James Odom v. Renee Odom

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 02/25/2011 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, 2010-2011 2091101 James Odom v. Renee Odom Appeal from DeKalb C i r c u i t (DR-96-214) Court PER CURIAM. James Odom former Circuit wife") ("the f o r m e r husband") a n d Renee Odom ("the were divorced by a judgment C o u r t i n 1996; t h e r e c o r d o f t h e DeKalb i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e former h u s b a n d was d i r e c t e d t o p a y $ 2 0 0 p e r month i n s u p p o r t f o r the 2091101 parties' children. The trial court determined i n a p r o c e e d i n g b r o u g h t by t h e f o r m e r w i f e i n 1998 contempt t h a t the former h u s b a n d ' s s u p p o r t p a y m e n t s were i n a r r e a r s , and i t r e n d e r e d an o r d e r f o r $3,453 p l u s i n t e r e s t i n t h e f o r m e r w i f e ' s f a v o r ; t h e case-action-summary sheet from t h a t p r o c e e d i n g i n d i c a t e s that t h a t p r o c e e d i n g u l t i m a t e l y t e r m i n a t e d upon t h e r e n d e r i n g o f a "bench v e r d i c t . " a p p e a l was No p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n s were f i l e d , a "motion modification judgment. for of the modification" the support In h i s "motion," pertinent part, been no taken. On J u l y 20, 2010, t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d as and that Alabama Department which provisions the a material " v i s i t e d upon" h i m in f i l e d what he he of former husband styled sought the a divorce averred, i n change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s h a d i n the form of h i s i n c a r c e r a t i o n by o f C o r r e c t i o n s , i n whose c u s t o d y "he i s now r e s i d i n g i n s e r v i c e o f c o n s e c u t i v e 2 0 - y e a r s e n t e n c e s . " He f u r t h e r a v e r r e d t h a t he h a d no i n c o m e o r o t h e r means by w h i c h to comply judgment. with Based the upon support those requirements averments, the r e q u e s t e d t h a t h i s s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n be the trial court "forgive" a l l interest 2 of the divorce former husband suspended on any and that existing 2091101 arrearages. husband The paid a record docket does fee not or reflect that he that filed the a former verified statement of s u b s t a n t i a l h a r d s h i p s e e k i n g w a i v e r of prepayment of any a p p l i c a b l e docket fee. Nonetheless, the t r i a l p u r p o r t e d t o r u l e on t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s " m o t i o n " by the affixing w o r d " D e n i e d " on t h e f a c e o f t h a t f i l i n g on J u l y 28, and t h a t r u l i n g The was former decision had court e n t e r e d on A u g u s t husband of the t r i a l erred because court, i n "summarily we conclude filed a notice asserting dismissing" that 2, the 2010. of that appeal from the t r i a l h i s "motion." trial 2010, court the court However, was without jurisdiction t o a c t on t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s " m o t i o n , " we must dismiss this a p p e a l ex mero motu as h a v i n g b e e n t a k e n f r o m a v o i d judgment o r o r d e r . (Ala. C i v . App. In Vann, See Vann v. Cook, 989 So. 2d 556, 2008). a domestic-relations proceeding concluded A p r i l 2005 w i t h t h e e n t r y o f a f i n a l j u d g m e n t o f d i v o r c e upon the 559 father's failure to answer or defend; in based however, s e v e r a l months l a t e r , t h e p a r t i e s t o t h a t p r o c e e d i n g s u b m i t t e d v a r i o u s papers to the t r i a l c o u r t i n which both p a r t i e s enforcement of certain provisions 3 of that sought judgment and 2091101 i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f and i n w h i c h t h e f a t h e r s o u g h t of the judgment. or a modification Although n e i t h e r party f i l e d a docketing fee statement of substantial hardship, those filings u l t i m a t e l y culminated i n the t r i a l court's p u r p o r t i n g to a l t e r the custody of the p a r t i e s ' minor child. 989 So. 58. after having appealed court the One ruling, of the suggested parties, to court's j u r i s d i c t i o n instructions, we this to act. set forth similarly applicable in this absence of 2d a t 557¬ from the that trial In d i s m i s s i n g t h a t appeal w i t h the following reasoning that i s case: " S e c t i o n 12-19-70, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s t h a t 'a c o n s o l i d a t e d c i v i l f i l i n g f e e , known as a d o c k e t fee, [shall be] collected ... at the time a complaint i s f i l e d i n c i r c u i t court or i n d i s t r i c t court,' although that payment 'may be waived i n i t i a l l y and t a x e d as c o s t s a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f the case' i f '[a] v e r i f i e d statement of s u b s t a n t i a l h a r d s h i p ' i s f i l e d and i s a p p r o v e d by t h e t r i a l court. I n t u r n , § 1 2 - 1 9 - 7 1 ( a ) ( 7 ) , A l a . Code 1975, specifies that a f i l i n g f e e o f $248 i s t o be c o l l e c t e d ' f o r cases f i l e d i n the domestic r e l a t i o n s docket of the c