Joseph L. Thomas v. Jeanette Menefield

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 09/16/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 , A l a b a m a 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 be 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2011 2091159 Joseph L. Thomas v. Jeanette M e n e f i e l d Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t Court (CV-09-666) PITTMAN, Judge. In A p r i l 2009, J e a n e t t e M e n e f i e l d f i l e d a c i v i l a c t i o n i n t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t s e e k i n g t o q u i e t t i t l e i n h e r s e l f to a p a r t i c u l a r p a r c e l o f r e a l p r o p e r t y i n Montgomery C o u n t y ; in that action, J o s e p h L. Thomas was named as a d e f e n d a n t . 2091159 After an ore tenus proceeding, the t r i a l court entered j u d g m e n t on M a r c h 25, 2010, c a n c e l i n g a 2006 q u i t c l a i m from Menefield t o Thomas, Thomas $ 1 2 , 4 7 0 . alter, Ala. R. C i v . P. after 24, 2010, Thomas However, t h e t r i a l 5 9 . 1 , A l a . R. C i v . P., t h e m o t i o n 2010 motion), ( 9 3 days i n which after the the t r i a l filing 59(e), t o r u l e on So. 2d 106, 107 Subsections to the operation was a u t o m a t i c a l l y of the court purported h o w e v e r , t h a t o r d e r was a n u l l i t y . postjudgment to vacate i t s a new j u d g m e n t ; 1 See Kmart C o r p . v . P e r d u e , ( A l a . 1997). (a) (1) a n d ( a ) ( 3 ) o f R u l e 4, A l a . R. App. P., taken together, provide that, pertinent, t o Rule An o r d e r was e n t e r e d on Monday, J u l y M a r c h 25, 2010, j u d g m e n t a n d t o s u b s t i t u t e 708 t o pay t i m e l y moved t o court f a i l e d i t s h a v i n g been f i l e d ; t h u s , p u r s u a n t Rule deed on o r b e f o r e F r i d a y , J u l y 23, 2010, t h e 9 0 t h d a y d e n i e d as o f t h a t d a t e . 26, Menefield amend, o r v a c a t e t h e j u d g m e n t p u r s u a n t t h a t motion of On A p r i l but d i r e c t i n g a a p a r t y must f i l e s u b j e c t t o exceptions not here a n o t i c e of appeal from a trial The J u l y 26, 2010, o r d e r c o n t a i n e d a number o f p r o v i s i o n s n o t a p p e a r i n g i n t h e M a r c h 25, 2010, j u d g m e n t , s u c h as a r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t M e n e f i e l d p a y a n n u a l i n t e r e s t o f 1 0 % on t h e moneys d e c l a r e d t o be owed t o Thomas a n d a p r o v i s i o n t h a t a 2000 w a r r a n t y d e e d f r o m M e n e f i e l d t o Thomas be c a n c e l e d . 1 2 2091159 court's judgment postjudgment within to Thomas file did a not of appeal attempt to file 6, motion, Thomas e l e c t r o n i c a l l y On the denial of in this a notice days a f t e r case. of 3, However, appeal 45 the d e n i a l when, d e s p i t e the filed such a n o t i c e of a p p e a l . Labor a 59.1. September 2010, Day until of the holiday, 2 the a u t h o r i t y of Alabama Department of M e n t a l H e a l t h & M e t a l R e t a r d a t i o n v. App. from Thomas h a d u n t i l F r i d a y , notice Monday, S e p t e m b e r postjudgment days m o t i o n by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w p u r s u a n t t o R u l e Pursuant to that r u l e , 2010, 42 Marshall, 741 So. 2d 434 (Ala. Civ. 1 9 9 9 ) , we d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l ex mero motu as h a v i n g b e e n untimely filed: " A l t h o u g h [ t h e a p p e l l e e ] has n o t c h a l l e n g e d o u r a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n , we must c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r we have jurisdiction over this appeal, because ' j u r i s d i c t i o n a l m a t t e r s are of such magnitude 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 do so e v e n ex mero motu.' W a l l a c e v. Tee J a y s Mfg. Co., 689 So. 2d 210, 211 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1997) ( q u o t i n g Nunn v. B a k e r , 518 So. 2d 711, 712 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) ) . A l t h o u g h the e l e c t r o n i c case-action-summary sheet r e v e a l s t h a t a " r e j e c t i o n n o t i c e " was s e n t t o an u n i d e n t i f i e d " f i l e r " on S e p t e m b e r 7, 2010, i t does n o t a p p e a r t h a t t h a t e n t r y i n d i c a t e s a r e j e c t i o n by t h e t r i a l c o u r t c l e r k o f t h e f i l i n g of t h e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l , and t h e e l e c t r o n i c c a s e - a c t i o n summary s h e e t f u r t h e r c o n t a i n s a S e p t e m b e r 8, 2010, e n t r y i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e c a s e h a d b e e n deemed " a p p e a l e d " as o f S e p t e m b e r 6, 2010. 