father that part of CS-2005-313.01 is a n d i s due t o be d i s m i s s e d . R u l e 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. App. P. ("An a p p e a l s h a l l be d i s m i s s e d i f the n o t i c e of appeal was not appellate timely filed to invoke jurisdiction of the court."). On a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g , this the court erred i n concluding CS-2005-313.01 was the father contends t h a t h i s appeal i n case untimely. The father contends that number that the j u v e n i l e c o u r t h a d e f f e c t e d a c o n s o l i d a t i o n o f t h e two a c t i o n s by conducting a joint hearing of the a c t i o n s . 9 The father 2080509 a r g u e s t h a t t h e c l a i m s a s s e r t e d i n c a s e number constituted only consolidated a portion action and, o f what therefore, he characterizes that final claims. The disposed father maintains judgment i n t h e " c o n s o l i d a t e d " as t h e September 2008, j u d g m e n t i n c a s e number CS-2005-313.01 some o f t h e p e n d i n g CS-2005-313.01 a c t i o n s was a 19, of only that the entered on S e p t e m b e r 29, 2008, when t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t in So. c a s e number J U - 2 0 0 8 - 4 0 3 . 0 1 . 2d previous to 1038, ( A l a . 1988) n o n - f i n a l order appeal, of."). 1046 at the time Therefore, ("Claims become f i n a l , the l a s t according number CS-2005-313.01 See O l i v e r v. Townsend, should party adjudicated and t h e r e f o r e or c l a i m is 534 in a subject disposed t o the f a t h e r , h i s appeal i n case be deemed as t i m e l y t a k e n from t h e S e p t e m b e r 29, 2008, f i n a l j u d g m e n t i n c a s e number JU-2008403.01. However, w e l l s e t t l e d c a s e l a w and R u l e 42, A l a . R. C i v . P., d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s argument on a p p l i c a t i o n f o r rehearing i s erroneous. As n o t e d e a r l i e r , t h e r e c o r d contains no o r d e r i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t c o n s o l i d a t e d case number CS-2005-313.01 and c a s e number J U - 2 0 0 8 - 4 0 3 . 0 1 . purpose of addressing t h e f a t h e r ' s argument on a p p l i c a t i o n f o r 10 For the 2080509 rehearing, h o w e v e r , we court entered had an examine t h e i s s u e order as i f t h e j u v e n i l e consolidating t h e two P u r s u a n t t o R u l e 42, A l a . R. C i v . P., a t r i a l actions i n v o l v i n g common f a c t s o r i s s u e s R u l e 42(a) actions. c o u r t may t o be order consolidated. provides: "When a c t i o n s i n v o l v i n g a common q u e s t i o n o f l a w o r f a c t a r e p e n d i n g b e f o r e t h e c o u r t , i t may o r d e r a j o i n t h e a r i n g o r t r i a l o f any o r a l l t h e m a t t e r s i n i s s u e i n t h e a c t i o n s ; i t may o r d e r a l l t h e a c t i o n s c o n s o l i d a t e d ; and i t may make s u c h o r d e r s c o n c e r n i n g p r o c e e d i n g s t h e r e i n as may t e n d t o a v o i d u n n e c e s s a r y costs or delay." However, clearly t h e C o m m i t t e e Comments on 1973 A d o p t i o n o f R u l e demonstrate that consolidation does n o t merge a c t i o n s i n t o one a c t i o n ; r a t h e r , t h e two c o n s o l i d a t e d continue to maintain their separate identities. two actions Those Comments s p e c i f y : "Rule 42(a) speaks b o t h o f j o i n t h e a r i n g s o r t r i a l s and o f c o n s o l i d a t i o n . This wording i s intended to c o n f e r a b r o a d d i s c r e t i o n t o merge t h e two a c t i o n s so f a r as i s n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e i r most c o n v e n i e n t d e t e r m i n a t i o n , and t o p e r m i t m e r g e r o f some o r a l l o f t h e i s s u e s i n t h e two c a s e s . B u t where t h e r e i s complete c o n s o l i d a t i o n , the a c t i o n s r e t a i n their s e p a r a t e i d e n t i t y and t h e p a r t i e s and p l e a d i n g s i n one a c t i o n do n o t a u t o m a t i c a l l y become p a r t i e s and p l e a d i n g s i n t h e o t h e r a c t i o n . O i k a r i n e n v. A l e x i a n B r o s . , 342 F.2d 155 (3d C i r . 1965) . N a t i o n a l Nut Co. o f C a l i f o r n i a v. Susu Nut Co., 61 F. Supp. 8 6 (N.D. Ill. 1 9 4 4 ) ; Simon v. C a r r o l l , 241 M i n n . 