i r c u i t c o u r t s e e k i n g t o modify or e n f o r c e an e x i s t i n g d o m e s t i c r e l a t i o n s c o u r t o r d e r ' ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d [ i n V a n n ] ) . The payment o f a f i l i n g fee or the f i l i n g of a court-approved v e r i f i e d statement of substantial hardship is a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p r e r e q u i s i t e t o t h e commencement o f an a c t i o n . See De-Gas, I n c . v. M i d l a n d R e s . , 470 So. 2d 1218, 1222 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ; see a l s o F a r m e r v. F a r m e r , 842 So. 2d 679, 681 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) ('The f a i l u r e t o p a y t h e f i l i n g o r d o c k e t i n g f e e i s a jurisdictional defect.'). 4 2091101 " I n t h i s c a s e , t h e r e c o r d does n o t r e f l e c t t h a t t h e m o t h e r p a i d any d o c k e t i n g f e e w i t h r e s p e c t t o h e r A u g u s t 2005 m o t i o n t o e n f o r c e the divorce judgment or her September 2005 petition for p r o t e c t i o n from abuse. L i k e w i s e , t h e r e c o r d does n o t r e f l e c t t h a t t h e f a t h e r p a i d any f i l i n g f e e w i t h r e s p e c t t o h i s S e p t e m b e r 2005 m o t i o n t o e n f o r c e t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t o r h i s December 2005 p e t i t i o n f o r custody. E a c h o f t h o s e f i l i n g s may be c h a r a c t e r i z e d as ' c a s e s ... i n t h e d o m e s t i c r e l a t i o n s d o c k e t o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t s e e k i n g t o m o d i f y o r e n f o r c e an existing domestic relations court order' under § 1 2 - 1 9 - 7 1 ( a ) ( 7 ) , y e t on none o f t h o s e o c c a s i o n s was the a p p r o p r i a t e d o c k e t i n g fee p a i d . " "The t r i a l court, i n exercising j u r i s d i c t i o n over the p a r t i e s ' c l a i m s a s s e r t e d a f t e r the e n t r y of i t s d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t i n A p r i l 2005, a c t e d o u t s i d e i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n b e c a u s e t h e p a r t i e s d i d n o t pay t h e docketing fees r e q u i r e d under A l a . Code 1975, § 12-19-70 e t s e q . , for that court to acquire subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n . A j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d by a court lacking subject-matter jurisdiction is a b s o l u t e l y v o i d and w i l l n o t s u p p o r t an a p p e a l ; an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t must d i s m i s s an a t t e m p t e d appeal from such a v o i d judgment. Hunt T r a n s i t i o n & I n a u g u r a l Fund, I n c . v. G r e n i e r , 782 So. 2d 270, 274 (Ala. 2000). The m o t h e r ' s a p p e a l i s , t h e r e f o r e , d i s m i s s e d , and t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s i n s t r u c t e d t o vacate a l l orders entered a f t e r the A p r i l 2005 d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t . See, e.g., S t a t e Dep't o f Revenue v. Z e g a r e l l i , 676 So. 2d 354, 356 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996). Any f u r t h e r p l e a d i n g s f i l e d i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n w h i c h e i t h e r p a r t y may s e e k t o e n f o r c e o r m o d i f y t h a t c o u r t ' s A p r i l 2005 d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t s h o u l d be a c c o m p a n i e d by t h e r e q u i s i t e f i l i n g f e e . " 989 So. 2d a t 558-60. 5 2091101 S i m i l a r l y , t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n t h i s case a c t e d o u t s i d e i t s discretion "motion" modify filed jurisdiction to rule upon by t h e former husband, which p l a i n l y the support relations § i n exercising provisions court order w i t h i n 12-19-71(a)(7). Unless of an existing the seeks t o domestic- t h e m e a n i n g o f A l a . Code 1975, and u n t i l t h e former husband c o m p l i e s w i t h A l a . Code 1975, § 12-12-70, b y e i t h e r p a y i n g t h e applicable docket fee or f i l i n g a verified statement s u b s t a n t i a l h a r d s h i p t h a t i s approved by t h e t r i a l c o u r t , of that court w i l l be w i t h o u t s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n s i d e r questions such husband as whether amounts warranting to a the incarceration material a modification of c h i l d change of t h e former in support circumstances o r whether t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d s h o u l d be deemed v o l u n t a r i l y u n e m p l o y e d u n d e r Rule 3 2 ( B ) ( 5 ) , A l a . R. J u d . Admin. Suggs, Civ. [Ms. 2090078, J u l y 30, 2010] See g e n e r a l l y So. 3 d Suggs v . , (Ala. App. 2 0 1 0 ) . The appeal i s dismissed with instructions c o u r t t o v a c a t e i t s r u l i n g e n t e r e d on A u g u s t to the t r i a l 2, 2010. APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CIRCUIT COURT. 6 2091101 Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman, Bryan, and 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 7 writing.

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.