2 3 2091159 "The 1998, was c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t o f O c t o b e r 21, an a p p e a l a b l e ' f i n a l j u d g m e n t [ ] ' .... " R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. App. P., p r o v i d e s ( w i t h l i m i t e d e x c e p t i o n s not here p e r t i n e n t ) t h a t a p a r t y d e s i r i n g t o a p p e a l must f i l e h i s o r h e r n o t i c e o f a p p e a l w i t h i n 42 d a y s o f t h e d a t e o f t h e e n t r y o f t h e j u d g m e n t a p p e a l e d f r o m . ... W h i l e R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 3 ) , Ala. R. App. P., p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e f i l i n g o f a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n u n d e r R u l e 59, A l a . R. C i v . P., suspends the r u n n i n g of t h e time f o r f i l i n g a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l , a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n may not remain p e n d i n g i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t f o r more t h a n 90 days 'unless w i t h the express consent of a l l the p a r t i e s , which consent s h a l l appear of r e c o r d , or u n l e s s e x t e n d e d by t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t t o w h i c h an a p p e a l o f t h e j u d g m e n t w o u l d l i e . ' R u l e 59.1, A l a . R. C i v . P. A f a i l u r e by t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t o r u l e upon a postjudgment motion [within] the time p e r m i t t e d c o n s t i t u t e s a d e n i a l of t h a t motion. See R u l e 5 9 . 1 . , A l a . R. C i v . P. ' I f [a] p o s t - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n i s deemed [ d e n i e d ] u n d e r t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f R u l e 59.1 of t h e Alabama R u l e s of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , then the t i m e f o r f i l i n g a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l s h a l l be computed f r o m t h e d a t e o f d e n i a l o f s u c h m o t i o n by o p e r a t i o n of l a w , as p r o v i d e d f o r i n R u l e 5 9 . 1 . ' Rule 4 ( a ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. App. P. "... The m o t i o n f i l e d by t h e [ a p p e l l a n t ] on November 12, 1998, a s k i n g the c i r c u i t court to ' c l a r i f y ' t h e O c t o b e r 21, 1998, j u d g m e n t r e q u e s t e d t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t o add s o m e t h i n g t o i t s j u d g m e n t t h a t was n o t p r e v i o u s l y p r e s e n t , i . e . , r e a s o n s f o r its decision. I t t h e r e f o r e c o n s t i t u t e d a motion made p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59, A l a . R. C i v . P. "Although the [ a p p e l l a n t ' s ] motion sought r e l i e f a v a i l a b l e u n d e r R u l e 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., i t was n o t r u l e d upon by t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t w i t h i n 90 d a y s o f November 12, 1998, t h e d a t e o f i t s f i l i n g , and was a u t o m a t i c a l l y d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w on 4 2091159 F e b r u a r y 10, 1999, 90 d a y s l a t e r . Rule 59.1, A l a . R. C i v . P. The t r i a l c o u r t ' s F e b r u a r y 11, 1 9 9 [ 9 ] , o r d e r was t h u s a n u l l i t y . ... The [ a p p e l l a n t ] h a d 42 d a y s f r o m F e b r u a r y 10, 1999 ( i . e . , u n t i l M a r c h 24, 1999), i n which t o f i l e a n o t i c e of a p p e a l , b u t i t d i d n o t do s o ; i n s t e a d , i t s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was f i l e d on M a r c h 25, 1999, one d a y l a t e . " R u l e 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. App. P., p r o v i d e s t h a t ' [ a ] n a p p e a l s h a l l be d i s m i s s e d i f t h e n o t i c e o f appeal was not timely filed to invoke the jurisdiction of the appellate court.' (Emphasis added [ i n M a r s h a l l ] . ) B e c a u s e we have c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e [ a p p e l l a n t ' s ] n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was n o t t i m e l y f i l e d , we must d i s m i s s i t s a p p e a l . " 741 So. 2d a t 436-37. aside The t r i a l court i s directed to set i t s v o i d o r d e r o f J u l y 26, 2010. APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, Bryan, P . J . , and concur. 5 Thomas, and Moore, J J . ,

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.