211, 62 N.W.2d 822 ( 1 9 5 4 ) . " 11 42 2080509 (Emphasis added.) This court providing that has summarized consolidated i d e n t i t i e s and t h a t s e p a r a t e the caselaw actions maintain precedent their j u d g m e n t s must be e n t e r e d also separate i n each action: "'[W]hen two or more actions are c o n s o l i d a t e d u n d e r R u l e 42, A l a . R. C i v . P., t h e a c t i o n s do n o t l o s e t h e i r s e p a r a t e i d e n t i t i e s . League v. M c D o n a l d , 355 So. 2d 695, 697 ( A l a . 1978). Moreover, "[a]n o r d e r o f c o n s o l i d a t i o n does n o t merge t h e a c t i o n s i n t o a s i n g l e [ a c t i o n ] , change t h e r i g h t s o r t h e p a r t i e s , o r make t h o s e who a r e p a r t i e s t o one [action] p a r t i e s to a n o t h e r . " Jerome A. H o f f m a n , A l a b a m a C i v i l P r o c e d u r e § 5.71 (2d ed. 2001) (citing E v e r s v. L i n k E n t e r s . , I n c . , 386 So. 2d 1177 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 9 8 0 ) ) . F i n a l l y , " ' i n c o n s o l i d a t e d a c t i o n s ... t h e p a r t i e s and pleadings i n one a c t i o n do n o t become p a r t i e s and p l e a d i n g s i n t h e o t h e r . ' " Ex p a r t e F l e x i b l e P r o d s . Co., 915 So. 2d 34, 50 ( A l a . 2005) ( q u o t i n g Teague v. M o t e s , 57 A l a . App. 609, 613, 330 So. 2d 434, 438 (Civ. 1976)).' "Solomon v. L i b e r t y N a t ' l L i f e I n s . Co., 953 So. 2d 1211, 1222 ( A l a . 2006). When a c t i o n s a r e ordered consolidated, 'each a c t i o n r e t a i n s i t s separate i d e n t i t y and t h u s r e q u i r e s t h e e n t r y o f a s e p a r a t e j u d g m e n t . ' L e a g u e v. M c D o n a l d , 355 So. 2d 695, 697 (Ala. 1978)." H.J.T. v. S t a t e ex r e l . M.S.M., [Ms. So. 3d , ( A l a . C i v . App. 12 2080595, O c t o b e r 9, 2009) 2009] (emphasis added). 2080509 Thus, e v e n a s s u m i n g t h a t c a s e number CS-2005-313.01 and c a s e number JU-2008-413.01 were c o n s o l i d a t e d by the juvenile court, identity and a required to be each action judgment d i s p o s i n g entered maintained of the i n each a c t i o n . judgment d i s p o s i n g claims The of the asserted S e p t e m b e r 19, this the asserted 2009. As failed father was j u v e n i l e court claims 2005-313.01 on opinion, i t s separate to entered a final i n c a s e number explained timely earlier appeal CSin that judgment. However, S e p t e m b e r 29, timely. on The we R. Juv. juvenile that the father's of the f a t h e r f i l e d h i s postjudgment motion i n t h a t case 2008, w i t h i n t h e P. court 14 days a l l o w e d by R u l e F o u r t e e n d a y s l a t e r , on O c t o b e r 23, denied that motion. notice o f a p p e a l o f t h a t d e n i a l on the days a l l o w e d 14 appeal 2008, j u d g m e n t i n c a s e number JU-2008-403.01 i s O c t o b e r 9, Ala. conclude by Rule The father November 6, 4(a)(3), Ala. R. 2008, filed 2008, App. 1(B), the his within P., and, t h e r e f o r e , t h e a p p e a l i n c a s e number JU-2008-403.01 i s t i m e l y . On appeal, demonstrate that the the father argues that j u v e n i l e court the properly record does not considered the f a c t o r s relevant to a motion to set aside a d e f a u l t 13 judgment. 2080509 We note that postjudgment the father styled m o t i o n as a m o t i o n his October f o r a new 2008, or to trial 9, alter, amend, o r v a c a t e t h e j u d g m e n t ; i n o t h e r w o r d s , he s t y l e d motion as one filed Civ. P. However, we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e r e l i e f sought i n the October 9, 2008, substance, of postjudgment relief properly 5 5 ( c ) , A l a . R. pursuant motion sought to was, Rule in i n a motion C i v . P.; 59, A l a . R. that filed Co. , judgment. 590 motion So. and 2d not See 191, type pursuant to Rule 55(c) p e r m i t s a t r i a l e x e r c i s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether default the i t s style ( A l a . 1991) determines court to to set aside a Cannon v. S t a t e Farm Mut. 193 Rule Auto. Ins. (the substance what k i n d of a of motion i t is). During motion, missed the hearing on the father's October 9, t h e f a t h e r p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g why the scheduled mother's p e t i t i o n September 10, 2008, to terminate his parental 2008, he had hearing on the rights. At the c o n c l u s i o n of the f a t h e r ' s evidence, the j u v e n i l e c o u r t s t a t e d that grant "having heard [the the requested] testimony today, relief." 14 The I am juvenile not going court to then 2080509 entered an order summarily denying the f a t h e r ' s October 2008, p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n i n c a s e number The 9, JU-2008-403.01. f a t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e r e c o r d does n o t d e m o n s t r a t e that the j u v e n i l e court conducted the appropriate a n a l y s i s f o r determining whether therefore, that, Thibodeau, should 10 be So. to set under 3d remanded aside the 592 a default authority ( A l a . C i v . App. f o r the judgment of Thibodeau 2008), j u v e n i l e court and, to v. this cause conduct that analysis. I n K i r t l a n d v. F o r t Morgan A u t h o r i t y Sewer S e r v i c e , I n c . , 524 So. 2d 600 analysis a t r i a l ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) , o u r supreme c o u r t c o u r t must c o n d u c t i n d e t e r m i n i n g s e t a s i d e a d e f a u l t judgment. presumption i n favor that i n determining the t r i a l discussed whether t o The c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e r e i s a of t r y i n g whether the an a c t i o n on the merits to set aside a default and judgment, c o u r t must c o n s i d e r "1) w h e t h e r t h e d e f e n d a n t has a m e r i t o r i o u s d e f e n s e ; 2) w h e t h e r t h e p l a i n t i f f w i l l be u n f a i r l y prejudiced whether own i f the default t h e d e f a u l t judgment culpable conduct." judgment was Kirtland, 15 i s set aside; and 3) a r e s u l t of the defendant's 524 So. 2d a t 605. 2080509 In Thibodeau summarily after denied a hearing attorneys. default v. Thibodeau, a motion at which The order reversed the So. 3d a t In a the motion indicate that f a c t o r s , and, j u d g m e n t and court to consider set aside denying the K i r t l a n d the trial judgment by t h e parties' to set aside the t r i a l the court therefore, this remanded t h e c a u s e those f a c t o r s . court default i t h e a r d arguments judgment d i d not considered to supra, had court f o r the trial T h i b o d e a u v. T h i b o d e a u , 10 595. this case, the j u v e n i l e court's order denying the f a t h e r ' s motion t o s e t a s i d e the d e f a u l t judgment t e r m i n a t i n g his p a r e n t a l r i g h t s s t a t e s o n l y t h a t , " f o l l o w i n g argument and testimony, denied." court the motion Thus, as i s unable considered Kirtland determine and v. s e t a new Thibodeau, whether the trial supra, the A c c o r d i n g l y , we motion cause to factors demonstrated at to the set aside the in reverse juvenile the juvenile determining October 23, 16 the order default court to whether 2008, is this court the K i r t l a n d f a c t o r s i n r e f u s i n g to s e t aside father's remand i n Thibodeau to d e f a u l t judgment. the to set aside the denying judgment and consider the the hearing father that the 2080509 S e p t e m b e r 29, 2008, d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t i n c a s e number JU-2008403.01 was due t o be s e t a s i d e . supra; see a l s o C a m p b e l l v. C a m p b e l l , C i v . App. 2005) Thibodeau ( r e v e r s i n g an o r d e r v. Thibodeau, 910 So. 2d 1288 (Ala. denying a motion t o s e t a s i d e a d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t when t h e o r d e r d i d n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t the trial court had considered the K i r t l a n d f a c t o r s , and r e m a n d i n g t h e c a u s e f o r a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h o s e f a c t o r s ) . We note t h a t t h i s court's opinion should n o t be i n t e r p r e t e d a s i n d i c a t i n g that thej u v e n i l e court should r u l e i n a p a r t i c u l a r manner. APPLICATION OVERRULED; OPINION OF AUGUST 21, 2009, WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; APPEAL AS TO CASE NUMBER CS2005-313.01 DISMISSED; JUDGMENT IN CASE NUMBER JU-2008-403.01 REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman, Bryan, a n d Thomas, J J . , concur. Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t w r i t i n g . 17

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.